Someone linked this on our guild site, the whole idea that someone wrote an article/did a study on this is pretty funny :)

www.newscientist.com/news...ns99993864 (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993864)

I think we should strike for higher wages!

I think the SAD part is that of the survey the difference in sales between the genders is ONLY 10%. Yet the article gives NO IDEA to the survey size.

10% may as well be the allowed amount of error in the study of what maybe a very small survey size.

The Truth

What a waste of time. 10% from looking at ebay auctions is hardly accurate. Nothing scientific about it. They even wrote "less skilled" female characters sell for less. Uhhh... duh? You can't compare character sales, they are too subjective.

Yep, that's a pretty lame article. For the "world's #1 science and technology news service" you'd think they would provide us with a more rigorous data analysis (sample size, methods, sources, etc). As that article stands, I wouldn't accept it as a research essay from an 8th grader. Amusing, though.

The author did almost touch on something interesting when he mentioned the social dynamics in-game of female vs male avatars in regards to character interaction, though. Almost.

How do you equate fake money to real money? How would he, or anyone, know how much $2000 was in EQ? It wouldn't be anything...because it's fake.

The whole thing was a load of poo. Someone got caught trying to ebay a character and pulled that study out of their poop shoot to cover it.

The article is biased.

As an above poster says, the sample is so incredibly small that any differences in prices paid for the same level/same geared character could be accounted for just by randomness.

I've never heard of anyone buying a "great" EQ character, second hand, caring what sex it was. It may just be that there are many more "great" male ones than female or that female characters are not sold as much anyway.

I did a lookup on the professor's name and found:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/techn...016434.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3016434.stm)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
In the study of avatar economics Prof Castronova used the prices paid for 611 auctions that took place on PlayerAuctions.com between October 2002 and January 2003.

In these auctions, players paid an average price of $333 (£200). The lowest price paid for an EverQuest character was $40 and the highest $2,250.

Curiously, female characters sold for less than a male character of equivalent level.

"All else [being] equal, a female avatar sells for about $41 less than a male avatar, which is about 12 percent of the mean price of $333," writes Prof Castronova.
[/quote]

611 is a fairly large sample. That would be 300ish males and females each. He probably ran a statistical test to see if the averages were significantly different, and found they were.

I suspect the 10% was just a soundbite that sounds good, the actual number is probably "between 7% and 13% with 99% certainty". I attribute the lameness of the first article to a CNN writer that failed Stat 123. :P

I did not read the whole article. It lost interest and creditability after this statement:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Overall, male avatars sold for an average of $346, while the <strong>generally lower skilled female ones</strong> went for $281. The discrepancy notably mirrors differences in wages earned by men and women in the real-world, says Castronova.[/quote]

Lower skills pull a lower price tag, what a shocker!

Hrmm, I noticed that too. the "generally lower skilled" comment, but to the writers credit (Not that i'm giving him any) he might have been writing it like this, anything in () means what he should have put in to make it sound less confusing:

"While the generally lower (priced) (,) skilled female ones went for $281"

So it should have looked like this:

"While the generally lower priced, skilled female ones went for $281"

Its a stretch, but thats how I saw it the first time I read it.

:D

Btw, EVERYONE! Kick up that earning capacity! We must pass russia! Hehe, although, I bet we have now...Since we got items going for 250kpp. We were 77th about a year and a half ago, before these HIGH priced items were in game :D

<a href="http://www.nickyee.com/hub/" target="top">The Psychology of MMORPGs</a> is probably the best literature I've found on social dynamics in the virtual world. I haven't read everything on the site yet, but the articles I've browsed have been interesting. I do feel that sometimes his sample sizes are too small to draw the conclusions that he comes up with (usually between 1200 and 2500, but sometimes much much less), but he is doing well considering his limited exposure. From this site, <a href="http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/" target="top">The Daedalus Project</a> takes surveys and interviews from <strong>actual real-live MMORPG players</strong> *GASP!* and compiles the data into various formats, as well as discusses the results. In fact, if any of you feel like having a voice in the matter, it's quite easy to sign up and start taking surveys :)

Oh yeah, and to keep this on-topic, here is his essay regarding <a href="http://www.nickyee.com/eqt/menwomen.html" target="top">Gender Differences</a> within Everquest. He focuses on the differences between m/f players, as opposed to avatars, but he does have one interesting thing to say about selling avatars:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Respondents were asked whether they would sell their main character at a price determined by their level. We found that female players are significantly less willing to sell their characters when compared with male players.[/quote]

Sorry, but if you're going to do a study on gender-based dynamics in the virtual world, scrolling through the prices on eBay isn't going to tell you very much, other than maybe "you're a fool." :)

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Btw, EVERYONE! Kick up that earning capacity! We must pass russia! Hehe, although, I bet we have now...Since we got items going for 250kpp. We were 77th about a year and a half ago, before these HIGH priced items were in game[/quote]

Sad to say, but it isn't going any better with the EQ economy. If you look at sites selling plat for dollars you'll notice that it has become cheaper and cheaper to buy 50k plat.

What this equates to in real terms is a falling exchange rate on the plat. When the position of the EQ economy placed the plat on the 77'th place in a real world listing, the plat used to be worth more than a Yen. Today that is not the case at all.

PoP has introduced to EQ the effect of what happens if the federal reserve just let the printing press of money run away day and night with no stopping at all. To see what this has done to EQ, go to the Bazaar today and take a look at the prices of tradeskill items, you'll notice that those prices today are vastly higher than they were a year ago.

Inflation has hit our little fantasy world.

This survey is extremely flawed.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=richard+bartle" target="top">Richard Bartle</a>'s rebuttal:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
1) Perhaps fewer women are into the whole power-gaming thing (that
you describe as the reason people buy higher-level accounts). This
reduces the demand for female avatars, which in turn reduces the
price.

2) Women in the real world are paid less than men, on
average. Perhaps they can't afford to pay as much for their
characters, so the price falls until they can?

3) Perhaps the people who manufacture characters so they can sell
them on eBay skew the market by their own preferences for what
character genders they play?

4) You say that most characters are bought using the "buy it now"
button. Perhaps women prefer this method of purchase, and
therefore fewer of them go to auction, meaning that the price of
female avatars is lower because the demand isn't as great?

5) According to your Table 1, 10.4% of female users have a male
main avatar and 18.3% of male users do. According to Table 2,
20.1% of all characters in the auction are female. Assuming that
this reflects the general preferences of the player base, perhaps
it indicates an over-supply of female characters, in which case
the price could be expected to be lower than for male characters.

6) The price of a level for high-level characters is more than for
low-level characters, but your regression rules may not fully
capture the impact of this. According to Table 3, a higher
proportion of female characters are offered for sale at a
lower-level than for male characters (27.4%, as opposed to 20.1%
female avatars overall). This may be because male players who were
experimenting with cross-gender play tired of it, but the reason
doesn't really matter; if you're not weighting the effect of
levels properly, the lower price of female characters could
primarily be due to the influence of their level.

7) Perhaps female players rate a character's appearance higher
than male players? They'll pay premium rates for an exotic female
dark elf, but they rate other races much lower than do male
players. If they won't pay for female characters in general, the
price will drop, although it's "balanced" by the extra they'll pay
for the few combinations they do like. Again, the mathematics you
use only approximates the effect, though, and may do so badly.

8. It could perhaps be to do with the way that the auction site
presents characters for sale. It appears that Playerauctions.com
has changed the way it lists items since you acquired your raw
data, so I can't be sure about this, but it's not inconceivable
that the descriptions of characters or the order in which they are
presented influences a player's decision to bid or not.

9) You don't include equipment as a factor (except by not
accepting characters that have been stripped of it), linking this
to level instead. Perhaps you should have included it? Maybe the
equipment that typically comes with female avatars is, for some
reason, not as attractive to potential buyers as that which
typically comes with male avatars?

10) Perhaps more women are TOS-abiding than men, or believe that
buying characters is wrong anyway, or regard auctions as some kind
of competitive male thing. This would mean that fewer of them
would be available to buy avatars, therefore anyone who wants a
female avatar can expect to pay less to get one.
[/quote]

Equipment (esp. good no drop equipment), amount of plat, and AAs would have as much influence on price as level.

That "study" had a predetermined outcome from before it was even started....

"his limited exposure"

I post his site every chance I get.

I commend him for doing some really good work quantifying/qualifying EQ players.

Was watching a Scientific American special tonight on the brain and how it works and adapts, and thought "Wouldn't it be cool if SOE allowed a researcher into the box, to glean some numbers and such". Geek in me, sorry.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That "study" had a predetermined outcome from before it was even started....[/quote]

No question about it. The guy went out trying to prove his own opinion, the data (or lack there of) be dammed.

Ok, maybe I am missing something here. I read the guy's paper and found it fairly interesting. It's certainly not cobbled together. I also believe the conclusions are provocative, but I can't find any good reason to discount them.

Bartle's objections leave me confused. He seems to be proposing a bunch of gender-based behavior in order to attack the conclusion of gender bias. Women prefer "buy it now"? Women can't afford as much for their characters? Good grief. Notice the assumption that only women buy women chars? The paper says in black and white that the VAST majority of female characters are men.

His math doesn't even add up:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
5) According to your Table 1, 10.4% of female users have a male
main avatar and 18.3% of male users do. According to Table 2,
20.1% of all characters in the auction are female. Assuming that
this reflects the general preferences of the player base, perhaps
it indicates an over-supply of female characters,
[/quote]
First of all I assume he meant "have a <strong>fe</strong>male main avatar". He's saying 10.4% of female users are less than 20.1% of all characters, so there might be an oversupply. Since something like 96% of players are male (which is in the paper), the number of people with female characters is about 20% overall. The oversupply theory is just a product of bad math.

This one irks me:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
The price of a level for high-level characters is more than for low-level characters, but your regression rules <strong>may not</strong> fully capture the impact of this.
[/quote]
That one made me realize that Richard didn't read the paper, or doesn't understand statistics, because the regression "rules" are clearly spelled out. It's equivalent to asking "is CHAR_LEVEL an independent variable of the equation"? There's no "may not". It's right there, yes or no (answer is yes, table 4, page 32, the FIRST variable listed).

If he's going to attack the conclusions of a published econ professor, he should read the paper, or crack open a stat textbook. I held R.B's writings in some esteem, I am really disappointed with him right now.

Alright, a more specific critique of the paper.

First, the author overstates the importance of physical appearance in the game. He appears to believe that avatars must be in physical proximity to interact: "If I want to chat with Mrs. Jones, I must first move my avatar within hearing range of Mrs. Jones' avatar." He also makes the unsupported assertion: "In terms of general existence in the gameworld, however, appearance matters a great deal. This is a role-playing game...."

Now, there is a group of players to whom physical appearance of their avatar IS important, no question about it. And to some extent, these might include more roleplayers than not. But how many folks who feel this way are apt to be those purchasing characters at an auction for cash? And invert the question: what are those purchasing characters at an auction for cash going to be looking for? The author even asserts that it is the PLing crowd make up the majority of the market, and I don't disagree. Do you really think the PLing type, or someone wanting a CoH mage to park somewhere, or a backup cleric with a click stick, really is concerned that much about appearance?


Second, the author assumes that avatar markets are more open and free than they really are. The supply of avatars is limited, because many players chose not to violate the EULA by selling avatars. Similarly, the potential market of buyers is restricted. It is these factors that a number of the above criticisms are directed towards.


Third, I believe the author's basic theory is incorrect. He states: "The amount of time devoted to a given avatar depends on the avatar's attributes. These include aspects that are unique to the avatar itself (her height) as well as to the world in which she exists." I believe the inverse would be more accurate: "An avatar's attributes depends on the amount of time devoted to it."

