RC Question 13 Explanation
DISCUSSION: This is the trickiest question. The first sentence of paragraph 4 of passage B makes a distinction between games that are intentionally commodified, and those that aren’t.
The first paragraph of Passage B also makes this distinction, though it’s less clear. Paragraph one says “but some actually encourage it.”
“It” is real world trade in virtual items. It’s reasonable to say that those games have been commodified. In game transactions are explicitly viewed as economic transactions by the games’ creators.
The creators economize the games by giving intellectual property rights, which is answer D.
___________
- The first sentence of paragraph 4 of passage B talk about selling virtual items for real currency. This answer talks about selling a real item for virtual currency. E.g. “I’ll sell you my house for $10,000 elf-dollars”.
This answer would have been correct if it had used the right words, but it used the wrong words instead. - The word “avatar” doesn’t appear in passage B. This answer has no support.
- Passage B doesn’t mention whether all players gain wealth simply by playing longer. Some games may have high costs that reduce wealth.
- CORRECT. The first paragraph of passage B supports this. The games that grant intellectual property rights are encouraging real world commerce. This amounts to “intentional commodification”.
- Passage B never mentions whether you can trade elf-dollars for orc-dollars (for example). In fact, passage B doesn’t even mention whether you can trade virtual currency for real currency. Passage B only mentions virtual items for real currency.
I chose A because I didn’t know what “in-world” sales meant in line 55 and thought it might mean “real world” (like in our world) and therefore the modifier that follows the quote they’re asking about would indicate real world sales (e.g. my house) for “virtual currency” (e.g. $10,000 elf dollars). WTF does “in-world” mean? Now that I know it’s incorrect does it mean something like “in-(the virtual)world”? ANNOYING if that’s the case. I saw D was there but went with A because it was closer and I thought “in-world” meant what I just put in above…
They say they don’t discriminate against certain types of ppl but I feel like a gaming person would have had a LOT better chance of knowing what is meant by “in-world”. UGH.
Just read the whole sentence: “and, IN GAMES that are intentionally commodified, even of in-world sales”
The sentence itself makes clear that in-world means in-game-world. LSAC passages always have enough context to figure these things out.
Re: Frase, I’m a gaming person and I still got this wrong.
Re: Graeme: I don’t agree, I chose E because it refers to “even of in-world sales of virtual currency, regardless of whether a player cashes out.” To me this suggests a virtual currency is on both sides of the transaction. How can something be “real currency” and not virtual if it’s possible for said currency to begin and end it’s existence in-game?
It seems to me the “cashing out” action is where the actual transaction from virtual currency to real world currency takes place. If I create a game and call one of the premium virtual currencies in it “Legit US Dollars” because they can be “cashed out” for real US dollars, but declare cashing out goes at a rate of 100:1, then you can’t really call my game’s “Legit US Dollars” the same thing as the real world currency it can be cashed out for.
Thus I think the question is flawed, as the original transaction involving what s described as “in game currency that may or may not ever be cashed out” should clearly be considered “one virtual currency traded for another virtual currency” making E correct.
… better at least than the tenuous connection made by answer D, between the first and last paragraphs supposedly talking about the same thing as one another, which to me reeeallly strains credibility. To me I don’t see why we should think the author is talking about the thing he referred to three paragraphs earlier.
It’s actually not uncommon that passages might force you to make connections between the first and last paragraphs. But since the entire passage is talking about games that are intentionally commodified, you should reference previous paragraphs.
Since this question is asking for a “characteristic” this has to be something that is clearly established. In this case, I think the “cashes out” part is irrelevant, since it’s a scenario dependent on the participant’s action, and not an inherent property of these commodified games.