Slashdot Mirror
Protests, Politics And Parties In MMORPGs
The Importance of writes "LawMeme's James Grimmelmann has written an interesting piece on protests, politics and parties in MMORPGs. In particular, he talks about the 'tax revolt' in Second Life."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
If I don't like how life is in a game, I'm free to leave at any time and start a new life elsewhere agreeing to the new rules of that society.
The naked riot of 1997 in Ultima Online:
From AlterNet:
History has shown gamers that online protest can result in positive change, as exemplified in Ultima Online's 1997 naked riot demanding bug fixes and server upgrades. Not only were some of the rioters' issues addressed by the game publisher following the incident, but the event was widely reported, and gamers worldwide have been inspired to acts of virtual civil disobedience ever since. Remember that your worst enemy, aside from integrated branding, is inaction. Electronic Arts clearly wants players of The Sims Online to be wildly imaginative, and has already recognized that the online world is unpredictable.
that in a game such as Second Life, that something of this nature would happen. It is a game, that is totally openended, which lends itself to the creation of a "government". Take Golding's Lord of the flies for example. A bunch of kids set up a "system of government." this government ultimately fails, but the premise is the same. A group of people, with a common interest get together, in this case their country is a digital domain. It really is an interesting study in anthropology, if you ask me.
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
He's definitely a talented designer also knowing the importance of a good mix of playerbase is essential to sustaining a in-game society. I can't vouch for any of the graphical MUDs he's been part of but I will always remember LegendMUD and late late nights doing quests, rescue parties, and infamous clan wars. (Knights and Grendels baby!)
I tried the star wars MMPORPG because friend insisted it was "the greatest thing ever".
Its so freaking boring...the tutorial fine, but the game, you get to a world, and it consists of guys looking for raw materials so they can level up characters, so they can then look for different raw materials so they can level up characters...
I'm only saying this because I think the mentality of people who play these games is not part of what most people consider "normal", and therefore, the current MMPORPG population is just a collection of weird geeks.
So if you try to draw a conclusion from that population, its a bad idea.
...that's a complete load of crap.
Lord Of The Flies is a book that illustrates how easy it is for us to fall into anarchy without the presence of a society to keep us in check.
The book isn't about failing systems of government, it's about how, in the absence of any form of government, we quickly we fall back to a selfish "survival of the fittest" state with the strong preying on the weak.
The boys don't try to set up a system of government, they try to live by the rules that society has taught them. But, pretty soon, they realise that without society watching over them, those rules are easily disposed of - and weaker figures like Simon and Piggy suffer as a result.
Witness the near-deification of the conch, the hunting, the return to "normal" behaviour when rescue arrives, etc. This isn't a book about government or society, it's a book about a lack of government and the breakdown of society.
No book more clearly illustrates the mentality that turns ordinary people going about their daily business into a rioting, blood-thirsty mob than William Golding's masterpiece. When it comes to examining how easily we can descend into anarchy, LOTF is the bible.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Meanwhile, US citizens are barely registering a whimper of protest at the draconian laws passed every day in the name of "patriotism" and "protecting the homeland".
It's pretty sad that people organize "protests" in a fucking -game- but won't stand up for their rights in real life. What is the matter with you people?
Please help metamoderate.
This game tax was supposed to fix runaway inflation by changing behavior by giving 'players an incentive to get rid of things they don't really want any more.' In the real world people are getting sick of taxation as social engineering. Taxation should be about funding the government.
Reminds me of a time in one game I play called Dragonrealms, where they changed how some aspect of experiance in the game worked, so all the healers in the game refused to heal any wounds. Between that and the general chaos it caused, the experiance system was changed back quickly. Sometimes a little in game riot goes quite far.
I do believe your logical chain above is rendered entirely worthless by this bad link: "As a result, being wealthy is less desirable" The rich do not got rich just so they can save society. They get rich so that they can ignore most of it.
The sad part about this is that it isn't a troll!! Republicans really believe in what they say. "Can you believe that damn government wants 50% of my paycheck? How am I going to buy that new Yacht now!?"
1/7 people doesn't have health care; 1/5 doesn't have auto insurance. Look at the big picture.
I can understand this point of view if you are part of that 1% who benefit from regressive taxation, but otherwise, I'd seriously go meet some inner-city working-poor people and tell them rich people deserve tax breaks. See what they say.
I can see why you posted as AC.
More than enough BS
Cancel your subscription. That's what I did with Star Wars Galaxies. The game clearly isn't ready for release.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
Several years back, the Lake Superior shard (UO game server) was having serious problems. So a bunch of folks who played on that server hopped over to the Atlantic shard to protest. For whatever reason, it was red dress instead of going naked: Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2, they put us in jail
Of course, naked protests aren't unheard of. I don't recall what this one was about, but we were a merry band of nude archers: Naked Posse
Frigax
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The addiction to online gaming is real, and has existed since long before Everquest. MUDs, a text-based role-playing game, were every bit as addictive and dangerous.
It was quite disturbing throughout my time at university seeing fellow students drop out due to these games. Hell, even I had problems with them - I missed plenty of assignment deadlines all in the name of some rare sword.
This isn't going to change, but hopefully society as a whole will learn to acknowledge how strong a role these games can play in some people's life. Perhaps they will even become a tool for creating new communities, merging the physical with the virtual...
You missed the point. They're not taxing the rich, they're taxing the productive. The tax is actually agressively anti-progressive, oddly enough.
You tax rich people to keep them from hoarding and just leeching off society. Progressive taxation is supposed to encourage the financing of large projects, as you pay less the more money you dump right back into charities or museums or whatever. If they lack the creative energy to act as a positive force on society, like most rich people, the government takes a portion of their money and does it for them.
This is not what the game was doing. The game was charging people in-game money for building intricate stuff that uses up the company's real-world server resources. The people who this affects most are the in-game philanthropists who spend their money on public-use cool stuff. The protesters are arguing that the company is hurting itself by discouraging the insane art projects that slow down the servers but attract new users needed to pay to upgrade the servers.
There is no point about so-called "progressive" taxation, because there is no economy for anybody to try and progress, or fail to progress, there's just a company that doesn't want to risk scaling up their MMORPG.
The wealthy don't fund much at all.. the working people do. In the game it was the creative people that were actually working to make big cool things for everyone to enjoy. (Why did you think they were wealthy?) Seldom do the wealthy get off their fat asses and go out and create new cool stuff. Employees think of the ideas, engineers and scientists make it possible, artists make it look good, factory workers make the parts, and construction workers build it. Even the janitors are making an effort to keep things flowing well for those working on the projects. It's all paid for either by Joe Consumer or by tax dollars. The CEO and stock holders aren't contributing much of anything to the project.
Don't misunderstand me to say that nobody that is wealthy contributes. There are people who have become wealthy by their own creativity. It's just not the fact that most of those that are wealthy at any given time are of that sort. Not even most of the neuvo rich. I'm sad to say that most of the self made rich do it by knowing the right people and the right legal/business loopholes and being somewhat ruthless. They might be clever but they aren't contributing much to society.
As in this game the goal of the creative people wasn't to get rich, it was to be creative. Released from the ritual robbery by the wealthy many working class artists, scientists, and engineers would act those needs out in real life. Instead you end up with these people making brochures and researching the taste of toothpaste. Yeah, so lets give all the money to the rich. It helps society a lot that they can afford three large homes and a dozen fancy cars.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
When I tried to persuade a waring faction of savages to lay down their weapons and join me in peace, I quickly found myself splattered against a nearby wall by a stray rocket. Awakening in a nearby chamber (Damn cloning, I protested against that, too!) and proceeded to shout my pleas to pacify the barbarians shooting at each other. After several hours of this and quit, there's no use playing a roleplaying game with so little character interaction and virtually no economy.
Quake had to be the worst MUD I'd ever played!
Banaaaana!
If they are taxing just because things are so easy to get that they aren't fun any more then why not make them harder to get? Or make them wear out with use or time. Seriously, that is why consumer goods break so often.. because otherwise people wouldn't need to buy them very often.. so huge corporations wouldn't exist to supply people with new can openers on a regular basis. We could make these things last longer but we choose not to. So do the same with your game.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Perhaps the solution to the tax is to incorporate some form of manufacture, sales and profit. One would have to limit or provide cost to the manufacturing/labor to make this work. The primary problem with the inflation, it seems, in all these games is that the money supply is virtually limitless once you know how to get it. Instead, stop the money supply (for the most part) and rely on commerce to take over.
:)
In a game like Ultima or other combat based games, this might have to be revised but it seems like Second Life is more about life. So anyways, your stadium is taxed more but people come and visit it and you charge for it. This makes you a net profit.
Okay, I realize I may be missing some of the boat since I don't play MMORPGs but I think it would be vastly interesting to model these RPGs in a manner similar to real life. This would make it even more interesting if/when "twists" are thrown in as they might reflect interesting revelations about what might happen in real life. Or even "playing" with economics a little.
By the way, in the Ultima or combat style MMORPGs, you could still limit the money supply but one would need to realistically have the villages sacked every once in a while by a band of orcs, dragons or whatever. Then the good warriors have to go and get it back.
Finally, I've always had an interesting theory about economics. The old line is that nothing happens until something gets sold. Yet in many ways, government focuses on "taxing" things which of course reduces the amount of items sold. I propose an interesting experiment to be to reduce taxes for spending a certain portion of your income within a month. For example, let's say 50% of your income within a month. This means that the poor would likely be spending this amount anyways (and be subject to those savings) and the rich would be encouraged to spend more to help vitalize the economy. I'm sure I haven't thought this entirely through yet but I'd be interested in hearing some responses to this. I get this feeling, however, that the criticisms can be worked through.
By the way, this would have to be matched through some accounting system that matches bills to taxes and of course would require automation to make it viable. This may involve privacy concerns but, of course, you could opt out if you wanted to keep something private or come to some other solution.
At any rate, ideas like this could be interesting to test in a real economically based, paper-money limited, MMORPG.
Sunny
Be my Friend
>Employees think of the ideas, engineers and scientists make it possible
Who pays them?
>artists make it look good
Who buys expensive art?
>factory workers make the parts
Who pays the fatcat union wages?
>construction workers build it
For whom are they building it?
All those questions are answered quite simply:
They're doing it for the man with the money. Because they want some of that money.
>The CEO and stock holders aren't contributing much of anything to the project.
You really might want to look at how a corporation operates. I'm thinking you don't have a grasp of it.
>They might be clever but they aren't contributing much to society.
I disagree. Without the wealthy, those other jobs wouldn't exist.
Notice that whenever the wealthy do better, there's more jobs? It's easier to get money?
Notice that whenever there's a recession, the wealthy get screwed first, then you?
>Released from the ritual robbery by the wealthy many working class artists, scientists, and engineers would act those needs out in real life.
Highly unlikely. None of these people could afford the tools necessary for their jobs. None of these people individually have the skills to produce those tools themselves. The only solution to that conundrum is communism, and that doesn't work.
>It helps society a lot that they can afford three large homes and a dozen fancy cars.
Who built the homes? The cars?
If they didn't buy homes and cars, it seems it would satisfy you, but it would put a LOT of people out of work.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
...we would protest more if when we all get together and tried to do anything the wouldn't game lag...lag some more and finally sbexe out. (For those of you lucky enough to never have to experiance the sb exe error, it's a fatal error resulting in the process being removed from memory, aka a crash)
Anyone know if it's gotten better. Haven't played in a few weeks but have heard from a friend it is a bit better, probably due to the fact enough people have left where the server side has a lighter load it can handle, not that there was ever enough players to have what should be considered a large load under these cirsumstances.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
The AC is obviously ignoring the fact that when they build those malls and Wal-Marts, they hire people to work in them. Those big bad rich people have just created a nice stack of jobs for the community.
It's easy to look at the statement "Joe Bob owns a mall," and immediately assume he's making money hand over fist. What about utility cost? What about employment costs? What about security costs? Maintenance? And the biggie: Liability insurance.
Now look at how many people Joe Bob has put to work. Those people take Joe Bob's money and feed their families. They buy cars. They get health care. And when people buy things in Joe Bob's mall? That money goes back into the economy and goes to help those that are working to produce those products.
Someone has an extremely sheltered and liberal-influenced view of how the economy works.
--Obyron
Well, I'd have to disagree with that one. I can only drink so much water, use so much electricity, and drive so many miles in a day (all of which I pay for, either directly, or indirectly). I'd also say that my vote doesn't count for any more than joe the garbage collector's vote.
Why ought the rich to pay a greater percentage? Because they are bad people? Because they stole it? Because they don't deserve it? Because they perspire more than other people? Why? I've yet to have any higher-tax-rate proponent explain that to my satisfaction. A flat tax that kicks in at a certain income level is the epitome of fairness... everyone above a certain income level pays the same cut. They pay different amounts, of course, but the percentage is the same.
I didn't steal my wealth from anyone... I worked hard for it, and I continue to do so. I won't be told that I somehow don't deserve to enjoy it, or that I'm wrong to be well-off.
The progressive taxation argument is simple class warfare, and plays on the baser emotions of jealousy and envy, nothing more. As I listen to the lefitsts of the world, I wonder if I somehow missed something, I wonder if I'm going to wake up tomorrow and find out that I'm an armed robber instead of a healthcare professional... listening to some democrats, you'd think that's how I made my money.
I refuse to accept the moral aspersions that are thrown in my direction, simply because I make a good income... as if we are all idle rich who inherited it, and lay around all day putting on airs and abusing the "less fortunate." I utterly reject the implied lack of moral fitness that some want to tie to wealth.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
The credit card is to keep 12 year olds out of the game. Believe me, it makes the game a LOT better when you don't have little teens scampering about asking ASL and shooting you with home-made guns (which you make in-game... you can make anything, really, even stuff that annoys the piss out of people.)
:)
They had an experiment that just got done where they took the credit requirement out... almost overnight the maturity level plummeted as morons straight from Counterstrike would come up and shoot people off their property at mach 12. Yeah, it's not very fun.
Of course, we came up with our own ways of disposal... launching them into the upper atmosphere is a good one
But seriously... if more games required a credit card for use, the world would be better off. SL is a nice haven from the retards that troll the majority of online games.
hookers and grits.
What are online revolts and revolutions? They are the resolution to a paradox of a society that encourages and rewards individualism, but at the very same time generalizes, stereotypes, and also rewards conformity. In other words, we tell individuals that they are important, but at the same time, thanks to the proliferatino of mass media, Americans now have a greater perception of those around them than anyone else at any time in history. Prior to this, the world was contained to largely a town, or section of a city. Now, however, Americans are individuals, yes, so we are told. But we also feel terribly small when we realize that we play such a small role in the perceived world around us (the world that mass media presents us with). We are made to believe that individuals are of the highest importance. The paradox, though, is why do our actions mean so little? If we, as individuals, are as important as the American idealogy would have us believe, why then are our actions meaningless as individuals? Why is the mass media more concerned with seeminlgy everything around us, except ourselves? The paradox? Individuals are important. But individuals are also ignored. If I am important, why can I not apply this level of importance to the world around me? If the individual is penultimate in American society, why am I completely ignored by society when I want lower taxes? Why can I not change and control the environment, if I am as important as everyone tells me? The people in this online games have realized, either on a conscious level or otherwise, that if they cannot change the immediate environment around them, if their individual actions do not mean anything in the immediate world, all that is required is to switch environments, change worlds. It is in online games that their importance as individuals is recognized alongside the importance of their actions. They are both individual and impacting. It's important to note that American society has always moved in this direction; gangs, cliques, etc, are all manifestations of this. But online games give the illusion of incredible impact. They match the importance of individualism with the importance of impact. The players in Second Life are creating a revolt! A revolt! How is that possible within the confines of the real world? What does a nude sit-in in the real world accomplish? A novelty at best, and nothing at worst. But a nude sit-in in Britannia? That accomplish something. I believe that what is now on the absolute fringe of society will gradually make its way into mainstream. They are the perfect solution to the American paradox of individuals and impact, they manage to squeeze by both and integrate these two elements into a world where an individual's personhood and their actions are as important.
greetings,
on the vein of opensource, have someone else try something like this:
1)A team of developers create, design and code the game, which is opensource. Lets call them The Founding Fathers
2)People who want to play, must pay a fee. This fee is to maintain the server, and pay the developers -as usual
3)After a period, comes election times. other developers step in, make their new propossal to the game and gammers vote.
4)So, this guys take the administration and improvement of the game on his hands, they rule the game and get paid for it trough the gammers fees.
