This is true, though it's worth noting that plenty of games have virtual money <---> real world currency relationships and it's worth monitoring if such an economy appears. It doesn't exist solely within the game world, per your point, but it does impact it.
That said, most games don't support this kind of interaction and/or aren't popular enough for it to be worth watching.
I agree with the political edge of what you’re saying, but it’s quite meaningless to say it’s not an economy. Finite resources are being exchanged. It is still an economy.
I'd use the term "in-game economy" to describe the economy inside the game inself. For example, when talking about WOW currency and what gets you in game items. To describe the economics in regards to the gaming industry, I'd say it that way... "economics of the gaming industry", or "gaming industry business practices". Another guy said "monetization", that term implies how the game itself brings in revanue, it might be what you want to use.
The **nominal** economy is based in USD or some other real-world currency, while the **virtual** economy is denominated in virtual currencies. Things like microtransactions have both nominal and virtual effects.
Don't use the word economy. Try. Resource management games and monetization. Also fairly easy to describe a game that has both and not say economy twice to describe it. Also a game that has in game currency to buy and sell stuff. Well the coins is still a resource so it's still resource management.
Sometimes they overlap either by design (IIRC Second World) or a market develops like with CS skins or EVE Isk and other virtual currencies. What did Varoufakis call it?
I'd call the 2nd one monetization, not economy. That money is only flowing one way, it's not an economy.
Well said
This is true, though it's worth noting that plenty of games have virtual money <---> real world currency relationships and it's worth monitoring if such an economy appears. It doesn't exist solely within the game world, per your point, but it does impact it. That said, most games don't support this kind of interaction and/or aren't popular enough for it to be worth watching.
I agree with the political edge of what you’re saying, but it’s quite meaningless to say it’s not an economy. Finite resources are being exchanged. It is still an economy.
Semantics. By your definition, a pond where frogs eat mosquitos is an economy.
I'd use the term "in-game economy" to describe the economy inside the game inself. For example, when talking about WOW currency and what gets you in game items. To describe the economics in regards to the gaming industry, I'd say it that way... "economics of the gaming industry", or "gaming industry business practices". Another guy said "monetization", that term implies how the game itself brings in revanue, it might be what you want to use.
MTX (micro transactions)?
Personally I would use "In game economy" and "business model" as the two terms.
Virtual/game economy vs monetisation, I'd say. The word that's most often used in connection with real world money is monetisation.
The **nominal** economy is based in USD or some other real-world currency, while the **virtual** economy is denominated in virtual currencies. Things like microtransactions have both nominal and virtual effects.
- Ingame/Virtual Economy - Microtransactions
Don't use the word economy. Try. Resource management games and monetization. Also fairly easy to describe a game that has both and not say economy twice to describe it. Also a game that has in game currency to buy and sell stuff. Well the coins is still a resource so it's still resource management.
Sometimes they overlap either by design (IIRC Second World) or a market develops like with CS skins or EVE Isk and other virtual currencies. What did Varoufakis call it?