An equal jumping off point, where progression is based on merit, skill, and persistence more than luck or initial status. People treasure MMOs because they're a fresh start, a place where everyone begins at the first step and determines their own status thereafter. This is perhaps an idealistic view of a game world, but it is certainly an attractive one to anyone who perhaps isn't top-of-the-ladder in real life. Proponents of this concept feel that RMT muddies the water, allowing someone to simply buy their way to success in-game through real-life success. Whether this is true, or even a bad thing, is completely subjective.
And yet on the other side of the fence are game developers (in this case more the publishing side than the coding side) who see a great opportunity in RMT, exactly because if the opportunity to buy your way to success is available, many people will use it. RMT is undeniably lucrative, when implemented correctly, as evidenced by the number of games running completely off of RMT income, as well as the increasing number of games supplementing subscription/advertising income with RMT options.
Personally, I don't believe there is a catch-all response to RMT. While I believe an industry based entirely around using out-of-game funds to purchase your in-game way to success would be perhaps the worst thing that could happen, I also recognize RMT as an opportunity for existing games to expand themselves, and new (often independent) games to get off the ground without a formalized subscription system.
There are dangers, of course, in mixing real and digital currency, as evidenced by the RMT "black market" that exists mostly within games that don't formally allow and regulate RMT. Once someone begins to base their livelihood upon earning in-game assets to sell for real-life money, staying within the rules of the game becomes much less apparent. Certainly, people see spammers in general channels desperately trying to sell their goods for cash, but the less-openly-visible effects aren't usually discussed. Hacking and cheating is far more prevalent with someone playing the game to make an income than with someone playing the game with the intent to have fun and participate in the community (see the social contract theory article). When one's sole incentive is to gain at any cost, we see things like 24/7 camping by bots, market inflation by constant farming* (there is a misconception here, I'll get back to it), spamming, harassment, and thievery. This grief is further exacerbated by the fact that many companies take a hard stance against unauthorized RMT and will quickly punish both accounts that took part in the transaction. The problem being, as discussed above, that the RMT farmer has no social attachment to their character, and can simply start anew, while the buyer (who, admittedly, shouldn't be breaking the rules) loses everything.
However, those who despise RMT are too quick to overlook the benefits it has brought to the industry. As I mentioned above, many a game has blossomed in the past decade because RMT offers an incredibly cheap way to enter the market and earn revenue on a very short timescale (microtransactions). Additionally, one would hope that with more revenue flowing into game company coffers, at least a portion of this would be reinvested in the game, allowing for more content and support for even those who don't use RMT (opponents would claim that this money is pocketed).
But the past few months have shown me a side of RMT that I believe is vastly overlooked: it is an incredible vehicle for charity. At its core, people don't give to charity precisely because it is what it says on the tin: giving. It is human nature not to want to give something for nothing. We have tax incentives, of course, and other small benefits (a free tote!), intended to make people feel that charity is more worthwhile. Obviously a company could not "Sell inventory for charity", simply because they'd be out the cost of the inventory and would themselves be making a donation. The difference with digital goods, however, is that they're zero-cost to make, and can be made incredibly desirable.
EverQuest, for instance, recently put a couple of charity items in their microtransactions store. Just a couple little "fun" magic items: A teddy bear you can hug and a doll. Buying the bear contributed the $5 (500 station cash) value to charity, and was generously matched by SoE (a $10 donation in all). Buying the doll donated to the popular children's charity-by-gamers Child's Play.
Lets examine the equation here (ignoring the matching for now, that was just generosity on the side of a company).
Player - Gets an in-game good he or she considers worth $5.
Charity cause - Gets $5
Game company - Gets a happier player, but no money.
Thing is, there is no -$5 to create that bear, not even a -$0.50, because digital goods create value almost from thin air. $5 in cash just got turned into $10 in value (possibly more, if the game company somehow accounts for the fact that the player is more likely to stick with a game they bought assets in).
I can't be the only one simply amazed by this. Let us stop ignoring the elephant in the room for a moment and consider what would happen if WoW (which I use for the sake of massive population) were to offer a completely unique stacking effect that gave each player some sort of small effective boost. What if WoW proceeded to offer this effect at $5 in some sort of microtransaction store, with the benefits going to charity? Ten million dollars would go to charity within a couple weeks, at nearly no cost to, well, anyone. Would there be some measure of drama over the incident? Of course, but I firmly believe that would be heavily outweighed by the fact that the money is saving lives and not simply lining pockets.
This post would not be complete without mentioning the tiny (but hugely significant) blurb that actually got me to write this out. CCP (the developers of EVE online) recently released the following statement:
Dear EVE Players,
Along with the rest of the world, we at CCP have been following the devastating impact of the earthquake of January 12 on the people of Haiti. The situation is as dire as ever for Haiti's brave population, even with the rush of goodwill and aid from many countries, international organizations and countless individuals-including many of you. In 2004 we assisted a collection amongst EVE players to help with the Southeast Asia Tsunami relief efforts and we have figured out a way to use our PLEX system to facilitate such a collection again...
Now, EVE's RMT system is worth an entire article by itself and I'll discuss it at a later date. But what this means in simple terms is that you can donate in-game money, basically have CCP convert it into cash, and send it to Haiti. Own a moon-mining operation in nullsec that brings in billions? That can save lives. Just score an awesome kill on some poor fellow's hauler full of goodies? That can put food in someone's mouth. Sure, the time->money exchange rate isn't great for most people, and they'd be "better off" picking up more hours at work and donating cash, but the issue here once again is that they get to do something they enjoy and make the world a better place at the same time.
That blows me away.
Join me next time in Part 2 of my discussion on RMT wherein I'll talk about what kind of RMT systems there are, what kind of games use each, which kinds are healthy, and which kinds aren't.
*The misconception in question is that many people believe if you buy currency, you're causing direct economic inflation. This can sometimes be the case if someone has found a way to duplicate money or is cheating to get it, but the vast majority of sold assets are acquired through gameplay. Money is simply changing hands, and this does not cause inflation. As much as I despise RMT in certain games, it irks me that people try to scapegoat it as the cause of every issue in a game when much of it is based off of economic principles that don't actually have anything to do with RMT.
