[MUD-Dev] BIZ: Who owns my sword?

[Crosbie Fitch]

From: Matt Mihaly

> I don't see that that eliminates the risk. If players own a
> virtual sword then virtually every game design decision invites
> lawsuits from players claiming that you've damaged the value of
> their property. Changed the power of the sword? You screwed me!
> Changed how hard monsters generally are? You screwed me! (Cause my
> sword now has less effect on said monsters.) Etc.

Evidently, we really do need the virtual equivalent of a padded room
or bouncy castle. Somewhere where it's impossible to suffer harm, or
at least, where people will readily sign 'litigation waivers'.

Anyway, that's a problem for the company that provides the online
bouncy castle. Not your problem (the MMOG developer).

All you have to do is figure out what kind of toys the litigation
kiddies bouncing around in the bouncy castle will want to play with.

Then you have to ensure you can sell those toys on a 'sold as seen'
basis, i.e. the second you've got the money, run like hell.

And anyone who has the faintest idea as to the hobby horse I'm
flogging these days will know that I'm evangelising the 'sell it en
masse to all' revenue model, which conveniently supports the 'run
like hell' defense. ;-)

For a comparison, consider just how hard it is for MS to litigate
the developers of GNU/Linux. The best they can do is to make a golem
to extort frail and gullible users.

This is the same situation that can be created for MMOGs, i.e. an
open platform immune from litigation. How can you prosecute the
public domain that owns it, or the molecular coders that developed
it? Whether IBM or the public owns the platform doesn't matter. The
solution is separating the MMOG developer from providing the
platform as well as the content.

Sell the content en masse, on a one-shot basis, i.e. a company
dedicated only to produce a particular piece of content. It disbands
the second it gets paid. If any players subsequently feel like
litigating, perhaps because they've decided it's too addictive, or
makes them have nightmares, or offends their religion, etc. then
tough tambourines. They can join the ranks of people suing McDonalds
for making them eat too many delicious burgers.

It's time players learnt to be responsible for the content they
commission.  The best way of doing that is to make it as plain as
day that it's that way around, i.e. it's not the publisher
manipulating the masses, but it's the players putting their money on
what they want.

That's why I like the digital art auction. It let's the masses set
the retail price.

Let the masses decide if they'd prefer a revision of 'sword damage
rules', or an overhaul of the 'monster power system'. If the masses
want it, they'll buy it. If a few players hate it - oh dearie
me. They've no-one to sue but their fellow masses. They'll just have
to learn to lobby nicely like the less litigiously inclined people
of the world.

Put the power back in the hands of the players, and let the artists
get back to producing art. Virtual worlds belong to their denizens.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev