Some people hate virtual goods

[Drakim]

Have you ever heard somebody rage over effort and resources put into virtual things in video games? (I just did and thus made this topic)

Maybe it's somebody using real dollars to buy World of Warcraft gold so they can get that epic helmet that their night elf dude can wear. Or maybe it's second life, where virtual goods actually work a lot like real goods. You can design them and sell them for money. Or maybe a player is simply putting ungodly effort into something that appears quite silly from the outside. Or maybe a couple gets married, and has the ceremony inside a game rather than in a real life location.

I'm sure there are lots of old professors and authors calling it the incoming doom of our world. Mostly old people who don't like the younger generation at all, with their punk hairstyles and disregard for authority.

I'm here to say that being mad at these things is utter bullshit.

You see, we love our vanity. Just go to a shopping district, into a jewelery store. There you can find a diamond ring for a ridiculous price. And a diamond ring is fucking useless. Sure, the person you give it to may put personal value in that it's so pricey and rare, but the fact is that there is no real usage for a diamond ring. A diamond ring in real life is just as useless as diamond ring inside a game.

And yet nobody complains over the diamond rings. Nobody talks about how our society is obsessed over "things that doesn't really matter" when it comes to things as long as they are physical. It's as if it's only reasonable to buy junk if it actually takes up physical space. They only be dissin' our computas yo!

We have tons of things in our lives that are utterly useless and serves no practical usage, but we justify it because it's important on a personal level. That diamond ring symbolizes a marriage, and is thus important.

But if that's the case, what the fuck is wrong with virtual goods?

[LordJaric]

A real diamond ring can hurt like hell if you get hit by one, a virtual ring doesn't.

[sharpnova]

There is no real difference between virtual goods and what you call "real" goods. In truth, virtual goods are just as "real" to begin with.

The disparity is caused by people who lack the intellectual capacity and abstraction level necessary to understand that physical properties are arbitrary. It may stimulate different senses but so what? That's a pointless argument since theoretically you could give a computer olfactory and tactile feedback. Both of them cause mental stimulation and "real" objects are made up of electrons and virtual data fundamentally consists of: electrons.

In terms of the age of human civilization, virtual reality is a new concept. Therefore people are still having a hard time assimilating it into their world view.

Our perception is completely a function of how it stimulates our neural network. Which areas of the brain light up and influence that ever-deterministic process that drives thought and feeling. Since a sufficiently sophisticated virtual tool can stimulate our brain via all the same senses that matter tools can, there is effectively zero difference unless you tell yourself there is. And in that case, you're just lying to yourself.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/6/10 02:08 PM, LordJaric wrote: A real diamond ring can hurt like hell if you get hit by one

Or if you buy one...

[TheSongSalad]

At 10/6/10 02:30 PM, sharpnova wrote: There is no real difference between virtual goods and what you call "real" goods. In truth, virtual goods are just as "real" to begin with.

The disparity is caused by people who lack the intellectual capacity and abstraction level necessary to understand that physical properties are arbitrary. It may stimulate different senses but so what? That's a pointless argument since theoretically you could give a computer olfactory and tactile feedback. Both of them cause mental stimulation and "real" objects are made up of electrons and virtual data fundamentally consists of: electrons.

In terms of the age of human civilization, virtual reality is a new concept. Therefore people are still having a hard time assimilating it into their world view.

Our perception is completely a function of how it stimulates our neural network. Which areas of the brain light up and influence that ever-deterministic process that drives thought and feeling. Since a sufficiently sophisticated virtual tool can stimulate our brain via all the same senses that matter tools can, there is effectively zero difference unless you tell yourself there is. And in that case, you're just lying to yourself.

Calling people who disagree with you stupid doesn't solve anything. Your argument seems to consist of 'if it's real to you, it's real', which fails if you consider things like reproduction and food. Yes, the food tastes just the same, but you'll still die of hunger, and the sex may be great, but no one gets pregnant. Virtual reality is fine when there doesn't need to be a real world consequence of your actions, but saying someone disagrees with you because they 'lack the intellectual capacity' to understand you're right is the height of arrogance, and extremely stupid in its own right. I'm not trying to make this personal, but someone is always smarter than you, just as someone is always smarter than me; and because of that, assuming there can't be a way in which you're wrong is setting yourself up for disaster.

[AapoJoki]

Real diamond rings are worse than virtual diamond rings. The process of making a diamond ring takes up earth's resources and quite possibly exploits mine workers in Liberia or Sierra Leone. Online vanity is much more harmless than real life vanity.

[Chris-V2]

The issue I have with virtual goods comes in the form of iTunes, Steam etc. I like to own a hard copy of everything I pay money for - I don't want to be left at the mercy of a large company and I'd like to be able to do with the files whatever I deem acceptable.

The issue of virtual ownership in games has lead to murders and asuch money shouldn't be invested in these sort of things because if we lose it it's outside of our control - and nothing pisses people off more than that. I'm not saying it should be banned, it's just a dumb fucking thing to do.

[TDwizBang]

At 10/6/10 04:41 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Real diamond rings are worse than virtual diamond rings. The process of making a diamond ring takes up earth's resources and quite possibly exploits mine workers in Liberia or Sierra Leone. Online vanity is much more harmless than real life vanity.

that may have been the case in the 20th century but most diamonds sold today are man-made diamonds... thats why in the last 10 years you might have seen the commercials on the TV showing a bunch of diamonds on a necklace for cheap... nowadays if you want a real natural diamond you have to special order it and depending on what part of the world you live in you are most likely getting a Russian Diamond since they opened the reserves in 2002 and the west dosnt want blood diamonds anymore.

another reason why you most likely are getting a diamond from Russia is that they have so many from hoarding and not selling for so long it is easier to get matching pairs and flawless diamonds in an assortment of sizes and colors not to mention that Russian lapidarists (gem cutters) can have it on a plane in a matter of hours...

[SteveGuzzi]

At 10/6/10 02:04 PM, Drakim wrote: And yet nobody complains over the diamond rings. Nobody talks about how our society is obsessed over "things that doesn't really matter" when it comes to things as long as they are physical.

people complain about the stupidity of pointless materialism all the time.

They only be dissin' our computas yo!

nahh. it's just another thing to rant about.

[tehmaster690]

At 10/6/10 06:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: The issue of virtual ownership in games has lead to murders and asuch money shouldn't be invested in these sort of things because if we lose it it's outside of our control - and nothing pisses people off more than that. I'm not saying it should be banned, it's just a dumb fucking thing to do.

So you're saying that if you lose something in real life it's completely inside your control too?

No, not quite. Sure, if you lose a diamond ring, you can try to get it back. But more often than not, once it's out of your hands, it's gone for good. And, to be honest, I don't know about you, but I'd be more pissed and emotionally effected by losing a 2000 dollar diamond ring than losing the 30 dollar investment I put into my virtual farm.

Besides that, thousands of people get killed each day over burglaries and home invasion. I didn't look it up, but I'm fairly certain that's a wee bit more than stories you hear on the news about a crazy motherfucker shooting up someone over an internet debate or something.

[EclecticEnnui]

At 10/6/10 06:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: The issue I have with virtual goods comes in the form of iTunes, Steam etc. I like to own a hard copy of everything I pay money for - I don't want to be left at the mercy of a large company and I'd like to be able to do with the files whatever I deem acceptable.

I frequently download songs from iTunes and I don't consider myself left at Apple's mercy. How is that possible? Frankly, you can do with the files what you want, as far as I know, like you can do what you want with a CD. You can delete the files and you can destroy a CD, which you probably won't do, but it's possible.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/6/10 02:04 PM, Drakim wrote: You see, we love our vanity. Just go to a shopping district, into a jewelery store. There you can find a diamond ring for a ridiculous price. And a diamond ring is fucking useless. Sure, the person you give it to may put personal value in that it's so pricey and rare, but the fact is that there is no real usage for a diamond ring.

Nothing is inherently useful.

Value is derived from the utility provided by a good/service/whatever (plus it's scarcity).
Humans value certain things highly universally, such as food, and so food and things that enable us to obtain it are seen as useful.

(Some) people obviously derive happiness from diamond rings, and so they value it. Things like video games or sporting equipment are no more useful than diamond rings. The only reason they have any value is because they make people happy.

[Drakim]

At 10/7/10 07:27 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/6/10 02:04 PM, Drakim wrote: You see, we love our vanity. Just go to a shopping district, into a jewelery store. There you can find a diamond ring for a ridiculous price. And a diamond ring is fucking useless. Sure, the person you give it to may put personal value in that it's so pricey and rare, but the fact is that there is no real usage for a diamond ring.

