TheOneOmega
Elite
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Posts
- 3,099
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Marie TheOne Omega
It seems to me that we all struggle, to some extent, in our efforts to find the right words to succinctly describe the nature of Entropia, or more specifically, the facets of its nature which distinguish it from the myriad other products competing for our attention and/or money. What makes Entropia...Entropia? When you tell a newcomer that Entropia is an RCE, they might immediately grasp the significance of the concept intuitively, but what if they ask, "So what?" What is a deeper explanation for why being an RCE matters? Furthermore, many newcomers ask how Entropia, despite its flaws, has been successful in its market for longer than they've had the Internet. What explains Entropia's staying power?
After thirteen years of playing Entropia, my best shot at hoping to answer these basic questions is what I have coined "economic existentialism." Economists, crudely speaking, divide products and services into two very high level categories; consumption goods and capital goods. Again crudely, a consumption good is a good used to extract immediate utility, while a capital good is an investment used to make more goods and services. I believe that the significance and success of Entropia are very well explained by the observation that Entropia is designed and presented to the online public in such a way that its existence is established prior to its essence, with respect to this economic distinction, and consequently, all economic analysis attributable based on this distinction. To say that Entropia is a consumption good, or that Entropia is a capital good, gets this priority wrong. Thus, although I agree with much of what the thread creator says, I would reject the view that "Entropia is a game about making money" on the basis that it is much too narrow. I would insist on amending it to "Entropia is a game well-suited to being used to make money, but also well-suited to being used for mere entertainment value," or "Entropia is well-suited to being treated as a consumption good, a capital good, or any combination of the two the individual user sees fit." Entropia becomes a game about making money for and only for those users who choose to interact with it in that manner. I agree that Entropia grants to them the right to seek to make money, either exclusively or in tandem with seeking entertainment value, but it does not prescribe to them that they should seek to make money.
I would reject the opposite view, that Entropia prescribes to its users that they should care to engage in its professions (hunting, mining, crafting, etc.), using the same analysis. It seems to me that treating Entropia as a pure capital good and treating Entropia as a pure consumption good are just two ends of a wide spectrum, and that the primary value proposition of Entropia is presenting the spectrum itself to each individual who signs up for it. "I just want to make money from Entropia; I don't care about the entertainment value," "I just want to have fun with Entropia; I don't care about the money," "I mostly just have fun with Entropia but will withdraw if I leave the game," "I have fun making money in Entropia," "I don't expect to likely make money in Entropia but will responsibly attempt to hit a huge jackpot," and many, many other possible intentions are all equally valid. None of them are what Entropia is for, in the abstract; they are all what Entropia can become for any player at any time. The individual is free to dive into this spectrum at any point, swim around for a bit, and gradually or abruptly shift their perspective and treat Entropia as some new combination of consumption and investment. This extreme freedom is the perfect complement to the sandbox ideal Entropia aspires to instantiate.
Very few other products can deliver this special niche of value. One candidate might be housing; folks justify quality-of-life home improvements on the argument that it increases their property's resale value. Another might be casinos, where one can justify gambling risks by incorporating the utility of the fun they're having. Leaving the question of "why" to the reader's imagination (I have some ideas but this post is already long), I think most Entropians will agree that while mixing consumption and investment considerations in these other contexts often lends itself to making regrettable choices, Entropia is successful because it has succeeded at blending the two forms of utility potential effectively and seamlessly.
Now what about the question of defining "reseller" terminology? I see in practice criticisms of "reselling" that boil down to both legitimate and illegitimate concerns. Given the above paragraphs, it is probably obvious that I would not find legitimate any definition and subsequent criticism of reselling which is so broadly tailored that it waters down Entropia's primary value proposition as I have outlined it. I believe not only that Entropians should, if they so choose, have the right to treat Entropia as a capital good, but that the spectrum defined by connecting this mode of treating to the consumptive mode in which one treats ordinary video games is the primary reason there ever was, and in perpetuity is, a market for MindArk to capture. The economic existentialism has to be protected at all costs.
In addition to this, I do not find legitimate any definition and subsequent criticism of reselling which fails to take cognizance of the wildly underappreciated utility of liquidity. Traders are liquidity providers; nothing more, nothing less. If one party needs to conduct a trade today, but the first party with matching coincidence of wants will not emerge until next week, a trader can satisfy both parties' time constraints by holding the items until next week, in exchange for some portion of the surplus of the trade. If multiple parties need to transact significantly different quantities of a stackable item, then a trader can provide all parties with the quantities they need, in exchange for some portion of the surplus. If you see that it is reasonable for a seller to offer a reward (a.k.a., a portion of a potential trade's surplus) to anyone who can match them with a buyer, then all you must do to modify the scenario is suppose the matchmaker also guarantees to the seller that she will find a buyer, and agrees to pay for the item and take ownership of it in advance of finding them; now your matchmaker is a trader.
A legitimate concern with a trader might arise by observing them lie to other players about the mechanics of Entropia, such as how to use Market Value history, in order to manipulate them into a trade they would not otherwise accept. This is just one example; there are certainly other types of behavior in the context of trading which I would describe as violating a moral duty. So we might say that a trader is a reseller if and only if they consistently violate some such moral duty as part of their practice. If one applies such a criteria consistently, this would indeed be an achievement in progressing their own clarity of thought. In theory, it could be a definition we try to get everyone to agree to via an initiative like this thread. One complication with this is that what I have suggested is a very implicit definition; it makes some progress toward us understanding each other, but still requires answering the very open question of collectively identifying what the referenced moral duties are.
