jahcs,Apr 22 2005, 11:11 PM Wrote:I do not follow your casino example ...
[right][snapback]74855[/snapback][/right]
The casino metaphor here is used to illustrate the similarity between chips and virtual property in consideration of Sony's announced proposal; neither chips nor pixels are intrinsically of real value and in both cases you would be trading the token in exchange for something considered possessed of real value.
If a casino wouldn't allow you to trade your won chips for money would a casino patron truly be involved in gambling? This is the analogue that Sony's proposal of allowing one to exchange his won virtual property for money evokes. To, I hope, phrase more clearly: If gambling requires the gain or loss of something of value, then removing the item of value removes the ability to gamble - if there are no stakes on the table can it be called gambling? Assigning, or allowing chips, tokens, or pixels a real value allows for the stake that gambling requires. With nothing on the table one can play blackjack all day long and he has engaged in only a game of cards and hasn't gambled. Put a stake on the table and, all other things remaining the same, one is now gambling. No?