My final paper is going to involve the idea of spending actual money on items in video games. Recently, in the computer game "World of Warcraft," the developers made an in-game item available for purchase on their online store for $25.
http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=1100000942
This "Celestial Steed" is what's called a "mount," which is something that players' characters can ride to make traveling around the in-game world easier and faster. All other mounts in the game can be purchased with in-game currency (worth no real-world value) or by completing quests. There is a big debate between players over this item. Many think that it's absolutely stupid and pointless to spend real money on something that only exists in a computer game. Some have even said that it "is a perfect way to tell who NOT to invite into your groups, because anyone who bought the horse is utterly retarded." Others argue that since they're already paying real money to play the game (players must pay a subscription fee), there's nothing strange about paying a little more to buy another addition to the game, much like buying expansion packs that add more content to the game. Also, people who buy this mount get it sent (in-game) to all of their current characters and future characters they make, plus it counts as a ground and flying mount; essentially, they'll never have to spend time acquiring in-game mounts as long as they buy this one.
Who do you think is right? Do you think that it's stupid and pointless to spend real money on things that only exist in a video game? Or do you think that an argument can be made in support of spending real money on what amounts to just ideas?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Implied Equality > Actual Equality
I don't know if I'm completely missing the point on what equality entails, but this was one thought I came up with:
"Actual equality" is something I see as physically impossible and morally improbable. We humans are all different; some people are more athletic than others, some are more intelligent, some are tall, some are short, some are in-between, we are all different colors, etc. Beyond the physical factors, we're also all different in personality, who we are as individuals and what values we believe in.
Since this is the case, it seems as though equality is something that can't truly happen outside of a Utopian society. However, I thought that maybe "implied equality" is the kind of "equality" that is most relevant.
What I mean by this is if, in social interactions, we treat each other as though we are equals, and think nothing of our actual differences, then don't we, in a sense, become equals as long as we consider ourselves to be so? We can be totally different on a number of levels, but as long as we imply, be it through words or actions, that we're really on the same level, does that count as equality?
"Actual equality" is something I see as physically impossible and morally improbable. We humans are all different; some people are more athletic than others, some are more intelligent, some are tall, some are short, some are in-between, we are all different colors, etc. Beyond the physical factors, we're also all different in personality, who we are as individuals and what values we believe in.
Since this is the case, it seems as though equality is something that can't truly happen outside of a Utopian society. However, I thought that maybe "implied equality" is the kind of "equality" that is most relevant.
What I mean by this is if, in social interactions, we treat each other as though we are equals, and think nothing of our actual differences, then don't we, in a sense, become equals as long as we consider ourselves to be so? We can be totally different on a number of levels, but as long as we imply, be it through words or actions, that we're really on the same level, does that count as equality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)