Nothing is inherently useful.

Especially not your post.

lol, jk

Value is derived from the utility provided by a good/service/whatever (plus it's scarcity).
Humans value certain things highly universally, such as food, and so food and things that enable us to obtain it are seen as useful.

Did you really think I was giving some sort of universal value somehow inscribed into the very fabric of our reality to stuff like shovels and axes?

(Some) people obviously derive happiness from diamond rings, and so they value it. Things like video games or sporting equipment are no more useful than diamond rings. The only reason they have any value is because they make people happy.

Exactly. You are arguing the same thing as I am.

Lots of people think that we are too caught up in the virtual world, arguing it's a waste of time because things aren't "real" there.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/7/10 07:32 AM, Drakim wrote: Exactly. You are arguing the same thing as I am.

yeah I'm just elaborating I suppose.

At 10/6/10 04:41 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Real diamond rings are worse than virtual diamond rings. The process of making a diamond ring takes up earth's resources and quite possibly exploits mine workers in Liberia or Sierra Leone. Online vanity is much more harmless than real life vanity.

the fact that they agree to being subjected to this "exploitation" means that there were no (better) jobs avaliable, so as horrible as this exploitation may be, isn't it better than unemployment.

[Ravariel]

At 10/6/10 06:39 PM, TDwizBang wrote: that may have been the case in the 20th century but most diamonds sold today are man-made diamonds...

That is only true for diamond used in industrial tools such as drills, saws and sanders. Surrent technology cannot produce diamond pieces much larger than what looks like dust or sand to the naked eye. If you see a "diamond" necklace for cheap, it ain't diamond.

On topic, however, this idea of virtual vs actual goods and services is actually (lolpun) a large part of what will soon be the focus of my graduate study, and is something that fascinates sociologists like you wouldn't believe. The case of Second Life has been studied pretty heavily, but with the advent of things like Steam and cloud computing, the saturation of virtual goods and services is ever-increasing... and bring with it both the good and the bad.

The good: accessability. With access to any and all of your data stored in the cloud, you can use it anywhere without needing to carry your computer with you. Safety: Data isn't gone when your cat pees on the surge protector and fries your HD. Distributability: through Steam, you no longer have to produce a physical thing in order to sell your data. No disk, no cover, no box, no artwork, no booklet... all of these save the producer money and allow littler guys to get cool stuff out to us, the consumer.

The bad: Safety (yep, in both columns). Access to your data is in the hands of a third party whose competence is difficult to discern due to the highly technical nature of the beast. Tangibility: there's something to be said for having a physical product in hand as evidence of your ownership. When a glitch in the matrix (or RRoD, etc) can wipe out all evidence of ownership of data, that can cause problems. Perception: people still see virtual goods as less-real (and thus less useful and less valuable and less desirable) than actual goods, which hampers the growth of the medium as well as it's safety checks and balances.

Nevermind the conflicting ideas of intellectual property when putting an idea of your own into the cloud.

[poxpower]

Who gives a fuck if it's "virtual"? Your enjoyment of tha good is what matters.

You pay money for virtual things that bring you joy and one of the ways in which something can bring you joy is EXCLUSIVITY. Being the only guy with THE HAMMER OF FURY is fucking AWESOME. The hammer isn't real, but the fact that you're the only guy with it IS real. And sweeeeeeeeet.

You're just buying status and priviledges, not "virtual items".

So yeah I wouldn't understand how anyone could be driven crazy by this, must less interested by it. Where's the mystery here?
?

[blue-ice-cube]

well you make a very valid point. To me jewelry is useless I don't give a shit about how rare it is, I'm just never gonna use it or wear it. I'll admit it right now I'm a sucker for virtual goods seeing as how I got a runescape membership. To me that membership is worth more than any stupid stone will ever be simply because it's more useful.

[yurgenburgen]

At this point in time, the value of (what we can refer to as) "real life" goods is greater than the value of virtual goods, because real life goods whether you acknowledge it or not have much higher use and exchange values than virtual goods.

