RU_Insane
-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by RU_Insane
-
-
At first I thought you meant actual banner advertisements placed outside Jagex HQ buildings.
I can see it now:
"Buy one hundred spins, get a free RuneFest ticket!"
Alternatively:
"Buy a RuneFest ticket, get a free one hundred spins!" (This one's more likely to happen).
-
Ozan probably just suffers from vitiligo. The next time you see him, he'll have had five botched plastic surgeries.
-
Probably a count down to when Jagex declares bankruptcy.
"See RuneScape's future: none!" :P
-
For emphasis:
Last week we asked RuneScapes geography geniuses to tell us where five Chocatrice campaign posters had been posted around RuneScape.Hundreds of you demonstrated your skills by correctly identifying all five locations, but with only one signed T-shirt up for grabs, we needed to randomly select a winner. And that winner is...
Magus Xerces!
Congratulations! Magus Xerces is now the proud owner of a slightly soiled (but massively signed) Chocatrice campaign T-shirt. Well done, sir; we bow to your RuneScape-based geographical knowledge.
Most of the time with t-shirts, they use a pretty girl to wear and show it, I really hope Jagex does have prettier staff on their team than that girl. :s Honestly, she's not wrong, but I can't say she has an attractive face. :s
???
The girl is the model for the shirt. I think she's quite attractive. Dunno what your problem is. :P
-
New name? How about "Steal A Fortune"?
That's actually a pretty fitting name for it. I wish this was Reddit so I could upvote this comment. :P
-
1.) Virtual goods are the PLAYER's property. Not Jagex's IP.
2.) Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.
3.) Since the items won are NOT TRADABLE, they don't have intrinsic value.
SOF is not gambling. But I still hate it.
You and I agree on the main point, but I have to nitpick. :P
1. Just because your American lawyer friend brought up a legal principle irrelevant to U.K. contract law (and even if it weren't, probably still would lack basis in fact) doesn't mean you can chant the mantra as if it's gospel. It's not true, no case has been ever been brought against Jagex concerning this, and it's unlikely that any party will possess the resources to bring such a case to Jagex concerning virtual property, let alone a legal basis to rest on.
I think you'll agree with Point # 2.
2. Jagex employs technically-correct language to maintain the veneer of legitimacy when it's clear there are less than savory intentions behind those updates. Jagex knows that players value certain items more than others. They capitalize on that interest by introducing options to raise those hopes whilst funneling the incoming flood of revenue. They purposely place low value and high value items together so the player thinks he has a shot (no matter how small) at winning the jackpot. This way, players have greater incentive to purchase spins to get closer to winning that shiny, glowing bauble...! But when the technique is questioned, Jagex can step back and say it isn't gambling because X or Y.
In this case, Jagex claims it's not because you don't risk anything when you spin. That's true. That doesn't stop them from employing incentives for players to foolishly waste their money, though. It's a pseudo-gambling device designed directly for this purpose. I'm not accusing them of breaking any gambling laws. It's far from that. I'm more concerned about the sleazy marketing tactics and the possible violation of consumer protection laws.
Finally...
3. Yes, the items do have intrinsic value. Value is not determined by price alone. A Godsword won from SOF is just as useful as one obtained from trade. If it had no intrinsic value, players would not purchase more spins for a chance to a win a Godsword. This is just the sort of technical, side-stepping language Jagex deploys to justify its updates.
-
Articles look good this week :)
-
The great part of predicting slippery slopes is that you have an infinite amount of time to be proven correct, and can never be proven wrong.
"It hasn't happened."
"But it might."
"It's been a few years now."
"But it still might."
My favorite is when someone says something's not ever going to happen, but it does.
Jagex 2007: "We will never be bringing back the wilderness. Ever."
Jagex 2010: "That last statement was supposed to have an asterisk."
-
Wrong board, wrong section, and possibly even the wrong forum. :P
-
So did anyone have any thoughts on the list-style article? Is that something that you would like to see again in the future?
I wouldn't mind seeing another list :P Maybe the next topic could be... hmm.
Notable player-organized events (riots, parties, etc.)?
-
Thanks for the replies :) I tried hard to make my article engaging as well as informative without putting my readers off due to length or content.
