Talk:Game sweatshop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Needs references or citations. RJFJR 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

'Virtual Labour, Security Risks and Virtual Laundering may be linked to Virtual Crime'

Gold Farming may not be innocuous as part of unlicensed and unsupervised part of a multi-billion dollar Industry

Online Currency Trading under investigation as route for money Laundering - Kevin Zuccato, director of the Australian High Tech Crime Centre (AAHTCC).

"There are real sweat shops in Second Life that are designing swords and items for online gaming instead of wallets, and people who own online shops are getting mugged," Zuccato said at the Security 2007 Conference in Sydney today.

There are very "real world" risks for online players and entrepreneurs from extortion using DoS attacks to protection rackets.

He said online currencies, such as Second Life's Linden dollars, open another channel for criminals to launder money because they can often be exchanged for real money through anonymous transactions.

The above article cites 'gold farming' is potentially being investigated for possible to criminal activities such as money laundering, there may be more to gold farming than 'trading in virtual currency', especially if those channels are being used to hide and wash funds from real world criminal organisations.

Game Developer discusses how 'gold farming' can lead to game exploits and security issues

Can you give some examples of how players exploit these games to make money?

You've probably read about the sweatshops in China where people are playing these games. They're paid $2 or $3 a day to repeat mundane tasks in "World of Warcraft" that generate game currency, and they're generating about $4.25 an hour if they maximize wealth creation in the game. That's all collected together by whoever runs the sweat shop and sold to middle market companies. I suppose it beats making shoes or working on a farm.

So what does that all mean for real-world security?

Increasingly, businesses have some computation done on the client side and some on the central server. The world is rushing to embrace this kind of service-oriented architecture. But to the extent that you allow the client to carry out computations that you don't really trust completely, you have a problem.

The problems in these multiplayer games are precisely the same. The same tricks that are used to teleport your character around or duplicate gold pieces could be applied to real-world systems to steal data or gain access to financial transactions, depending on what the architecture is set up to do.

Service-oriented architecture is reasonably new and hasn't yet been hacked in these ways. But I believe attacks on online games are a harbinger of bigger attacks to come.

'Gold Farming' having its origins from in-game cheating activities group together for better effect has always posed a security challenge to gaming companies, as players attempt to circumvent not only the rules but the systems designed to keep the game fair for all players.

Discuss.

How the Developed world views Gold Farming: extended hours of labour, at a repetitive task, for low pay.

Numerous other third-party sites, most of them based in China, offer more opportunities for trading and buying without the indirect supervision of the gaming companies, an industry that, according to official figures, made $10 billion last year compared to Hollywood’s $9.5 billion.

Some services promise 10-minute delivery of in-game gold, such as game4power.com (more on this process later). This site acts as a market for Chinese World of Warcraft gold farms, given away by the pidgin English used on the site — “Thank every customer that supports us all the time, and now we decide to bring more cheapest gold to every one of you” — as well as by a notice of their being temporarily closed recently for a popular Chinese festival. Gold farms are gaming sweatshops where workers are paid next-to-nothing to spend 12- and 18-hour shifts farming the games for gold to then turn around and sell. With some shops operating as many as 300 computers, it’s volume that makes this enterprise profitable.

“There’s no way by yourself you could earn enough money farming gold to make it worth your while,” says Eric Brown, 34, an environmental specialist who spent years as a “hardcore” gamer and who used to spend about $100 a week on World of Warcraft gold. “The return on your investment is like, nil. I figured it out once — if I sold my character for $500, for the amount of hours it took to get him to the elite level meant I would have earned about 3 cents per hour, which is a joke.

“That’s why the only ones making money at it are overseas and in China, where they can pay their employees 30 cents an hour and have them work ridiculous shifts. You can’t do that here.”

This article challenges the notion that 'gold farming' can be done by individuals who are farming a decent living, at least according to western standards. While the cost of living in countries like china is substantially lower, as the economy grows there and CPI begins to reflect the increasing costs of living reasonbly, it's likely that 'gold farming' will not earn enough for those who wish to obtain any level of affluence as suggested is possible by some discussion on this page.