5)GOTO 3... and you have a ever evolving game with democracy.
HOWEVER, you're close to the mark. What could happen is economic think tanks should start sponsoring MMORPGs. Set them up with an established social\economic structure, then let the characters run loose in the world to see how it fares "in reality." (I realize it's not REALLY reality, but it is far, far closer than has ever been remotely possible in economics before.)
Publicize the game, make sure people know before hand what sort of world is being set up. This should, in theory, attract those people who have an interest in that style of economics. There will always be choads, but the majority of people gaming should stick to the worlds with rules that best suit their idea of what a society should be.
Or, now that I think about it, even better - run several games using the same basic "world" simultaneously, but with the different structures. You're allowed to "immigrate" from one world to another (you realize Objectivism isn't for you after all and decide to give Communism a shot), but absolutely *not* to run multiple characters. This would be a permanent banning offense, since it would completely skew the study. (this would allow them to test not only which countries are most profitable, but which attract the most citizens)
It wouldn't be a perfect test, to be sure. The fact that it requires a fairly high level of computer knowledge would skew the results considerably from a strict statistical point of view. However, this is the first time in history that economists can actually *experiment*. We might actually be able to rip a lot of the dogmatic ideology away from economics, put the theories to *practical* test (without risking millions of real lives) and then have a huge slew of data to draw from in application to the real world.
And then, of course, if God had a sense of humor we'd discover that Marx was right all along. ;-)
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Taxes are levied in Second life because of finite server resources(ALL content is server-side, the client download is a mere 11mb). A server can handle x amount of objects, and tax levels are calculated based on things like total available land, and other factors.
For example, i have an empty "sim" (one game world unit, in an interconnected grid of sims), and i first want to buy some land in that sim. I buy a 32x32m plot of land for x amount of money. Now, you get taxed for that land, since its a limited server resource. Now i want to build say a house. I "rez" in 4 cube primitives, shape them to form walls. Each item costs y money to bring in to the world, then has a tax for stying in the work for an extended period of time, based on a variety of factors. Basically anything that costs server ram and CPU cycles, you get taxed for. You would have to play the game to fully understand the results this actually has, but as the base of it.. is theres a finite amount of resources, and the rules keep them form being exploited.
Second life is a game where the players make their own content. Theres a scripting language and primitives based modeller. You can import textures and sounds, and create what you like. Dont want to create? no problem. Its a game you play as you like. Its a paradigm shift, and worth your time to take a look at if you want a truly new gaming experience.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
Second Life?
Are the creators sure these people had a 'first' life?
[Chief Wiggum] Mod it down, boys! [/Chief Wiggum]
- I am made of meat.
LOTF is just well-dressed propaganda, teaching youngsters that without the guiding adult hand they inevitably descend into primitive violence. No coincidence it's such a favorite of teachers.
Life's real stories of youngsters abandoned shows something quite different. In the Polish ghettos, Nazi camps, streets of Rio and of Kinshasa... children form groups and look after each other.
The most flagrant examples of children acting violently are wars in which adults abduct children and train them as soldiers: Colombia, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Liberia, and many other cases... it's the adults doing the damage.
Children don't have holy water running through their veins, but they do not embody naked evil either. They just try to get along. LOTF is a caricature, based on the idea of "original sin", saying that we ar civilized only because society keeps us in check. Bullshit. Society is an expression of our human nature, and civilization is a natural consequence of our innate desire for an easy life and our built-in mechanisms for conflict avoidance.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
>Who pays employees? The consumer. Who is the consumer? Employees.
Without going into too much detail, let me sum it up for you:
It's a symbiosis. Without rich people, the poor have no chance. Without poor people, there are no rich people.
Perhaps you think that sucks but that's how it works*.
Personally, I think it's great. It's an encouragement for everyone to be all they can be.
>When is the last time you worked in a factory?
My dad worked in one, unionized of course.
>Very few of those working class people could be considered fat cats.
He has just retired comfortably without any debt a couple of months ago. He came to Canada penniless in 1976. He, and my mom, lived on charity for at least 2 years. I now live with him and my mother (in my case it only makes sense). We live on a 1/2 acre lot in a 3000 sq ft. home in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. We've never won the lottery, we'd be lucky to have made more than $10,000 on investments.