... I think. :P I could have rewrote the first couple of paragraphs; I thought they were a bit wordy.
Great to see positivity too. Much improvement from the gloom and cynicism of last week.
-
@Alg and Hamtaro
Your responses make sense. Most certainly when Construction was first released, it was seen as a money sink as there was comparatively less capital flowing around in the economy. Luckily for myself, I trained Construction at a time where it was abundant and easily accessible, so even frivolous purchases like gold leaf were not a concern. So I'm not so easily predisposed to the notion that it's costly (then again, I haven't tried training my Con past 69, but I have a gilded altar thanks to boosts). :P
-
I don't quite understand how Construction is expensive or cost-intensive, counter to the trope that runs through here. I spent six million GP on my house (very convenient layout, by the way) and ten million or so to train it to 69 from level 1. I think that's a decent price, considering the benefits I receive. It's worth noting that I trained Construction when Wilderness was revenant-free, so I'd pwn green dragons for quick cash. Good times. :) Also, 1 to 99 Construction is not more than a few hundred million. I understand it's easier to make cash today than before, no? Maybe I'm completely our of sync. O_O
-
Not sure if typo, but last editorial is classified as "Accompanying Article" :P
Looks like a quality list of articles this week. Can't wait to read them all. :)
@Radicap:
Thanks for your comments. :) I would like to see a reboot as well. Especially as our current economy developed under a very unique set of circumstances (one example being the item duplication bug), it would be interesting to note the key differences between the two, or even a whole host of them if we rebooted several servers. Just imagine, for instance, what RuneScape's economy would be like if the item duplication glitch were never found. How would that impact the price of rune armor? If we carefully reconstructed the economy up to this point, we may get an accurate answer.
-
Fair enough. Given the reasons behind the argumentation though, would you agree that the issue can be extended toward account ownership as well? Time invested into obtaining items is, by definition, time invested into the account. If property rights (to some degree) apply to one, why not the other?
-
Hopefully at least three articles will be published for this Sunday :) I liked the second article best. I know it's gloomy, but it summed up my thoughts on why I don't play RuneScape any- more. Too many irrelevant updates, so little time to adapt. And horrible, horrible lag. :P
-
It will be fascinating is if "land lords" of virtual realstate are held to some sort of accountability as happens to land lords in the real world. I'm not talking a 1 to 1 relationship, but in the real world there's repurcussions if you try to kick out renters or don't hold up your end of the contract or create a hostile living environment. Just because you own the land doesn't give you 100% say on what happens once you open it up to public renting.
With virtual RPG accounts, it's established that these characters have real world value. As such, a character with 200 days of development would hold more value than an account with 1 day of development, even if the cost to rent from Jagex is still the same. Now, you can try to argue that's irrelevant since Jagex says it's property has no real world value. However, there are counters such as items such as drugs that are illegal thus have no legal value, yet hold an inherent value (street value) and is noted with regards to severity of the crime.
Remember, Jagex owes a certain responsibility to the people in all the nations it operates. Those nations contain networks that support its servers, protected and aided by all the infrastructure that makes such a set-up possible. Jagex didn't build the roads, building, backbone, powerplants, electrical lines, phone lines, trained people, etc in Britain (or any other country) last I checked. However, it's using those resources in a method to enrich its coffers. A government may consider there's a social contract that should be respected in return for such a situation. Basically, there are servers in the US so the US courts can have a say in how Jagex deals with its customers. Same goes with the other countries.
Anyway, I do hope this is explored further in the courts in a positive manner. The nature of the internet is evolving, and the impact of these virtual worlds is being noted by real world governments. Abuse of the customer/business relationship then could have far reaching impact if the right person takes the right case and argument to court.
This is completely irrelevant, the character itself is not the same as the virtual goods on the character. Also, no company owes any country anything. They pay taxes, and provide jobs. Its mutual.
If you can make a property argument for virtual goods, you can extend the argument towards the character. Companies have a moral obligation to obey the law or face punishment. Of course, this has been ignored many times, but you should understand that "paying taxes and providing jobs" gives companies moral permission to do whatever they like, or that they're not obligated to offer services beyond that point. The issue is much more complex than that -- what about respecting other countries' business regulations in multilateral trade and adapting to foreign corporate cultural norms? What goals and responsibilities are associated with those to ensure that business is conducted sensibly?