So even if the argument can be put now the rates of pay for some workers in these countries is high by local standards, I contend good conditions in those very extended hours working and repetitive working environment is not sustainable. As competition increases in the outside market place for computer console operators, and workers seek to raise their living standards to keep up or surpass the increasing CPI, farming of 'virtual goods' will inevitably fall back on more efficient models of obtaining the good at the lowest cost. That would be sweatshops.

Contrary to my previous comments this article may only just be starting a separate life.

Discuss.


The "Game Sweatshop" definition A) Belongs at "Game Workshop" or "MMO Virtual Provider" and B) Even if moved, is still unfair and innaccurate.

Someone in charge needs to have a live chat or something with me so we can talk about this Wikipedia definition. I feel the whole article is unfair and deceptive.

Most of what is described in this article is not a game sweatshop, it is a game workshop or MMO virtual provider. There has never even been any conclusive proof that a single "game sweatshop" has ever existed, so having a big definition of such a thing is silly. It would be like having a big definition of "Snipe Hunt" without actually mentioning the whole thing is a made up trick. *Edit* (((I took out "There are no game sweatshops" since that is not very provable. Instead, let me say "If there are game sweatshops, they are by far the minority in the virtual currency selling industry.))) The people who work at MMO virtual providers (generally) get paid very little because they (generally) are from poor countries where the average salary is much less than that of richer countries. The workers themselves, when you factor in the average wage of everyone in their country, are NOT getting paid little. They are getting paid average or above average. Also, their bosses are not taking home ridiculously unfair amounts of profit. You can't just look at a gold farmers wage, decide they make 20 gold per hour, calculate what 20 gold costs online, then decide the difference between the two amounts is the literal profit their boss is making. There are tons of expenses involved in this industry. Electricity, subscription fees, computer maintainence, rent, food, housing, etc. Gold needs to be sold as well, and that includes paying people to prevent fraud, paying people to compares prices and do market research, paying for advertising (including website creation, maintainence, and hosting) and many other expenses.

Because definitions like this one are allowed to exist, it perpetuates the idea in almost all gamer's heads that all MMO virtual providers are evil, immoral, child labor using, gangster funding, hack using companies. This idea is far from the truth. The worst thing MMO virtual providers generally do is break in-game EULAs. This is not against any real world laws. This is currently a gray, officially undefined area. Repeat, breaking a game EULA is not against the law in any nation.

There needs to be a Wikipedia definition written for MMO Virtual Provider and Game Workshop (one of which redirects to the other, where the actual article is written) which gives an accurate description of what these companies really are. The Wikipedia definition for "Game Sweatshop" should be a short article redirecting people to the correct articles, and linking sources showing that the general populations idea of "Game Sweatshops" is misguided and simply not accurate.

If you disagree with me, show me some sources. Some real articles showing 12 year olds being forced to work, or some real articles showing people working in horrible conditions for horrible hours without bathroom breaks etc. Show me articles where the workers are saying they want out but cannot get out due to people forcing them to comply. Show articles showing the salary that gold farmers make compared to other jobs in that SAME COUNTRY where people of the same age and same education/experience are working. Even if you can find this information, (and I know at the present time you cannot, or I would have already found it) all it would do is show 1 or 2 companies are corrupt/immoral. It would STILL be wrong to apply the term "Game Sweatshop" to ALL businesses in the MMO virtual providing field, or imply the term is accurate when applied to most or even many.

I read an article the other day about a jewelery making sweatshop in India. It was using unpaid child labor to produce jewelery, then sell it for vast amounts. Does this mean that the new definition for all Jewel stores should be "Jewel Sweatshop?" No, only that ONE company. Making a Wikipedia definition labeled "Jewel Sweatshop" alone is deceptive, since it is not something that occurs at a rate frequently enough to even deserve it's own title. But what If I did make a wiki called "Jewel Sweatshop" and then took it even farther and made a multi paragraph description that makes it look like ALL STORES THAT SELL JEWELS are sweatshops, without even mentioning the fact that 99% of Jewel stores are not sweatshops and have nothing to do with sweatshops.

