I say yea. Govt. say no.

I vote yes. There are no laws against it in most countries and there are MMO's out there that already give ownership rights of virtual goods or intellectual property to the players that create or purchase them. 

If a company like Blizzard wants to allow virtual items to be purchased with real life cash then players should OWN these virtual properties. If you live in a country where your government won't allow you to own virtual goods that you pay for with real life cash ask them why these companies are allowed to sale these items to you for real life cash if you can not own them. 

But like I said, this kind of thing isn't dissallowed in most places as far as I know and there are games that do give ownership to players. 

Hell games like Second life you can actually exchange your game currency for real currency. 

As far as the disney book comparison, your logic is close to the mark but way off the issue. No one claimed to own a piece of the parent company, but they do own that book. If they wanted to go out and sell each page for a dollar for toilet paper to people at a camp sight, they could. Say Disney came to your house and set that book on fire, they have no right to do that just because it is their IP. When you purchase something with actual currency, it becomes something you have certain rights to. In the US there is only so much power and abuse of power that is tolerated. In other countries it could be different, but in the US you have the right to take legal action when Mike Eisner comes and burns your DIsney book.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Creslin321

Well...it actually works pretty much the same way when you buy media like a video game, movie, or book.  When you buy a video game from the store for example, you do not "own" the game.  Sure, you may own the box and the disc the game is on, but you do not actually own the game.  Instead, you own a license to the game, which essentially means that you can use it in a limited fashion as indicated by the EULA.  The company retains real ownership of the game.

So I mean, when you consider that you don't even own the game that you are purchasing this stuff in, it becomes much less of an issue.

Yeah, but it is a bit more complicated than that. If you own a DVD collection you own the DVDs even if you don't own the right to the movie. If I steal it from you the cops will actually try to help you (hopefully).

Virtual items are kinda a grey zone. And what if the company closes down the game where you bought stuff for a thousand bucks, should they repay you for that or not? Is it as bad stealing $1000 of virtual stuff as $1000 of real stuff?

I am not saying one thiing or another here about how the laws should be but there should actually be laws since people uses a lot of real money to buy stuff.

Or do you guys think we should just consider anyone buying virtual goods idiots and that they deserve to loose the stuff?

Two problems with virtual items compared with "real" items:

First, virtual items don't actually exist.  There's a big difference with buying a DVD, which exists, and buying a virtual hat, which doesn't exist (exist in the actualy physical material sense).

The other big problem is that these items are tied to other companies servers.  If these go down, there's no way for you to reach these items.  This is completely different with other virtual gear that you never lose, the sims franchise for example.  They sell whole expansions which is basically just more clothing.  In these games, you never lose anything.  In the online world, this is not the case.

I think the second problem is the big one.  You will never have any laws that will protect you with virtual items.  And I think the reasons are clear.  Companies would have to keep servers up for the rest of time, or refund everyone that actually bought anything.  As soon as games would become unprofitable, the company would have to go bankrupt, because option a is keep being unprofitable until you have to go bankrupt, option b is shut down, refund everyone, and...go bankrupt because you lose everything.

Playing online games is like going to the movie theater.  You pay for an experience, then eventually, it's over.  You can just buy the regular seat price, or you can buy popcorn and a drink to enhance your experience.  The end result is that the experience eventually ends and you're only left with memories.

Originally posted by alexhpy98721

How about saying "Yes we should own what we buy" and not "ZOMG you can`t do it becouse bla bla"

 

Your first mistake is thinking that you bought anything. Your second mistake is confusing a service with a product.

So your account gets banned, and you demand the Winged Lion from blizzard, saying you want it.

They send you a string of codes with 4 thousand lines, what do you do with it?

Originally posted by vesavius

I agree with the OP for the most part.

It's such a huge scam that players are 'sold' virtual items in MMORPGs, but they literally own nothing.

People need to wake up.

 

No wonder the devs all love this model so much.... they get to rent a truck load of literally nothing to eager consumers for real money, all the while being defended and promoted by those same consumers in forums. Samll suprise they are all so eager to jump on it.