Although I do agree with the author's premise that the avatar attributes can be capitalized into the price of an avatar in a general market for avatars.


Fourth, I believe the author places too much importance on character level: "as noted above, there is a particular statistic called the "level" (ranging from 1 to 65) that has perhaps the biggest impact on the utility of the avatar." He may have the mindset of someone who leveled every character "from scratch," and thus is missing the PLing phenomenon. He admits this in a footnote: "The author has often felt as though he has done nothing but play EQ for weeks on end, but his highest avatar is only level 39.....Getting one single avatar to level 60 would be, for this writer at least, a part time job that would take about two years."

In other words, his perspective on the game, I believe, does not lead to a good understanding of the 50-65 game, which is the level at which most of the avatar sales appear to take place, according to his own data (the average level being sold was 57.7).

While leveling does take a substantial amount of time, obtaining equipment, spells, and AA skills can take substantially more time. A level 55 character with good no drop equipment and lots of plat will be worth more than a raw level 65 character with only basic items. Level is important, but it is not all important, especially as a difference in a couple of levels can be easily made up.

The main reason I don't buy the results of the study is this assumption. The author admits that he looked only at the auction price, date of auction, level, gender, race, class, and server. He ignored amount of plat or equipment. He asserts that it is "generally true" that higher level avatars have better equipment and more cash, thus the level of the main avatar is an accurate proxy for the overall capitalization of the account.

Sorry, but the "generally true" presumption eats his entire study. Level, class, server, amount of plat, and equipment possessed all have a significant, and individual, effect on avatar value. Gender might, but the real impact of avatar gender gets lost when you lump "amount of plat and equipment possessed" in with level.

Of course, I realize his problem: if you do look at plat and equipment, then the data sample is too small and limited (due to the restricted nature of the market) to do a meaningful study. And that is, perhaps, the underlying problem with this study: the data sample is too limited to address the significant variables.

Thus, in the end, the relatively small difference in average price the study finds means nothing.

BricSummerthorne

If your looking for flawed math look at the article you seem to think is so interesting.

They finally gave the survey size but on a different site (I wonder why they kept the survey size quiet *rolleyes*) which was of 611 auctions. And of those 611 auctions there was a difference in sales between the genders of about 10%.

Do you see that the sample size is not big enough. That 10% may as well be the allowed amount of error.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The paper says in black and white that the VAST majority of female characters are men.[/quote]

I don't see how you know that is true. I could be helping out my wife or girlfriend by hosting the auction for her character. Giving no information as to who the individual's sex was in real life, who normally played the character. No one would know the wiser other than knowing that the ingame character was female and the auctioner was male.

Face it BricSummerthorne this scientific paper you find so interesting is FLAWED.

And frankly I see it as a sad attempt with not enough data to get attention to the science site. Like some one said above the study and paper is not even 8th grade material.

The Truth

<strong>Alright, a more specific critique of the paper.</strong>
Uh oh =)

<strong>First, the author overstates the importance of physical appearance in the game....</strong>
I agree. I don't see how he quantified his conclusions in any way. It looks like padding to me. Conceded.

<strong>Second, the author assumes that avatar markets are more open and free than they really are...</strong>
Yeah, that's a VERY good point. It's almost certainly not an unbiased sample of Everquest players, and I agree this is a recurring theme. However, I don't think the presence of bias necessarily invalidates a study. Every sample is biased to some degree, what's germane is if it affects the conclusion.

Medical research is done on volunteers. This sample is obviously biased towards people who aren't scared to be a guniea pig. People who have a lot to lose (house, 4 kids, nice job) may not be represented, and their lifestyle excluded. It's still considered good enough to risk the public health.

The study isn't about people's tendency to violate the EULA, it's about their gender biases. Is it reasonable to assume that people who violate EULA's have a different gender bias from the norm? If not, then the conclusion isn't significantly impacted.

<strong>Third, I believe the author's basic theory is incorrect. He states: "The amount of time devoted to a given avatar depends on the avatar's attributes. [...] I believe the inverse would be more accurate: "An avatar's attributes depends on the amount of time devoted to it."</strong>
I agree with your version of the theory, certainly avatars don't level themselves. However, his theory can be restated as "People will spend more time playing a powerful character of a race and class they enjoy", which is not a terrible assumption.

Given a choice between a level 15 Ogre Warrior in patchwork, and a level 64 Woodelf Druid in Ele, I will certainly spend more time on the latter. Even a simple choice between two classes of the same race and level would not be arbitrary for most people.

It's an arguable conclusion, but not irresponsible.

<strong>Although I do agree with the author's premise that the avatar attributes can be capitalized into the price of an avatar in a general market for avatars.</strong>
I admit to some favoritism just due to that approach. It appeals to my inner nerd.

<strong>Fourth, I believe the author places too much importance on character level [...] A level 55 character with good no drop equipment and lots of plat will be worth more than a raw level 65 character with only basic items. Level is important, but it is not all important, especially as a difference in a couple of levels can be easily made up.</strong>
Yes, I agree. I will caveat this in the next point, but consider this conceded.

<strong>The main reason I don't buy the results of the study is this assumption...</strong>
I can live with his assumption, for two reasons - feasibility and necessity.

As a practical matter, I think it would be impossible to account for gear in his regression equation. You would need to
add thousands of indicator variables, as in:

indicator1 = 1 for has Rusty Sword, 0 for no
indicator2 = 1 for has Rusty Axe, 0 for no
...
indicator10292 = 1 for has PoTime BP, 0 for no

In the face of an impossible requirement, I think it's reasonable to simplify.

Even assuming you could quantify all the gear, would it be necessary? The effect of gear on the final price difference is only important <em>if males tend to be better geared than females</em>, or vice-versa. It possible, but the existence of such a bias would be fascinating in and of itself.

<strong> And that is, perhaps, the underlying problem with this study: the data sample is too limited to address the significant variables. Thus, in the end, the relatively small difference in average price the study finds means nothing. </strong>
I agree there are issues, and questions. But I think there's a wide spectrum between a garbage study and a 100% conclusive one. Interesting, for me, can fall somewhere in between.

His data was limited, some of his conclusions were unsupported, but his methodology seems sound, and the capitalization of attributes was an original approach. At the end of the day, it proved nothing, but raised some interesting questions, and suggested additional research.

In my book, that's a fairly good paper. It certainly didn't deserve the treatment R.B.(and some others) are giving it. Your analysis was much fairer.

TheTruth,
"Bric" is fine. :)

With only 600-odd data samples, it wouldn't be hard to take a class that is sold more than others, and look at what the males and females in that class have in the way of equipment and plat.

Plat would be easy to quantify, you must admit. You could even determine how much plat sells for in the same auction market, and determine how much of the avatar value is attributed to the plat.

Yes, he should have included the plat, at least, how hard could that be?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
With only 600-odd data samples, it wouldn't be hard to take a class that is sold more than others, and look at what the males and females in that class have in the way of equipment and plat.
[/quote]
True. It also occurs to me (belatedly) that he could have accounted for equipment, somewhat, by factoring in stats and foci.. 1500 AC means you're wearing <em>something</em> nice.

Yes, he could have done a better job factoring in gear, it's not as hard as I initially thought.

Good enough. If he somehow could take into account AC, HP, perhaps FT, and AAs, that would be better than just assuming it's all wrapped up into level.

You must admit, a level 65 with 10 AA would not be worth as much as a level 65 with 525 AA...:)

So he is trying to prove there is sexual inequality in EQ. Duh. So what. What is the proposed solution? Affirmative action for Female characters? Hold on folks for the FEM=Female Experience Modifier. What about under represented races like Halflings shouldn't the get an exp modifier (arg! check that it's already started). Finally when will the froglocks be sued for reparation to the Troll for stealing their homeland?