Here's an idea-- "Diablo III" is turning virtual economies
into real ones.
"Diablo III" is a kill all monsters, RPG-ish, dungeon
crawling adventure game made by game development powerhouse
Blizzard Entertainment.
In your myriad of requests as the Nephalem,
you do all manner of evil vanquishing, spell casting,
weapons trading, character building,
you name it, all on the path towards defeating the big guy
with the horns at the end, which, incidentally I've
heard that you can do with your eyes closed.
MAN: I did it eyes closed.
What the--
But also, along the way, you want
to make sure that you get the illest gear,
like the ancient bone saber of Zumakalis,
the legendary two-handed ax of scorn,
or the pus spitter-- ugh.
Because aside from helping you look awesome
and helping you squish baddies with the greatest of ease,
they're also worth a lot of money, like money,
like (SINGING) money, money, money, money.
Money!
Yeah, like walking around buying stuff money.
Like you can make a living money.
Like economists study this stuff money.
Most types of gamers have probably
had the experience of, say, walking
into a shop in some Zelda game.
And you're like, ooh, new shield.
And then the shop owner is, like, that will be 200 rupees,
please.
And then you're like--
In many games-- most games, in fact--
there is a virtual economy.
You perform tasks or collect stuff
and get paid in a currency which allows
you to buy goods, services, or even games within the game.
It's more fun than the real economy,
because you don't have to budget for food,
pay your student loans, or do your taxes, unless you're
playing that hip new indie game "Starving Liberal Arts Graduate
without a Trust Fund."
[VIDEO GAME MUSIC]
Now, virtual economies are nothing novel.
They've had a place in video games
since long before Mario was using his noggin to bust
open floating question marks for that sweet golden loot.
[DING]
But as games get more immersive and begin
to reward us more substantially, which
is an extremely complicated thing in its own right,
we start to think of those spoils as ours.
And that gives them value.
Philosophers Hegel and Locke both agree
that when a person joins their labor with a thing,
the right of ownership is naturally transferred to them.
It is a slightly older theory of property and ownership.
But it feels particularly applicable
to the immortal kings boulder breaker
or a "Minecraft" mansion.
What's more is that emergent gameplay practices and even
some game developers have started
reinforcing the notion that work plus stuff equals ownership.
Linden Labs expansive virtual world
"Second Life" allows players to buy in-game currency
with real, actual money.
And until a lawsuit over an in-game house,
Linden went so far as to state in the user agreement
that in-game creations were actually
owned by the players that made them-- like owned, owned.
Like how I own my cell phone own.
[PHONE RINGING]
Oh.
[INDISTINCT VOICE ON PHONE]
Yes?
No, my AOL dial-up is working fine.
As a result, at one point the sale of "Second Life" goods
with a multimillion-dollar industry
with several entrepreneurs making one million
actual real dollars.
A more elicit conversion of fake gold into real smackers
happens in "World of Warcraft."
Small companies labor together gold or awesome loot and then
sell it at a premium.
Gold farming, as it's called, is strictly verboten by Blizzard
but is popular enough that many in-game items actually
end up on eBay.
And cost comparison services have
been created to help non-gold diggers get the best deal.
That's right-- virtual gold bargain hunting.
It is a reality TV show just waiting to happen.
Tons of games have amazing virtual economies,
like EVE Online with Interstellar Credits, Ultima
Online, and even, in a weird way, some Zynga games.
But it's with "Diablo III" that Blizzard really
changed the game-- the weird, theoretical, dollar
virtual trading game within a game.
Along with "Diablo III," they've opened an official game item
auction house.
There, players can trade their character's gold
or real dollars-- which I mean, let's be honest,
they're kind of virtual representations themselves--
for arrangements of pixels and bits
which make up in-game objects.
Now, the super double-official developer-supported auction
house isn't important, because it decriminalizes
an already rampant practice.
