[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited

[Jeff Cole]

Note: My comments are under the assumption that the gameplay
mechanics have not been exploited (i.e. duped or otherwised hacked).
Therefore, they should be inferred to apply to the issues between
BSI and Funcom.

From: Jessica Mulligan
> So, Jeff Cole said ...

> The rest, below, all seems grounded in some Utopian notion that
> once a for-pay game is available to the public, the people that
> spent millions developing and maintaining it no longer have a
> reasonable right to profit from that work.  That, somehow, their
> copyrighted material, as acquired and used on their servers, using
> their bandwidth and requiring their manpower to administer and
> service, all of which costs money, is no longer theirs, as long as
> someone finds a clever enough way to circumvent design and/or
> implementation.

Hardly.  I believe Mythic has every *right* to profit from that
work.  I just also believe that Mythic has the *responsiblity*
(read: duty) to design their game such that management costs are
internalized (i.e. the cost of enforcement, etc.).

I believe in the market and the market's ability to regulate itself.
If the balance with respect to gold (or any items) in the Camelot
economy is so out of whack that people can make a buck selling it
extra-game; and if it is such a rampant problem that Mythic is
losing money; then I think such market pressures exert a positive
force on Mythic to fix the economy.  And fast.

Let me amend my first full statement in the first paragraph:

I believe Mythic has every *right* *to try* to profit from that
work.

Consider these transactions within the game:

  1.  I, player A, give item X to player B (for free or game
  currency).

  2.  I, player A, give item X to player B (for free or game
  currency).  We have an extra-game agreement that player to pay me
  $50 in real life.

With respect to the game mechanics, both transactions are
substantively identical.  Somehow, you argue one is "circumventing."

If your argument below about the extent to which transaction #2
reduces a player's time spent in game and, therefore, Mythic's
subscription revenue is valid, then it is also valid for transaction
#1.  Certainly nobody would argue that transaction #1 reduces
Mythic's subscription revenue.

> Since the Sword *is* copyrightable material and can only be used
> with respect to gameplay in a specified place, it seems likely
> that it is supported by law.

Generally, copyright protection offers exactly what the name
implies: protection from unauthorized copying.  To use an item,
obtained through the legitimate mechanics of the game, within the
authorized gameply mechanics is not a violation of Mythic's
copyright interest.

> BSI is cutting into the subscription revenue of Mythic.  If it
> would take an individual a certain amount of play time to acquire
> an object or advance the character to a certain level, then Mythic
> has lost some amount of subscription revenue by having the object
> or character transferred to a new individual via 'extra-game'
> means.  As BSI has more time to play than the average individual -
> indeed, can bring to bear more than one individual for a task, if
> necessary - this significantly cuts the time required to obtain
> the object or build the character, which costs Mythic subscription
> revenue.

That argument is very weak.  I could throw out the argument that
gold is so tight in the early levels (pre-25, maybe higher) that by
selling gold pieces, BSI is actually increasing subscription revenue
by preventing players from quitting who would otherwise have quit
from the frustration of not being able to stay in level-appropriate
gear.  Both arguemnts, I think, are equally specious.

I would argue that players are going to play the game as long as
they find it "fun."  Quite the rare bird is the customer that
measures their fun simply by the items they possess.  For those that
pay for the dragon-loot rather than earn it, the "fun," I think, is
in letting other players admire their loot (and this requires they
be *in* the game).  Such players are probably not going to play less
because they got the loot.

> In the case of the object, it is not being traded as part of the
> in-game community or in the context of game play, which is a
> device Mythic uses to help create social bonds, which tends to
> keep players in the game and thus enhances revenue through
> longevity.  Transfer of objects via BSI or other extra-game means
> cuts through that, a direct damage to Mythic.

Likewise specious.  I could argue that by getting that item, I am
freed from having to impose upon my game-friends the boredom of
camping that item and can therefore spend more time socializing and
battling beside them in the realm wars!  I could argue both, but
neither with a straight face, heh.

>> Suppose I phrase the proposal as a "fee" for my time and
>> incorporate a require the player trade me the item that the Sword
>> will replace.  That is, something like, "for $20 I will spend the
>> time necessary to acquire a Sword of Uber Banishment.  Once
>> acquired, I will trade a player the Sword of Banishment for the
>> item that the Sword will replace."  Such would seem not to
>> violate the EULA.

> If you're BSI or similar, this just makes the scenario worse,
> because you're damaging Mythic even more by acquiring an object
> which you'll also subsequently sell.  If you're just two common
> players playing within the meaning of the game, I don't really
> know if the transfer of $20 breaks the EULA or not.  Again, intent
> matters.

You seem unsure of your arguments above.  Ultimately you rely on an
inquiry with respect to intent.

>> What if (true story, though it happened with respect to EQ) my
>> neighbor's kid offers to mow my lawn for the summer if I
>> twink/powerlevel his character?  I didn't "sell" the items but,
>> rather, bartered.  As of the last time I looked, such a
>> transaction would not have violated the EULA.  His services were
>> much more valuable to me than any money for which I would have
>> asked!

> If it doesn't violate the EULA, ToS or RoC, then who cares?

Look at your last statement before this one.  They do not consist.
With respect to my charging $20 for my time in acquiring an item you
acknowledged that you "don't really know if the transfer of $20
breaks the EULA or not."  Yet, you argued that such a transaction
"just makes the scenario worse, because you're damaging Mythic even
more by acquiring an object which you'll also subsequently sell." 
[note - i am going to "sell" it for game currency, not real
currency]

In all the transactions I have outlined, a player ends up with an
item that they apparently want.  If your arguments are valid, then
*all* of the transactions "damage" Mythic equally.

> ... it's called 'lost revenue;' if BSI, by violating the EULA,
> causes Mythic lost revenue in the form of increased customer
> service costs and the loss of reputation and the good will of
> customers, they may be held liable.

Mythic is not suing BSI for damages.  The cost to do so would far,
far exceed any lost revenue.  Furthermore, damages would be next to
impossible for Mythic to prove.  BSI is suing Mythic for a
declaratory judgment that would presumably allow them to auction
once again.

> One problem all subscription games face is how to keep
> higher-level players interested, longer.  For all we know, Mythic
> intended that gold be tight for low-level characters to encourage
> longer play, teaming and social bonds and removed the restriction
> at higher levels to encourage other activities within those
> created social bonds, such Realm vs. Realm conflict, to extend the
> play life of the characters.

Well, I do not doubt that they designed gold to be tight at lower
levels.  They have said as much.  What I meant, though, was that it
is not nearly tight enough at high levels.

It is also why I think the already weak arguments above are
completely obliterated with respect to the facts in the case.  Items
really have no monetary value.  As far as I saw, all BSI was selling
was gold (with respect to Mythic) and I don't think that players
buying gold are going to play any less long than those that do not.

My point (and one with which I am surprised you do not agree) is
that to the extent that Mythic creates a game in which gold is so
prevelant for higher levels and yet so tight for lower levels, they
should have to: live with the real world consequences (i.e. the
BSI's); fix their economy (i.e. add highlevel, player-valued game
currency sinks); or, deal with policing and enforcing themselves.

Yrs. Affcty,
Jeff Cole


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev