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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> 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).

Then it's the developer's problem too, assuming the developer wants
anyone to pay him to develop.

> 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.

I appreciate what you're saying but the analogy isn't apt. Linux is
a product, not a service. MMOGs are services. You can't just "sell
it and run" because SOMEONE has to be maintaining the game, updating
the game, and so on. It doesn't matter whether that's the developer
or a publisher or someone else. SOMEONE has to take the risk if
players own the items.


> 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.

I'm a little baffled as to how you envision this working. Who,
precisely, is deciding whether that town is going into the world or
not?

> 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.

So you're advocating that in a large game a few hundred thousand
people are the designers, and participate in the few dozen design
decisions every day? *doesn't even know where to begin with that
one*

> 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.

What do you mean "back in the hands of the players?" When was the
power ever in their hands to begin with, aside from maybe LambdaMoo,
until the users gave power back to the operators.

--matt, wondering if he's missing a joke here or something...
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev