Right now, this business is one of the most hotly debated issues on the internet. Many game companies such as Blizzard who run World of Warcraft discourage profit from in-game properties, though none have found a way to stop it.

Sony Online Entertainment, on the other hand, encourages the practice (albeit within the confines of their own "Station Exchange", their own forum for the sale of in-game properties). It recently announced the first month's figures from "Station Exchange". According to SOE, over 45,000 characters from "EverQuest 2" have been active on the exchange and have spent over $180,000 USD in one month, half of which have been spent on in-game gold and platinum.

Despite of different attitudes towards virtual currency trade, the number of people who are getting into such business is rising, and the size of market has been expanding very rapidly.The market also creates a competitive environment. We could refer to sites like Cheap World of Warcraft Gold, a price comparison site, to see the fierce price competition between different exchange sites.

For some ordinary gamers, however, such a capitalist approach spoils the experience. Nick Yee, a psychology researcher from Stanford University, believes many players dislike virtual currency traders because, by using real wealth to buy virtual power, "they're breaking the fantasy-reality bubble, getting an advantage in a way that other players can't".

According to a recent survey by IGN, an internet media focused on the videogame markets, most gamers say they dislike and avoid this business, believing that it gives players with more discretionary income an unfair advantage.

But such attitudes are called into question by size estimates for the virtual asset trading market, which is seen having a value of $200 million to nearly $900 million in 2005.

One potential explanation for the disconnection between attitudes and money spent may be that gamers are unwilling to admit they use the services, IGN said.

In terms of the law's concern, another issue is, who owns the virtual money? Many virtual world designers maintain that anything created in the world belong to the company. They refuse to recognise the rights of their players in the virtual property for fear of attracting liability for its maintenance or security.

But will this work in the long term? Players spend considerable time and/or money acquiring such assets. In many cases they are the creation of the player and even the intellectual property ownership is questionable. "As we spend more time in these worlds, it's not enough for companies to say that 'we own everything and we can turn it off at any time,'" said a gamer. "The question may soon be should we have recourse against a game company for obliterating virtual assets?"

With the rapid growth of virtual currency exchange market, should people accord virtual property the same protection as property in the real world?