Instead, placing the the "Jewel Sweatshop In India" article somewhere in the Wiki definition of "Sweatshop" is what would be appropriate.

Here is an article which totally refutes the 2005 (outdated) 1up article source listed as an external link in this wiki. Game Sweatshops are a myth. This article actually has it's sources cited and draws quotes from experts in the field, including an admission from Julian Dibble stating the evidence he gave of game sweatshops existing (which may be what started the whole concept of "game sweatshops") was probably wrong.

Thedeveloper 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)thedeveloper

I'm not sure why you think this article is "unfair and deceptive". It needs better referencing, I agree. I don't see where it is claimed that 12 year olds are forced to work, or where people are forced into it, so why do we need a reference that says that? Kevin 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The very title is deceptive and implies child labor and horrible working conditions. The body needs to be moved from "Game Sweatshop" to "Game Workshop," and whats left should mention some articles that claim the existence of so-called "game sweatshops" with a good section where people like me talk about game sweatshops not existing.

Or shall I go make a "Jewel Store Sweatshop" wiki page and spread the idea around until any time anyone in the entire world ever mentions buying jewelery people say "NO DON'T DO IT, YOU WILL BE FUNDING INDIAN GANGSTERS WHO RUN CHILD LABOR CAMPS!"

The whole title "Game Sweatshop" is MISLEADING and should be changed. Those outdated 2005 articles have been proven wrong or only use the word "sweatshop" as a buzzword to get attention. The working conditions are NOT deplorable and the people working there are getting paid quite well by their nations standards! These businesses are NOT a sweatshop of any kind. Period.

Thedeveloper 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)thedeveloper

I think you need to take a few deep breaths on this. For the article to be neutral, I agree that we should present all points of view. That is, where views from each "side" can be sourced from reliable sources. The blog you linked to does not fall into that category. The newspaper article I cited uses the word "sweatshop", so it seems appropriate to use in the article title.
Your comment on Indian gangsters etc is not remotely relevant to this article, and creating such an article would be only to make a point, which is not acceptable. You are also writing to other editors in the article. Such comments should be left here, on the talk page.
I'm going to remove your opinions for now, to give you a chance to find some reliable sources. Kevin 11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not my job to find reliable sources. It is the job of the people making claims. If no reliable sources are found to justify the use of the word sweatshop, (and I do not mean some 'news man' using the word as a buzzword to attract attention) then no one should be using such a word to describe Game Workshops or MMO Virtual Providers.

Even so, I did indeed cite reliable sources. Even if you feel Zraythe's material is moot, she herself lists sources which absolutely destroy the credibility of arguably the most important and famous "Gaming Sweatshop" news item ever written. I cited her instead of the actual sources because she sums up the whole situation quite well. For the record, I do not see why you consider Zraythe's material to not be reliable. She is an EXPERT in this field.

Concerning the Indian Gangsters, of course I brought it up to make a point. Nothing more. I'm not actually going to make a topic called "Jewel Store Sweatshops."

I was not writing to the editors of the article. I was writing to everyone. The world currently has a major misconception as to what MMO Virtual Providers actually are. Therefore, people (yourself included) think they are right about the subject but have been mislead by false/misleading 'news' reports that use buzzwords as gospel and are founded on questionable investigative work. Using the term Game Sweatshop to define this type of company is akin to using the term Food Serving Sweatshop to define a restaurant or Financial Transaction Sweatshop to define a bank. It is wrong. It needs to stop.

Thedeveloper 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)thedeveloper

As you are writing to everyone, I feel invited to respond here.
While it's sufficient to ask for NPOV and other conventions required by Wikipedia to provide objectivity for all their articles, it does not then follow that those you term "MMO Virtual Providers" are a legitimised by this criticism. That would be ignoring the fact that those self-appointed "MMO Virtual Providers" are actively breaking the rules of the games for whom they also claim to be providing their 'virtual product'.
Please give us references to reviewed news articles, especially with fiscal and market credibility, where these so-called providers have entered into a legal commercial relationship with the companies who own these games. Unless you can provide validation for these providers as offering paid and/or contracted services to the clients of these companies under legally recognised agreements, then I contend that the label "MMO Virtual Providers" should not be entered into this or any other article on this topic.
They are simply not providing any legally recognised services, nor can the users of these services, who do so against the rules of many of the gaming companies, claim any legal protections, should these providers not deliver. If anything, these providers operating outside any legal agreements to provide those services, and it could be argued they are engaging in deceptive and fraudulent trade practices, since they do not inform nor indemnify their clients when the game companies remove clients for rule breaking.
While there are many legal positions held by different proponents about EULAs in general, those same questions cannot be asked of "MMO Virtual Providers" as legally what they are providing is not theirs to provide, nor can they offer any consumer protection, or legal status, for their service provision. I contend that's because there has never be any legal agreement for this provision, and what's being provided would not recoupable by any one who purchases these 'virtual products'.
If you wish to question the article. Fine.
Please however do not try to justify a practice that has no legal standing, since the clients of these companies are being mislead as to any legitimate provision of any 'virtual' product or service. Some of these clients all risk losing all their 'virtual goods' including their accounts by any purchase from these self-appointed providers.
Witchita au 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

--

No one is claiming that MMO Virtual Providers have official agreements and ties with the Game companies whos games they sell virtual currency in. Also, who actually buys virtual currency without knowing it is against the game's EULA? Perhaps it happens now and then, but I do not see MMO virtual providers trying to hide the fact that it is illegal. For example, here are some quotes from a MMO virtual provider website FAQ:

"Q: Will my account get banned if I buy from *************? A: We do not know of any account bans of ************ customers due to their dealings with us. That being said, many games do state in their TOS and EULA that they may ban their customers who they catch purchasing virtual currency. If a game company becomes aware of your purchase from us, please contact and talk with us first before making any statements to the game company.

"Q: Do you own the items in the game? A: No. Registered names, trademarks, and IP are the copyright and property of their respective owners.

"Q: Is ************ affiliated with any game companies? A: No. ************ is a completely independent company that has emerged as a result of the demand for currency in online games. We do not have any affiliations with any game companies."

I see no misleading being done there. I do not see why these companies cannot be considered to be "MMO Virtual Providers" unless they have official agreements with the game companies. The name perfectly describes what they do. They provide virtual products in MMOs. That's what they do.

Thedeveloper

I think "Game Sweatshop" should be merged (and mostly deleted in the process) with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_%28gaming%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_%28gaming%29, while still needing a little work, is much more even handed and fair.

06:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)thedeveloper

The Merging of Articles:
While I don't contest that Farmer(gaming) article is mirroring this article, it does not follow that this article, nor it's cited sources are invalid, since at some of these sources are reviewed sources, or sources from the MMO companies over whom this whole issue is being fought.
The term 'sweat-shop':
Even if the articles are merged the stub or link should be kept as people will search for the term and should at least find the related term. As the term 'sweatshop' is well known and it common usage it should not be completely abandoned simply because those who support so-called "MMO Virtual Providers" are offended by it; people use that term because there may indeed be places where working conditions are far from ideal. I would like to see substantial research debunking this term, before complete removal of the reference, given that low wages would likely result from the large amounts of time required to gather the 'virtual product'.
Witchita au 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

--

I agree that when someone searches for "Game Sweatshop" an article or stub redirecting to "Game Workshop" or "MMO Virtual Provider" should be available, as well as a description of what a game sweatshop would be if it existed, since the media is so rabid about talking about so-called "game sweatshops" as though every single virtual currency selling business that exists in China is, in fact, a sweatshop. All of the sources I've seen here which mention how much gold farmers get paid is "$2-3 per day." Every single source says that. Every single one. That's interesting, because I know of a gold farming company that pays their lowest wage workers $7 a day. And before you laugh at that amount, please understand that that is decent money for that age group and education level in that location in China. It really is. No one is making these people work there, and they work no longer than many US gamers play the game per day. Gamers willingly PAY to play this game more hours than these "exploited workers" (who are being paid) do per day.

