Sony takes MMOs in a bad direction for gamers.

[Guest]

http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_ar...s&month=current

Why is this bad?

It means that you can face real life legal/financial responsibilites and penalties for your actions in a game. The game is no longer an escape where your actions are meaningless fantasy.

If someone feels you cheated them out of "uber" loot - you could be taken to court over it because it now has a legitimate value in real world money.

If you "slander" someones avatar in game you could face legal charges now. This is because it could be now related to real world damages since people might not group with you or trade with you.

These situations will be rare, but the potential definetly exists. And that effects everyone playing these games.

This is a bad thing for gamers, and even worse for roleplayers.
The greatest protection you ever had was when a game company said you couldnt sell items and that you didnt own them, because that kept your hobby free from real world resposibility.

[Griselda]

I don't know that I have an opinion on Sony's Station Exchange thingy, but I can't see any reason why somebody should be less accountable for their actions online than they would be for their actions in any other setting.

At least, people who write and distribute computer viruses can be held accountable. People who sell stolen goods on ebay can be charged for their actions.

Any time that someone's actions affect another person, it makes sense that they should be held accountable for their actions.

What that means for roleplaying and in-game situations will vary from game to game. This is particularly true in MMO's where players join rival factions and are encouraged to attack their rivals, or tabletop RPGs where some element of deception or backstabbling might be designed into a scenario. But, I would argue that every time you interact with others it's more than "meaningless fantasy".

[Count Duckula]

I read this article, and from what I read, I understand that Sony's making a monitored market for EQ2 items. It sounds to me like they're doing something about a problem that Blizzard has tackled without success.

I think this is a case that can establish precedent and show at least the gaming world that your ARE responsible for your actions when money is involved.

I'm sure the other folks reading this thread right now (*coughOcchicough*) can give a better argument. Lemme catch a few Zs and try again in a few hours. :P

[Any1]

I think Sony is just enabling "trading" on some server, how does that translate into legal and financial trouble for the players? This kind of trading has been going on in all RPG and MMORPG games for years and years now. Sony is just legitimizing it on some of their servers.

On another note, I happen to agree with Griselda, that for too long people have hidden behind online anonymity to act like certified jack-asses. You should be held responsible for your interaction (through any media) with other human beings. If you bully, cheat, and/or harass other people, there should be consequences.

[wakim]

... I can't see any reason why somebody should be less accountable for their actions online than they would be for their actions in any other setting.
[right][snapback]74623[/snapback][/right]

The reason is because this changes the nature of the setting: The addition of the gain and loss of monetary potential as a consequence of one's actions in a game changes the nature of a game when this consequence didn't previously exist. Consider the difference between playing a game like Everquest and playing roulette. In this comparison whatever the differences are, they just got smaller since both games are now similar in that the results of random occurrences - luck - are, or can reasonably be, linked to financial reward.

The addition of the gain or loss of financial potential to a situation changes the nature of the situation, and hence what one is being held accountable for, or, in other words: It isn't all fun and games when it isn't a game only for fun.

[Jester]

Sony has no ability to change the laws of the land. Theft is still theft, and anything that is not theft is unlikely to become it. All this is is Sony setting up a pseudo-legal bubble, under the protection of agreements you automatically sign in order to use their service, to regulate in-game trade.

There is no ability, as of yet, to sue someone for taking your TehUBARLOOTZ!, or whatever other crazy rights people might come to think they have.

People can, and will, take up their problems with Sony. What they decide to do within their own game is really up to them, but it has no legal weight whatsoever, as far as I know.

And, of course, if one doesn't like it, like all games from Diablo through to Roulette, one is free to walk away from the table at any time.

Jester

Edit: Come to think of it, I suppose there could be some theoretical argument about the in game "objects" having value. However, much like bets made with friends, I don't think they represent an enforceable contract, and therefore would be ignored by the courts. And, in any case, your contract is with Sony, not with the people playing around you. I think it's pretty much buyer beware.

[SetBuilder]

I can imagine what some of these TV judges in small claims would say about this issue.

They'd think you were all crazy, give you a huge lecture, and boot the case out of court.

[Guest]

I would say quite the opposite.

I play games because they are meaningless fantasy. I would venture that the people who attach greater signifigance to them are compensating for real life failings.

Now sometimes I form friendship with people in games in a way that trancends the game, but I never felt that anything good or bad done to me in a game deserved real life rewards or punishments.

[Munkay]

I never felt that anything good or bad done to me in a game deserved real life rewards or punishments.

The last time I played D2, beating Baal on Hell was enough for a real life reward of a frosty cold lager. :)

Cheers,

Munk

[Jarulf]

I don't really see this as an issue of responsability of players or not. That will not change in any way thought this. As someone told, thae main underlaying structure here is still all the normal laws that regulate our lives, including online activities.

What I see as a more interesting problem is for Sony itself though. As mentioned, they have suddenly turned their game into something were one can make money. The difference between gambling is very narrow, you play the game, and thorugh luck, is rewarded with "winning" various ingame items that can be traded into different ammount of money (probably depending on their rarity/odds). Instant gambling!! This can potentially cause problem for them since many countries regulate gambling quite a bit.

In addition they are basically seting up a new service with monetary costs, this again, means that the actual game play and activities in the game is directly related to their service and its fees and money changing hands, that is also regulated through normal consumer laws dealing with services and/or sales and such. For example, they sell you something in the game, now everything that applies normally when you buy something applies here too. In general, many of those things are regulated through various consumer laws that one simply can't just sidestep through contracts. A whole host of problems is being born here I would say.

[whyBish]

For example, they sell you something in the game, now everything that applies normally when you buy something applies here too. In general, many of those things are regulated through various consumer laws that one simply can't just sidestep through contracts. A whole host of problems is being born here I would say.
[right][snapback]74653[/snapback][/right]

Wow, this is an interesting point. Online casinos/gambling are not allowed in N.Z. I wonder what sort of enforcement stops it from happening, and if that would apply to other forms of gaming with money involved?

[Thecla]

As mentioned, they have suddenly turned their game into something were one can make money. The difference between gambling is very narrow, you play the game, and thorugh luck, is rewarded with "winning" various ingame items that can be traded into different ammount of money. Instant gambling!!

Is acquiring items in EQ2 (or any other MMORPG) luck or skill though? There are many legal precedents about playing Bridge for money as a game of skill, for instance.

A whole host of problems is being born here I would say.
[right][snapback]74653[/snapback][/right]

May well be...and it s!cks any way you cut it.

[Jarulf]

Is acquiring items in EQ2 (or any other MMORPG) luck or skill though? There are many legal precedents about playing Bridge for money as a game of skill, for instance.
May well be...and it s!cks any way you cut it.
[right][snapback]74663[/snapback][/right]

Rather irrelevant though. There is for shure a luck element since you get loot in random ways. I mean, gambling on horses is not just luck, knowledge and skill about the horses, their current status and so on is of course important, yet it is gambling (at least in Sweden).

[Brista]

Actually Sony's strategy may be quite devious

There doesn't seem to be any prospect of a legal challenge to the trade in online items. By setting up their own "ebay" they have a much stronger position from which to ask ebay and the others to cease and desist reselling their items since it competes with their proprietary service.

Also it gives them a slice of the pie that's currently helping ebay get fat

I can see the business point of view

The key thing is whether players care. Sony's research suggests they don't.

I think I will never pay RL money for a level 60 character or an uber sword. It's just a game and there really isnt a great difference between playing it at level 20 or playing it at level 60, from what I can see. But I think there's already precedent for this in official game products. In DAOC the expansions contained new more powerful items that you needed to be competitive in pvp. So players who couldn't give a rat's arse about the extra content bought them anyway to remain competitive in pvp. That's paying for uber items, isn't it?

I think part of my feeling is that I'm unlikely to be the guy with maxxed out character and all the latest uber drops. That's probably not logical, chances are I will end up at that end of the game simply because I play a lot, have fun and try to be effective but it at least feels remote at the moment

Maybe once I'm level 60 my feelings on ebayers will change but at the moment I'm not too fussed. So what if someone has an uber sword from ebay? Is it really any different from some random idiot who's utterly useless but who got lucky with the roll after a mindless zerg forced the drop?

The game's too easy. I'd be pissed off if the chess world champion became world champion by buying two extra rooks for cash and slipping them onto the board. But someone succeeding in WoW because of this? I find it hard to care

[Jarulf]

>By setting up their own "ebay" they have a much stronger position from which to
>ask ebay and the others to cease and desist reselling their items since it
>competes with their proprietary service.

And since when is competition bad (from a legal point of view)? It is usually the other way arround.

Actually, I would not be surprised if it turns the other way. By seting up this service of selling and buying items, they indeed admit and accept that it is an acceptable and legitimate action to do so (selling and buying items) and may run into problems when they try to prevent others from doing so. It is like car mabufacturers wanting to forbid a car owner from using non "original" parts on theor car or going to an unauthorized service place by having cutomers signing a deal when buying the car not to do so, it would not work in most countries I would say.



>I can see the business point of view

Sure, nobody seems to argue about that. The thing that might be probelmatic in my point of view, is that they have to realise that by doing so, they have to follow all normal rules and laws regulating every other service and sale. I think they might be missing that (including the "gambling" part).



As for the concept in general and my own feeling, well, I think even the basic $15 a month is far more than what I want to spend on a single game, meaning I will not even consider starting to pay extra money for specific ingame items (or content), especially if it is in any way needed to fully play the game. On the other hand, I don't care if others want to spend money on it.


>The game's too easy. I'd be pissed off if the chess world champion became
>world champion by buying two extra rooks for cash and slipping them onto the
>board. But someone succeeding in WoW because of this? I find it hard to care

On the other hand, I never see games like the ones we talk as a true competition, although many others might feel so, claiming it is unfair and so on.

[Occhidiangela]

Good, bad, or ugly, Sony is the one with the gun in EQ2. They have decided to take action against WASTE, which cuts into profit margin.

Second: Dealing with fraudulent transactions of one type or another takes up roughly 40% of our customer service people's time. We have players calling us up or requesting in-game service for activities related to these sorts of transactions constantly, even though they are specifically disallowed by our EULA. You may ask why the percentage is that high when it's not allowed in the first place? The answer is simple. Many times, people in these situations aren't up front with us about what actually happened. "My sword disappeared from my inventory" comes to mind, when what actually happened is the player has sold the item to someone else. Our CS people have to take the time to investigate this claim because if something legitimately happened, we of course want to take care of the player's needs. We believe that by taking this course, we will free up a great number of resources to deal with other things for our players.

1. I surmise (and the article confirmed) that Sony saw a market, and decided that they'd be better off trying to get a share of it than spending money on lawyers to try and kill it. They have accepted their defeat after a six year long battle against a practice they can't stop.

2. PT Barnum was right, so be it, folks will spend money on what they will. Folks buy golf clubs that don't help them golf any better all the time.

3. This move is a good thing for the player who both buy and sell items in virtual worlds. IMO, what SOE is doing resembles what the Security and Exchange Commission, and the various stock markets, did to help cut down on fraud in stock certificate transactions. Sony has created a marketplace where there is more structure and less "caveat emptor."

4. For casual players, this appears to be a blow. Maybe it is not. Maybe the casual player is not item obsessed in the first place.

5. For parents, this move strikes me as about as dangerous as eBay sales. IMO, junior should not be allowed access to credit cards. If he earns his own dough, or has his own money coming, in, he can set up a Pay Pal account, or enter into whatever arrangement Sony provides for funds distribution.

I personally think they should institute Exchange on all their servers, but I admire their caution and their incremental approach to allow for their fanbase to comment on and come to terms with this new feature. Similar to Blizz PvP, PvE, RP server set up. Play where you like it best.

Why is this bad?

It means that you can face real life legal/financial responsibilites and penalties for your actions in a game. The game is no longer an escape where your actions are meaningless fantasy.

Ghost, I think that will depend entirely on how you, or any gamer, approaches the game.

If someone feels you cheated them out of "uber" loot - you could be taken to court over it because it now has a legitimate value in real world money.

Looting rules and conventions will need some serious looking at, I agree. That lid on the can of worms is definitely off.

If you "slander" someones avatar in game you could face legal charges now. This is because it could be now related to real world damages since people might not group with you or trade with you.

I think this slippery slope argument is incorrect. Are you liable for legal charges if you assign a low rep on eBay?

These situations will be rare, but the potential definetly exists. And that effects everyone playing these games.

At least on the Excange enabled servers.

This is a bad thing for gamers, and even worse for roleplayers.
The greatest protection you ever had was when a game company said you couldnt sell items and that you didnt own them, because that kept your hobby free from real world resposibility.

Depends on whether or not Sony implements this on all, or just a few, servers.

Occhi

[jahcs]

It appears Sony is attempting to maintain ownership of it's intellectual property, at least in the fine print.

As worded in the article the sales area allows people to buy the use of an item or in game money. I'm sure the fine print somewhere will say Sony still owns intellectual rights to the items and that all sales will be at your own risk.
And anyone that works retail knows that "at your own risk" flies about as far as a sauerkraut and ice cream sandwich when you've got an angry, shortsighted, selective hearing, customer on the phone.

I wonder exactly how the sale will be implemented to prevent folks from being swindled. When you throw real money into an equation some people lose all sense of their moral compass and others insist on getting all they paid for and then some, or else! If you throw something out there for sale does it immediately disapear from your inventory and go into a "holding area" for immediate transfer to the final buyer? Or will the exchanges happen in game?

And a good point was raised about children and the service. I hope additional controls are placed on the system and you can't just charge all your purchases to the credit card the account is billed under without some additional verification required.

Which reminds me, you can call your credit card company and have it refuse any charges you don't want and then the burden of proof goes onto the seller to prove the buyer got the item and that it was an item the buyer actually ordered. Would the seller be the EQ2 player who is subletting the use of the item or would it be Sony who "owns" the item?

[Guest]

Good point about gambeling. Although it do think it adds a level off real life resposibility that was not present before also.

[Guest]

The fine print wont be near the protection that the old "no selling" rule offered. Whether its ownership or or simply the "right to us" its now a property that with a legal real world value.

[WarLocke]

http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_ar...s&month=current

Why is this bad?

It means that you can face real life legal/financial responsibilites and penalties for your actions in a game. The game is no longer an escape where your actions are meaningless fantasy.
[right][snapback]74622[/snapback][/right]