You tell me. Not that I'm complaining all that much, of course I'm enjoying the benefits of that, but again, you tell me.
>Funny, I saw a lot of CEO's laying off workers so they could get hefty bonuses
Yes, they did during the dot bomb. Shortly after their companies tanked, which is why it was named the dot bomb (not because of jettisoning employees). Do you disagree with that?
>Do you think people can't work together without wealthy people telling them how to do it?
No. Communism isn't impossible to make work, it is simply unethical.
>Who built the homes? Working class people. Who builds cars? Working class people.
The question is still why? My dad worked in an auto factory. He didn't do it for fun. He wouldn't do it if it didn't pay. So why did he put bumpers on Mercedez, and frames on Jeep Cherokees?
Well, not because cheap people wanted cars, that's for sure!
>That other 80% of people aren't still going to need the essentials of life? Sure.
Again, that's communism. Rarely would you see a factory in a communist country make a luxury vehicle (except for corrupt fatcats). Normally you'd see Ladas. In fact, Ladas were made in a communist country!
So, we can spend our life surfing the internet on a 14.4k dial up connection, or we can let the rich enjoy a 100 mbps circuit, and be happy that a lot of "regulars" are able to afford and enjoy a "luxury" of 3 mbits DSL.
As compared to cars, the rich get driven around in limos. You get to drive a Toyota Corolla with Air Conditioning. Which still beats the HELL out of driving a Lada.
Life isn't about meeting essentials. It's about enjoyment.
* - That's if you want to enjoy non-essential things, like your current internet service!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I tried out "A Tale In The Desert" and it has a free 24 hours of playing trial with no credit card required.
I highly recommend the game.
smeat"Let's not bicker about who killed who." Monty Python
I remember back about 6 to 7 months ago a protest by the players occurred in DAoC (Dark Age of Camelot).
The complaints were regarding a particular faction (hibernia to those who know the game). Players encouraged other players in the same faction to join a particular server for a protest regarding the issues.
The problem being, the Hibernia realm was the last developed realm and this does show rather well when compared against others.
Class balance issues, some monster/mobile issues and general complaints were all held. Interestingly enough it did get some attention, but I believe most of the answers weren't exactly concrete.
None the less, a protest is a protest, and it is worth mention.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Cynical this may be, but I can't see Star Wars: Galaxies ever being truly ready. After all, even with vehicles, it's still just a game given a Star Wars makeover. That may have worked for Knights of The Old Republic, because while it's quite open in form the plot can still be directed. But Everquest is pretty much a sprawling formless game and just throwing lightsabres etc intot he minute doesn't make it a compelling game. Or one that actually does the Star Wars license any justice (though that hasn't stopped Lucasarts in the past).
I played DAOC excessively for a little more than a year. In that time, several players on my server died for one reason or another. It hurt to discover that someone you encountered in virtual battle, possibly many times, had cast his last spell or ganked his last noob and assumed room temperature.
If the dead has any virtual friends a memorial will get organized. These get announced on various forums and in-game. In the case of DAOC, at almost no other time will you stand among the enemy without being in battle. At these times, however, possibly hundreds of players gather and have good thoughts about the departed. Honor prevails and people behave.
So lets not get too worked up about a little virtual disobedience. There is a lot more than that going on inside MMORPGs. Ironically, one can imagine that the virtual turnout for the dearly departed will nearly always outstrip the real life version by an order of magnitude. Figure that out and you might have something interesting to get worked up about.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Remember, the article starts off talking about the rampant inflation inherent in MMOGs"
Which is, of course, utter bollocks. The problem, if there is one, is rampant _deflation_ of prices: items that would have cost 2000 whatsits when they first appeared cost 20 whatsits today because they're so common. It's only the brand-new and very rare items that cost a lot.
"the rich have an easy time accumulating more wealth to compensate for inflation."
Why do you need to accumulate wealth when goods cost 1% of the price they sold for when they first appeared? A new "poor" player in Everquest can equip themselves with items for a thousand platinum that would have cost many tens of thousands when the game was young... and make that thousand platinum in a few hours of killing spiders.
Frankly, whenever I read an article complaining about "inflation" in MMORPGs I know from the start that the author doesn't know what they're talking about.