When you use a diamond ring as an example, it's easy to say that a diamond ring in real life is worth no more than a diamond ring inside a video game. If that were true, you'd be just as happy with a virtual diamond ring as you would with a real one. Now to myself, both items would be equally useless in terms of what I personally would use them for, however the exchange value of the real life diamond ring is practically infinitely higher because I can sell it to someone else who considers it to have a high use value (i.e., someone who wants to give it to their wife).

I agree with you that getting mad over what other people spend their money on is, for the most part, fairly pointless and stupid.

[Drakim]

At 10/8/10 04:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: At this point in time, the value of (what we can refer to as) "real life" goods is greater than the value of virtual goods, because real life goods whether you acknowledge it or not have much higher use and exchange values than virtual goods.

No it doesn't.

Some physical goods have better use than some virtual goods. For instance, a pizza in the real world can keep your physical body from dying, while a pizza in-game is just a "power-up" of some kind.

But this doesn't mean that universally all physical goods are more worth than all virtual goods. For instance, what the fuck do you need a sword in real life for these days? For self defense, it suck, you aren't allowed to bring it downtown anyway, and so on. A sword in the virtual world might help you in an array of ways, depending on what the sword does. Being strong because of the sword might help you socialize, or a number of different things. In such a case, the virtual sword is the superior product.

Making blanket statements about the worth of physical and virtual goods is just.....you can't do it.

When you use a diamond ring as an example, it's easy to say that a diamond ring in real life is worth no more than a diamond ring inside a video game. If that were true, you'd be just as happy with a virtual diamond ring as you would with a real one. Now to myself, both items would be equally useless in terms of what I personally would use them for, however the exchange value of the real life diamond ring is practically infinitely higher because I can sell it to someone else who considers it to have a high use value (i.e., someone who wants to give it to their wife).

And you can't sell it in-game? Heck, I'd argue it would be easier to lose it or damage it in real life, thus making the virtual ring superior, if they are both worth equally much.

[gumOnShoe]

I don't find a problem with virtual goods, but they might be an unwise investment for a lot of people. If you have disposable income, why not? Gambling is very much a virtual good since all of the games are rigged, and that is where he inherent hatred comes from. People see it as a waste because nothing is produced. They don't acknowledge the entertainment value assigned by the person. Its the same with games & movies if you think about it. Functionally those aren't going to look like smart purchases if you are trying to gain money/resources/power an economy, but if the economy is strong enough you'll probably have enough spare cash for that stuff anyway.

Can virtual goods be bad? Definitely. I think the fact that children who have no idea what a dollar is worth are often the buyers of such goods probably could be the center of a bunch of arguments, especially with parents on the hook for the bill. Ultimately, that's a family issue and isn't really political. The only real issue with virtual goods is copyright & ownership. Can you copy your goods? do you have the right to keep them forever? What happens if the site hosting them shuts down? Did you ever really own the item? These are issues that need to be settled by law eventually, but irrational hatred is unjustified. Skepticism, however, is probably moderately good.

[yurgenburgen]

At 10/8/10 05:56 AM, Drakim wrote: No it doesn't.

Yes, they do. The use/exchange value of a real life diamond ring is higher than that of a virtual one because the virtual diamond ring only has any use/exchange value to people who play that particular game, while the real life diamond ring can be used/exchanged by anybody.

Notice the first part of my post where I said "at this point in time". I was not suggesting that the value of a real life item will always be higher than the value of a virtual item, but that right now the idea of virtual items having some sort of real life value is a relatively new concept, which is why the vast majority of the population hasn't taken to it yet, hence why the values of virtual items are typically much lower.

Some physical goods have better use than some virtual goods. For instance, a pizza in the real world can keep your physical body from dying, while a pizza in-game is just a "power-up" of some kind.

Correct.

But this doesn't mean that universally all physical goods are more worth than all virtual goods. For instance, what the fuck do you need a sword in real life for these days?

I didn't say they were. I said that at this point in time, real life goods have much higher use and exchange values than virtual goods. This is a fact. When you say, for example, that a virtual sword could potentially be worth more (in terms of both monetary value as well as in-game-collection value), you are not comparing 'a sword' with 'another sword'. You are comparing a sword with a bunch of computer code.

...In such a case, the virtual sword is the superior product.

