Could that EULA be a Good Thing?
Instead, here's how most American companies define the game, according to the end-user license agreement (that big chunka-chunk of text you agree to when you first log in). You're paying for a service. The service is a game world. Within that game world, there is a virtual currency and virtual items, but all of those bits and bytes belong to the developer, and can be moved around, nerfed, buffed, or deleted at the developer's discretion. You can't sell any of them because you don't own them, and if you're caught trying you'll be banned.
Now, for a virtual world like Second Life, the issue is a little hairy -- people invest a lot of creativity into creating content for Second Life, and there's actually a currency exchange rate between Second Life and the real world. So ownership there is very important, and players are really invested in what they create.
But for entertainment products like Warhammer or World of Warcraft, keeping the virtual items locked away in the virtual playground is likely a huge benefit for you, the gamer. It prevents (or attempts to prevent) gold-farmers from ruining the game economy. It gives the developers total freedom to make sure that the game world is the most fun. It keeps the government out of the world and keeps you from paying taxes.
Of course, the result is a contract of trust. You pay your monthly fee to the developer in the hopes that the game you're paying for is run equitably and that your items are safe and only nerfed for good reason. If you feel that's not true, you take your business elsewhere. (I can speak from experience. When a bug in Hellgate: London swallowed up a sword I'd spent a couple of weeks customizing and upgrading, I was done with the game; they never saw another cent from me.)
I would argue that in the case of entertainment worlds like World of Warcraft, the draconian license agreement is actually a Good Thing(TM). Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts below!