In my mind, it just seems easier to stop using the word. It is either used to criticize a legitimate behavior, or is used to criticize an illegitimate behavior which could be more clearly and robustly criticized with narrowly tailored language, i.e., "Please stop misleading people about how the Market Value history works" instead of "Please stop reselling." With all of that said, I appreciate the good faith attempt of this thread to bridge our communication faults, and look forward to seeing it unfold.
After thirteen years of playing Entropia, my best shot at hoping to answer these basic questions is what I have coined "economic existentialism." Economists, crudely speaking, divide products and services into two very high level categories; consumption goods and capital goods. Again crudely, a consumption good is a good used to extract immediate utility, while a capital good is an investment used to make more goods and services. I believe that the significance and success of Entropia are very well explained by the observation that Entropia is designed and presented to the online public in such a way that its existence is established prior to its essence, with respect to this economic distinction, and consequently, all economic analysis attributable based on this distinction. To say that Entropia is a consumption good, or that Entropia is a capital good, gets this priority wrong. Thus, although I agree with much of what the thread creator says, I would reject the view that "Entropia is a game about making money" on the basis that it is much too narrow. I would insist on amending it to "Entropia is a game well-suited to being used to make money, but also well-suited to being used for mere entertainment value," or "Entropia is well-suited to being treated as a consumption good, a capital good, or any combination of the two the individual user sees fit." Entropia becomes a game about making money for and only for those users who choose to interact with it in that manner. I agree that Entropia grants to them the right to seek to make money, either exclusively or in tandem with seeking entertainment value, but it does not prescribe to them that they should seek to make money.
I would reject the opposite view, that Entropia prescribes to its users that they should care to engage in its professions (hunting, mining, crafting, etc.), using the same analysis. It seems to me that treating Entropia as a pure capital good and treating Entropia as a pure consumption good are just two ends of a wide spectrum, and that the primary value proposition of Entropia is presenting the spectrum itself to each individual who signs up for it. "I just want to make money from Entropia; I don't care about the entertainment value," "I just want to have fun with Entropia; I don't care about the money," "I mostly just have fun with Entropia but will withdraw if I leave the game," "I have fun making money in Entropia," "I don't expect to likely make money in Entropia but will responsibly attempt to hit a huge jackpot," and many, many other possible intentions are all equally valid. None of them are what Entropia is for, in the abstract; they are all what Entropia can become for any player at any time. The individual is free to dive into this spectrum at any point, swim around for a bit, and gradually or abruptly shift their perspective and treat Entropia as some new combination of consumption and investment. This extreme freedom is the perfect complement to the sandbox ideal Entropia aspires to instantiate.
Very few other products can deliver this special niche of value. One candidate might be housing; folks justify quality-of-life home improvements on the argument that it increases their property's resale value. Another might be casinos, where one can justify gambling risks by incorporating the utility of the fun they're having. Leaving the question of "why" to the reader's imagination (I have some ideas but this post is already long), I think most Entropians will agree that while mixing consumption and investment considerations in these other contexts often lends itself to making regrettable choices, Entropia is successful because it has succeeded at blending the two forms of utility potential effectively and seamlessly.
Now what about the question of defining "reseller" terminology? I see in practice criticisms of "reselling" that boil down to both legitimate and illegitimate concerns. Given the above paragraphs, it is probably obvious that I would not find legitimate any definition and subsequent criticism of reselling which is so broadly tailored that it waters down Entropia's primary value proposition as I have outlined it. I believe not only that Entropians should, if they so choose, have the right to treat Entropia as a capital good, but that the spectrum defined by connecting this mode of treating to the consumptive mode in which one treats ordinary video games is the primary reason there ever was, and in perpetuity is, a market for MindArk to capture. The economic existentialism has to be protected at all costs.
In addition to this, I do not find legitimate any definition and subsequent criticism of reselling which fails to take cognizance of the wildly underappreciated utility of liquidity. Traders are liquidity providers; nothing more, nothing less. If one party needs to conduct a trade today, but the first party with matching coincidence of wants will not emerge until next week, a trader can satisfy both parties' time constraints by holding the items until next week, in exchange for some portion of the surplus of the trade. If multiple parties need to transact significantly different quantities of a stackable item, then a trader can provide all parties with the quantities they need, in exchange for some portion of the surplus. If you see that it is reasonable for a seller to offer a reward (a.k.a., a portion of a potential trade's surplus) to anyone who can match them with a buyer, then all you must do to modify the scenario is suppose the matchmaker also guarantees to the seller that she will find a buyer, and agrees to pay for the item and take ownership of it in advance of finding them; now your matchmaker is a trader.
A legitimate concern with a trader might arise by observing them lie to other players about the mechanics of Entropia, such as how to use Market Value history, in order to manipulate them into a trade they would not otherwise accept. This is just one example; there are certainly other types of behavior in the context of trading which I would describe as violating a moral duty. So we might say that a trader is a reseller if and only if they consistently violate some such moral duty as part of their practice. If one applies such a criteria consistently, this would indeed be an achievement in progressing their own clarity of thought. In theory, it could be a definition we try to get everyone to agree to via an initiative like this thread. One complication with this is that what I have suggested is a very implicit definition; it makes some progress toward us understanding each other, but still requires answering the very open question of collectively identifying what the referenced moral duties are.
In my mind, it just seems easier to stop using the word. It is either used to criticize a legitimate behavior, or is used to criticize an illegitimate behavior which could be more clearly and robustly criticized with narrowly tailored language, i.e., "Please stop misleading people about how the Market Value history works" instead of "Please stop reselling." With all of that said, I appreciate the good faith attempt of this thread to bridge our communication faults, and look forward to seeing it unfold.
Last edited:
.
