Real Money for Virtual "Thingys"

An article that appeared over the weekend on the NYT illustrates some of the mixed emotions parents have towards paid online games and social networks (ie. paying real money for “fake” things).

I can’t deny that I was once turned off by the whole concept. I thought these games would create (read: raise) a generation of antisocial consumers. Over the last year I have moved away from wanting to send all kids to Waldorf School, away from “the powerful machine,” towards believing that the whole idea isn’t too bad and even has some advantages.

Even though times have changed certain things haven’t. Kids just want to play. My sister probably gets as much pleasure designing and buying furniture for her online house as I did designing on paper. What’s the big difference? I played house under sofa held sheets and her house is in a pixeled world.

Do these games teach consumerism? Yes. But so does Monopoly, Polly Pockets, Barbies and many others. The goal of Monopoly is to acquire as many properties as possible, build hotels, and hope to bankrupt your opponents. Isn’t that capitalism at its greatest?

All things have its pros and cons. I don’t really think that kids are learning the real value of money (the last time I checked you couldn’t buy a house with wood floors and gold doors for a couple of dollars in the real world). But I do think that having some funds and choosing how to spend them is a valuable lesson. Online, like offline, there is a limited amount of resources. Regardless of what those resources buy you the lesson is learned.

My sister has a virtual pet she has not killed. I remember when nano babies were a big deal back home. They were new, they were exciting, and the reset button was pressed almost everyday. Are kids more responsible nowadays? I would lean towards YES.

Regardless of whether parents believe these games are good or bad I think the underlying issue is the gap between those who pay and those who use the games. While the first grew up with game boards and outdoor games the other has always had the internet.

Companies are aware of the gap between the paying parents and the consuming kids. Parents are unwilling to pay for something they can’t touch and kids only want virtual things. By selling something tangible (ie. the classic stuffed animal or a doll) with an access code for the virtual world they satisfy both. In a couple of years the generational link (ie. the stuffed animal) will be eliminated completely. There will be no need for it.

One thing is for sure my sister cares more for her virtual pet than I did for my Legos. Who am I to say that the joy she finds in a virtual world is worth less than the joy I found in my Lego world. And at least her virtual “stuff” doesn’t crowd the closet for years.