Tip.It Times - 25th March 2012

[Jaffy1]

Time for a new release of the: >>>Tip.It Times!<<<

 

 

 

WRITE FOR THE TIMES - SUBMIT A GUEST ARTICLE:

Remember, YOU can write an article for the Tip.It Times! You can apply to write full time, or just submit a "one-off" guest article any time you want! Our editors will work with you to ensure that your article is ready for publication. All guest articles can be submitted to @tripsis or any other Editorial Panel member. For more information, including details on how to apply full time, read this forum thread: http://forum.tip.it/topic/209138-how-to-write-for-the-tipit-times/

 

I'd like to remind people of the rules pertaining to Times threads:

 

[hide=Read these rules before posting in this thread]

Rampant flame wars have taken control of virtually every week's times discussion topics. The following guidelines must be followed when posting on this topic. Posts that ignore these guidelines will be removed.

 

1. You are invited and welcome to express like or dislike on articles and a particular author's writing style. It is not acceptable, however, to flame or personally insult an author. Posts that aren't anything but an attack will be removed from the topic.

 

2. Spelling and grammar errors can be reported to tripsis by PMing her and they will be fixed promptly. It is not necessary to post them on the discussion topic.

 

3. Off topic posts that do not discuss the content of that week's articles will be removed. This is not the place to discuss the direction of the times, how much you love or hate the times, etc. Off topic posts will be removed.

 

By keeping within these guidelines, Times discussion topics will mean more for the Panel and Administration than just a place for flame wars. Flame wars do not provide any useful feedback to the Times, which is mainly what we're aiming for with these topics: feedback.

 

This policy is effective as of now, November 17, 2010. Any posts prior to the creation of this policy may or may not be removed according to the new guidelines.

[/hide]

 

When replying please make sure to clarify the article you are replying to! Thanks!

 

If you spot any typos or mistakes in the article then please PM them to @tripsis or @Jaffy1. :)

 

Enjoy the articles!

[Troacctid]

Yeah but the main problem with the vanity items is that they only work if you use one payment method. It's not fair to the people who subscribe by credit card.

[Diomedus]

Yeah but the main problem with the vanity items is that they only work if you use one payment method. It's not fair to the people who subscribe by credit card.

 

i agree, i felt a little cheated about not being able to get the katana. the green skill may be nice to have as an option, i don't think i'll care about the turkey hat, but whatever, I feel that all paying members should have gotton a way to get the items.

 

are the loyalty stuff like titles and emotes visible on f2p servers?

[Alg]

Yeah but the main problem with the vanity items is that they only work if you use one payment method. It's not fair to the people who subscribe by credit card.

Agreed.

 

Titles are also available on free servers. I'd assume emotes are as well, based on the fact that other P2P emotes are usable.

[Arceus]

As far as I have seen, the emotes do indeed work on F2P.

[Mr_G_W]

Like i posted many times on forums, they should be available for every payment type and in the entire world.

 

RS Cards arent worldwide and some vanity items were UK only. Jagex wasnt like this in the past. There is that infamous Mod MMG quote where he claims its more important to have fun than making asm uch money as possible. If they made the items worldwide everyone would be happier, although its still annoying.

 

The only worldwide item was the ice mask.

 

Although in a recent QA regarding the Barbed Bow they hinted on re-releasing these items...

 

"Mod Nexus: The barbed bow is going to be available for a promotional period with game cards to begin with; and may be used for other offers in the future (including other payment methods). "

[Hedgehog]

I think Jagex gets more money off the cards than anything else, so they're offering an incentive for players to buy them instead of using a credit card.

[Vezon Dash]

I think Jagex gets more money off the cards than anything else, so they're offering an incentive for players to buy them instead of using a credit card.

 

Considering that 3 months via credit card (for me at least) is $5.00. The Runescape cards are like $7.00+ per month.

[Alg]

I think Jagex gets more money off the cards than anything else, so they're offering an incentive for players to buy them instead of using a credit card.

 

Considering that 3 months via credit card (for me at least) is $5.00. The Runescape cards are like $7.00+ per month.

I thought that the cards were more expensive so that the retailer can make money off of them.

[Vezon Dash]

I think Jagex gets more money off the cards than anything else, so they're offering an incentive for players to buy them instead of using a credit card.

 

Considering that 3 months via credit card (for me at least) is $5.00. The Runescape cards are like $7.00+ per month.

I thought that the cards were more expensive so that the retailer can make money off of them.

 

Well, a 3 month card at Wal-Mart is like $22.00 if I am not mistaken. So there is like a $7.00 difference. If $3.00 of that $7.00 goes to the store, JaGeX is still making more than they would with a credit card.