Your statement can also be flipped to reflect anti-capitalist sentiment:
Companies are complacent in the wage-slavery of the working class (providing jobs), and provide monetary compensation to the State to sustain said system of exploitation (paying taxes).
In fact, you essentially described the role of the petite-bourgeoise. Try looking it up. Fascinating concept. I didn't know the name for it 'till yesterday but it's certainly interesting.
Bottom-line, no company should disavow scrutiny of its business practices merely because it 'provides jobs and pays taxes'. That's a very biased position and also oversimplifies the situation to a significant degree.
-
That isn't the right question. The implications are not as important as whether or not their is an actual legal reason to believe that virtual goods are actual property, subject to criminal law, and actually owned by the player.
The implications are as important. You can never divorce an implication from its effect. If virtual goods are actual property legitimately owned by the player, and not merely possessed by legal permission, than Jagex effectively has no real control over who can and cannot commit transactions involving said goods -- which means the rule against real world trading is rendered null.
Unless we take into account that Jagex has legal protections against this. Keep in mind that the goods are only in the player's rightful possession so long as they abide by the TOS -- if you intend to sell those items, they are no longer 'yours', but in fact, Jagex's precedence over them is enforced.
The question here becomes, if the TOS is in fact a contract of adhesion, how reasonably can its stipulations be enforced in Jagex's favor? To place it completely in the player's favor is completely unfair to the vendor who rightfully owns and operates not just the items the player merely rents, but the entire game itself. How do you justify the TOS being a contract of adhesion without overlooking this fact?
-
Those were two depressing articles.
hate to say it, but this. Possible to request positiveness next week? :lol:
My article planned for next week is quite positive :grin:
Yay! :mrgreen:
The one I'm curently writing has a positive twist also. Inb4 same ideas? :D
Mine is an experimental historical article. I can't share anymore than that right now, though :wink:
ಠ_ಠ
Mine is a speculative 'historical' article as well, in a sense. It speculates about the history of something very important to this game. I'm going to just cut off further details before it sounds awkward and/or lame :P
-
I'm planning on submitting an article for next week. It's a series, but the first part is done. I'd say it has a positive aspect to it :thumbsup:
-
According to most people's understanding of the Jagex (and likewise, Blizzard's) TOS the account remains the property of the respective company, at all times. However, what about items on the account? Are they likewise the companys? What about cases of theft or fraud? Is that a crime? Whilst some may say no, and whilst some games may restore items at their discretionary leave (reserving the rights to chose under what circumstances to do so) others say YES, it is a crime, or else it should be.
Many people here have probably heard the story of the school kid, who was held up at knife point in the Netherlands in 2008, in order to gain access to his RuneScape account and goods. http://insertfunnyname.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/dutch_supreme_court/
This crime was two fold, first it was assault. (Defintion: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) This is undisputed, and rather besides the point. The kid was held at knifepoint.
Second, it was a type of robbery, either armed robbery involving use of a weapon or aggravated robbery involving use of a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon. I'm not sure if the laws and definitions are the same in other countries.
Robbery implies, no it requires the illegal seizure of anothers property. But was Jagex the ones being robbed? No, it was the kid. "Finally, the court found ... that while the Runescape Terms and Conditions did retain ownership of all virtual property in the game and grant a right to use, the goods in question were under the “exclusive dominion” of the victim. The court thus compared the goods to a passport, which is “the undisputed property of the State of the Netherlands,” but can be rightfully possessed by its holder and can be stolen by a thief."
This ties into my main points, are/should thefts and fraudulent activities in an MMORPG be considered criminal activities, and are virtual goods then really owned by the company?
To the first point, I will lead with this amazing article posted in the Emory Law Journal, titled "Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Swords and Armor: Regulating the Theft of Virtual Goods". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012886
The author argues that, under current law, virtual goods can be considered property, and as such can be regulated, and theft subjected to criminal charges. The article is rather long, so I won't try and explain everything here (Any interest in a guest Times article perhaps?)