It's important because Blizzard has essentially
confirmed that in-game objects have real world value.
From here the line between virtual economies and real ones
will continue to get more pixely and weird, especially
because Blizzard is going to profit from every real dollar
transaction made at the auction house.
We tend to assign value to objects and ideas,
like your car, a very expensive grill, the IP
to Dawson's Creek, or that patent on toast that you have.
I don't know that that one's gonna hold up, you know,
legally.
But in-game virtual objects sort of straddle
the line between objects and ideas.
You can't really hold them or put them in a safe.
You probably worked super hard fighting a million demons
to get them, but you can't really
claim that you created them.
So for now, at least, while our laws sort of stumble
around the nuance of their ownership,
they still retain a value.
I mean, clearly Blizzard has admitted it.
The fact that these virtual objects have real-world value
is a weird, bitter resplendent potion for some people
to swallow.
I mean, "Diablo III," "World of Warcraft,"
"Second Life"-- these are just games.
But so is golf.
And have you priced a good pair of clubs lately?
It is not a bargain.
So maybe the next time someone wants
to give you a hard time for playing too many video games,
you can legitimately tell them be quiet.
Shut your face.
I am working on my investment portfolio of magical swords.
What do you guys think?
Does a player own the objects that they work
to acquire in a video game?
And should they be able to profit from their sales?
Let us know in the comments.
And if you really want a challenge,
you could try to find the Subscribe
button with your eyes closed.
Nope, more left.
More-- your other left.
Yeah.
You got it.
Raise your hand if you shared our video about Facebook
on Facebook.
Let's see what you guys had to say about last week's episode.
There were a lot of people who claimed
to not have Facebook accounts.
And I don't want to say that I don't believe you.
But also I kind of don't believe you.
In response to MrXarlable's little comment
from a couple weeks ago, I find that it's actually
really important to approach a lot of the stuff
that we talk about with a positive attitude.
Because if you immediately write it off as meaningless,
then it makes it hard to really dive into something
and find out what about it is really important and exciting
and why the people who like it do like it.
It's kind of like that Louis CK sketch were
he says that everything is exciting and no one is happy.
There's a lot of negativity that is
shoveled onto internet culture and all the related stuff.
But if you don't accept it and if you
don't try to figure out why people love it,
then it keeps you from really understanding how and why it
is effective and important.
As far as the jokes, I-- I don't know.
I can't really help you on that one.
I think I am very funny.
[? MrNatsat ?] describes Facebook a little bleakly--
not as a memory storage mechanism,
but maybe as a way of dragging your past around with you.
Which I don't necessarily agree with,
but I can see how some people might perceive it that way.
That's really interesting.
LeonK 1984 describes Facebook as a kind of biographer,
which is really interesting and maybe kind of apropos.
Because like a biographer, you might leave some things out
and emphasize some other things.
Who knows?
Maybe in a while there will be some software where
you can just push a button and it
will print out your biography.
[? Azriel ?] [? Dominoff ?] makes a really interesting
point about Facebook being a kind of memory bank where you
can view your memories in the context of other
people's memories.
Which I just-- I'm gonna have to take a couple days
and think about that one.
[? Jamotastic ?] and Metalosaurus kind of
duke it out a little bit over Facebook's proper transmission
of emotions.
I think while looking at your wall and all the tons of stuff
that's on there, it's easy to forget that these are people
who you know who are expressing things that they actually feel,
and that while you might not receive it,
maybe it is being transmitted.
And in a sort of related point, [? MrMonfreysClass ?]
makes a point that there is just so much information
on Facebook, it's hard to actually gain any real meaning.
And also some interesting stuff about having things
end up on Facebook that you might not
want to end up on there, and that maybe those things become
part of your memory and personality against their will.
And finally, on the subject of my name,
it's actually been in all of the video descriptions.
But that's fine.
Cool123Cookie also says that I don't
look like a Mike, which I know.
I look like a Jason Lee.