The Economy Of EverQuest Is About The Same As Bulgaria
from the evercrack-at-work dept
Maybe the idea of starting an online game that involves real money isn't such a bad idea afterall. Someone has done a study on economy of the game EverQuest. It's quite a thriving economy. The study was done by looking at completed eBay auctions involving EverQuest and determining that the average player could earn $3.42 per hour of playing EverQuest. The game produced "exports" of about $5 million and has a per-capita gross national product of $2,266 - ranking it between Russia and Bulgaria (and making it the 77th richest country). Maybe all those laid off folks looking to make money should start playing EverCrack all day. Update: And, still, online gaming companies can't figure out how to make any money for themselves.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Um, right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the cabal
I think multi-player games have just begun.
http://www.thecabal.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um, right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]