Xbox Live 360.com. Games and Games.

CNN.com put up an article (which quotes me) on the Chinese virtual currency rules mentioned earlier this week on Law of the Game. GamePolitics has also posted two pieces on the rule, with different takes on the issue. It will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out in practice.

News reports have come out that China has both defined 'virtual currency' and barred the use of that currency for purchase of real world goods. In theory, this is to combat certain underground uses of vitrual money by limiting their use to the purchase of virtual items. In practice, however, it could prevent the spread of virtual worlds like Second Life into China. Based on the Chinese definition of 'virtual currency,' the Linden Dollar used in Second Life is undoubtedly covered, and thus the interplay between the Linden Dollar and real currency would likely be problematic, though the use of Linden Dollars to purchase in-world goods may not be. It will be interesting to see how this continues to play out, especially in view of last year's finding that a virtual seizure had a real world value in China.

Let's say you have a Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker. And let's say you bought this item for $100 US. If Blizzard repossess this item (i.e. takes it from your inventory), does this cause you an actual financial loss? Or, in the alternative, let's say you manage to somehow get an Ashbringer (despite theoretical impossibility, it happens), do you have a monetary loss if Blizzard takes it, merely because you could have sold it for $1,000 US?

According to a story from Pacific Epoch, it would seem that is the case in China. The jist of the story is that Shanda Interactive has been forced to apologize to a gamer and pay that gamer 5000 Yuan (just under $700 US) because they removed six virtual item from his account in the MMO The World of Legend. The items were removed pursuant to an investigation in stolen good sales in the game, and after police ordered Shanda to return the items post-investigation, Shanda failed to do so.

While I wouldn't go as far as to say this sets up a virtual "search and seizure" precedent, it does present a greater case for actual value of virtual goods. And while there's no such thing as "international precedent" that would bind courts in other countries to the decision, it does provide a perspective that US judges could look to when deciding their own virtual asset cases. It also seems to paint a further picture of inevitability to the idea of virtual assets being assigned value in the US officially by either the courts or the IRS, those being the two most likely to make the first statement in the arena.

[Via PlayNoEvil, Thanks Cameron]

China Daily is reporting that the official Chinese crackdown on extended gaming sessions by teenage users has begun. The concept is one that many hope never reaches the level of government regulation in the United States. Specifically, users under 18 are allowed to play online as long as they wish. However, after 3 hours of play, any points earned (i.e. experience points in RPGs) are cut in half. After 5 hours of play, no points are earned at all.

How is this system enforced? Game companies are required to integrate a uniform Chinese ID into their system. It would be the equivalent of a game company requiring your Driver's License number to register to play. The game company can then know your age and limit you if necessary.

Of course, there is always the potential for fraud, such as a kid using a parent's ID number. Pacific Epoch is reporting that The9 (the Chinese provider for World of Warcraft) will have a tool that allows parents to see if their IDs are being used. While this is certainly something, it seems like the system will never likely be perfect, short of requiring biometrics or something similarly difficult to circumvent.

While I can see the value of limiting a child's play time, the role of acting as the limiter will hopefully remain with the parents in the United States. There is no reason to appoint the government as a pseudo-parent for issues such as these that are so easily manageable by the parents themselves. However, software companies may see a benefit to incorporating a system that the parent can enforce in countries like the US. However, no technology can ever truly take the place of simple presence. Children can inevitably find ways around most technological or other barriers, but they can't get around a responsible parent.

[Via PlayNoEvil]