MUD-Dev
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: [MUD-Dev] Sony to ban sale of online characters from its popular gaming sites



F. Randall Farmer wrote:
> Comments? Any EQ guys wanna share some thoughts? :-)

Disclaimer:  The following represents my own personal opinion and in no way
reflects the opinion of Verant Interactive, 989 Studios, and/or Sony Online
Entertainment.

    Even as the OOC sale of items, characters, and/or information is frowned
upon (or "illegal") on most MUDs, EQ (or any other _persistent_ online game
with transferable goods) must take the same, if not a more strict, stance.
The ramifications of directly, or indirectly, condoning or ignoring this
issue puts the viability and longevity of the game at risk.  When money is
involved, the anti-social nature of people becomes more predominant.
Camping, kill-stealing, fraud, harassment, and numerous other types of
problematic behaviors become more acceptable, even to those with a distaste
for such action, when the trade-off involves increasing their RL personal
wealth.  Additionally, the gross anonymity of the environment can create a
perception that the potential consequences are less effective/meaningful.
Such behavior is not tolerated in RL due to RL consequences that _directly_
affect the offender: fines, jail, social exile, etc etc.  The only per se
consequence is the banning of their account and the loss of any financial
investment made up to that point.  If the monetary gain via "forbidden"
behavior is greater than the penalty, then the offender still comes out
ahead with a net gain (positive reinforcement) for negative action.  The
guilt/empathy for the negatively affected party is irrelevant.

    Noting that this negative action (negative from the vantage of everyone
_but_ the offender)  provides positive reinforcement, the developers must
evaluate the repercussions of this behavior on the overall game (or
profitability, if a commercial venture).  If the actions of one person
negatively affects multiple people (potentially causing them to become
frustrated and cancel their account), then it is in the best interest of the
developer to REMOVE the malignant person(s) by any means necessary,
including (if necessary) banning of BOTH seller and buyer, and legal action
against the facilitator of the sale/transfer of goods and funds (eBay, other
auction sites, or any other "convenient" means of connecting seller and
buyer).

    Now for those still dwelling on design "flaws" that magnify the problem,
let me state that they only _magnify_ the underlying issues which are a
mere matter of psychology and "human nature".  Although design IN-GAME can
curb this type of negative behavior, or at least help alleviate some of the
symptoms, the problem still exists and the only way to effectively stomp it
out is to remove the facilitator/middleman.  It was noted recently in the
"online economics" thread that if people view a trade as potentially risky
and there is no middleman with a strong reputation for "fairness", the
potential trades will shrink tremendously.  It is _IMPOSSIBLE_ to eradicate
the root of the problem (short of removing all "trade" from a game), but it
is still within the hands of the developers to minimize the overall issue.

~Ryan Palacio
EQ/EQ:ROK Game Designer
Verant Interactive


Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]