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

[Crosbie Fitch]

From: Matt Mihaly

>> 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.

The problem is that a MMOG provider is seen as being entirely
responsible for the virtual environment they provide, and
consequently the behaviour of players within it. And consequent to
that, the safety of those players.

If you buy a PC from WalMart are they responsible for your
psychological well being when you play Counter Strike? I don't think
so.

I'm trying to suggest that if the MMOG platform was separated from
the MMOG content, that perhaps you could also separate out the
moderation.

So what you'd have is the game being designed by MMOGs-R-Us (or
whoever), the platform being provided by IBM/Butterfly, and the
moderation/policing services being provided by a third party
specialist 'online creche management' service provider.

  1) The platform provider, IBM/Butterfly, is just a common carrier
  (like an ISP or WalMart). Players pay a subscription to them
  directly to utilise X CPU hours per month (or just a flat rate).

  2) The game design and content is being provided by MMOGs-R-Us and
  sold via normal retail channels (or better still, direct to
  players). The players buy a package with a lifetime access key
  (not necessarily entitling them to later versions, etc.).

  3) Moderation is sold to the players as an optional
  service. Players can opt to play the unmoderated versions of the
  game, or, if they're 'safety concious', pay a subscription to a
  moderated version of the game.

Maybe, separating the various services out will make it a little
clearer to see the opportunities.

  The platform provider will be immune from anything except outage
  complaints.

  The game developer will be immune from anything except bug
  complaints.

  The moderator will be immune from anything except griefer
  complaints.

Now each business function can determine the risks.

I'd not like to provide the platform. "Why not simply utilise the
players' computers?" I say. For god's sake, it's their hardware,
whether it's in their bedroom, or in IBM's server room (we'll look
after it to protect it against you).

If I was producing the game, I'd be like the movie industry and
create a company for just that game, sell the game en masse, and
then wind the company up. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not
suggesting that the game is abandoned, I'm just suggesting that we
isolate the primary revenue that the game should enjoy. Subsequent
to the game's sale (en masse), anyone (including the original
authors) can provide their services for a fee to fix bugs, etc. And
a new company can be formed to create a sequel.

If I was providing moderation services, I'd run the game with an
iron fist in a velvet glove, brainwash everyone into believing they
were having fun, and occasionally ban players at random just to keep
up the repressive atmosphere. I'd also ensure I could easily rustle
up a sizeable cohort of players to vociferously defend my absolute
and incorruptible kindness and demonstrate against any litigant.

Now, you don't have to outsource to IBM. If you're VU say, maybe you
can create the separate companies too - if that is just as
effective. But, hey, this is big corporate stuff, and I prefer the
spartan penury of a small indie game devco. Maybe that's why I'm
trying to extricate that weeny bit of 'game developer' from the
commercial colossus that the MMOG dev seems to be these days.

>> Sell the content en masse, on a one-shot basis, i.e. a company
>> dedicated only to produce a particular piece of content. It

> 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?

Original and initial game design is done by the developer.
Subsequently, the moderators can tweak things (either on their own
whim or in response to player petition).  I'd also suggest that it
should be possible to create MMOGs that can function without
moderation.

> 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*

If an MMOG, to remain entertaining, needs constant additional
development, then I don't see why the players can't be involved in
the decision-making process. They're paying a hefty subscription
after all.

>> 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.

Ok, maybe 'back' should be deleted from my protestation. But, I
think a little more player enfranchisement wouldn't
hurt. Ooops. Just realised I'm wearing rose-tinted specs.

> --matt, wondering if he's missing a joke here or something...

Nah, it's just my maverick writing style. :)
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev