Blizzard Treats Gay/Lesbian Group Unfairly
http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1172
It's hard to even play World of Warcraft without wading through all the chat about how this or that tactic is "gay," and yet Blizzard did not allow a guild to advertise that it's a friendly safe-haven for gay and lesbian players. The reason Blizzard gave is that such a guild could cause those members to be harassed, and that other players would not like that the guild is discriminating based on sexual orientation.
This is exactly the kind of thing that is completely embarassing about Blizzard policies and a perfect illustration of how bad our virtual worlds are right now.
Even though Blizzard has a history of trying to babysit every possible player behavior, I didn't think they'd attept to regulate player-run guilds. Maybe it's ok if a guild has only Christian players in it, as long as they don't advertise? Maybe the Gay and Lesbian guild could have "stayed in the closet" and been ok?
The irony is that decisions like these are meant to make the game a "happier, safer place," and yet they will eventually drive away reasonable people looking for a reasonable environment in which to interact. Blizzard already lost the founders of that guild as customers, and I guess they lost me too.
--Sirlin
January 29th, 2006 at 9:01 am
That is ridiculous on so many levels, yet Sirlin already covered it and I have trouble putting stuff into words.
It’s just…wow.
January 29th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I’ve always thought the greatest problem with Blizzard’s otherwise outstanding multiplayer titles is the people that you have to play them with. Obviously ass-backwards logic like this is the wrong answer, but their games have always been full of despicable people.
For example I’ve been playing a whole lot of DotA lately (a user-created WarCraft III map that manages to be far better than the original game ever was) although it’s commonplace for people to call others a “n*****” or a “jew” in place of the standard “noob”. I seem the be the only person offended by it.
What we need is a way to counteract the effects of John Gabriel’s Greater Internet F***wad Theory. That sums it up nicely I think :)
(I’m not sure how offensive language is handled on Blogger so I censored it myself…)
January 29th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I disagree.
I don’t see how this is any different from the Christian guilds issue, where Blizzard does not want potential conflicts of loyalty to an out-of-game group.
It seems like Blizzard is focused on trying to create an environment of “us” vs. “them”; In-game world peace causes with everybody holding hands is probably considered bad for their entire online economy. However, they probably want to keep the escapism appeal, and not have anything resemble real-world conflicts/controversy/religions/social groups. So what is the point of offering a safe haven to an out-of-game group? Not to mention, is that out-of-game group genuinely “safe”, in the way you expect Blizzard to allow it being advertised? Is Blizzard in the business of providing safe havens? From what little I know of the game I don’t think they are, or should be forced to be for that matter.
And for what it’s worth, I thought that these MMORPG games _were_ relatively safe havens for gay/lesbians already, and offered quite a gay Experience, e.g. the emphasis on social/community aspects and the general appeal of dressing up your avatar (or yourself for that matter, through cosplay), acting out more of a fantasy role, how you have to choose to be an elf, or a professional _seamstress_ to design and sew clothes to grind your gold, and some games apparently only allow you to select characters that look homosexual. I mean, come on, when you wrote that David, were you not effectively saying, in so many words, “that is so gay”– a phrase you won’t even tollerate? In recruiting for the guild, in the same post, you flat out rejected “retards”. Everyone reading this knows you weren’t discriminating against persons missing any chromosomes, and understood what was meant, but we allowed the slander to go on with our silence anyway. We are all to blame, and have no excuses. In spite of that, I just think it’s not very relevant to ask, “Why hasn’t Blizzard sponsored the Special Olympics yet?”
It seems to me that their game’s avatars cannot:
-have any real-world religion or hold real-world religious beliefs
-miss any chromosomes (but blending them with animals’ seems perfectly fine)
-have much sexuality or particular sexual identity beyond gender- and certainly not much of any sexual needs at all
-support any real-world politician nor real-world political party, nor platform for that matter, nor PAC (e.g. abortion stance, or, march in any kind of gay pride parade)
The same could be applied to just about any other proprietor game company’s characters as well. True, it’s the not the characters but the actual human players who are or are not gay and don’t have a right to assemble and advertise, but I think the game is supposed to be an _escape_ from the entire question of sexual orientation itself. Isn’t it designed as such, and in some ways, specifically _not_ supposed to resemble the real world– in very specific ways. Rather, something different than the real world, without anything controversial of the real world. Out-of-game groups can break the sense of disbelief, which is required to enjoy the game.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
It seems like Blizzard is focused on trying to create an environment of “us” vs. “them”; In-game world peace causes with everybody holding hands is probably considered bad for their entire online economy. However, they probably want to keep the escapism appeal, and not have anything resemble real-world conflicts/controversy/religions/social groups.
…I think the game is supposed to be an _escape_ from the entire question of sexual orientation itself. Isn’t it designed as such, and in some ways, specifically _not_ supposed to resemble the real world– in very specific ways. Rather, something different than the real world, without anything controversial of the real world. Out-of-game groups can break the sense of disbelief, which is required to enjoy the game.