This certainly demonstrates one of the paradoxes of the MMORPG. On one hand, it has to be fun, and everybody has to be able to do everything in it. On the other hand, you somehow have to create the illusion of a living, working world.
And it is an illusion. To satisfy the first condition, the moment you have a built-in quest, the players are rendered powerless to change the world around that quest - a town in danger from a Dragon is always in danger from a Dragon, no matter how many times the Dragon is slain.
But, there are certain concerns that make running an MMORPG a very tricky balancing act:
1. The company must retain control over the game. This essentially renders democracy in an MMORPG impossible. The moment the players actually have a controlling interest in the game itself, the creator of the game is placed in the impossible situation of being responsible for what happens inside the game, but being to control it.
(This is the reason, for example, that when you create a character in any MMORPG, the company running the MMORPG owns the character. If you own the character, you can make demands on the company that are unreasonable in the greater scheme of things, the company HAS to give in [as the character is your property], and since the company owns the game, they are liable for anything you do.)
2. For the game to survive, the players must form a viable community. This means that the game must be fun, but also encourage people to contribute to the world in ways other than slaughtering monsters (such as creating items in UO and EverQuest). In the end, it is the people that the regular players come back for, not the game itself.
3. The game must be balanced, both in design and community. And that is the hardest of the lot, considering the first two factors. Too much inflation and the majority of the players are driven away. Have a closed system, such as the real world, and all of the resources get eaten up by the first players in the game, leaving everybody else in a state of poverty (which happened in the early days of UO). The tax system in Second Life is an interesting solution, and possibly the best I've heard so far (as just pushing new and better stuff into the economy creates inflation).
The big issue is whether democracy can end up existing in an MMORPG. Quite frankly, I don't think it can. It is one thing to petition a developer for a change, which is what the protest basically amounts to, but quite another for the players to dictate to the developers what can and can't be done in the game. The moment you have the gamers in full control of the game, the game will start to die - there will just be too many voices fighting for control at once.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
You do not work for Nintendo. Please stop trying to pass yourself off as a Nintendo employee, troll.
Everyone else: Read this joker's comment history to see what I mean.
I read the article, and read up on some of the complaints and the stories. It appears that they could have solved this problem by offering tax credits/rebates for philanthropic "projects".
The next complaint by the user community will be based on what is considered philanthropic and what is not. Judgement will come into play. People will be angry for different reasons.
I can almost guarantee that if someone built a monument, got their tax break, someone else will scream bloody murder because they didn't get their tax credit for building blankety-blank.
Face it, some people are unhappy in their own skin. There are people who object to everything. These are people who will never be happy. They might best be served by creating their own game and playing it the way they want to play instead of forcing change on 98% of the rest of the world.
Lastly, it's a game. Get a life! Read a book. People who spend that much time "escaping" from reality need help.
-- No sig for you!
"Lord Of The Flies is a book that illustrates how easy it is for us to fall into anarchy without the presence of a society to keep us in check." :
First of all, you point towards a definition of anarchy that is completely false.
Secondly, you say
"The book isn't about failing systems of government, it's about how, in the absence of any form of government, we quickly we fall back to a selfish "survival of the fittest" state with the strong preying on the weak..."
I'm having a hrd time seeing how this is different that ANY system that exists today.
_____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
Or a culture whose role models are governments who steal and accumulate the most from individuals, a culture where success is inevitably tied to the fatness and "fairness" of the government, a culture that worships situational mindless protest of the status quo without presenting adequate alternatives, and venerates a body of socially coercive policies without the need for reason.
Conrad and Goulding seem to have it about right. In the absence of existing social structures, our activities tend to become dominated by the brutality of the worst individuals. Nice people cannot exist intermingled with the brutally selfish without suffering losses or fighting back. It doesn't matter so much what the distribution of people's inclinations toward "niceness" are. The brutality of physical reality is the basis of our existence and will dominate on the ground until groups of "nice" people coalesce in cooperation to fight against it, and actively brutalize against the individuals that are willing to take advantage of the basic physical rules of brutality. Both "modes" of behavior are possible for humans and are evident the world wide. To pretend that we're at nature kind-hearted creatures that desire to share everything without regard for selfish interest pretends that primitive communism is our natural state, and that governments should never have come to exist.