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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Crosbie Fitch wrote:
> From: Matt Mihaly

>> 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.

> 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.

No, but then, if you buy Everquest, SOE isn't responsible for your
psychological well-being either. I'm not sure what your point is.

>   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.

I don't understand why you're focusing on this 'safety' aspect. We
are talking about the risk that a company would incur if players
were given some sort of legal ownership over the database entries we
pretend are swords and shields.

> Maybe, separating the various services out will make it a little
> clearer to see the opportunities.  > The game developer will be
> immune from anything except bug complaints.

So you mean that when that gold-duping bug happens the players can
sue because their existing funds were devalued by the unwarranted
increase in monetary supply?

Further, how does this address removing the risk of player ownership
from ongoing development, which is an absolutely necessary part of
muds and has been for 2 decades. Someone has to make game design
decisions and it is not going to be 100,000 players.

> 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.

So how do you expect to make money, exactly? Retail sales on
large-scale MMORPGs don't even come close to justifying their
risk. Without the ongoing revenue there's no business.

And as for this idea that 'anyone' can fix bugs, who, exactly, is
paying them to do it? How are they paying them? Who decides what's a
bug and what's a feature? Who decides how to fix a bug? Who decides
which bugs get priority in being fixed?


> 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.

Have you ever run a game? Do you go on mud discussion boards? I'm
not sure why you think you'd be able to "brainwash the users into
thinking they're having fun" when no other game has managed to do
that universally.


> 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.

Ok, so the moderators can be sued for the tweaks then. All you've
done is pass the risk from one company to another. That doesn't
address the issue of risk at all.

> 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.

Probably the same reason that Time magazine doesn't run polls every
week on exactly which articles will be included in that month's
subscription, or that Microsoft doesn't poll all of its users on
every single feature to be included in Windows, or that Best Western
doesn't poll all of its customers on the colour of the coffee mugs
in their rooms. Or hell, probably the same reason even a company as
small as mine doesn't run polls to determine the sometimes dozens of
design decisions we make daily.

I'm sorry Crosbie but you're sounding more than a little out of
touch with reality here. Are you really serious about this or are
you just sort of rambling?

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