Nope, it's called a EULAyukimurasanadaJanuary 4 2006, 12:46:52 UTC
Which means you can't do squat to a developer or publisher.
Though it does pose some serious questions, it's still there world, there rules, and thats how it is.
Just as Jack Can't subvert the constitution for his own gains, you can't use a MMO world to make real money and then try and hold the game developer responsible.
All Real world transactions happen either through heavily monitored areas, in the case of EQ, or are totally user created, in other cases.
Bascily, the answers to all the questions posed come down to one thing.
Creators choice.
Once you Sign the EUlA and agree to there terms, you have no legal recourse. It's why the EULA exsists.
Re: Nope, it's called a EULAcatalystJanuary 4 2006, 13:10:11 UTC
even assuming that we trust that a court will hold a given eula as legally binding (a possibility, but definitely not a certainty), your logic assumes that the maintainers of a given world don't want their world to look like the real one in any litigable details. but all of that changes when you're talking about something like second life, where inter-player commerce is explicitly part of the picture.
Re: Nope, it's called a EULAvenkelosJanuary 4 2006, 14:27:23 UTC
I think if it came down to a court case regarding the legalities of the EULA, there would be some very high profile people who will wade in and wage war to make sure the courts uphold the EULA binding (if they haven't already). I don't think Microsoft would look too kindly at any one EULA being struck as "illegal." And that's probably just one example of probably hundreds of software companies who would do all that they could to make sure the courts find in favor of a EULA.
Re: Nope, it's called a EULAkingnatJanuary 5 2006, 00:06:34 UTC
You'd have thought so, but over here in the EU it's still swinging in the wind since decisions have gone left right and center. So far it seems to be that whilst the EULA grants permission to cancel an account etc. it's not safe to bet on it being considered a legally binding contract.
Re: Yeah, it would, but I don't think it's possiblelurkerdromeJanuary 4 2006, 20:12:36 UTC
I think the key word you're missing here is "open source". That means players would create their own gaming servers to keep the game running, and the game publisher would shut THEIR servers down. A patch would then have to be coded that would allow the game on the user machines to search for active servers.
Am I reading this right?goodrobotusJanuary 4 2006, 13:20:01 UTC
Were these 'plots' of land bought with real or virtual income?
If people had to pay real cash for virtual plots of land then it was a very bad idea, thers enough problems with people selling virtual items on Ebay etc from WoW etc (note the recent almost 200,000 people who have been banned from WoW for gold farming). I think it's important not to let the two worlds cross in that respect, virtual goods are paid for with virtual money you earn in-game. If that isn't the case then it's simply a question of 'who has the most 'real' cash?' to show who succeeds and who does not.
If it was bought with virtual money, then I honestly cannot see the problem, as long as the buybacks are in virtual money, it's pretty irrelevant anyway, it's people blurring the line between the two that leads to such things as the recent murder case in China over a sword that was borrowed and then sold on Ebay.
As I say, maybe I amn reading the wrong, but it simply looks like a case of people blurring the line between reality and entertainment.
Re: Am I reading this right?nleseulJanuary 4 2006, 13:49:32 UTC
SecondLife was designed with the explicit goal of making creation of virtual content profitable in real-world terms. Linden dollars are convertible to and from real-world currency by design.
So if I'm interpreting the description of things properly, the Lindens decided to allow teleportation to arbitrary points rather than to central locations, and that is a decision that would definitely affect the economics of the world and one that they really should have thought through better.
Though maybe this is just proof that assigning real-world economic value to virtual assets whose value can be changed on a whim is futile and these players should have known better to invest in assets with no "real" value.
not as if your comment had any more value to it, next time I want a smart ass hypocritical retort that's a self contradiction, I'll know where to look.
This is covered under WoW's usage policies too and can be corrected quickly by GMs. People still fall for stupid scams, but that's just like the real world. Just GMs are better at handling it than Police are.
Comments 42
Though it does pose some serious questions, it's still there world, there rules, and thats how it is.
Just as Jack Can't subvert the constitution for his own gains, you can't use a MMO world to make real money and then try and hold the game developer responsible.
All Real world transactions happen either through heavily monitored areas, in the case of EQ, or are totally user created, in other cases.
Bascily, the answers to all the questions posed come down to one thing.
Creators choice.
Once you Sign the EUlA and agree to there terms, you have no legal recourse. It's why the EULA exsists.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Maybe if you could prove enough people still play it to make it worth keeping the servers open, then yeah, I guess so.
Reply
Reply
If people had to pay real cash for virtual plots of land then it was a very bad idea, thers enough problems with people selling virtual items on Ebay etc from WoW etc (note the recent almost 200,000 people who have been banned from WoW for gold farming). I think it's important not to let the two worlds cross in that respect, virtual goods are paid for with virtual money you earn in-game. If that isn't the case then it's simply a question of 'who has the most 'real' cash?' to show who succeeds and who does not.
If it was bought with virtual money, then I honestly cannot see the problem, as long as the buybacks are in virtual money, it's pretty irrelevant anyway, it's people blurring the line between the two that leads to such things as the recent murder case in China over a sword that was borrowed and then sold on Ebay.
As I say, maybe I amn reading the wrong, but it simply looks like a case of people blurring the line between reality and entertainment.
Reply
So if I'm interpreting the description of things properly, the Lindens decided to allow teleportation to arbitrary points rather than to central locations, and that is a decision that would definitely affect the economics of the world and one that they really should have thought through better.
Though maybe this is just proof that assigning real-world economic value to virtual assets whose value can be changed on a whim is futile and these players should have known better to invest in assets with no "real" value.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment