gulogo.gif  
 
1. Hiatus
2. RIP, Satoru Iwata
3. Let there be Robot Battles
4. Regarding pixel art!
5. 16-bit Star Wars
6. Goodbye, Spock.
7. James Randi Retires
8. More Star Wars on GOG
9. Archive.org gives you DOS Games
10. Ralph Baer, RIP.
1. Quickie: Impressions June 2014
2. Quickie: Penny Arcade Episode 3
3. Quickie: The Amazing Spider-Man
4. Quickie: Transformers: Fall of Cybertron
5. Quickie: Prototype 2
6. Quickie: Microsoft Kinect
7. Quickie: X-Men Destiny
8. Spider-Man: Edge of Time
9. Quickie: Transformers Dark of the Moon
10. Quickie: Borderlands GOTY
1. Musings 45: Penny Arcade and The Gripping Hand
2. Movie Review: Pacific Rim
3. Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph
4. Glide Wrapper Repository
5. Movie Review: Winnie The Pooh
6. Musings 44: PC Gaming? Maybe it's on Life Support
7. Video Games Live 2009
8. Movie Review: District 9
9. Musings: Stardock, DRM, and Gamers' Rights
10. Musings: How DRM Hurts PC Gaming
Main Menu

Affiliates
X-bit labs
The Tech Zone
Twin Galaxies

Login






 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!


 Aug 09, 2005 - 04:00 PM - by Michael
* GamerDad and the Duping Market

Printer-friendly page Print this story   Email this to a friend
PC Games/Hardware/Microsoft
GamerDad's gotten into EQ2, and he's got some comments on the recent duping revelations:


After reading that, you might get angry at them or applaud them for turning an exploit into real world money. No matter how you feel, the story itself creates so many questions about virtual property. Who owns the items in these games? Does the game maker ultimately own all the goods you "earn" through playing because they created it all in the first place? If they don't, then are they liable for damages if they have a catastrophic server crash and lose all your virtual goods in the process? If you ultimately are the owner, then selling these goods online seems like an ok thing to do. What about this specific case? Most people would probably agree that a banning is ok due to using an exploit to manufacture virtual goods, but is it? The player was playing within the code established by the game maker. It's not the player's fault that some program was written incorrectly and it allowed him to generate goods at will. Considering there was a process involved in the actual duplication, as chronicled in the article linked above, it could be argued that this gamer had a sort of assembly line of goods production that he then used to generate real-world income. If you don't answer the question of legality regarding who owns the goods themselves, then it's hard to argue this player should be banned for producing goods through a method discovered in the virtual game world, however intentional or unintentional it was.

 

Home :: Share Your Story
Site contents copyright Glide Underground.
Want to syndicate our news? Hook in to our RSS Feed.