[MUD-Dev] Our player's keepers? (long)

[Matthew Mihaly]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Brian Green wrote:

> Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> > I'm concerned with providing my users with an experience they want.
> > If what they want is bad for them, that's their issue, not mine. I'm
> > not daddy, and you know what, I don't know what's best for their
> > lives.
> 
> We must realize that the issue runs deeper than the problems of
> individuals; it is a problem that affects others in the social
> environment and a problem that will affect the industry through bad
> press and negative perceptions.

I really don't care if industry gets bad press and a negative perception.
Text muds have never exactly been thought of well by the press to begin
with, and since the industry mainly consists of the graphical games, I
don't give a damn. No offence to those list-members working for Sony and
EA, but I do not care what happens to Sony or EA. Microsoft I only care
about because I like being contrarian and I happen to own stock. In fact,
I'm going to express what I'm sure are the sentiments of more than one
person on this list and say that I cannot _wait_ to see all the MMORPGs
that just absolutely tank. I'm quite looking forward to the spectacle. The
industry, which you seem to want to defend (surprisingly, given your past
rants about the industry) needs a good slap upside the head. And
as far as text muds go, any attention the press gave text muds would be
good press, as at least some people in the general public would hear about
them. 


> This is issue is an emotionally charged issue, and we risk one side of
> the argument alienating the other side of the argument; no one wants to
> hear that their relatives (or even they) are idiots that made foolish
> choices when they misspent their money on gaming.  I will strive to
> stick to more logical arguments.

Well, no one may want to hear it, but I'm certainly willing to say it.
You're an idiot if you go broke gambling. No sympathy is going to come
forth from me. 

You know, I once knew a woman who played a mud that I played (Avalon). We
both started about the same time, and were big rivals for awhile. This
woman lost her marriage when she met a guy in Avalon whom she started
spending a LOT of time talking to on the phone (overseas to boot!). She
then went to visit him (she was married mind you). She lost a job as an
admin on MUD2 because she started directing its players to Avalon. She
lost her job as an accountant because she started making direct-dialed
calls to Avalons modem bank (they had only recently offered internet
access), from her place of work (it's an international call, as I
mentioned). She then lost custody of both her children because her husband
was able to convince a job that she was clearly not capable of taking care
of children when she was clearly unable to regulate nearly any portion of
her life in the face of her addiction. 

You know what? F*ck her. I have no sympathy for her and I place 100% of
the blame squarely on her shoulders. That probably sounds incredibly cold
to a lot of the readers, but to me, it's patronizing to treat her in any
other way. Take responsibility for yourself. Call me old-fashioned.

 
> Focusing on the logical side of things, we ask ourselves, "What exactly
> is our liability?  If someone wastes their life away when playing our
> game, are we at fault?  Even if we are not at fault, can we sustain the
> negative press that this is undoubtedly going to create?"  While I am
> not certain if we should take liability for someone's choice to ignore
> their offline duties, I am almost certain we cannot sustain the negative
> press the inevitable stories will cause.

Well, speaking for myself, I couldn't care less if someone else thinks I'm
at fault, unless he or she can do something bad to me. I'm quite certain I
can sustain the negative press the inevitable stories will cause. I
guarantee you that the Wall Street Journal's middle column will not be
entitled, "Achaea and the destruction of the common man." Instead it will
be something like "The Dark Side of Sony's Everquest." Like I care. Boy, I
sound like a real bastard. Apologies. I don't mean to imply that I'd like
to see my fellow designers lose their jobs, but I do have a very very
difficult time feeling sorry for behemoth corporations, unless it is
Microsoft (*licks Bill*).

 
> Traditional single-player games are already under attack for the
> "problems" they cause.  Senator Lieberman likes to draw attention to the
> graphic violence found in games, pointing to research that links such
> game violence with increases in violent behavior.  The now notorous
> Colonel Grossman is making quite a living on the talk show circuits
> trumpeting the harmful effects of video game violence.  

Yes, it would be irritating, but from my point of view, I'd just move
Achaea to another country. Not a big deal. God I love the internet. It
really comes down to me generally not caring about the big MMORPGs and
their problems. I doubt they lose any sleep worrying about mine, and I'm
not really sure I aspire to ever do a big MMORPG.

 
> The "link" between playing a game and the disasterous effect on a
> person's life is even more evident in our case; no one could argue that
> the player's obsession with UO is not what caused his problems,
> particularly when dealing with the general population.  Negative press
> will come, my friends, and it will be a force that we may not be able to
> handle.  It won't matter who is morally or legally wrong or right in the
> matter, the masses will decide our fate if we allow it to come to that.

I really don't think it's all that big of a deal. There's already been
negative internet press about 'internet addiction', and they don't even
mention online games. The internet generally is very addictive,
particularly things like chatrooms, which are much more pervasive than
online games are.

