Rarity, antiquity, and decreased supply.

"Crafting" in most MMORPGs really means that you pick from a selection of pre-defined objects and say "I have the resources and skill points, build this". That's not what it means at all in SL. No resources, no skill points, no list. That's rather fundamentally different.

And yeah, chaos theory is so 90s....

Technically: nothing. Legaly: IP rights.

Not at all what Argent was talking about. The thing is, you're not actually making the things in SWG. You're instructing the program to create copies of objects that already exist.

Fact is, SL doesn't have to be a MMOG (not to say that it can't be). I've never roleplayed in it and only very briefly ever used it as a game (flying about to relax mainly) what I have used it for is a chat tool and a digital sketch pad for mocking up ideas and doodling. I know professionals that use it for the same (see here for example).

But that's what we're talking about when we talk about SL's economy...

Fair enough.

Making stuff out of SWG is making 3d copies of someone else's design. You don't design it, you didn't make it, you played a video game and were given someone else's design as part of your "score".
The difference is that I am making it. I am designing its appearance and its behaviour, creating something that never existed before, not playing a video game and being granted a copy of something that the game designers designed.
Name another one where the process of creating content actually creates something new, rather than setting some bits in a database somewhere saying that you own something someone else created.
This one is an actual role playing game, where the player gets to create a role and play within it. Everquest or World of Warcraft or Star Wars Galaxies are the same kind of combination of repetitive puzzle and unit-level combat simulation that computer "role playing games" have been mired in since they first developed from things like Flying Buffalo's paperback "be your own DM" style books back in the '70s.
How about investing a little bit of your time in thinking about what "creating" means?
Um, Chaos Theory is mathematics, not religion.

I've never "role played" in any other MMOG either, aside from the clothes(armor) I've never "got into character" to play a game. Although, I think you're trying to say that you see SL as a tool and not a dynamic environment in which to interact with others, which I suppose is a viable use. I will go out on a limb and say that if the consumer base for SL was only interested in the platform for what you mentioned, the game wouldn't last, at least not financially. I will say it makes for great pr, though.



Sure, but if you followed the posts he called me out on a technicality and then proceeded to support his argument by inventing a red herring.

Great observation! I Suppose the predictability aspect never crossed your mind. And well, if you want to talk religion I have a bunch of opinions on that as well ;p

Well, I was saying how I use it, not how I see it, but yeah. I could probably call you on the running about killing wookies and collecting minerals (or whatever ) being roleplaying, but that's besides the point.

I didn't see it like that at all actually. I think Argent (who, as far as I can tell from previous conversations, is actually quite a clever chap) knew what you were talking about from the begining and you assumed he was calling you on a technicality. I can't say which of the two of you is right with regards to the original dispute which became this, since I don't know much about economic analysis, but since you thought using the term "information economy" is a red herring I'd be tempted to say it's not you, sorry.

I guess you're right. If you want to call content RPing than you have a point. I suppose partaking in the SL economy is actually RPing since that is its targeted focus. Fact is, as in any abstract concept, it's all about perception. And well, opinions are like assholes, everybodies got one, myself not withstanding.



Hmm, ok since you're so inclined to debate the debate...


This was the original statement in reference to the likes of Smith, Marx, etc. To which we have this reply--


Misunderstanding? To which I added clarification--


Pretty self explanatory. To which he replied--



Thus we have the arbitrary insertion of "information economy" into an argument that really has nothing to do with that, but instead the point was the analytics of real world economies.

Thankyou, it helps in responding to this post when I've got all the comments quoted for me. Saves me looking back through the thread like I did last time I posted. And I'm not inclined to debate the issue, I'm trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, but I'm too tired right now to actually go through and explain in simple terms what was said. I might suggest you read about some of the stuff - particularly look up what an information economy is (here's a clue: you're living in one in RL). All I know is that either you haven't explained yourself in a way either Argent or myself can understand, or you're not really sure what you're talking about.

Well that's too bad, I'm inclined to believe you don't know what you're talking about otherwise.

Frankly, is this Argent's alt? How are you going to tell me what he meant? Do you have some kind of intimate relationship with him to where you know what's on his mind or how he thinks? Thanks for the offer to explain his logic, though.