I have defended Diablo 3's real auction house because they have stated that they will not be the ones that is putting the items up for sale. All the items in the Auctions will be made by players just like you and me. Therefore its a 100% player driven auction house, so if no one uses it, nothing will be on the auction.

Now if it was the opposite where the developers are the ones putting the items up for sale, which are just codes and selling for profit, then its not something that I would support.

But everyone was asking, how are you going to be sure that they aren't the ones putting the items onsale, even if they promised they will not, they control the game and the auction house....etc  to answer that question is you don't, there is no way for anyone to verify that the developers aren't the ones selling the items, but thats why Blizzard's name comes to effect, because they are so large and such a renown company, if they do shady business like that, and was found out, legal actions can be taken, because the larger they are, the louder and farther they can fall.

Owning nothing is not going to stop players to buy items that is just a bunch of codes that they will never see, even if its items they use for 1 hour then gets a better one. Because there are people like that out there in droves, there will be players like myself that will be playing hours on end getting items so i can sell . I will never buy anything, but i will be selling like crazy when it goes live.

I also played LOL ( league of legends ) and I bought heroes because it was taking too long to get them, do i use them all, nope, i only play with Twitch and Caitlyn 90 % of the time, but i have 15 other heroes in my posession that I can play if i want to. Its my business that I bought them and it shouldn't be affecting you or anyone else .

When they start charging you taxes specifically for virtual property, that's when you will finally own it.

This is why i will only be playing guild wars 2, i can buy the game and play it anytime i want. ive so many mmorpg games that i cannot play unless i subscribe, what a waste.

The market place should decide.

A company is free to open up an MMORPG that gives you "rights" over your virtual items.

if that's so wonderful, peoeple will flock to that game, and the companies that don't do it will go broke.

However, I imagine that all the law suits the company would have to deal with over teh "rights" would mean you have to pay 300 or 400 dollars a month for the game so they can keep lawyers employed, and maintain customer service to handle all the disputes.

You certainly have the option not to play a game that doesn't gives you these "rights" over virtual items.

Originally posted by nerovipus32

This is why i will only be playing guild wars 2, i can buy the game and play it anytime i want. ive so many mmorpg games that i cannot play unless i subscribe, what a waste.

I'm pretty sure GW2 can IP ban you from their servers.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by C0MA

30-40% of the votes truly displays why the middle-lower class get taxed heavier than the upper class... they don't want ownership of anything they put their time into, earning.

 Thats quite the leap in logic there now isn't it.

Regardless I don't think we will ever own it.  We just pay for services, or rent the item.  However that doesn't mean we aren't entitled to some rights.

Venge

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Before wondering what Diablo 3 is doing in or with the MMORPG genre ..., I was wondering when D3 ever was defined or refered to as an MMORPG in first place by anyone? (except of a single WoW/BLizzard fan or more than that, desperately trying to create a cheap excuse to viraly advertise the new title Diablo 3 with frequent unrelated and superficial refences and topics about D3, as with some other Blizzard title before, in the much more visited and read general MMO-related-only subforum "The Pub" on mmorpg.com trough forcefully refering to it as an MMO or even comparing it to actual MMOs)

Because neither does the game make the impression of an MMORPG, nor remotely delivers the environment even resembling an MMORPG, not even by argueable broader definition and is doesnt even come close to offer any "MMO traits" as games like Guild Wars 1 do offer, despite not being defined an "MMORPG" by its own developer either, but only that.

Diablo 3 is nothing more than a singleplayer dungeon crawler, with optional coop/vs instances (not an MMORPG), requring online connection aside from the coop/vs instances and the auction-panel for mere marketing and logistical reasons, not because its designed as an general online game in any sort of way. Aisde from trading items or competing on a score list theres nothing that comes close to an MMORPG in D3. Not even shared space.

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by C0MA

30-40% of the votes truly displays why the middle-lower class get taxed heavier than the upper class... they don't want ownership of anything they put their time into, earning.

