If you follow me on Twitter, you may have seen a link I posted about Blizzard's announcement for one of their upcoming, long-awaited games.
Diablo III, which is yet to be released (currently in alpha or beta play as far as I know) is an MMORPG. Whether or not its gameplay or aesthetics will defeat Blizzard's previous ultimate success (World of Warcraft), the developers have recently released a statement that changes their game's economy drastically.
A few days ago, Blizzard announced that Diablo III may contain an in-game auction house that buys and sells items with real money. Naturally, an uproar from much of the player base erupted about how these implementations are unnecessary. There is already a dominance of (illegal) real-money trading in World of Warcraft run by Chinese industries, and the prediction is that the Chinese will do the same for Diablo III.
What intrigues me though is Blizzard's decision to harness the idea of in-game trading rather than attempting to ban it like in World of Warcraft. Shortly after reading the relevant article, I wondered how this would change the status of a gamer in the not too distant future. Soon enough, gamers will be able to earn an income purely from in-game economy engines.
What intrigues me further is the fact that this now blurs the line between work and play. Naturally we would see games to be a tool for play - one we can settle down in a comfortable computer chair and get a kick out of playing. Now with the ability to earn income, it is possible for a gamer to balance both work and play in-game. Suddenly, this changes the field of action. Instead of going out, travelling to our workplace, earning an income then travelling back home to spend the rest of the day relaxing (say, by playing games), one can spend their time acquiring in-game items of value, selling them in-game for real income, then spend the rest of the day on the same game relaxing / having fun.
Whether this is ethically right or wrong, however, is a different story.
Thanks for the read and I'll see you all next week :)
note: sorry nothing had to do with the week's lecture material or readings but I really felt I needed to blog about this. hope you don't mind!
Gosh, it's like capitalism trying to 'eat' gaming, like it 'eats' everything else (like the media for example). The media traditionally was a function of democracy, mediating power and information between the public and the government, now it's a profit generating business like everything else. That's what's great about many aspects of the internet and gaming, it's based on 'gift' and thwarts capitalism. Capitalism 'inside' gaming to me seems like capitalism using cultural studies to 'backfire' knowledge advocacy ie. kind of like meta-resistance or turning resistance back on itself. Very tricky! Capitalism is an insidious beast - sorry, have had a few wines and am perhaps on the high horse! :)
ReplyDeleteJo
This doesn't really surprise me to be honest...It's quite well known that in World of Warcraft in particular there are players who are payed to play. Their job is to raid non-stop and become the best at defeating the content in the world...They are sponsored to do this in much the same way as a sporting star. Then you have the gold farmers....Who 'farm' in game money and then sell the in-game money on ebay in exchange for real money and those who level characters in-game and sell them on ebay. I think the line between work and play has already been blurred, and this may very well be an attempt by Blizzard to eliminate the middleman (ebay) and keep things in their own pocket. Again, ethical or not is the question.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that everything in the world must exist to be turned into a form of currency?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like we won't really be able to go back to the days when people played things, or did things purely for entertainment and amusement. Rather, we play things and do things in order to gain actual material benefits, thus having a very different kind of emotional investment (a sort of twisted form of fun if you ask me)...
It kinda sounds like gambling to me and makes me think of the quote "Putting your money where your mouth is"
I agree, the line between work and play has been completely blurred. But I don't think it's in a good way at all! We go to work, we come home and we relax. Whether that be in front of a computer screen, on a soccer field or on a lounge. And that's how it should be. But when we begin to make gaming our source of work, when is there downtime? It not only loses its enjoyment, we also never escape that sense of relaxation. Doesn't seem like a very good balance. Great post!
ReplyDeleteGreat find Kyle. I am very excited for Blizzard because this is a step in the right direction when it comes to online gaming - as you point out they are merely implementing legally what has been already existing as black markets.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that this development would lead to games being free to access (as in you pay nothing to play the game) but the internal economy of the game will rely on micro-payments from players wanting to progress. Ultimately Blizzard will play the role of intermediary for the micro-transactions between players. When you do the maths this is a potentially unlimited money-maker for them.
I'd have to say that like others who have commented before me, I'm not surprised. It makes good business sense to incorporate an internal economy into such a widely used platform. But as 'Apollo 8' suggested, it does stink of capitalism gone rife.
ReplyDeleteWont this in-game economy take away the one reason (besides toilet breaks) some players have to leave the computer screen; work. I have read about the extreme amount of time people invest in these games and that's without being paid. Add an income to the picture and i dont think its exaggerating to say that some people will never be seen again. On the other hand, if it makes them happy, who am i to judge.
ReplyDeleteLove the post. As much as I praise the idea of them implementing what's been going on behind their backs for years, I suppose I doubt as to how well it will work, and whether or not it may backfire. I suppose there's really no way to judge but to see it live in action, only then will it show if it was beneficial to put it in.
ReplyDelete