[Riptide Mage]

I think Jagex gets more money off the cards than anything else, so they're offering an incentive for players to buy them instead of using a credit card.

 

Considering that 3 months via credit card (for me at least) is $5.00. The Runescape cards are like $7.00+ per month.

I thought that the cards were more expensive so that the retailer can make money off of them.

 

Well, a 3 month card at Wal-Mart is like $22.00 if I am not mistaken. So there is like a $7.00 difference. If $3.00 of that $7.00 goes to the store, JaGeX is still making more than they would with a credit card.

 

Don't forget the processing fees for credit cards that Jagex has to pay, as well as the cost of staying PCI compliant.

[Alg]

Don't forget the processing fees for credit cards that Jagex has to pay, as well as the cost of staying PCI compliant.

And also that membership prices have since increased. Those of us that pay $5 per month have that rate because we've maintained a subscription since that time. A new member is going to pay closer to $9 per month.

[Marduk_God]

I would like to address some points of the "don't you trust me" article. I thought it was fairly well-written and I thank the author for taking the time and effort to write it, but I'm afraid for me personally it eventually failed to deliver the impact for which it was set up. I'll not toot the horn of the author too much here, but will get right to the point. While I agree with the gist of it, there are two key concepts I fundamentally disagree with, and a third concept that I personally find of the utmost importance but which is surprisingly omitted.

 

An interesting question is exactly how much trust is generated by sharing such virtual property. Many players will insist (and in my opinion, rightly so) that they have invested a substantial amount of time and effort to obtain items. The reality is that, strictly speaking, that any value possessed by these items is purely sentimental. After all, you can't swap, trade, or sell these possessions for anything but other items in the same domain.

 

It is not because the item is purely virtual by nature that any value that is attributed to it must be purely virtual or merely sentimental as well. If you've spent both real time and real money (in the form of paying for membership) to obtain those items, then they obviously do have a value beyond the strictly sentimental.

 

After all: is this not the very reason why gold farming and RWT are such endemic problems with MMOPRPG's? If the items did not have any "real" value, these would simply not exist. Until recently, this was a huge problem, because precisely as virtual property was not deemed to have any value beyond the purely virtual, there was little or no regulation concerning virtual property in videogames. Only recently has this begun to change, with courts recognising the "real" value inherent even to "virtual" property. And rightly so, I should think.

 

Perhaps part of the answer lies, as usual, in connection with real life. Perhaps without realizing it, there is plenty of trust to go around even towards random strangers. It is quite possible that the last time you crossed a street, a car stopped and waved you ahead. And presumably, you proceeded to cross without fear that the driver would villainously floor the gas pedal before you finished crossing, whether out of intent or carelessness. (However, it would explain the glint in the driver's eye.)

 

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this, for two fundamental reasons. First of all, the most important difference between RS and real life is that in real life, your actions are always bound by a framework created by (the theory of) law and the enforcement thereof, and the expectations and control of the social environment which all together impose order upon a society that would otherwise be inherently chaotic. This framework serves as a check against unappropriate behaviour and abuse. It's far more complex than this, of course; because this framework is not purely artificial or implemented top-down: we teach our young to adhere to this framework, which they subconsciously integrate into their personal behaviour. Their norms and values, which are partly determined by their personal disposition, are also strongly influenced by this framework. As they grow up and take their place in the adult world, a larger group of people can subsequently agree to share a certain set of norms and values, which in turn helps give shape to the perpetuation of this framework. That's also partly the reason why society is so slow to change: while there is room for change or "improvement" (which is subjective, hence the brackets) it is always rooted deeply into the existing framework.

 

This is intertwined with my second argument for disagreeing with the metaphor: without this imposed order, this layer of veneer if you will; there is no check against unappropriate behaviour. There is no such thing as a "natural state" where two (or more) people innately share the same set of norms and values and abide by them. Everyone has different norms and values, a different sense of what is right and what is wrong, everyone has different principles and scruples, etc. This is inherently chaotic. While some people can indeed agree to share a similar set of values and norms (it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill), others will choose to adhere to a different set of values and norms. In order to regulate and impose some (subjective) order upon a society which otherwise would be inherently chaotic, the aforementioned framework is created. This is not wholly an external or artificial process, but it is not exactly "natural" either. In order to protect society from inappropriate behaviour that is deemed harmful to the majority of the social group, social expectations are created and controlled, and laws are formulated and enforced. This framework is not entirely objective as well, because it is skewed towards "the majority" and/or those who are in power.

