• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ethical Hypothetical I

Teja.

Global Moderator
It is late 2017. You are the owner of a gaming company with 13 employees behind a popular online subscription based game with 5 million subscribers, each of whom pay 7$ a month to play your game. Selling of in-game currency outside the game for real world money is against the rules of the game and the concerned player is IP banned immediately. Using bots to play repetitive aspects of the game when you are away from your keyboard to earn in-game currency also is against the rules and has the same consequences. The above two problems have caused you a great amount of grief in trying to solve in the past and you've had more success with the former than the latter. Increase in either completely **** up your game's economy, devalue items and cause people to unsubscribe.

Your fanbase is extremely loyal and 90% consists of people from the ages of 18-35. Your game has a democratic ethos where all updates have to be mooted and voted by more than 50% of the fanbase. There have been boycotts even when minor fixes are made without following this process.

The country of Venezuela is in complete economic collapse and is suffering from shortage of essential resources like food and water. Unemployment is default and the streets are unsafe with a huge spike in crime, specifically muggings/robbery. There is a humanitarian crisis going on with people dying of hunger everyday and people are afraid of boarding buses because they will be robbed.

Venezuelans take to grinding your game obsessively so they can sell the in-game currency and make 50$ish a week which is 3-4 times the average wage in Venezuela and can feed a small family.

A former Venezuelan gold farmer interviewed says:

“The truth is, there are people who, if they did not play, they could not eat and would die of hunger, I have friends who play daily, and if they do not play, they do not eat that day.”
Venezuelans make up 2% of your subscriber base but are accounting for 20% of your game's in-game hours spent and are 95% of the gold farming population. The average time spent in-game for the countrymen is 13 hours.

There's massive in-game resentment about the sudden increase in gold farmers and bots flooding the game. Players group up and devise ways to kill the gold farmers in-game, slow them down and get them banned and create elaborate guides around the activity. Among the players, there are a small but vocal minority whose problem is not with gold farmers but with Venezuelans. This causes huge media pressure against the company.

Your board comes to you with the following options:

I. Put all resources into better anti-gold farming farming software and implement it to ban all gold farmers when it becomes functional. This will take 6 months or so until it works and till then, you will have to suffer people leaving the game and unsubscribing. Your game's profit margin will go down by 50% for the next year. You will also face moderate media backlash due to acting this way at a time of humanitarian crisis.

II. Remove access to the game from Venezuela altogether (IP changing software does not exist in this hypothetical). This has been asked by the xenophobic section of your fanbase as well as other sections. This removes the vast majority of gold farmers while also hurting a few thousand regular players from the country. This is projected to maintain or slightly go above your standard profit margin for the next year. However, this will cause a massive media shitstorm, the consequences of which are unforeseeable and may turn off new subscribers.

III. Make a public announcement that you are conducting an inquiry and strict action will follow against gold farmers. Privately ask your team to not do anything against Venezuelan gold farmers for the next 6 months after which the situation can be reassessed. You are projected to run at a loss of 50% of your expenses for the next year with a lot of people unsubscribing. You have reserve and won't have to close the company but will have to downgrade and become a much smaller game after the wave.

IV. Make a public announcement that you are fully supporting the people of Venezuela and 10% of every subscription will go to a Venezuelan charity. Very discretely run software and ban goldfarmers as in option 1. Consequences are not certain.

V. Kill the gold farmers market by deciding to create in-game micro-transaction market where any player can buy in-game currency for real world cash on their website itself. Consequences are not certain.

What would you decide to do?
 
Last edited:

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Also, I don't think I'd follow any of these solutions/options to the letter, but the one that I would find most acceptable according to my own ethic would be IV
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
I'd probably tweak the in-game mechanics so that grinding for gold has diminishing returns. I'm not really seeing an ethical dilemma, I'm seeing a virtual-economy puzzle to solve. Probably says a lot about me as a person.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
I'd probably tweak the in-game mechanics so that grinding for gold has diminishing returns. I'm not really seeing an ethical dilemma, I'm seeing a virtual-economy puzzle to solve. Probably says a lot about me as a person.
That would make things worse though.

Firstly, to do that, you’d have to update the game to either progressively reduce profits from killing the same monster repeatedly or allow players to kill only x amount of monsters per day. So you’re essentially disincentiving players from playing longer than a specific period of time everyday and also artifically inflating prices in the market of the drops of the said monsters (the market functions very similar to a libertinism stock exchange). That would be seen as Jack Thompson-esque Nanny state update by the player base and would probably cause a bigger controversy than the current one. It would also make a bunch of inflated items out of reach to lower level players.

Additionally, the player base would never volountarily vote that in as per the ethos of the game do you’d have to force it in. That would also be a huge controversy about the violation of the democratic principles the game is based on and cause mass unsubscriptions.

Also, that wouldn’t avert the major incoming PR disaster at all because you’d be pissing off both progressive media and the populist playerbase/YouTube media.

Ftr, this is loosely the situation the problem is based on: https://kotaku.com/the-runescape-players-who-farm-gold-so-they-dont-starve-1819720013/amp
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
That would make things worse though.

Firstly, to do that, you’d have to update the game to either progressively reduce profits from killing the same monster repeatedly or allow players to kill only x amount of monsters per day. So you’re essentially disincentiving players from playing longer than a specific period of time everyday and also artifically inflating prices in the market of the drops of the said monsters (the market functions very similar to a libertinism stock exchange). That would be seen as Jack Thompson-esque Nanny state update by the player base and would probably cause a bigger controversy than the current one. It would also make a bunch of inflated items out of reach to lower level players.

Additionally, the player base would never volountarily vote that in as per the ethos of the game do you’d have to force it in. That would also be a huge controversy about the violation of the democratic principles the game is based on and cause mass unsubscriptions.

Also, that wouldn’t avert the major incoming PR disaster at all because you’d be pissing off both progressive media and the populist playerbase/YouTube media.

Ftr, this is loosely the situation the problem is based on: https://kotaku.com/the-runescape-players-who-farm-gold-so-they-dont-starve-1819720013/amp
OK so the details can be ironed out. The point is that there's an economic-structure solution.

What's the actual in-game problem with gold farming? Like, in what way does it make it less fun for everyone else?
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
OK so the details can be ironed out. The point is that there's an economic-structure solution.

What's the actual in-game problem with gold farming? Like, in what way does it make it less fun for everyone else?
Off the top of my head:

>Devalues the prices of items as there's a shitload of specific items flooding in on a constant basis to the grand exchange (stock market for all items in the game). In turn, wrecks the economy.

>There are limited spots in the game world at high profit zones. All of them disproportionately being occupied by co-ordinated rule-breaking gold farmers 16 hours a day makes the game less enjoyable for regular players who find it annoying and a chore. It's a bit like the dudes with fish + 1 seat softwares in online poker.

>Supports and reduces the cost of a parallel micro-transactions system where people can just buy in-game currency which devalues in-game currency and achievements as there a bunch of skills which require a lot of money but can be trained fast. In turn reduces the value of being high level in those skills to make specific items.
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
Off the top of my head:

>Devalues the prices of items as there's a shitload of specific items flooding in on a constant basis to the grand exchange (stock market for all items in the game). In turn, wrecks the economy.

>There are limited spots in the game world at high profit zones. All of them disproportionately being occupied by co-ordinated rule-breaking gold farmers 16 hours a day makes the game less enjoyable for regular players who find it annoying and a chore. It's a bit like the dudes with fish + 1 seat softwares in online poker.

>Supports and reduces the cost of a parallel micro-transactions system where people can just buy in-game currency which devalues in-game currency and achievements as there a bunch of skills which require a lot of money but can be trained fast. In turn reduces the value of being high level in those skills to make specific items.
Then I guess you need the anti-bot software too.

It's not really an ethical dilemma. If the in-game economy collapses then the Venezuelans will need to do something else for money anyway.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Then I guess you need the anti-bot software too.

It's not really an ethical dilemma. If the in-game economy collapses then the Venezuelans will need to do something else for money anyway.
Okay. Forget the ethics part. What do you think would be the best option for long term profits?
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
Okay. Forget the ethics part. What do you think would be the best option for long term profits?
I wouldn't want to forget the ethics part entirely.

But if I did, it's hard to beat microtransactions. There's billions to be made out of children that are addicted to gambling.
 

zorax

likes this
Option VI

Ignore the problem, do nothing about it, and release some cool new features to distract everyone instead.

If people can't appreciate how cool it is that the in-game mechanics are helping people stuck in a humanitarian crises survive day to day, then I don't want them playing my game

We have cash reserves and no one will lose their jobs. So we can survive losing some users. Heck, if anything I'd want us to sneakily lean into this and let the whole word know that by playing our game and spending money in our virtual economy that they're helping save lives. We might actually have an increase in users as a result.
 
Top