I will say that if he meant real world by "information economy", that is a rather ambiguous term to use. And I'll have to humbly agree to disagree on the economic implications of tried and true economic theories as it applies to real world economies.

In what waydon't I know what I'm talking about? I said I don't really know economics.

I don't know what Argent's thinking, and I'm certainly not him. Everything he said made sense to me though, and information economy is a real term. Maybe a relativly new one, but a real one all the same. I'd guess that futures are a part of it, but refer you to the my first paragraph in saying that.

We live in times of a rapidly changing world.

Anyway, it's time for bed now.

Go back and re-read the posts. What you're calling a technicality is a deep, fundamental, and unavoidable difference between creating content in SL and "crafting" EQ or WoW or SWG.

There is nothing that you can do in one of those games to actually create a new work of your own design that functions as a new kind of object or tool or even jewelry in the game. It's like the difference between painting a picture and doing a jigsaw puzzle. It's like the difference between playing a piano and playing a record. It's like the difference between planting a garden and visiting a park. It's like the difference between writing a program and playing a game... and in fact that's what the difference is.

I cannot comprehend the confusion of the mind that would lead one to consider this a technicality.

This is ALSO not a technicality.

Do you read the paper?

Have you heard of computers? Software? Mp3 players?

Are you aware that the richest businessman in the world got that way by selling nothing physical? There is no fundamental difference between MS-DOS and Windows and a scripted object in Second Life.

An increasingly large part of the economy today consists of things that are no more "real" than that. And the economic tools of Karl Marx and Adam Smith are increasingly hard-pressed to deal with them. They interlock in ways that nothing physical does, and an increasingly complex and unstable tower of "intellectual property" law has been built to try and force them into the classical market, with increasingly bizzarre and sometimes damaging results. That's what happens when you try and apply classical economics to an information economy, and Second Life is not that far away from the real world in this respect.

The Cyborg suit was Phobos Design and we did two releases of it. One extremely limited that was transferrable, and one larger release limited that was modable, no trans.

Well, I'll consider this your concession since you aren't really debating the original point you dissented on. Instead, you've allowed the scope of the argument to encompass a point you could leverage.

I understand there is differences in the way different games allow you to create. Nonetheless, there are still parameters in which you have to work with. The goods that you create in SL are no more portable than the goods you create in other "worlds." So, while your work may be unique in SL, only people that work or play in SL can appreciate its value. Same with other games. I guess what it boils down to is creative control to the consumer, which I've never denied.



Right, but you're taking one facet of the economy and blowing it up to seem as if it is the entire economy. Even then, standard economic principles still apply. Saturation, Inflation, deflation, inferior goods, marginal analysis, etc.

You're right, The biggest problem with "Information" is the regulation.

heh, much like the goods you create for Microsoft Windows are no more portable than the goods you create in for other "platforms."


There is a fundamental difference between, for example copying files from one folder to another on a desktop (which is essentially what you do when "creating" in most MMORPGs) and creating new software for a desktop using programming languages (which is much more akin to what we do in Second Life.)

Um.

No.

I absolutely and categorically deny that this is true.
This is not "a difference in the way different games allow you to create".

This is a difference between "this game allows you to create". and "this game allows you to pretend that you're creating".

There is no "creating" going on when you "craft" things, any more than you're "creating" things when you go to a carnival and throw balls at the wall for kewpie dolls.
If I create a "website", that's a good. I can't take that "website" into the physical world, or stick it in my pocket (even if I have a PDA), or do anything but leave it sitting on a server I'm renting space on. There's no difference in terms of "portability" or any other criterion you're using between a website and a build in SL.
If I make a website about a Disney TV show, only people who watch that show can appreciate its value.
Um, no, I stated EXPLICITLY that I was referring to an increasing large part of the economy, not the whole economy. But (a) that part of the economy can not be analysed as if it was just an oddball version of an ordinary economy, and (b) that part of the economy is the whole of the economy in SL, so what happens in SL actually has predictive value for the RL economy as it becomes more like the SL one.