 

In short, I personally think a driver does not run over a passer-by not because of some unwritten bond of "trust" between them, I think he does not run over a passer-by because he is bound by the combination of his personal norms and values, by the social expectation of the environment, and by the law, all of which interact with one another, and which together form some sort of 'framework'. So, what the passer-by really trusts is that the driver will adhere to the framework that is imposed upon them both.

 

To couple this back to RS: it does have a set of rules, which, however, are not/cannot be strictly enforced. Botting, gold-farming and RWT are rampant, and legal measures against this are slow to be implemented (partly, again, because of the difficult question which value is to be attributed to "virtual" property). Most importantly, however, the expectations and control of the social environment are lacking almost completely. One of the key issues with gaming, online interpersonal behaviour and "virtual" property is the veil of anonimity involded. People play avatars in an online realm, and as a result they don't realize (or don't want to realize) they're interacting with real people behind the pixels, nor do they feel bound by social conventions that would help regulate their behaviour in the real world. Isn't that something that is heard all too often ("they're just pixels") to excuse the most atrocious of interpersonal behaviour, cheating at the expense of others, RWT and the like? To me, that's a key concept which is missing.

 

P.S.: I should like to point out that it's not my intention at all to discredit the author or the article, the above is merely intended as constructive criticism and feedback. It was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it, which is why I went to the effort of opening some sort of 'debate'. I feel the author doesn't make a bad case, I just think it could have been better (no patronizing intended). I would also like to apologize for the somewhat 'ranting' or 'berating' tone of this piece, I didn't have much (spare) time to compose it in and as such it's pretty much written down as it sprang to mind. My piece lacks elegance and eloquence, and could perhaps have done with a little more sophistication and subtlety; but at least I hope my points of contention are somewhat clear and relatively structured.

[Garnu]

In response to the article "It Doesn't Have to Suck" I do have a vanity item absolved of the required new subscription flag, green skin. I am on a recurring subscription and have been since around 2010, I purchased and redeemed the right card in the time to get green skin during the recurring credit card subscription and now have green skin. Just wanted to clarify that objectivity.

[stonewall337]

you trust people more when you get to know them better. If more people used VOIP to talk w/ their clan mates, IMO, trust would be built faster. As well, people who band together more often to accomplish a goal garner the same benefits: Trust and friends. Personally, I know my guild mates in WOW way better then people I've know for 4x as long in RS. Heck, I spent spring break w/ a few of my guild mates, something I've never done with people I know from RS.

 

This may be in part because RS is more a global game, however.

[Arceus]

 

I would like to address some points of the "don't you trust me" article. I thought it was fairly well-written and I thank the author for taking the time and effort to write it, but I'm afraid for me personally it eventually failed to deliver the impact for which it was set up. I'll not toot the horn of the author too much here, but will get right to the point. While I agree with the gist of it, there are two key concepts I fundamentally disagree with, and a third concept that I personally find of the utmost importance but which is surprisingly omitted.

 

An interesting question is exactly how much trust is generated by sharing such virtual property. Many players will insist (and in my opinion, rightly so) that they have invested a substantial amount of time and effort to obtain items. The reality is that, strictly speaking, that any value possessed by these items is purely sentimental. After all, you can't swap, trade, or sell these possessions for anything but other items in the same domain.

 

It is not because the item is purely virtual by nature that any value that is attributed to it must be purely virtual or merely sentimental as well. If you've spent both real time and real money (in the form of paying for membership) to obtain those items, then they obviously do have a value beyond the strictly sentimental.

 

After all: is this not the very reason why gold farming and RWT are such endemic problems with MMOPRPG's? If the items did not have any "real" value, these would simply not exist. Until recently, this was a huge problem, because precisely as virtual property was not deemed to have any value beyond the purely virtual, there was little or no regulation concerning virtual property in videogames. Only recently has this begun to change, with courts recognising the "real" value inherent even to "virtual" property. And rightly so, I should think.

 

Perhaps part of the answer lies, as usual, in connection with real life. Perhaps without realizing it, there is plenty of trust to go around even towards random strangers. It is quite possible that the last time you crossed a street, a car stopped and waved you ahead. And presumably, you proceeded to cross without fear that the driver would villainously floor the gas pedal before you finished crossing, whether out of intent or carelessness. (However, it would explain the glint in the driver's eye.)

