Tangentially, I recall the Diablo auction house being a response to black market transactions. This concept carries over to WoW and Runescape where you can buy your subscription with in game currency and vice versa you can pay $$$ for gold in a market. I think, fundamentally, pay to win sucks and even pay for convenience cheapens the game. But on the other hand I can search runescape gold on ebay and get a bunch of hits. In my opinion, since it's not a necessity like housing or healthcare, if you had a market for skins, pets, cosmetics, etc. to flex on noobs I wouldn't be opposed. And if that's the case, taking the company out as a middle man on a transaction would be cool (e.g. diablo AH where Blizz doesn't get a cut). Runescape has been the testing ground for these sorts of dynamics. They tried heavy handed monitoring of how players transacted and it made the game intensely less fun. The fact of the matter is that the moment you can transact with other players, bots and farmers are going to swarm the place looking to make money. Their techniques are like water and will conform to precisely what they can get away with. The only solution in my eyes would be a system of production in which people's lives aren't so alienated and poverty-stricken that they would have more dignified work than providing digital treats to children with their mom's credit cards (and then bot friendly servers where you're encouraged to learn how to code but that's neither here nor there). But a multiplayer game with an economy will always produce this effect as far as I can see.
What I was thinking is that a blockchain introduces the possibility that an NFT contract doesn't have a company in the middle. Beforehand it just isn't going to happen. Now there's a chance. I can imagine a world where NFTs serve a purpose beyond tax evasion.
That's the thing, though. It can and has happened before - through paypal etc. What makes it "illegal" or "black market" trading is the fact that no company wants to put out a game and then be left out of the profits to be made. You can introduce decentralized anonymized currency transactions all you want, at the end of the day the company controlling the servers isn't just the landlord, they're fucking god in their digital world. And you better believe they'll be taking their rent.
deleted by creator
Famously non-manipulative games EVE and WoW which are not regarded as like having a second job
deleted by creator
Just adds more carbon
Oh I see, I had misunderstood
Tangentially, I recall the Diablo auction house being a response to black market transactions. This concept carries over to WoW and Runescape where you can buy your subscription with in game currency and vice versa you can pay $$$ for gold in a market. I think, fundamentally, pay to win sucks and even pay for convenience cheapens the game. But on the other hand I can search runescape gold on ebay and get a bunch of hits. In my opinion, since it's not a necessity like housing or healthcare, if you had a market for skins, pets, cosmetics, etc. to flex on noobs I wouldn't be opposed. And if that's the case, taking the company out as a middle man on a transaction would be cool (e.g. diablo AH where Blizz doesn't get a cut). Runescape has been the testing ground for these sorts of dynamics. They tried heavy handed monitoring of how players transacted and it made the game intensely less fun. The fact of the matter is that the moment you can transact with other players, bots and farmers are going to swarm the place looking to make money. Their techniques are like water and will conform to precisely what they can get away with. The only solution in my eyes would be a system of production in which people's lives aren't so alienated and poverty-stricken that they would have more dignified work than providing digital treats to children with their mom's credit cards (and then bot friendly servers where you're encouraged to learn how to code but that's neither here nor there). But a multiplayer game with an economy will always produce this effect as far as I can see.
deleted by creator
What I was thinking is that a blockchain introduces the possibility that an NFT contract doesn't have a company in the middle. Beforehand it just isn't going to happen. Now there's a chance. I can imagine a world where NFTs serve a purpose beyond tax evasion.
That's the thing, though. It can and has happened before - through paypal etc. What makes it "illegal" or "black market" trading is the fact that no company wants to put out a game and then be left out of the profits to be made. You can introduce decentralized anonymized currency transactions all you want, at the end of the day the company controlling the servers isn't just the landlord, they're fucking god in their digital world. And you better believe they'll be taking their rent.
deleted by creator