It's not a new story among students of gaming, but in the category of "if the New York Times writes about it, it must be real:" a recent article on the emergence, and growing legitimation, of virtual economies:
Jason Ainsworth plays the online game Second Life at least four hours a day. In the game, he runs a virtual real estate development business. But his after-tax profit - about $1,800 a month - is real, and it's enough to pay the mortgage on his home in Las Vegas.
For many people, what are known as massively multiplayer online games have become significant sources of income....
Mr. Ainsworth, 36, was not a fan of online games until his 10-year-old daughter became interested in The Sims Online. He then noticed that a large number of simoleans were for sale on eBay. "I started hearing about players leaving the game who were selling their assets," he said, "so I figured, buy low, sell high."
The really interesting point of the piece, though, is in the next paragraph:
But Mr. Ainsworth found his moneymaking options in The Sims "very limited"; he switched to Second Life, a virtual world that is less a game than a three-dimensional environment in which players can do whatever they choose. There, he has leveraged his real-life experience - he is a developer and contractor - into an online business. In 14 locations in Second Life's virtual world, he owns enough "land" to rent space to nearly 50 retailers, who in turn earn virtual money selling everything from jewelry to clothing to art (all nonexistent, of course).
So earning potential is starting to become one of the variables for determining attractiveness of game-play. I wonder how long before it's a standard part of game reviews, along with graphics, controls, action, story line, etc.?
Comments