[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited

[Brad McQuaid]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Dave Rickey wrote:

> I am not allowed to comment on this case in any particular, but
> will someone *please* think through the implications for potential
> future changes to the game and possible legal recourse for those
> financially impacted, if the courts recognize ownership rights for
> in-game value converted to real-world currency, and share those
> implications with the list?

Well, Dave, since you asked, I'll put in my 2 cents, temporarily
leaving my solitude as a lurker, because I think this issue of
paramount importance to the future of commercial MMOGs.

First, though, congrats to the earlier Mud-dev poster for the Lego
analogy -- it's the best one I've heard yet.  I don't care how long
you worked building your castle made of Legos in Legoland, nor how
much you paid to get into Legoland for your season pass, you're not
going to sell the castle, nor transfer 'ownership' of the castle,
nor charge other Legoland customers for access to your castle.

Quite simply, EULAs need to exist in order to protect the
developers, publishers, AND the integrity of the games (or really,
any software in general).  In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason
you can 'own' that which you create with Adobe Photoshop or
Microsoft Word is because the EULA allows you to.  If that right
isn't explicitly granted, you don't.  Another analogous example are
game editors: you're more than welcome to create Unreal or Quake
levels, but I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to sell those levels
without permission.

Anyway, back to Dave's question:

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, I'm just a game developer who was
involved in a fairly successful MMORPG and wants to keep making
these games for some time because, well, we've only scratched the
surface in terms of the potential of these games.  Therefore, any
attempt by anyone, regardless of motive, that could injure or impede
the progress and evolution of MMOGs is cause for me to worry.

Here's my major concern: If the courts ruled a player owned the
virtual property his avatar accumulated in-game, then the prices
associated with selling these items via Ebay and elsewhere could be
used to argue that these items truly have value.  Consequently, if
the developers 'nerfed' the item, and its value went down, they just
damaged the value of someone else's property, and could be held
liable.  Or, let's say a bug caused his item to disappear: whoops,
now the developer owes the player the 'value' of the item.  Heck,
even indirect activity on the part of the developer, especially in
games focused on player-driven economies, could alter the perceived
value of said item.  MUDflation could cause the in-game AND real
world value of the item to drop.  And then if a player could argue
that the developer then financially damaged him...

We need to remember that MMOGs are games.  They're not the virtual
worlds we read about in Snowcrash, etc. (Yet).  And they're not
supposed to be.  They're games that take place in a virtual online
environment.  And games have to have rules, and people who maintain
those rules.  If you go sign your kid up to play in a local soccer
club, he or she might have certain privileges, but he certainly
can't decide that the ball is suddenly his, or that he doesn't like
the fact that only the goalie can pick up the ball, and that he, a
defender, wants to put his hands on the ball too.  Were he able to,
the game would fall apart.  The game would cease to be a GAME.
Sure, it might be something else... a council... a democracy... a
government... a society... a community... and I know that's where a
lot of people want Virtual Online Worlds to go.

And that's fine.  One day they will.  There will be Snowcrash
virtual worlds, where people really own a piece of cyber-property,
and they can do what they want with it, make their own rules, do
social experiments on the development of cyber-communities, etc.
That's cool, that's great, and I'm looking forward to it.

But even in these future worlds, I bet there will be GAMES inside
those virtual worlds, and again, if they are to be games, they need
rules, and someone has to run the game, and someone has to regulate
the game, and at least attempt to maintain a level playing field.
Because if they don't, the game's no fun.

And I think that's what Dave's getting at.  If the courts ruled in
Blacksnow's favor, games like EQ, UO, DAoC, and AC would be ruined.
Period.  They would cease to operate.  The stewards of the
game... the developers, the publishers, the game masters,
etc. couldn't do their jobs because they wouldn't have the right
to... their activities would violate the 'rights' of the players to
control their characters and their characters possessions.

Now, on the other hand, I think a MMOG COULD be created that COULD
grant rights of ownership to players, were the game designed to
support that.  Let's go back to the Microsoft Word analogy: the
product is DESIGNED to allow those licensed to use it to create
documents that they then own (heh, wouldn't be much good if you
couldn't).  So if you went and designed a game around player
generated content or player ownership, and facilitated it, and
somehow made a level playing field and a 'fun' game-like experience
built around this, you could do it.

But, quite simply, the current MMOGs aren't designed for that, and
would ruined by any such decision by the courts.  And I think there
are several MMOGs currently in development, and then those who've
not yet been made, that rely on the developers/publishers ability to
control the rules and environment in which the game is played.  And
therefore if these games are to continue to be successful, and
continue to be developed, and continue to be dreamed about,
Blacksnow must lose.

All, IMHO, of course :)

--

---------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
President & CEO
Sigil Games Online, Inc.
---------------------------------------------

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