Superior only to someone who considers a virtual sword's ability to help them socialise more important than a physical sword's use and exchange value. As it happens, a lot of people use swords in various forms of martial arts. One of the swords they use might sell for a few thousand dollars, while elsewhere a virtual sword could sell for $20,000, but overall right now at this point in time, the market for real swords is much bigger than the market for virtual swords, which is why it is not only safe but completely accurate to state that real life swords currently have a much higher value than virtual swords.

Making blanket statements about the worth of physical and virtual goods is just.....you can't do it.

Physical goods are currently worth much more than virtual goods. As technology evolves this is likely to change somewhat, but right now, physical > virtual.

And you can't sell it in-game?

Yes. You can sell a virtual diamond ring in-game, but the value of a physical diamond ring is much higher than that of a virtual one because there is a much bigger market for real diamond rings rather than virtual ones. The whole concept of "value" comes from people having some sort of want for a particular item or product.

I am not suggesting that you couldn't sell a virtual diamond ring in-game to someone across the country and possibly make a lot of money for it. In my first post I made it clear that we are talking about the value of goods at this point in time and the comparison of use/exchange value between physical ("real life") goods and virtual goods overall.

Heck, I'd argue it would be easier to lose it or damage it in real life, thus making the virtual ring superior, if they are both worth equally much.

Something that can be lost or damaged (or indeed stolen) becomes a precious commodity over time. Something that is just 'always there' mysteriously doesn't.

[AapoJoki]

One of the risks with virtual goods is that the service provider may sometimes change mechanics of obtaining such items, which might affect their value drastically. I remember a couple of years ago in Final Fantasy XI (haters gonna hate) there was an item called Thief's Knife. Obtaining it was very difficult. I don't remember whether monster that dropped it required something special to spawn or whether it was just a very rare drop (or both), but in any case these items were so priced that people auctioned them in-game for like 40 million gil. Then one day, Square Enix released an update that modified the drop rate of this item and made it much easier to obtain. Its price dropped in a couple of weeks to something like 500,000 gil.

If you had the knife pre-update, chances are you either spent hours upon hours every day to camp the monster or else spent years levelling up your crafting skills so you could afford to buy it. And after all this hard work, 99% of its worth was suddenly squandered.

At 10/7/10 07:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: the fact that they agree to being subjected to this "exploitation" means that there were no (better) jobs avaliable, so as horrible as this exploitation may be, isn't it better than unemployment.

The mine workers I was referring to are slave laborers working for the benefit of a totalitarian state or a rebellious warlord. That's the situation with diamond mining in Sierra Leone and Liberia. If I had just meant low wages, I could have just as well mentioned South Africa.

[Drakim]

At 10/8/10 07:31 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/8/10 05:56 AM, Drakim wrote: No it doesn't.

Yes, they do. The use/exchange value of a real life diamond ring is higher than that of a virtual one because the virtual diamond ring only has any use/exchange value to people who play that particular game, while the real life diamond ring can be used/exchanged by anybody.

Bullshit. Diamond rings don't have one definitive cost. A diamond ring might cost a couple of ten thousand dollars, or a million dollars. It varies greatly. This is the thing that decides the value of a diamond ring.

If you buy a virtual diamond ring for five million dollars, and I buy a physical diamond ring for fifteen million dollars, then you have the most valuable diamond ring. The fact that mine is physical might be convenient for me in my situation, but it doesn't mean shit for the actual value of the ring.

But let's be fair, let's say we buy an equally expensive diamond ring each. One virtual for one million dollars, and one physical for one million dollars. Now, which one is the most valuable?

They are equally valuable purely in terms of market price unless the prices flux. Any sort of judgement about how the physical or virtual ring is more valuable past it's price is a subjective call, and thus cannot be properly translated into real market value for the ring. I could say that "the game that this virtual ring is inside sucks" and it would definitly mean that the virtual ring isn't very valuable to me, but as far as value as a diamond ring, it's still one million dollars.

Notice the first part of my post where I said "at this point in time". I was not suggesting that the value of a real life item will always be higher than the value of a virtual item, but that right now the idea of virtual items having some sort of real life value is a relatively new concept, which is why the vast majority of the population hasn't taken to it yet, hence why the values of virtual items are typically much lower.

Then you should have used nice words like "on average" or something to that effect. Look at what you wrote:

At 10/8/10 04:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: At this point in time, the value of (what we can refer to as) "real life" goods is greater than the value of virtual goods, because real life goods whether you acknowledge it or not have much higher use and exchange values than virtual goods.

You very clearly say that the value of "real life" goods are greater than the value of "virtual goods".

And this is just wrong. If I buy something for 100$ in a game, and you buy something for 100$ in real life, we are both sitting on an equally valuable thing. The fact that mine is virtual does not change this. The minuses of it being virtual are already taken account to into the price, one might say (provided I actually bought it at the market price)

Maybe you didn't mean to make such a blanket statement, and if so, that's fine, just a misunderstanding.

But this doesn't mean that universally all physical goods are more worth than all virtual goods. For instance, what the fuck do you need a sword in real life for these days?

I didn't say they were.

Actually, you sorta did, but it was a misunderstanding, so nevermind.

I said that at this point in time, real life goods have much higher use and exchange values than virtual goods. This is a fact.

Some real life goods have higher value than some virtual goods, But there also exists virtual goods which have higher value than real life goods.

I'm sure we can measure this and establish that real life goods on average has a higher market value but that does not justify making a blanket statement saying "at this point of time, real life goods have a much higher use and exchange value than virtual goods", because it implies....well, exactly what it says, that "real life goods have a much higher value", when this is not always the case.

If I tell you that Jews are smarter than the rest of the population, you know that is a false statement. Jews are perhaps on average more educated and smarter, but making a blanket statement about Jews being smarter is just wrong. You could easily find a Jew that isn't smarter than the rest of the population, which would prove the statement false.

When you say, for example, that a virtual sword could potentially be worth more (in terms of both monetary value as well as in-game-collection value), you are not comparing 'a sword' with 'another sword'. You are comparing a sword with a bunch of computer code.

And a real life sword is just a bunch of atoms. The only reason these atoms has any value is because we, the humans, have decided that this pattern of atoms represents a sword and it's valuable to us.

Virtual goods are exactly as real as you allow them to be. If everybody thinks that a virtual sword is a sword for market purposes, then it pretty much IS a sword in that context.

...In such a case, the virtual sword is the superior product.

Superior only to someone who considers a virtual sword's ability to help them socialise more important than a physical sword's use and exchange value.

If you understand this, why is it so hard for you to understand that ALL value works like this, and therefore ALL things can both valuable and not valuable, without actually the thing itself changing or having a property like virtual or physical? A virtual diamond ring in a game can be worth anything from zero dollars to a billion dollars, depending not on the diamond ring, but on how interested people are in these virtual diamond rings in this game.

A real life sword is just a lump of metal until we decide that it's worth something. Exactly the same with the virtual sword. You seem to be arguing that despite that people decided that a virtual sword in a game was worth 1000$ and that a physical sword was worth 1000$, that the physical sword is worth more somehow. I don't get it.

As it happens, a lot of people use swords in various forms of martial arts. One of the swords they use might sell for a few thousand dollars, while elsewhere a virtual sword could sell for $20,000, but overall right now at this point in time, the market for real swords is much bigger than the market for virtual swords, which is why it is not only safe but completely accurate to state that real life swords currently have a much higher value than virtual swords.

Considering how big MMOs are these days and how unpopular martial arts with swords are, I'm not so sure, but let's not go that way. We aren't really talking about the actual value of swords, virtual or physical, but we were merely using them as an example.

Don't misunderstand me, I get what you were trying to say, that our world, being a bit old fashioned, currently today places more worth on physical goods on average.

But this is only relevant when we are talking about dealing in a big market. Say, if I buy 1000 virtual swords and plan to sell them on the virtual market, this information might be vital to me.

But if I'm gonna buy a virtual diamond ring to my girlfriend, the only opinion that matters is hers. If she values it more than a physical diamond ring, then clearly the virtual diamond ring has more value.

Something that can be lost or damaged (or indeed stolen) becomes a precious commodity over time. Something that is just 'always there' mysteriously doesn't.

Meh, I think these two factors are very small compared to supply and demand. If there only exists a few virtual diamond rings in a game, it won't matter that they are "always there".

[yurgenburgen]

At 10/8/10 10:51 AM, Drakim wrote: Bullshit. Diamond rings don't have one definitive cost.

I said that right now, the use/exchange value of a physical diamond ring is a lot higher than that of a virtual one. In no way did I say that physical diamond rings have some sort of pre-determined value.

A diamond ring might cost a couple of ten thousand dollars, or a million dollars. It varies greatly. This is the thing that decides the value of a diamond ring.

What decides the value of a diamond ring, or any commodity, is its perceived importance from the point of view of the consumer. "What can it be used for?" / "What can it be exchanged for?"

If you buy a virtual diamond ring for five million dollars, and I buy a physical diamond ring for fifteen million dollars, then you have the most valuable diamond ring.

... why? Why is a cheaper, virtual ring automatically somehow more valuable than a physical, more expensive one?

The fact that mine is physical might be convenient for me in my situation, but it doesn't mean shit for the actual value of the ring.

The value of any product is determined on what it can be used for and what it can be exchanged for. At this point in time, when physical diamond rings happen to have much higher use and exchange values than virtual ones, their market value is higher.

But let's be fair, let's say we buy an equally expensive diamond ring each. One virtual for one million dollars, and one physical for one million dollars. Now, which one is the most valuable?

The one which can be used and/or exchanged to greater effect. This depends on a number of things such as the location where this is all happening, the market value for either item, etc. As it happens, in this day and age, a physical diamond ring is typically much more valuable as a commodity than a virtual one.

They are equally valuable purely in terms of market price unless the prices flux.

They aren't at all. Just because one person is willing to spend a million dollars on a virtual ring, this does not mean that there is a market out there that is equal to that of a physical diamond ring. In the example you came up with, you failed to state whether or not we are talking about a time and place where demand for physical and virtual diamond rings is split 50/50 down the middle. I presumed we were talking about the here and now (a.k.a. "reality").

Any sort of judgement about how the physical or virtual ring is more valuable past it's price is a subjective call, and thus cannot be properly translated into real market value for the ring.

So if the market value of a commodity isn't based on human subjectivity (its perceived use/exchange value), how do businesses decide what prices to charge for their products? Do they just randomly pull numbers out of the air?

An item's market value is based entirely on the demand for it, and the demand for a product stems from humans making a subjective call on whether or not it is needed.

You very clearly say that the value of "real life" goods are greater than the value of "virtual goods".

Because they are.

And this is just wrong.

In that case, prove it by taking all the money you would ordinarily spend on groceries and spend it instead on Farm Cash.

If I buy something for 100$ in a game, and you buy something for 100$ in real life, we are both sitting on an equally valuable thing.

Can the $100 worth of virtual stuff you bought be used and or exchanged in order to acquire exactly the same as what I can with what I bought? If so, they are of equal value. If not, they are not of equal value.

If everybody thinks that a virtual sword is a sword for market purposes, then it pretty much IS a sword in that context.

However at this point in time virtual items do not have the same market value as physical items and no amount of pseudophilosophy is going to change this fact. As technology progresses and more and more people become accustomed to trading in virtual goods then perhaps one day the market values of both physical and virtual items will be split down the middle.

Personally I don't believe this will ever happen because virtual items are much easier to duplicate than physical items, but that is another matter.

If you understand this, why is it so hard for you to understand that ALL value works like this, and therefore ALL things can both valuable and not valuable, without actually the thing itself changing or having a property like virtual or physical?

I do understand that. I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise. What I am saying is that virtual items do not hold the same use/exchange/market value as physical items because they have less use, can only be exchanged for less, and their market is limited to only those who take part in particular online activities. This might change in the future, but for the time being, it is an undeniable fact.

Don't misunderstand me, I get what you were trying to say, that our world, being a bit old fashioned, currently today places more worth on physical goods on average.

That's not old-fashioned. If I wanted to build a house to keep me and my family out of the snow, I wouldn't be looking to buy virtual power tools to build it with.

But if I'm gonna buy a virtual diamond ring to my girlfriend, the only opinion that matters is hers. If she values it more than a physical diamond ring, then clearly the virtual diamond ring has more value.

Higher use value, in that single case. Not necessarily a higher exchange value.

[Drakim]

At 10/8/10 06:32 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: ... why? Why is a cheaper, virtual ring automatically somehow more valuable than a physical, more expensive one?

Big typo by me. I meant a five million dollar ring vs a fifteen thousand dollar ring. Sorry about that.

Anyways, I don't really think I disagree with you that much. It's mostly schematics and different usage of words. I typed up a long reply to you but it felt a bit lackluster so I deleted it. Have a good day onwards.