The Lawbringer: Hacking and valuing virtual currency

I can't stop talking about virtual currency! As virtual worlds and economies penetrate every aspect of our lives, we are faced with the new and daunting challenge of identifying the seedy criminal element present in every human venture. There will always be someone breaking the rules, skimming off the top, or finding a way to steal their way up the ladder. Generally, as a society, we accept this as part of the process and make our rules accordingly to punish and dissuade against future criminals and all that jazz.
This week, we read about a very interesting virtual theft over Zynga poker chips, in which a 29-year-old British IT businessman named Ashley Mitchell pleaded (or pled, depending on your colloquial acceptance) guilty to stealing $12 million worth of the virtual currency. You know what Zynga is -- it is responsible for FarmVille, Mafia Wars, Zynga Texas HoldEm Poker, and about 8,000 other social networking entities. The company is ubiquitous. It also sells an ungodly amount of virtual currency online and offline for its games. Zynga poker chips, however, cannot be bought offline.
Billions of dollars
When Ashley Mitchell hacked into the Zynga servers and pulled out $12 million worth of chips, he turned around to sell them on the black virtual currency market. That $12 million in chips equated to about 400 billion poker chips in the online game. The prosecutor, Gareth Evans, disclosed the value -- about $695 per billion chips.
Virtual currency valuation is hard
The first thing I did when I read this story was run to see exactly how easy it was to purchase chips in Zynga's Texas HoldEm Poker game on Facebook. I promptly lost about an hour playing poker -- and I'm not even a poker player. Suffice to say, it is very easy to purchase official Zynga virtual currency for yourself or others through a comprehensive gifting system.
Back on topic, the article goes on to discuss how virtual currency is a pain to value because, technically, the company was not deprived of actual, tangible goods. At this point, you'd look to the potential effects that flooding the market with cheap virtual currency would do to Zynga, as opposed to the actual value of the chips stolen. This is in the U.K., so I'm not totally sure how damages would be calculated, but I'm sure Zynga will be seeing as much cash as it can out of this guy.
Crime worth the time?
More importantly, however, Ashley Mitchell will most likely be serving some jail time. With a previous 2008 hacking conviction on top of his most recent Zynga virtual currency bust, it looks like he is headed for the slammer. What is interesting to me, however, is that the charges against him did in fact include converting criminal property in addition to the hacking. This means that there was an element of property that was stolen; the court sees the Zynga poker chips as property that was stolen and then attempted to sell off for profit.
Zynga, however, does its absolute best to tell the consumer that the poker chips have no real world value. On Zynga's getzyngapokerchips.com website, there is a very clear message stating: "... further, your Zynga chips cannot be refunded, replaced or transferred, as they hold no monetary value." The valuation problem exists because Zynga is telling the user what they are buying is essentially worthless, but there can be a real-world value to virtual currency when sold at markets where such a value is ascribed. There definitely is a subjective theory of value working here, somewhere, since some kind of value is being ascribed to someone. But, again, value is meaningless when there isn't some kind of cap on the amount of currency Zynga can create -- it's virtual and limitless, doled out when credit cards are charged.

There are a few tidbits of information that we gain by just reading the facts of this story. First, there is a thriving virtual currency black market -- which we shouldn't be surprised about, considering that we are MMO gamers and gold farming and selling is its virtual national pasttime. Second, there is a large demand for casual gaming virtual goods -- but again, we aren't shocked by this because we, as gamers in 2011, are accustomed to virtual goods as holding value just like physical goods. Finally, Zynga is supposedly worth a cool $4 billion right now, which is pretty great for a game company and also means plenty of people are playing and buying Zynga stuff.
Zynga is going to be one of the deciding factors in acclimating the general public to virtual goods and currencies -- maybe not Zynga itself, but what Zynga represents and, as the biggest name, will definitely shape our future economies, both actual and virtual. Facebook credits are already sold at stores just like any other gift card. Three years ago it was an absurd notion that you would pay a dollar to send someone a picture on Facebook as a gift, but now that concept has all but evaporated.
Let's talk WoW for a second. Blizzard has been going about the virtual goods business in a very smart way. Instead of selling one-off items per character like the WoW Trading Card Game or currency that is essentially meaningless in game because the best things are usually bought with non-gold currencies, Blizzard instead sells virtual assets to your account, increasing the total value of your whole Blizzard presence, not just your character. Not only does this keep you attached to your account, but it actively encourages the care of that account.
One day, in the smartest move they could ever make, you might be able to purchase one item from the Blizzard store that would affect each and every Blizzard game on your account in some way, adding value to a game you might not even have yet. Want a new Lil' Alexstrasza pet for WoW that also comes with a new outfit for your Diablo III monk and some cool new decals for your Starcraft II units? Conveniently, you'll have a nice "Purchase Digitally Now!" button smack dab next to those unclaimed rewards, waiting for a simple click, a simple moment of product lust to sweep over your trembling fingers. If Blizzard hasn't thought of this yet, shame on you, good sirs. This one is a freebie! Hit me up at mat@wowinsider.com for more marketing bombshells. WoW's virtual goods have value, but not its currency.
What was Step 1 in virtual goods complacency, you ask? Probably downloadable content (DLC) in video games -- virtual horses and all that. It was shaky in the beginning for virtual goods and content, but it's getting better.
The main problem surrounding virtual currency is still valuation and accepting the notion that something intangible can and cannot have an ascribed value at the same time. Ashley Mitchell's case shows this -- we have someone on trial and pleading guilty to hacking and making unauthorized use of property that was not his to begin with. At the same time, we have a court struggling to figure out what it was exactly that he stole and what it was worth. And during all of this, we have a company selling virtual currency it says has no real-world value -- except for the fact that you paid real-world money for it.
Things get even dicier when you start throwing in Zynga's reported new "RewardVille" program, in which you earn its virtual currency just by playing games. Muddying the waters of valuation with so many ways of obtaining the currency is going to play in Zynga's and WoW's favor down the road. Unlike Linden Dollars, which were only available through a Linden currency exchange, WoW gold and Zynga coins come from various places.
My point in talking about all of this is that at this very moment in time, valuation of virtual currency is a dangerous and volatile topic. Sure, a company like Zynga wants to recover on its lost property, but at the same time, fighting too hard for a valuation on that currency opens up tax liabilities, income issues, and a host of other problems with fungible cash and goods. When you can print this stuff for free by clicking a couple of keys and you operate all over the world, you've got more legal issues floating to the top of your glass every single day.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
whitfield Feb 4th 2011 2:12PM
IBSoccerMoms derailing this thread into how nice their farms are.
Maribel Feb 4th 2011 4:25PM
But not before a "real gamer" ignoring the point of the article to bash casual games because they happened to be mentioned in the article.
Trilynne Feb 4th 2011 2:16PM
"Three years ago it was an absurd notion that you would pay a dollar to send someone a picture on Facebook as a gift, but now that concept has all but evaporated. "
I dunno about most people, but this is still an absurd concept to me. 0.o No one that I know on Facebook actually buys those gifts. Am I not in the hip crowd, or something? xP
Saeadame Feb 4th 2011 3:05PM
I don't buy them either, but I guess some people must or they wouldn't still be around.
Bouks Feb 4th 2011 3:05PM
My wife works with an ex-Zynga guy, who told her that only about 5% of players pay real money for virtual goods... but that the 5% usually buy a lot each.
So most folks aren't in that crowd, but it's probably nice to know someone who is. :)
Stardusted Feb 4th 2011 3:12PM
Personally I find the whole notion of Facebook absurd, but that might be because I have an address book.
shadcroly Feb 4th 2011 3:19PM
Indeed it is absurd.
Wanna send a Facebook friend a picture? Send them an email with the picture attached.
There, I just prevented you from looking like an idiot, and saved you a dollar.
Maribel Feb 4th 2011 4:17PM
I think it's more that you're not in the completely-computer-illiterate crowd.
True story: A woman I worked with once saw me playing a Flash game on a break and asked me to send her the site. So I emailed her the URL. She printed out my email and typed the URL in from the printout. Attaching photos to email is just too complicated for some people.
Pyromelter Feb 4th 2011 6:25PM
That was exactly my thought... paying to send a virtual picture sounds like the dumbest thing in the history of the internet.
Horsepop Feb 4th 2011 7:26PM
For those who may not get it. The "picture" referred to is not a picture you upload to send but rather the picture used by these games to represent the "items" they gift to you.
The idea is not stupid on the contrary it is quite brilliant. We have known for quite some time how attached people can become to games. Zynga has turned the model that has been used successfully for many free to play MMOs and incorporated it into simple games that spread like wildfire within these social networking sites.
Jeremy Feb 4th 2011 11:00PM
@Horsepop: "The idea is not stupid on the contrary it is quite brilliant."
No one said it was stupid on Zynga's part. If you can get someone to pay you money for nothing, that's almost the opposite. People are saying it's stupid of the people who actually do it. Read what people post next time.
Greg Feb 5th 2011 8:34AM
@Saeadame
Who said: "I don't buy them either, but I guess some people must or they wouldn't still be around."
I don't think it is entirely correct to think of those gifts as physical merchandise that must be manufactured. For example, if a company makes an expensive widget which nobody buys, then it is in the company's interest to stop spending money on that widget- because the money spent will be lost.
Virtual goods, on the other hand, often have little or no manufacturing cost after the first one is made. The first item may take a lot of development, but the rest are just simple copies of the first. Since they cost almost nothing to manufacture, any sale at any time is profit.
The sales model then looks more like pier fishing. The fisherman sets up 4-5 baited fishing poles, casts over the first breaker line, and waits. As long as the poles don't get a bite, he can wait all day. Eventually a fish will come by, take the bait, and the very minimal effort at the beginning of the day will pay off.
Anaxamander Feb 4th 2011 2:19PM
We'd been having an interesting side discussion on this in my guild, since one of our guildies had been interested in unloading a few loot card codes she had, hoping to trade them in guild for gold.
The trouble was, she was valuing them at some very high gold values (5000g for a pet that went for $0.99 on ebay). It lead to a pretty terse conversation in guild about what, exactly, the value of gold is, and what standards we can use to judge that.
We ended up having to agree to disagree on the subject, but I can see where it's pretty complex.
Powatodapeople Feb 4th 2011 2:31PM
no drawing of Magmaw this time? :(
Mathew Feb 4th 2011 3:00PM
Next time, just for you guys.
Necromann Feb 4th 2011 3:03PM
Sadly, no :(
icepyro Feb 4th 2011 7:18PM
Mathew promised me a magmaw!
>>
Aruhgulah Feb 4th 2011 2:32PM
It'll be interesting to see the effects of this case on goldfarmers -- especially those that get their gold by hacking other folks' accounts. Will that prompt Blizzard to track down & press charges against these folks? Or will it pave the way for those who get hacked to press criminal charges?
Xsinthis Feb 4th 2011 11:58PM
I don't think Blizz will change anything. Blizz doesn't sell gold so its only the gold farmers that put a real life value on it. So they just go through EULA, ToA/ToS, copyright stuff etc
phoenixxx73 Feb 5th 2011 2:20AM
Interesting you vring up the gold farmers.
If Blizz were to prosecute them for the virtual gold they sell (which THEY the farmers have placed a set value on... Say for example to keep the numbers nice and simple, 100 gold costs $10 on a farmer site) Would the fact that Blizz prosecuted that case (and for the sake of argument won) thereby by default place a fixed value on ALL gold in the game, whether gained by fair means or foul?
So in effect you end up with Blizzards virtual currency being given a real world money value as a result of this case...
so we have Gold selling at $10 per 100 and the courts use that amount arbitrarily (as it has been established as the "going rate" by the gold farmer on trial) meaning that as a result of this case, we now hold REAL CASH on our accounts even though we are unable to actually BUY said cash (except by means which violate the TOS).
I'm no legal eagle, but dosent this open up a number of technical snags, the biggest of which being:
a) Your account will no longer be owned by Blizzard, but by YOU as you are now 'working' for a real/virtual living. The time you put in to farming mats to make items to sell on the AH to acquire gold, which now has a REAL WORLD value as declared by LAW.
or on the reverse of the coin
b) For Tax reasons, employment law and any other number of legal snags, it simply isn't WORTH Blizzards time to go after these farmers legally, as it opens a Pandora's box. Meaning that gold farming will be rife and BLizz will be completely aware of it, but be unwilling to intervene as it would seriously, and negatively impact their profit margins
c) It also opens the door to players being able to sell surpluses of gold DIRECTLY to Blizzard, either for cash, or virtual goods (such as That Retarded horse (Damn I wish i knew how to add links on this thing) or other in game goods. Therefore making Blizzard liable to various Taxes and regional laws.
Legal stuff isn't my expertise by any means and I could be a million miles off the mark with my thoughts, but it sure does open a lot of areas that need to be looked at.