[Flipside]

It's value though was only to someone stupid enough to pay for an item that they theselves could have got with time, at no cost at all, considering they too must be playing the same game.

To continue your CD analogy, if you win 500 tickets at an arcade, you spent real money, and some luck, to get them. And this item was not given away, it was sold, so, just as someone without a CD player would not buy a CD, so would someone who was not playing this game not buy the sword. In fact, you can buy a CD and hold onto it until you get a CD player, whereas you must already have an account with the game in order to get the sword.

If someone is that passionate about what is supposed to be a diversion, then I think I would consider it extremely likely that they are suffering from addiction at an extremely unhealthy level.

[Unknown Target]

Simple thing is: the guy killed someone over a videogame.
Why are we arguing whether he was right or not to? He still killed someone anyway.

[karajorma]

The argument isn't over whether he was right to or not. The argument is over whether he somehow has a less valid reason to have gotten angry because the possesion he lost was virtual rather than physical.

[Flipside]

And I was actually thoroughly enjoying the debate I don't think it really got to argument stage but either way

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

It's Korea. What did you expect?

[Swamp_Thing]

If people are so willing to pay big bucks for game items, maybe i should get myself in the business. I have a few bills that need paying.
Ok, who wants to buy a cracked bow from Diablo2? Mint condition. Or a pair of old boots? 10 bucks! Going once... going twice... SOLD, to the desperate sorry lookin´n00b in the back row!

[YodaSean]

I don't think it's all that strange.  People often spend a good deal of money on things like advertisements and naming rights.  Although these are still slightly different since usually you're respecting a good return on your purchase.  But I'd imagine people do sometimes purchase things in games with the expecations of profiting later(although this wasn't the case here)

On the other hand, modern currency isn't exactly very tangible either, represented by paper or sometimes completely electronically.  And then you have collectible items, which are valuable for non-tangible reasons.  I suppose the main difference, and what concerns people the most over these sorts of virtual transactions, is that while even currency is backed up by a government, virtual items are not backed up by some sort of game developer/publisher that reserves the right to destroy one's virtual possessions whenever they want, which makes seriously investing anything(money or interests) into virtual items a pretty bad idea.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by YodaSean
I don't think it's all that strange.  People often spend a good deal of money on things like advertisements and naming rights.  

yeah but it's only been since, like, diablo 2, where there's a big market for selling ITEMS (or money or something).  world of warcraft really helped that a lot

[Stealth]

The row is thought to have blown up partly because China has no laws that cover the theft of virtual in-game items

does any country have laws that cover theft of "virtual in-game items"? i didn't think they did

Although Mr Caoyuan said he would hand over the money from the sale of the sword, Mr Chengwei lost patience and attacked him in real life.

The China Daily said Mr Caoyuan was stabbed with "great force" in the left chest and killed.

i swear i can see that happening...