 Thats quite the leap in logic there now isn't it.

Regardless I don't think we will ever own it.  We just pay for services, or rent the item.  However that doesn't mean we aren't entitled to some rights.

Venge

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

 

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share."

 

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

 

 

 

 

{mod edit}

But in light of the actual topic, I can deffinitly see why companies hold the rights when it comes to banning players, if you don't fallow the code of conduct yeah you'll get kicked.

BUT when it come to games with cash shops, I do think you should be able to sell your account/ items with no problem. 

 The leap in logic is not that middle class is taxed heavier.  The leap in logic is that a poll about a video game and owning rights to characters in a video in which at the time this was posted 9 people had voted somehow equates to owning rights, taxes, property and eveyrthing else in the real world and can be extrapolated to the general population, or that that this poll in a video game forum means that they do not want ownership rights in the real world.  That is a massive logical fallacy.

{mod edit}

Venge

The idea is that you buy the cd and purchase the service to play but don't actually "own" any of the virtual items.

However, with a cash shop you are directly exchanging money for a virtual item. I would consider it downright immoral and unethical to be "borrowing" virtual items that you're paying hard cash, in a direct transaction, for. Unfortunately, with the abortion that is legal documents and user agreements, you can achieve bs like this.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Dewm

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by C0MA

30-40% of the votes truly displays why the middle-lower class get taxed heavier than the upper class... they don't want ownership of anything they put their time into, earning.

 Thats quite the leap in logic there now isn't it.

Regardless I don't think we will ever own it.  We just pay for services, or rent the item.  However that doesn't mean we aren't entitled to some rights.

Venge

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

 

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share."

 

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

 

 

 

 

{mod edit}

But in light of the actual topic, I can deffinitly see why companies hold the rights when it comes to banning players, if you don't fallow the code of conduct yeah you'll get kicked.

BUT when it come to games with cash shops, I do think you should be able to sell your account/ items with no problem. 

 The leap in logic is not that middle class is taxed heavier.  The leap in logic is that a poll about a video game and owning rights to characters in a video in which at the time this was posted 9 people had voted somehow equates to owning rights, taxes, property and eveyrthing else in the real world and can be extrapolated to the general population, or that that this poll in a video game forum means that they do not want ownership rights in the real world.  That is a massive logical fallacy.

{mod edit}

Venge

yeah I totaly agree, it wasn't even a leap in logic...but not on topic at all. But I didn't want some "fact" to go unchecked. Hence the reason I posted what I did.

I get kinda tired of people thinking that the rich get away with everything and the poor carry the burden and whatnot. So I try to help inform people.

But ON topic, I really do think that we should have resale rights to virtul items (sp?)

Originally posted by Dewm

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share."

 

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

 

 

Totally off topic, but 33.7 percent is peanuts when your portfolio is worth more than the GDP of several nation states.

Speaking for the countless multitudes who thanklessly toil 40+ hours a week to ensure your roads are paved, groceries are delivered, and 911 calls are responded to--and have less to show for it over the course of a year than a hedge fund manager earns by the hour--I have ZERO sympathy for the ultra-wealthy who complain the lowest tax rate this country has seen in over sixty years is still too high while begruding the less fortunate affordable health care and food stamps.

Am I jealous? Am I promoting "class warfare"?? You're darn tootin' I am.

¡Viva la Revolución!

(P.S.: 66.3% > 33.7%, just sayin'. ) 

Blizzard will be required by law to turn over financial information to the IRS about these transactions, just like Ebay/Paypal have to do.

Sorry Dewm I apologize.  I thought you were referring to me on your post.

Venge

Basically, we'll never see ownership of our virtual goods unless the developing company states it as so, like Eutopia Online. However, you bring up a good point that most if not all MMO's have no disclaimer printed on the box that says you may lose your game you paid for if banned. So, technically, Blizzard or any other MMO company must either refund banned accounts or start printing a disclaimer that notifies the consumer of that possibility.

Wonder if this would actually be a possible lawsuit...