Fraud in our time

Regarding the prohibition of fraud, what difference does it make that it is done in the game if there is a real value for the virtual objects there. You can think of it like collectors of NBA cards. Each card has a value and collectors exchange the cards for money or other cards.

And another question, it is always possible that a person is selling below market price to make a quick deal or that he needs the money quickly. Sometimes it is difficult to find a buyer at a fair price for an object. Should we be concerned about the possibility that he is doing this out of ignorance anyway?

I guess I didn't understand the situation. You sell items in the game, but ownership also transfers in the real world? So in what sense is this a game? I don't understand.

In fraud law, if there is a market price, you can't buy for less. Regardless of whether the person is in a hurry to sell or not.

It's a little hard to explain, but basically it's a game where you collect objects and keep them for a long time. Such objects can also be sold for real money.

Regarding the law of fraud, it seems that the seller is willing to forgive me for the fraud so that the transaction can go through. After all, it's also in his interest. And I also remember that in the law of Kiddushin there is a concept called hanattu qorba, which says that if the pleasure comes sooner, it increases its value. So why isn't it like that here? And also that the law of fraud belongs to the foreign law and not to the Jewish law like interest, and therefore matters of gift wages or gift reduction do not belong here.

The fraud could also be on his part. He didn't reveal to you that he was willing to pay you an even higher price.

I don't understand the situation. If the objects are really bought and have real value, then it seems to me that there is no meaning to the fact that it is a game.
If he is aware of this and accepts it, it is perfectly fine. It is as a gift so that you will not be deceived by me.
The concept of his pleasure being close appears in several places and its meaning is that the value of the thing is close to him. Giving a poor person money as charity is not close to him because the money has to be translated into products. But giving him food is close to him because he receives the value of the thing directly. I see no connection with us.

In a market where other players do not strictly adhere to the prohibition of fraud, is this prohibition still valid?

In such a market there is no market price.

Why is there no market price? Let's say there is some object X that most people sell for price Y and suddenly I come across someone who doesn't really understand prices and is willing to sell me this object for half of Y. Anyone who would meet him wouldn't think twice and take this lucrative deal (i.e. no one is strict about fraud laws), but there is still a market price here.

If there is a market price, there is fraud. I don't see any implication for the fact that many people are dishonest and work for the innocent. And because they eat garlic, should he also eat garlic?

But the innocent themselves will work on other innocents if put in such a situation. If someone is willing to work on someone else, why should morality give him protection that he himself is not willing to give?

How do you know that the innocent will work on others? But even if they do, that doesn't mean it's permissible to work on someone who works on others. You're permitted to work on him to protect yourself from him, but not just work on him when it's forbidden.

It reminds me of what you say about tax evasion or circumventing state laws, like running a red light on foot. In a society where people routinely circumvent this, the prohibition is weakened.