Well then, I'll just ask you point blank. Why do you think Economic theories don't apply to RL economies? The fraction of the economy known as "Information " aside.



Well, this discussion has gone from economics to the old "Game v. Platform" debate. I could care less if we have a difference of opinion on this. This is really not what I wanted to discuss, and I'm kicking myself for letting you steer the converstion down this path. Regarding your last sentence.... nevermind, I won't point out how ridiculous that sounds.

Could whoever wrote the posts being refered to here please put them back? I obviously didn't get here quick enough to read them before they were deleted.

Argent-

Because I'm kinda tired of seeing this thread spiral off into technicalities, semantics and red-herrings... I'd like to argue with your "creation" distinction.

Employees of WoW/SWG/EQ2/DDO are content creators too... and those worlds do change and grow over time with releases of newly created content appearing at various intervals.

The distinction, of course, applies to the content creator... for 'regular MMORPGs', the owner-company benefits directly, the content-creating employees indirectly. In SecondLife it's reversed, with the content creators benefiting directly and Linden Labs indirectly. But is that a contributing factor to the valuation of an object?

Pulling water out of the ground, filtering it, flavoring it, bottling it and selling it doesn't 'create' water, but it does create a product... and with water processing laws the degrees of freedom allowed to a 'value added reseller' are limited.

Sure, the degree of control over the availability, pricing, competition, branding and such for that product varies from model to model, from nearly none to nearly complete. Creator or Reseller, both can meddle with valuation factors fairly easily, but need to deal with competition of various sorts and market trends.

I doubt most consumers care much who makes the stuff they're buying... unless they're buying some big-name-talent label attached to it.

--
Anyway... if anyone is out of Scope(tm) in this argument it's more likely to result in bad breath than a penalty for a debate rule infraction.

Hmmm. Vendors should run out then. And be constantly replenished manually.

So if I die in RL, the guns I sell will eventually become a rarity as time passes by, if there are "limited" vending machines out there, hehe.

-RODION

Hah. I don't see it like that. I see it as not learning anything from the discussion. To me, that is truly when a discussion turns into an argument; when you stop learning from the discussion.

As far as the rest of your post, I think you've articulated what I was trying to say. Of course, it's all a matter of perception, that's why I think discussing it is rather futile.

Its real simple:

The law of the future of economics is. Grab as much money as you can and get yourself to a safe place before the aliens come and eat us all in a few years.

I'm being 90% serious. The other 10% must be my logical mind saying stuff about microtransactions and unlimited supplies of information goods...

And you tell me that *I* am changing the subject?

The fact that the information economy doesn't respond the same way as physical economies is the reason why the economy is increasingly hard to understand using theories built up around physical goods. You can't "set that aside", because "that" is the point.
1. This has nothing to do with the "game versus platform" debate. The whole "game versus platform" debate is based on a false dichotomy... the idea that "game" and "platform" are somehow comparable.

2. The very first message in this thread was about games, about the idea that SL should be more like games where you have to "mine for fish" to simulate the scarcity of physical objects.

3. The difference between "fake physical goods" (which is what these 'scarce items' you trade in are) and "information" (which is what content in second life is) is the core of the whole economic debate in the first place.

I absolutely agree. Employees of these companies are content creators. The people who "craft" the resulting objects, however, are not. They are customers. I'm objecting to the idea that SL should impose some artificial scarcity on content creation to make it more like games where you have "crafting".

I know. And I totally agree with that. I'd be among the first in line at the embassy for an air-lift out of SecondLife if it ever adopted a mandatory prim mining limited-resource based model. I just had to quip with a side-view.

And, because I can't let go of the game/platform thing... A casino is a business which houses games. The casino itself is not a game. The guests and players may view it all as one big larking game... but the dealers see it all very differently. Who is right? Who is wrong? The game vs. platform argument is merely a line in the sand, dividing poeople into groups that then shout at each other.

If it were up to me, the simple answer to the "game vs. platform" question would be:

"Much more than just a game."

--
100% of all arguments are due to mis-communication of intent, scope and context.

-- 2nd .sig for free on Friday's!
The world is seperated into two kinds of people. Those that seperate them into two kinds of people... and those that don't.