> Consider the offline example of local bars.  Drinking and driving is a
> tragedy, something that never ceases to get negative publicity.  While
> some bars try to distance themselves, stating that they are not
> responsible for the actions of their patrons, others are more
> proactive.  Some have designated driver programs, offering free soft
> drinks and items for someone who remains sober to drive home friends. 
> Others have signs posted that offer to call a taxi for patrons should
> they not be able to drive after a night of drinking.

Heh. On the other hand, some bars thrive while basically turning nobody
away, and allowing people to do things like smoke inside (illegal in
california). Up with diversity.

 
> Even before driving becomes an issue, bars will often stop serving
> customers that have obviously had too much to drink.  This is not only
> socially responsible, but also smart from a business point of view.  A
> surly, puking drunk ruins the atmosphere for other patrons.  A customer
> that dies from alcohol poisoning or an accident is lost revenue, to put
> it in cold business terms.

If you want to talk cold business terms, then what you want to do is
ensure their lives are almost, but not completely, ruined. Naturally even
I do not want that for my players, but financially I suppose that would be
best. If they kill themselves, that is, of course, a bad thing, as you
say. You'd want them to be slaves, working to earn enough to feed
themselves and feed their addiction (you). 

The thing is, if bars really wanted what was "best" for their customers,
they'd stop serving someone after 2 drinks, as after that, you start
accumulating liver damage. The fact is, they don't. They want to make
money. I've seen many a successful bar serve people until they puked.
Hardly looking out for what you'd refer to as their well-being. They toss
a bone in the direction of 'goodwill' by offering to call you a cab, but
that's a bit like me whacking you on the side of the head with a baseball
bat and then offering to call you an ambulance. Don't get me wrong, I
don't hold any ill will towards bars. I frequent them. My choice, my
responsibility.

 
> I think we should follow the example.  It is less excusable in our case;
> from a business point of view, a company running a game with a monthly
> fee gains nothing when a player obsessively plays a game.  In fact, it
> increases the chances the player will not be able to pay our fees if
> they ignore their offline duties enough to lose their income.

Well, agreed for the big guys, but again, some of us want what is best for
us, not what is best for the shareholders of EA or Sony. It's selfish,
sure, but then, no less selfish than the shareholders of EA or Sony caring
about their respective companies instead of mine.

 
> Why should we care?  Why should individuals even consider how the
> industry as a whole fares?  To put it simply, because we are a
> community.  Communities flourish when people contribute and wither when
> people take without giving back to it.  Any person not interested in
> becoming part of such a community should seriously reconsider online
> gaming as a career.  Our job is stated most simply when we say that we
> "create communities."

I'm unconvinced. I feel very little in common with most of the commercial
"industry", and I'm guessing that I am not alone on this list in saying
that. 

 
> In the tradition of offering possible solutions in an effort to start
> discussion, allow me to give a basic example.  I think the obvious way
> to break such obsessive behavior is to destroy the link between time
> invested in a game and the resulting advancement within the game's
> mechanics.  This is nothing short of heresy according to many
> developers.  Tradition is strong in our medium, but there are some
> legacies we can stop clinging to so stubbornly.  

Yes, particularly as I like obsessive players in my world. Again, I'm sure
I am not alone in saying this. I'd guess many members of this list would
agree either openly or silently.

 
> In the long run, we will benefit from reducing this link.  Not only will
> this change help reduce the benefit of obsessive behavior, but it will
> also allow casual gamers with less time to dedicate to participate in
> our games.  As I stated last week, we need to attract these people to
> the medium if we are to make sure we have a hand in the future of the
> medium.

I'd like casual gamers, sure, but speaking for myself, they are not why I
built Achaea. I can see myself doing other projects that would target the
casual gamer, and so I would want to reduce the link between time and
achievement, but to say that we all should want to reduce that link makes
no sense to me. 

 
> Hopefully, this area is something we can dedicate some serious thought
> to.  Even if you think we cannot dictate what our customers want or that
> we should not mess with social implications, I am sure most agree we
> need to avoid negative publicity for our industry.  Careful
> consideration and design will help us avoid that which will harm us in
> the long run.

I am sorry, but to view the industry as an "us" is a bit of a stretch.
When I first joined mud-dev (the first contact I had ever had with anyone
in the "industry") I thought there would be an "us" about the entire
industry. As I've learned though, it's about as paranoid and backstabbing
an industry as there is! Why do you think it is so difficult to get
straight answers out of anyone without an NDA? (and even then!) It's not
because everyone is lovey-dovey and trusting of each other. It's because
they know that everyone else is out to drive them into the ground if
possible, and if not possible, at least copy whatever their most
successful product is (we're all familiar with the mind-numbingly
predictable me-too tendencies of the industry). 


Feeling grumpy,
--matt




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