ON OUTSOURCING GAME-PLAYING TO CHINA AND THE BIGGER GAME

WHILE AWAY THE HOURS

The New York Times has a terrific story on a cottage industry developing around the $3.6 billion online gaming industry, with affluent gamers outsourcing the menial parts of the games to Chinese workers who earn $250 a month or more.  As the article notes:

"Every day, in 12-hour shifts, they "play" computer games by killing onscreen monsters and winning battles, harvesting artificial gold coins and other virtual goods as rewards that, as it turns out, can be transformed into real cash.

That is because, from Seoul to San Francisco, affluent online gamers who lack the time and patience to work their way up to the higher levels of gamedom are willing to pay the young Chinese here to play the early rounds for them."

On the surface the article suggests the extreme edges of an affluent society paying others to "play" for them.  As this post in Furd Log notes:

"...the circularity reminds me of science fiction stories where the machine productivity led to a glut of products that could only be absorbed by teaching the machines not only to produce, but also to consume, the goods they made."

One can almost imagine what's next.  Mainstream online gamers over here paying Chinese and Indian players to live their virtual lives for them in various versions of the Sims Online, which has it's own set of everyday drudgery that players must "live" through to get ahead in virtual life.  Rich irony there too, people in the developing world working in a virtual developed world, so that can earn their way to a real developed world life for themselves and their families...I can almost see the movie.

Is this cheating in the eyes of other players who earn their gold, their living, their points, the "honest" and "honorable" way, by spending real chunks of their "real" lives on these efforts of "leisure"?  What are the ethical lines here?

Back in May, in a post titled "On playing PC/console games and having a life", I noted:

"It's near on impossible to figure out how to stay on top of the best games, play them, and have a semblance of a normal life."

This is increasingly applying to online games as well.  As I suggested then and repeat now, the gaming industry needs to recognize that mainstream gamers would welcome measures that the industry could take to offer more time-saving conveniences in games, both online and off.

The NY Times article suggests that some of their customers may even pay significant dollars for the "convenience" features, which the industry seems to be missing out on.

The other aspect of the article important to note is that "virtual economies" are becoming more real in terms of actual dollars and cents. 

Already many young players are starting to make serious money playing games in competitions on TV, both here and overseas.  It's an emerging career path for kids with these skill sets.

Recently, a mainstream gamer paid $100,000 in real cash for virtual real estate (a space station, no less) in an online game. 

He views it as an investment that could actually result $1.6 million a year, again in real cash, as other online players pay him to rent and use this real estate in various aspects of the game. 

Whether he makes those returns or not, one thing is clear.  Online games are not just for geeks wasting their lives anymore, but in increasing cases, a place to earn livelihoods and real returns on investment.

When some parts of the gaming industry stops being just a consumption industry and instead morphs into an industry that allows some of it's customers to make money as well, we should take note. 

As I've noted before, the best Internet models to date have been the ones that have empowered folks to make money as well as spend money online, with eBay and Google being the archetypal examples, not to mention PartyGaming outside our shores.

There's gold in them thar virtual hills.

Comments

[Brian Whitener]

For a different take on Gold Farming check out our lengthy November article about the same topic:
Gold Farming