South Korea bans virtual item trading & bots(incgamers.com)
incgamers.com
South Korea bans virtual item trading & bots
http://www.incgamers.com/2012/06/south-korea-bans-virtual-item-trading-diablo-3-auction-house-dead/
44 comments
That's the punishment for a separate law. From TFA:
"A separate, but related, law has also been passed that bans the use of gold/item farming bots in online-enabled games. Players found using programs that “allow in-game characters to hunt and collect items without the need of a player controlling them” will be made illegal and blocked from internet access.
The punishment for breaking the law will be a 50 million won fine (£27,612) and a maximum jail sentence of five years."
"A separate, but related, law has also been passed that bans the use of gold/item farming bots in online-enabled games. Players found using programs that “allow in-game characters to hunt and collect items without the need of a player controlling them” will be made illegal and blocked from internet access.
The punishment for breaking the law will be a 50 million won fine (£27,612) and a maximum jail sentence of five years."
I know the politicians in South Korea say they made this decision to prevent people from causing harm to themselves from all the consequences of dealing with virtual goods.
South Koreans, though, are really serious gamers. I wonder how much their purist gaming ideals influenced this ban.
Perhaps South Koreans are so fucking hardcore about their games that they don't want anyone to be able to "cheat" with real money. Almost everyone in South Korea - the anti-gamers AND the gamers - could be perfectly happy with this ban. Except the game developers.
South Koreans, though, are really serious gamers. I wonder how much their purist gaming ideals influenced this ban.
Perhaps South Koreans are so fucking hardcore about their games that they don't want anyone to be able to "cheat" with real money. Almost everyone in South Korea - the anti-gamers AND the gamers - could be perfectly happy with this ban. Except the game developers.
Look at it from this angle:
Offer your body to make money (prostitution): ~ 1 year (US, couldn't find South Korea numbers)
Offer virtual items to make money: max 5 years
Offer your body to make money BUT TAPE IT: Legal (to my knowledge)
Note, i'm not commenting on the morality or rightfulness of either policies, just pointing out this (to me) interesting fact
Offer your body to make money (prostitution): ~ 1 year (US, couldn't find South Korea numbers)
Offer virtual items to make money: max 5 years
Offer your body to make money BUT TAPE IT: Legal (to my knowledge)
Note, i'm not commenting on the morality or rightfulness of either policies, just pointing out this (to me) interesting fact
Laws are often inconsistent. For example, there exist laws which, if read literally, would state that having consentual sex with 13-year old would be punished more severely than raping said 13-year old.
There is another angle: old laws are more balanced - for worse crime there's more punishment. People could compare crimes back then.
Newer laws are hysterical: the crime severity does not readily correlates with punishment severity. This is because of lobbying by various forces and because people DEMAND BLOOD on some issues which were brought [by same or other groups] in order to distract them from other issues.
There is another angle: old laws are more balanced - for worse crime there's more punishment. People could compare crimes back then.
Newer laws are hysterical: the crime severity does not readily correlates with punishment severity. This is because of lobbying by various forces and because people DEMAND BLOOD on some issues which were brought [by same or other groups] in order to distract them from other issues.
Do we have any good sources on the claim that newer laws are less balanced? This subject should be taken very seriously. If a well founded study were to indicate this true, it would be a call to arms for heavy reforms on our democratic systems.
I do not. Would make an interesting read if somebody does.
>* Offer virtual items to make money: max 5 years *
Depending on the way it is done, it can be like gambling. That's what is happening in Japan, where children would spent enormous amount of money to get (artificially) rare virtual items, and the government had to pass laws to restrict these kind of games. I don't know if it's better or worse than prostitution, but it can have a clear negative impact on the society for sure.
http://kotaku.com/5908147/japans-youngest-self+made-billiona...
Depending on the way it is done, it can be like gambling. That's what is happening in Japan, where children would spent enormous amount of money to get (artificially) rare virtual items, and the government had to pass laws to restrict these kind of games. I don't know if it's better or worse than prostitution, but it can have a clear negative impact on the society for sure.
http://kotaku.com/5908147/japans-youngest-self+made-billiona...
> Offer your body to make money: 1 year
what do you mean? I thought without your body/mind, you can't do any work. So:
Offer your body to make money: lifetime
what do you mean? I thought without your body/mind, you can't do any work. So:
Offer your body to make money: lifetime
He was talking about prostitution.
Oh I didnt get it. Thanks.
Someone had fun downvoting...
Someone had fun downvoting...
Recently read http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/it-all-began-with-a... where Yanis Varoufakis, an economist, is studying in-game economies. And now this where South Korea bans trading virtual goods since "The main purpose of the games is for entertainment... item farming for commercial gain is a “serious hindrance” to a “healthy gaming culture”".
Isn't it same as banning sale of alcohols/drugs since they can be harmful? It will push the activity to go underground.
Isn't it same as banning sale of alcohols/drugs since they can be harmful? It will push the activity to go underground.
It would be very difficult to run a game like this which requires large numbers of users to make money in a clandestine fashion.
I worked on the tech for an MMO that launched in S.Korea a few years ago and even then we had to be careful to make sure that purchased game money could not be exchanged back for real money. I seem to remember also adding features for enforcing a law that under 18's could not play after certain hours.
I worked on the tech for an MMO that launched in S.Korea a few years ago and even then we had to be careful to make sure that purchased game money could not be exchanged back for real money. I seem to remember also adding features for enforcing a law that under 18's could not play after certain hours.
I find it very funny (in lulz sense) that some countries have extensive organisations devised for deciding who gets to play video games, when and how.
(All kinds of age/violence ratings) You can see their icons on games' websites, it's annoying how people get paid for making monkey faces and pretending to be important.
Don't you have any hard problems left in your society?
(All kinds of age/violence ratings) You can see their icons on games' websites, it's annoying how people get paid for making monkey faces and pretending to be important.
Don't you have any hard problems left in your society?
The United States would have the same issues if it was not for the First Amendment.
Businesses that fall into other categories have mind blowing layers of complex regulations. The idea that a company, or individual, would have to spend millions or tens of millions of dollars a year just to ensure that they are operating the business within the law is pretty wild.
We are very fortunate indeed for the Bill of Rights. When you have armies of people whose sole life purpose is to create and enforce rules you end up with something, if it was computer code, would just crash immediately.
Businesses that fall into other categories have mind blowing layers of complex regulations. The idea that a company, or individual, would have to spend millions or tens of millions of dollars a year just to ensure that they are operating the business within the law is pretty wild.
We are very fortunate indeed for the Bill of Rights. When you have armies of people whose sole life purpose is to create and enforce rules you end up with something, if it was computer code, would just crash immediately.
Well, USA has ESRB - the mother of all monkey face builders.
Why 'mother'? Most of these game rating organizations seem to originate in 1994.
Looking at wikipedia, PEGI and CERO were launched in 00-s.
>Isn't it same as banning sale of alcohols/drugs since they can be harmful?
No. Alcohol and drugs are with us from the beginning of history, are very much ingrained in human society and culture, and support trillion dollar worldwide industries.
In-game trading virtual goods is a niche novelty activity, and trading them for real money even more so. You can get the same satisfaction out of the game trading them with token money.
>It will push the activity to go underground.
Games cannot really go "underground" though. They are sold in stores or accessed online and depend on massive communities of millions of players. It's not like Sims of Farville can go underground suddenly.
Nor are they as essential and addicting as alcohol/drugs.
No. Alcohol and drugs are with us from the beginning of history, are very much ingrained in human society and culture, and support trillion dollar worldwide industries.
In-game trading virtual goods is a niche novelty activity, and trading them for real money even more so. You can get the same satisfaction out of the game trading them with token money.
>It will push the activity to go underground.
Games cannot really go "underground" though. They are sold in stores or accessed online and depend on massive communities of millions of players. It's not like Sims of Farville can go underground suddenly.
Nor are they as essential and addicting as alcohol/drugs.
>In-game trading virtual goods is a niche novelty activity, and trading them for real money even more so.
There are some very successful entrepreneurs who made their fortunes off of in-game trading that would disagree.
There are some very successful entrepreneurs who made their fortunes off of in-game trading that would disagree.
Do they have multi-billion dollar globe-spanning industries and vast amounts of lobbying power? A handful of people making lots of money does not make it any less a niche or novelty.
A handful of people making money does make it not a novelty activity. It's still a niche, but it's not a novelty. You aren't going to see an organized crime ecosystem on the level of the consequences of alcohol and drug prohibition, but I think it's reasonable to think that making it illegal will drive it underground rather than getting rid of it, especially when the market will continue to thrive outside of South Korea.
>A handful of people making money does make it not a novelty activity. It's still a niche, but it's not a novelty.
How so? A handful of people make money out of ANY novelty. A handful of people making money of it, is actually, the very characteristic of a novelty.
A handful of people made money off of hula-hups, the rubik cube, and yo-yos...
How so? A handful of people make money out of ANY novelty. A handful of people making money of it, is actually, the very characteristic of a novelty.
A handful of people made money off of hula-hups, the rubik cube, and yo-yos...
I would say that what makes it a novelty is that people are making significant money off of the act itself. Take your example of hula hoops. People make money off of selling hula hoops, and there are a very few people who make money off of the exhibition of their hula-hooping prowess. But nobody is really making a business model out of hula-hooping itself. You could swap rubik's cubes and yo-yos in to the previous sentence, and it would still hold true. Hula hoops are a novelty, but selling hula hoops is not.
But there are people out there making gobs of money off of the trade of virtual items and then manipulation of virtual economies, and not by enabling it (although that is also profitable) or by doing it as a parlor trick for others' amusement, but by the same means as any other economy is exploited.
In particular, what makes this not a novelty is that the attraction that these people have to it is not that it is a video game, or that the idea is new and interesting, but that it is simply an unexploited opportunity.
But there are people out there making gobs of money off of the trade of virtual items and then manipulation of virtual economies, and not by enabling it (although that is also profitable) or by doing it as a parlor trick for others' amusement, but by the same means as any other economy is exploited.
In particular, what makes this not a novelty is that the attraction that these people have to it is not that it is a video game, or that the idea is new and interesting, but that it is simply an unexploited opportunity.
How many people made money off defensive HN comments?
There was a period in 1920s during which alcohol was banned in US. It was based on morality of the time. This shows that authorities can decide to ban something based on morality of the time irrespective of how deep the association of the subject/object is with our culture.
In game economy is nascent but becoming more complex every day. It required Valve to hire an economist. It may have been a novelty. But for how long?
> Games cannot really go "underground" though.
I meant the economy will go underground to meet the demand of in game favors.
In game economy is nascent but becoming more complex every day. It required Valve to hire an economist. It may have been a novelty. But for how long?
> Games cannot really go "underground" though.
I meant the economy will go underground to meet the demand of in game favors.
I'd add that those economies are far from nascent and are pretty complex beasts already.
#1
> South Korea
I like to point out we have no idea of what it is to mix government law with video games. Because we're ages behind in term of video game culture. If you go to korea you'll see show about videogames on TV, you'll see huge events everywhere, even cellphones advertise with videogames in the street. They've reach a point where law has to deal with it.
#2
> a “serious hindrance” to a “healthy gaming culture”.
Keeping in mind that S-K do have a problem with videogames and its youth. We can ask ourselves "is the trading of items a good healthy gaming culture?" What does it mean? A healthy gaming culture should not just get gamers addicted.
If you think about it, there is no fun behind the item trading system of diablo3, it's just to get people addicted to it. A bit like the "hat" system of TeamFortress 2. It adds a dimension that we don't need and that is harming the players more than anything.
#3
I'm not saying we should ban them, like S-K did, but I think we're far from them with our addicted people.
> South Korea
I like to point out we have no idea of what it is to mix government law with video games. Because we're ages behind in term of video game culture. If you go to korea you'll see show about videogames on TV, you'll see huge events everywhere, even cellphones advertise with videogames in the street. They've reach a point where law has to deal with it.
#2
> a “serious hindrance” to a “healthy gaming culture”.
Keeping in mind that S-K do have a problem with videogames and its youth. We can ask ourselves "is the trading of items a good healthy gaming culture?" What does it mean? A healthy gaming culture should not just get gamers addicted.
If you think about it, there is no fun behind the item trading system of diablo3, it's just to get people addicted to it. A bit like the "hat" system of TeamFortress 2. It adds a dimension that we don't need and that is harming the players more than anything.
#3
I'm not saying we should ban them, like S-K did, but I think we're far from them with our addicted people.
I don't play D3 or TF2 , but I do enjoy the trading systems in other games. Maybe it's not for everyone, but it adds fun for me.
How is the law actually worded? Is "The Settlers of Catan" going to get someone thrown in jail?
reminds me of a similar "ban" that happened in my country several years ago with the aim of discouraging students from wasting their time. the object of the banning, however, was trading cards rather than trading virtual items.
it did work; the vast seas of children playing cards in shopping malls and sidewalks seized to exist, but it didn't happen because children were studying. it happened because these kids switched to something else, which isn't necessarily better than the cards they banned.
it did work; the vast seas of children playing cards in shopping malls and sidewalks seized to exist, but it didn't happen because children were studying. it happened because these kids switched to something else, which isn't necessarily better than the cards they banned.
I know Diablo is not as popular in SK as the RTS's Blizzard releases, but is not Diablo III heavily based on virtual item market?
[Disclosure:I have not played it yet.]
The "Real Money Auction House" is entirely new, and I'm not aware of any other game enabling such transactions at a player-player level. You can sell/buy stuff for gold, but with RMAH, you can do it with real money. In all reality, the market settles at a gold/money conversion rate. In North America three days ago, that was at about $1/100,000 gold.
It's not heavily based on RMAH, but if you want to progress quickly, you spend money. I don't think it's a pivotal part of the economy at all. I think it's more to make sure Blizzard gets a cut of gold sellers/buyers.
It's not heavily based on RMAH, but if you want to progress quickly, you spend money. I don't think it's a pivotal part of the economy at all. I think it's more to make sure Blizzard gets a cut of gold sellers/buyers.
I believe http://www.entropiauniverse.com/ was one of the first games to support real money in-game.
Interesting! I checked out the website and the recent interview in their news. Seems a lot of people are actually put off by the dollar investment required for maximum fun.
Thank you for the informed response. I'm coming from Ultima Online and always wondered when a game would directly integrate the real dollar black market trading of "time/luck."
Yes, Diablo 3 is heavily based on item trading. There is a real-money auction and an ingame gold auction. Due to the loot system and drop rates, users can get much much better items from trading then otherwise. Diablo 3 is going to collide very much so with this new law.
The Auction House takes all the skill element out of the game on normal mode. Anybody even moderately interested in playing the game with a bit of risk (which also implies you are playing hard-core-die-once-and-your-character-is-dead) - avoids the Auction House like the plague when playing Normal Level.
I understand the Auction House is essential to completing the game on Inferno level, but good players can complete on Nightmare without using it. I don't know about Hell level - that's probably where there is a judgement call required.
I understand the Auction House is essential to completing the game on Inferno level, but good players can complete on Nightmare without using it. I don't know about Hell level - that's probably where there is a judgement call required.
Does anybody know if this prevents companies selling virtual items to players, or just players selling virtual items to each other?
I find it amazing that the government was able to think and legislate a specific feature of online gameplay (though one may not agree with it, I find it surprising that they even understood gaming sufficiently to try and control just one aspect of it -- most countries would have simply made online gameplay illegal!)
This sounds like some butt-hurt gamers, passing a law because they don't like Diablo III.
Will this just push more Koreans away from WOW/D3 and back towards Starcraft 2?
I cant win as it is =/
I cant win as it is =/
Games: the new drugs?
"the government took the decision in a bid to prevent students from wasting their time."
"The punishment for breaking the law will be a 50 million won fine (£27,612) and a maximum jail sentence of five years."
Wow. Classic mistake, South Korea.