 

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this, for two fundamental reasons. First of all, the most important difference between RS and real life is that in real life, your actions are always bound by a framework created by (the theory of) law and the enforcement thereof, and the expectations and control of the social environment which all together impose order upon a society that would otherwise be inherently chaotic. This framework serves as a check against unappropriate behaviour and abuse. It's far more complex than this, of course; because this framework is not purely artificial or implemented top-down: we teach our young to adhere to this framework, which they subconsciously integrate into their personal behaviour. Their norms and values, which are partly determined by their personal disposition, are also strongly influenced by this framework. As they grow up and take their place in the adult world, a larger group of people can subsequently agree to share a certain set of norms and values, which in turn helps give shape to the perpetuation of this framework. That's also partly the reason why society is so slow to change: while there is room for change or "improvement" (which is subjective, hence the brackets) it is always rooted deeply into the existing framework.

 

This is intertwined with my second argument for disagreeing with the metaphor: without this imposed order, this layer of veneer if you will; there is no check against unappropriate behaviour. There is no such thing as a "natural state" where two (or more) people innately share the same set of norms and values and abide by them. Everyone has different norms and values, a different sense of what is right and what is wrong, everyone has different principles and scruples, etc. This is inherently chaotic. While some people can indeed agree to share a similar set of values and norms (it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to kill), others will choose to adhere to a different set of values and norms. In order to regulate and impose some (subjective) order upon a society which otherwise would be inherently chaotic, the aforementioned framework is created. This is not wholly an external or artificial process, but it is not exactly "natural" either. In order to protect society from inappropriate behaviour that is deemed harmful to the majority of the social group, social expectations are created and controlled, and laws are formulated and enforced. This framework is not entirely objective as well, because it is skewed towards "the majority" and/or those who are in power.

 

In short, I personally think a driver does not run over a passer-by not because of some unwritten bond of "trust" between them, I think he does not run over a passer-by because he is bound by the combination of his personal norms and values, by the social expectation of the environment, and by the law, all of which interact with one another, and which together form some sort of 'framework'. So, what the passer-by really trusts is that the driver will adhere to the framework that is imposed upon them both.

 

To couple this back to RS: it does have a set of rules, which, however, are not/cannot be strictly enforced. Botting, gold-farming and RWT are rampant, and legal measures against this are slow to be implemented (partly, again, because of the difficult question which value is to be attributed to "virtual" property). Most importantly, however, the expectations and control of the social environment are lacking almost completely. One of the key issues with gaming, online interpersonal behaviour and "virtual" property is the veil of anonimity involded. People play avatars in an online realm, and as a result they don't realize (or don't want to realize) they're interacting with real people behind the pixels, nor do they feel bound by social conventions that would help regulate their behaviour in the real world. Isn't that something that is heard all too often ("they're just pixels") to excuse the most atrocious of interpersonal behaviour, cheating at the expense of others, RWT and the like? To me, that's a key concept which is missing.

 

P.S.: I should like to point out that it's not my intention at all to discredit the author or the article, the above is merely intended as constructive criticism and feedback. It was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it, which is why I went to the effort of opening some sort of 'debate'. I feel the author doesn't make a bad case, I just think it could have been better (no patronizing intended). I would also like to apologize for the somewhat 'ranting' or 'berating' tone of this piece, I didn't have much (spare) time to compose it in and as such it's pretty much written down as it sprang to mind. My piece lacks elegance and eloquence, and could perhaps have done with a little more sophistication and subtlety; but at least I hope my points of contention are somewhat clear and relatively structured.

 

 

 

Thank you for your comments. I agree somewhat regarding what you say about trusting to adhere to the framework of real life, but note despite that, people do break the law, often in gruesome ways-for example, the unfortunate fate of the children in France recently. (I won't write further details for younger viewers' sake.) Virtual property is also an interesting point, but for now it remains a black hole. Technically you may be able to get something out of it (as you may be able to get out of a speeding ticket), but the principle is that you dump in as much or as little effort as you want, and that cannot be recovered. Perhaps all the RWT that has suddenly flooded such games in recent years has subconsciously tricked us into associating a dollar value with our virtual stuff.

 

Anyway thanks again for giving (at least me) something to think about :thumbsup: =D>.

[Ulysses]

Some well written articles, well done.

 

I find the standpoint presented in the second article particularly interesting. The concept of trust in rs is quite different to that of daily life. In daily life, as the author has written, trust go about without one's realisation - or perhaps to one's enlightenment on deeper thoughts. Most of the times, the 'trust' involved is rather involuntary like the road crossing example as given. There would have been way too many things of concern had one actually 'chooses' who to trust. Conversely, in the realms of rs, much of this 'trust' is controlled by one's very own decision. There's no actual contact between people - merely characters with lines of words displayed above. Words by themselves, without emotions, is rather dull and i think, have little weight in terms of sincerity. It is very true that whether one regard people as trustworthy or not is entirely based on their own decision. And from that, I strongly agree with the point of view of the author.