On to my second point: Are virtual goods actually owned by the game company? According to the TOS, yes. however, in a case several years ago "Bragg v. Linden Lab" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_v._Linden_Lab) the court ruled that since the TOS was a contract of adhesion, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion) they were NOT binding in this case. As such, does this set reasonable precedent to declare online accounts, and the property they contain more then simply a "rental"? Does the fact that their is significant time, effort, and the ability to derive an actual value in the real world for these goods and accounts also tie into the argument to show that these are more then the MMO's property, but those of the actual player?
I am not arguing what is better for gamers. I am not arguing that one is good or bad. I am simply showing cases, and as much logic as my brain can muster at 5:30 AM to ask what people decide off the evidence. (please no baseless opinions like "OMFG that ruining teh game".)
Should online property be subject to criminal law, and if so, does it become the person's personal property? Or can one of these conditions exist without the other? What do you think? Would there be interest in a more in depth thought of a more specific part of this train of reasoning to read or for a Times article? Let me know. Also, if their are any questions about the Emory article, let me know, and I'll ask the author.
ALSO INTERESTING: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=law_pubs "Beyond Griefing: Virtual Crimes." this talks about a lot of instances of fraud/theft/etc similar to those which occur in RuneScape.
As per the passport example (I think it's called an analogous ground), I would think the items in fact still belong to Jagex. What happened is that the items were coerced out of a player's rightful possession. In that sense, they were 'stolen' from the player. I didn't read the first article you linked to, just the abstract. But I'm guessing it discusses possible legal protections against violation of rightful possession, which is a reasonable suggestion. There probably exists in the Jagex TOS some stipulation outlining the player's lawful use of Jagex property.
Ah, here we go:
You agree that all intellectual property or other rights in any game character, account and items are and will remain our property. Jagex owns all rights in the Jagex Products, and you are only granted permission to use such products, subject to and in accordance with these Terms and Conditions.
From the fourth paragraph under the section entitled "Intellectual property rights".
In other words, Jagex in all circumstances owns the property, they just give you permission to use it, as long as you abide by the terms and conditions. This is the most Jagex has a legal obligation to:
If, acting reasonably, we consider that our Terms and Conditions have or may have been breached, or that there has been fraudulent, unlawful or abusive activity, or that it is necessary in order to prevent or stop any harm or damage to us, to any Jagex Product, to other players or the general public, we may Stop (defined as including all or any of: locking, temporarily or permanently banning, or temporarily or permanently muting the account) any or all accounts for Jagex Products which we think are connected with the offender subject to such right of appeal as is specified on our website and/or restrict access to any content-uploading or other feature of our service and/or restrict access to or delete virtual currency or anything acquired by means of virtual currency. Such actions may result in loss of membership credit and/or loss of real money paid as part of any item / account trading or other prohibited transaction (emphasis mine).It seems robbery (coercing someone out of rightful possession) would fall under the category of prohibited transaction. In this case, if Jagex believes it necessary to 'prevent or stop any harm or damage to us [...] to other players, or the general public', these are the actions Jagex will be able to undertake unless otherwise compelled by law. Note that while no legal protections exist against coercing a player to relinquish his rightful possessions, there are several actions Jagex can take after the fact. So the question of how necessary it is to provide these protections isn't urgent in that sense, since Jagex can probably argue that the mechanisms existing in place now are sufficient enough to punish or backtrack damage caused by such actions. That, and Jagex doesn't guarantee protection against theft in terms of codifying property in favor of the players. It's not hard to see why Jagex wouldn't want to do that, even on a limited scale.
-
Jagex really has to stop fixing what isn't broken. :(
-
Usually just guilty of lurking, but had to correct a point the in OP.
When CS was released, it was said that it would place the item in the GE for mid price, and if after two weeks had expired, the item hadn't sold, it would be removed from the game. I am thus inclined to disagree with the idea of 4 year old hilts finally surfacing into the market.
I had NEVER heard this, and I highly doubt this is true as it would result in pretty massive inflation if so.
How so? If no one were able to purchase those 'stuck' items in the beginning, I imagine their removal wouldn't have an effect on the market anyway. They did not exist on the market to begin with.
-
lol@Jagex's brilliant idea for a cape. It's an upside down Christmas tree that you can carry on your back! For all your lumbering needs. How innovative. :P
See the Future...
in General Discussion
Posted
I think it could be multiple GEs or a demonstration of some game-changing feature.