MMO Gaming - Virtually Too Real?

bippy writes "The Rocky Mountain News has an article about the evolving face of massively multiplayer online games. PC MMOGs have fostered debates about free speech, made money for people and been home to virtual and real crime. Or as the Rocky put it: 'In a time of global terrorism, high crime rates and world hunger, the virtual evils of a computer game are really trivial. But in a way, that's the point: Why do even our games have to be subject to crime, no matter how virtual?'" A spokesperson for Ultima Online comments on Electronic Arts' view of virtual crime: "EA owns your gold, your swords, your characters - they are all just digital bits. If your entertainment is to destroy other peoples' entertainment, you're going to be tossed."

Comments

Some experience

[Fizzl]

I play EverQuest and ocassionally code in a Mud.

The grief of losing an item on which you used many hours of your Very Real time to obtain can be big.

As I have seen the player point of view and the administration point of view of a MMOG, I can say only this:
Nothing is virtual. Players are real persons. They use their real time to play. For the hardcore player their character is as real as the paycheck they receive for doing their more 'boring' job.
Yes, it is easy to toss a player with 'it's just a game, get over it', but anyone who has played any of these games know that it's not that simple.

When you play. Remeber; your virtual comrade/enemy is also a living, breathing person.

Re:Some experience

[Cougem]

The grief of losing an item on which you used many hours of your Very Real time to obtain can be big.

Isn't that the point? If it was not possible to lose items, if we never felt the grief of games, then the pleasure of gaining the item would be far less. I'm not saying we need people to ruin your game by exploits and the like, but PKing, taking items and the like, it's part of the game; without it, posession of the items would feel shallow, living in a static world.

Re:Some experience

[Thomas Charron]

But, then again..

It's a game..

If you hold that it's ANY more then that, then whats to stop lawsuits to say, keep Everquest around after Sony decides it's no longer profitable? Where is the line drawn?

Re:Some experience

[Cougem]

In games like UO you play to compete. Life and death is part of the game. Being killed by a PKer is something you might expect, I don't think you can compare it to your computer. We expect to be killed by NPCs in games, you don't expect your computer to be broken by an equally inorganic action such as an earthquake. So, being killed by a PKer in a game just add another level to the uncertainty, it's a level passed NPC combat. In both instances you lose your loot/items. It's just it's a human doing the action rather than a computer.

Re:Some experience

[JaredOfEuropa]

If you hold that it's ANY more then that, then whats to stop lawsuits to say, keep Everquest around after Sony decides it's no longer profitable? Where is the line drawn?

Since the question of the real world value of in-game items has already come up in a few lawsuits in various countries, you can be very sure that the game companies (if they're smart) are already looking into this very issue... If in-game items are deemed to have an actual real world value, then they need to carefully consider how their liabilities sit. Putting a price tag on virtual goods isn't a very foreign concept, after all: the free call minutes on your cell phone account may be just bits in a server somewhere, but they are yours, and they do have a value.

Re:Some experience

[JudgeFurious]

Being killed by another player isn't the same thing as being killed by an NPC if you didn't log in to play against other players but then that's where you need to reexamine what kind of game you're wanting to play.

Personally I look at the PK's as interfering with my playing "the game" (that's just me, you might feel different about it) and so I had to decide whether or not I wanted to play in an online world where others could interfere with what I was doing. My conclusion was that this wasn't the kind of game for me.

I love playing Q3 online where I expect and intend to play a PvP game but in games like UO and say Diablo 2 I am there to play the game, not play against the game AND the other players. I walked away from UO very early and limit my Diablo 2 playing to closed games where the PK's can't get in. That suits me fine.

People make more of this than it's really worth. If an online game allows the PK's to do what they want and doesn't provide the other players any way of going about their business without having to deal with them then just walk away. Granted you might really want to play that game but if it's not your kind of game then it's just not your kind of game. Add it to the list (we all have one) of crappy games you purchased and move on.

If enough people close their accounts and voice their dislike for the situation then maybe they fix it in a future release and you get to try it again. Probably not but it's possible.

Re:Some experience

[JaredOfEuropa]

So basically, what you are saying is that if I find 100 other people with yellow penguins and walk around town with them, then it's suddenly okay and acceptable?

That is what I am saying, with one qualification: you would be walking in a walled-off section of town, set aside for walking around with yellow penguins. Perfectly acceptable... although the rest of the town might well call that area 'the Asylum', and take pains to ensure you lot remain within its walls :-)

But you never really "own" your character or your equipment in a game.

Depends on the law in your country. In some places, the law is ambiguous at best, and while you may not actually own the data or demand that it is handed over to you, a court can decide (and in some cases already has done exactly that) that the game company has an obligation to keep your character's data reasonably safe from hackers and the like.

When MMORPGs become more mainstream, I fully expect lawsuits to be fought over virtual property, and at some point I think the law will be changed to cope explicitly with these issues.

Re:Some experience

[Godeke]

The eternal PK / no PK conflict. Having coded muds for a *long* time, I can safely say you will never resolve this, as this is a personality issue, not a technical issue.

Some people want to play a cooperative game against the "game". Others want to play a battle of wits other players. There is plenty of middle ground, and where you stand on this determines the kind of players you will get.

Since you seem to like the PK aspect, you would probably be *shocked* that people play "talkers" and "MOOs" where combat plays *no part* in the game. (Some MOOs have added combat, but the base code is about creation, not destruction). Yahoo Pirates attracts different players than Dark Age of Camelot.

Personally, have my 12th level character mob-killed repeatedly by 35th level characters that I have no hope against doesn't appeal. But that is my *personality*. Perhaps you will say that I should be mob-killed repeatedly for simply existing.

Re:Some experience

[buffer-overflowed]

It's easy to resolve in MUDs. Set up two sides. A good side where players can't attack members of their own alignment and an evil side which is a free for all.

Here are the keys I've found to running a successful(100+ player online) PK MUD.

1st off have a safe point about 1/3rd of the way up (so in EQ this would be level 15), up until that point you can be attacked but you lose nothing and the pker gets nothing.

2nd off give rewards for player killing. Give them points, the more challenging the kill the more points they get. A level 35 killing a level 20 would be worth maybe 1, killing another level 35 would be worth more. You can cash these in for custom items(no more powerful than a normal item), upgrades, or remorts(reset yourself to level 1 but get a few bennies) for better stats. Let there be no other way to gain stats. Limit the number of times you can remort w/o these points to about half the max.

3rdly do not penalize exp for pk deaths, and do not make pk kills worth much if any xp.

4th have safe zones(cities), you can still attack players here, but their entry/exit points are blocked by highly powerful NPCs that require almost an entire side to kill(so in an MMORPG the town guards should only be killable by a hundred or so players working together), and respawn in no more than 15 minutes. Make them aggressive, powerful defenders that take a while to kill, and you can't run by them either. Also put guards at the entry points to each side's area, but make them half as powerful. This forces sides to coop to kill the other side, draws them together.

5th avoid linear progression! Progress in terms of power should be quick to start with and then slower in the end(after the safe point). I mean in terms of power, not exp. The difference between a level 30 and a level 20 should be nowhere near the difference between a level 20 and a level 10.

6th limit the number of players that can attack another player physically at the same time. 4 seems to be a good number for this. This allows someone who is attacked by a much larger force to run. Spells and other high powered things should have delays greater than the average time to successfully flee.

7th avoid the temptation to allow ANY physically oriented characters(warrior types) to do enough damage to kill a level 1 in a single hit consistantly. Exceptions for thief types and backstabbing/stealthy stuff.

Eventually stability comes out of the evil side.

I never had a problem with same-side pking. People generally rallied together to kill the other side, and the evil side tended to self-regulate stupidity. After a while we turned on same-side pk on the good side and still had no problems. They'd kill their own idiots and spam kill the abusive people and that was about it.

No one wanted to kill newbies en masse and loot them, there wasn't any reason to. They had next to no equipment, no money, and weren't worth anything.

Re:Some experience

[buffer-overflowed]

Doesn't work. What happens is that those who opt out of non-PvP are resented by those that don't.

You either have PvP or you don't, there is no middle ground that I've found that doesn't eventually lead to the death of an online game.

Normally, the PvP players leave, then the non-PvP players leave(killing mobs for gear only works for so long).

When we added an opt-out option our pbase began to die. Slowly at first then more rapidly as more and more non-pkers were thrown into the mix. There's not as much of an incentive to advance if the only thing to be gained by advancement is advancement itself. We experienced an initial upsurge, and then it began to die. We had to add content constantly to keep people on whereas before we didn't. The players provided their own content and all we had to do was babysit.

I abandoned the MUD circa 2002, and someone else took over, they've since axed the opt-out option and the pbase has begun to grow again. It's back up to 20-30 players online whereas with opt-out it was at 5-10 towards the end.

Having pk as an option doesn't work unless everyone is forced into it.

Internet Anonymity

[QuinchUK]

The internet encourages anti-social behaviour some people. Who hasn't occasionally acted in a way over the internet that they wouldn't dream of doing face to face? Play any shooter and all you get is loud mouthed adolescents and pre-pubescents. MMORPGS add another mask to their personality, players can express their more repressed social feelings. Is it a small step from anti-social to criminal?

Re:Internet Anonymity

[mattjb0010]

I cannot speak for any others, but thats why I'm anti social. Because society disgusts me.

People who are anti-social *are* what's wrong with society. If you're not prepared to go out there and make a difference then that is disgusting.

;e

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do even our games have to be subject to crime, no matter how virtual?

Why wouldn't they? Virtual or not, the games, our lives are run and designed by humans. People are people in all their glory and faults. If your looking for utpoia online your looking in the wrong place.

Re:Internet Anonymity - an experiment

[atomico]

The internet encourages anti-social behaviour some people

Quick and easy confirmation: read Slashdot comments with your threshold at -1. Obviously, those morons wouldn't say the same face-to-face: too big risk for a tiny, stupid, reward.

EA is wrong

[linuxislandsucks]

EA is wrong..

according to game theory and socialogy and physcology crime is just another way to play the game..the difference being is thqat for soem reason these grousp fo people do not normally have the correct tools to play the game in the correct way..

some choose criem to feed their family and etc..

by subtracting crime form the vr EA has set about to make the vr game unstudiable as far as human behaior..

It might be avaluable to have it thge other way

Re:EA is wrong

[PhxBlue]

EA did not create their MMORPG so that people could study it. EA created their MMORPG so that they could make money.

Sublimation

[quintessencesluglord]

As S. King pointed out, you have to feed the alligators of the sub-conscious. A polite society doesn't allow for poetic justice; it doesn't give you a space to let your id to roam free. The entire horror genre is dedicated to this idea.

Look at any moralistically repressive system, and you see the worst crimes imaginable being perpetrated. There is no escape valve. What do you expect?

The classics of horror were written during the most repressed times, and hardly ever do you see horror expanding during times of war. Why bother when people are already acting out in real life?

And as it is for games. The mere fact people are acting in an anti-social fashion suggests a need. You _could_ play nice, but people choose not to. Isn't playing PARANOIA still a social event?

Casual evidence suggests this is a step away from criminal. Kick in the doors to people's minds, and they tend to kick back. And it isn't pretty.

trivial

[feidaykin]

In a time of global terrorism, high crime rates and world hunger, the virtual evils of a computer game are really trivial.

In the span of a few hundred million years, the Earth will become less and less habitable due to the expected changes to our giant stellar friend 1 AU away, and that's assuming an asteroid doesn't get us first. On this time scale, the evils of global terrorism, high crime rates, and world hunger are really trivial.

What good does it do if we stop terrorism, crime, and eliminate hunger, if we're still doomed to be completely annihilated in ~500 million years?

Okay, I know I'm going to take a hit on my karma for posting this, but the main reason for my post is to simply prove that it does no good to insult a pass-time that many gamers take seriously by calling aspects of its nature trivial in comparison to something else. Everything is trivial compared to the scenario I just described, just as indeed, I suppose video games are trivial compared to the concerns you described.

Now, would you go around telling people not to live their lives the way they do because we've only got ~500 million years left here on Earth? No, you wouldn't?

Then shut the hell up and let people enjoy a video game in whatever manner that wish, including taking its problems as serious as they wish to imagine them. It may not seem right, natural, or even healthy to you, but there are far worse things people can do with their time.

MMORPGs are an excellent way for the socially inept to form rather serious bonds of friendship, and end up living better lives because of it.

But I guess everyone should stop complaining about the faults of virtual worlds, or maybe stop playing in virtual worlds entirely, since it's so trivial in comparison to your examples. In fact, I think I'll turn in my Dark Age of Camelot account and join the police force right now! Thanks for your insight, buddy!

Human nature

[cout]

In order to sell their games, creators of MMO games must convince their audience that there is a reason to play the game, that there is something at stake. There is an illusion of power achieved once you reach the top. In order to achieve that power (or a perverted form of that power -- in the case of someone who simply ruins others' experience), there are people who are willing to do whatever is necessary, no matter the cost.

The problem isn't that the game is too close to reality, but in order to keep interest, it must maintain an illusion of certain aspects of reality, otherwise participants will either play only from time to time (as in a hobby) or realize that there is more to life than online gaming and find something better to do. Obviously game manufacturers make more money if more people play more often.

So we find scenarios in games where people form friendships and close relationships. We find cases where the "love" between two individuals is just as strong as in real life, and the consequences of breaking trust just as severe. We find cases where people have real envy, because the game creators create the illusion that there really is something worth envying. We find cases where people become attached to the things they "own" -- when they really own nothing.

Unless human nature is suspended during the course of the game, it's no surprise that crimes and other perversions will happen. And if that happens the game becomes no more interesting than tic-tac-toe or a first-person shooter.

All your base are belong to us

[Anonymous Coward]

"EA owns your gold, your swords, your characters - they are all just digital bits. If your entertainment is to destroy other peoples' entertainment, you're going to be tossed."

The only record of my money in the bank is digital. If I take some of that money and play the stock market, I can do so by just transferring it. If I make money, it goes back into my digital account.

Does this mean I don't own my money? Hmmm...

Who cares if it's virtual?

[localman]

If I'm having fun (in the real world or elsewhere) and someone makes a point of messing with me, it's harassment. Don't get hung up on how I have fun or whether you think it's fun or useful or not. I am free to pursue hapiness in whatever form I choose so long as I'm not interfering with others hapiness.

Of course, just as in the real world someone elses hapiness may depend on my being unhappy. But traditionally the line has been drawn there: the one overtly trying to mess with others loses.

So, to reiterate: virtual shmitual. You mess with people, you pay the price.

Cheers.

This isn't new

[deinol]

Wasn't there a slashdot article the other day that said the opposite? That the problem with MMO games is that they have become single player games where you can chat with other players, and that there is less and less meaningful interaction between players?

I guess it just depends on what sort of game you are looking for. Some people want to play cooperatively against the computer. Some people want to have a virtual world, where competition between players is a strong part of that. Different games will appeal to different crowds.

The mud I used to play and really liked, had a very realistic feel to it. If you wandered into the wilderness, and fought something too hard for you to handle, you died. When you died, you started over with a new character. That's it, game over. Very harsh, but more realistic.

If you got stolen from by another character, you lost things. That's the way it goes. But, if they got caught, the soldiers would throw them in jail, and a templar would likely take all of their things. If they got caught murdering people, they were killed on sight by the guards. And the guards were pretty tough. You could get tough enough to take one, or maybe two if you were really good, but 4 or more would team you to death.

So there was crime, but if you stuck to the safe areas, that were heavily patrolled, you could successfully play a very non-competative character, where social interaction was all there was to the game. But for those that liked the seedy life, they could venture into the slums or the lawless wilderness.

There is a lot of potential to MMO Games. You just have to know what you want from one, and wht the designers have created to accomadate that.