Media sensationalism at it's worst, I say. These people are not being exploited. If you do not like companies that sell virtual currency, talk about how they break the game EULA or something. Talking about how they are "sweatshops who exploit poor people" is just plain vanilla bullshit. Penn and Teller need to do a show on this subject.

Most/All MMO Virtual Providers are (arguably) bad because they break the game EULA.
Most/All MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they (arguably) screw up the in-game economy.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they use exploits.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they hack accounts.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they use bots.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they spam.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they have poor customer support.
Some MMO Virtual Providers are bad because they evade tax laws etc.

etc.

But, one thing the overwhelmingly overwhelming majority of MMO Virtual Providers are NOT bad for is exploiting children, paying horrible rates compared to what else is available and also compared to what the bosses make, beating/raping employees, starving people, forcing people to work against their will, using scare tactics to keep people working etc etc. This garbage comes from understudied/underconsidered sensational stories etc and outright lies being fed to tabloid-news-seeking fadsters.

Thedeveloper

There is no question Wikipedia should present a factual account rather than original research so references should be cited in any arguments here.
While some of the media sources are sensationalising, it would be a great omission to claim this of all media sources. There is also basic fact that is being ignored in your request to have this article merged or deleted.
The working conditions of those reportedly working for many of these so-called 'MMO Virtual Providers' are by general definition 'sweatshop' conditions. No allegations were made in any of those articles reference that 'children' were being exploited. Nor were the MMO Companies making any such claims in their media releases. I contend that saying that is merely a device to undermine the reasons for this article and discussion of illegal 'game sweatshops' here. While the term may have other associations, by ILO standards the conditions for 'gold farmers' do involve very low wages and poor conditions. By that definition the wage rate and lack of other worker protections, it would be correct to classify them as being 'sweatshop' conditions and therefore isn't sensationalising.
As well this issue is not unusual in that many goods exported from developing nations are goods produced for very low wages under such conditions in developing countries. In addition many of those goods have come across I.P. and Copyright violations on entry, which is why developed countries seize many imports. So this is an important issue, and is highly relevant to MMO Industry. It goes to the core of economic and labour issues, Intellectual Property, and similar areas of controversy. The fact that Virtual Property is also being, I still contend, illegally traded in this way is something worthy of discussion in itself.
However this article the material here should not be used to advocate for or hide the reality that so-called 'MMO Virtual Providers" are violating not just EULAs but Intellectual Property and Copyright laws in many nations and economic regions, by selling a 'virtual product' which is not theirs to sell. This issue is akin to similar Intellectual Property Issues, as well as network security, law enforcement and social issues associated with encouraging violations of Terms of Service on Websites and on the Internet. While many governments and international agencies have yet to catch up to the implications of these matters, there is no basis to assume this trading in another companies 'virtual product' without any agreement will be legal, unless the companies themselves relent in their internal development efforts, and external actions against to remove what they view is an illegal trade in their Intellectual Property.
At the present time gold farming' operators, whether they call themselves 'MMO Virtual Providers' or not, are extra-legal (they have no rights over the 'virtual product' they're selling) and therefore would be likely putting their customers at risk of losing any and all investment in their online gaming profiles regardless of any website disclaimers on the part of so-called 'MMO Virtual Providers.
There is also an emerging Law Enforcement issues, of which violation of Intellectual Property is seen as part of a larger problem of Cybercrime that western agencies are only just beginning to identify. Lobbying by business has mean these issues are now on the agenda as as part of the enforcement against illegal activities. The FBI states that with "the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, cyber crime is an ever-evolving threat. Our foreign adversaries and competitors can remotely observe, target, acquire, and exploit our information to their advantage, often without any physical presence in the United States." This is the position held by MMOs in that they claim their intellectual property is being targeted and illegally traded to the detriment of the business and custom. As well exchange of 'virtual currencies' for real world items is seen as "open another channel for criminals to launder money because they can often be exchanged for real money through anonymous transactions." MMOs have already taken this into account stating in their rules that "often when players attempt to break this rule and sell items for real cash the items are actually stolen, so you could even end up getting in trouble for receiving stolen property."
Given the position of these agencies enforcement will be forthcoming as business and advocates put forth views and legal actions that will prompt these agencies to act. In one case "Blizzard has filed a federal lawsuit against the operators of Peons4hire, a popular gold-selling organization which many of you have no doubt seen advertised. As part of the lawsuit, the operators of Peons4hire have been asked to immediately cease all in-game spamming efforts by all entities and websites under their control." This may only be the beginning as MMO companies protests resulted in Bay delisting most virtual items and only giving exception to "Second-life". In a signal that might telegraph the approach to sales of virtual currency the eBay spokesperson said "We think there is an open question about whether Second Life should be regarded as a game". That is in fact the view shared by many MMOs which state that the sales of virtual items for real world currency because otherwise it would "be just a game in which you can buy your way to success, if we let players start doing this it devalues the game for other players. We feel your status in real-life shouldn’t affect your ability to be successful in the game."
We should insert the definition though that "Gold farming is an online player who hoards items and currency with the intention of selling all of these on auction sites. This is an offence in most if not all online games and brings virtual sweatshops to developing countries." We can qualify that 'sweatshops' does not imply here that there is 'child exploitation' or 'slave labour' but that the wages and conditions of many of examples do qualify as low wages in conditions that meet the definition of sweatshops.
NB: There are further references for the above statements I will be providing later.
Witchita au 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Made some revisions, but more is needed

I edited as best as I could, however the article isn't very Encyclopedic and really needs to be rewritten from a more neutral and Journalistic veiwpoint.

Martinj63 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63


Have compiled a list of other references & added discussion - Need Writers

I've gone seeking other references sources to enable discussion of this article.

The discussion on Farmer (gaming) seems to be more about the view from the inside (by the gamers themselves) rather than how the external media and society perceive this issue. That article may still be productive, and though it parallels some of this material is tangental in many respects since it is rather an internal (gamers) perspective, so in that regard worth pursuing in it's own right.

The virtual economy, and whether that economy can remain separate if real world trading of virtual money and items is permitted, is questionable. If it's no longer a game then it does open the doors to real world issues such as financial (business), fiscal (taxation), legal (Intellectual Property) as well as law enforcement concerns. So presuming that it can at once remain 'separate' and innocuous trade, while allowing exchange of real for virtual is anomalous and possibly naive contradiction.

There are attempts to set up legal and safe trade between Virtual and Real World Economies such as Sparter Gamer2Gamer (Follow-up: What is Sparter? Who does it work for? - Gaming Today: Interview), which are an attempt to bypass fraud and illegal trade in items and the stigma of sweatshop operations. However, these are new companies have arisen due to very real and damaging effects on companies and players, due to the lack of any legal protections reportedly have resulted in all manner of problems from unregulated real money or real world trading.

Until it is regulated, claims there are no 'game sweatshops' or associated economic, criminal and legal problems, are at least equally biased without research, and possibly being disputed with the ulterior motive of quashing debate or discussion over this matter. Given the real import of these issues, it appears to be an emerging concern for governments, law enforcement agencies, and other regulators too, that there is an unconstrained flow of real currencies which could easily hide questionable and possibly illegal activities.

Conclusion - Do not Merge - Expand or Recatgorise

Therefore as this article has only began to be written, it should at least be given a chance to continue as a dialogue. There are possibly many of the external (to the online gaming community) financial, corporate, legal and real world social effects in this regard.

I will continue to seek and categories references until we have further writers here who may be interested in taking the 'external' or real world view of this problem. It may be that 'game sweatshop' is too narrow a category for this discussion, and it may find broader and more serious fields of discussion, as indicated by the references added so far. I hope other Wikipedians will assist in this endeavour.

Witchita au 01:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think it's now time to convert some of the external links into inline citations to support individual statements of fact in the article. At the moment it will be difficult for a reader to verify anything without reading all the linked pages. Kevin 06:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_sweatshop/Archive_1&oldid=151746510"