The problem with this argument is that you can roll a character on both sides on the same PVE server. Many people do (at least, on my server, and even within my guild). On a PVP server, my character has grown up hating dirty alliance, and I understand that they’ll spit at me and kill on sight. That’s just how the game works. But on a PVE server, the alliance waves at me as if we’re friends, and probably would report me to their friends/my guildmates if I kill-stole or didn’t share the herbs I was farming. So, if Blizzard is trying to maintain that escapism, it’s doing as poor a job as it’s done with anything else in the game (which I admit I’m still willing to play, although it’s becoming more and more difficult to overlook the bad decisions).
So what is the point of offering a safe haven to an out-of-game group? Not to mention, is that out-of-game group genuinely “safe”, in the way you expect Blizzard to allow it being advertised? Is Blizzard in the business of providing safe havens? From what little I know of the game I don’t think they are, or should be forced to be for that matter.
I don’t think the point is that Blizzard is obligated to provide a safe haven. The point is that Blizzard is, once again, trying to make up for its own design failures by trying to control our out-of-game conduct. If you get this point, you’ll see that no one is arguing that Blizzard should sponsor the Special Olympics any more than it should support a gay guild (or a Nazi guild, for that matter). I think you understood Sirlin’s point about how he would design his own MMO and whether he should allow property rights and free speech, so I don’t know why you missed that same point he’s making here.
If I support the Special Olympics, and if Blizzard could figure a few things out, Blizzard wouldn’t be the one banning me from talking about the Special Olympics in general chat. Other players who don’t want to hear about the Special Olympics would tell me to stfu or /ignore. If they don’t like my guild name “Retards Rule”, they can choose not to group with me. As for conflicting loyalties, have you ever seen an undead priest in Arathi Basin refusing to heal a Tauren member of “God Is Dead” because the priest feels more ideologically aligned with that night elf rogue from “Jesus Saves”? If I’m immersing myself in AB, I don’t give a rat’s ass about your real-world affiliations until after the match is over and I’ve decided whether I’d prefer to earn honor with Christians or farm herbs while waiting for some atheists to form a raid.
This value system doesn’t work while you’re PVE questing in Stranglethorn Vale. A game designer like Sirlin would look for a solution other than telling players “You’re not allowed to tell people in STV that you’re a skinhead because it will confuse them about whether or not they should kill you if you suddenly turn on your PVP flag.” Surely there are ways to align my in-game loyalty that are much better than imposing rules outside the game.
And for what it’s worth, I thought that these MMORPG games _were_ relatively safe havens for gay/lesbians already, and offered quite a gay Experience, e.g. the emphasis on social/community aspects and the general appeal of dressing up your avatar (or yourself for that matter, through cosplay), acting out more of a fantasy role, how you have to choose to be an elf, or a professional _seamstress_ to design and sew clothes to grind your gold, and some games apparently only allow you to select characters that look homosexual.
I’ve read your other posts, and you don’t seem to be an idiot, so I’m having trouble understanding whether you were joking, or are actually oblivious to how incredibly deluded and HOMOPHOBIC this comment is. How is general chat a safe haven for gay people when every other comment is that “[Insert talent/ability/item/player/any noun] is so gay”? Do you really think all gays and lesbians care about dressing up and want to be seamstresses? I don’t want to go off on a tangent about whether one should or should not be homophobic, and the entire tone of your post suggests you’ve already decided which one you are, but I feel a need to say one thing in case you really did have good intentions: If you have a gay boss, client or other professional association (whether or not you know about it), recommending a game that allows them to dress up, make their own clothes, and dance like Michael Jackson will not earn their business.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Here’s Caydiem’s official response on the issue of Gay and Lesbian guilds. It doesn’t make me feel even a little bit better.
QUOTE
Apologies for the length of time it took to get this information out to you.
We encourage community building among our players with others of similar interests, and we understand that guilds are one of the primary ways to forge these communities. However, topics related to sensitive real-world subjects — such as religious, sexual, or political preference, for example — have had a tendency to result in communication between players that often breaks down into harassment.
To promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast. This includes openly advertising a guild friendly to players based on a particular political, sexual, or religious preference, to list a few examples. For guilds that wish to use such topics as part of their recruiting efforts, our Guild Recruitment forum, located at our community Web site, serves as one open avenue for doing so.
We will be clarifying some of the language in our game policies in order to help avoid such confusion in the future.
END QUOTE
January 30th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Sirlin, you are taking this whole “virtual worlds” thing WAY too seriously. Why are we not “outraged” by all these things? There are better things to be outraged about - like say real life!
WoW is a time sink where your Orc kills their Gnome. It is very much a private club, and a fairly worthless one at that. All this drum beating about fairness and democracy and such is silly - you need some perspective. Not to be trite but read a newspaper and go outside.
—
The issue here is that it’s a stupid policy. It is. But that’s the whole issue. It’s not some worthy cause to get all excited over. And for all your complaints you are providing plenty of free advertising to WoW and you play it yourself.
—
The real lesson here is money talks. WoW is probably the worst when it comes to all these things you complain about, the things you want people to get “outraged” about - yet that is the game everyone here talks about! Your outrage is meaningless.
I don’t claim to be outraged by Blizzard but I don’t like their policies - and I’ve never paid for WoW and I never will! Blizzard makes a lot of dumb decisions, the fan-base is moronic and SC is the last good game they made so it’s really pretty easy to find other places to spend my money. You should do the same.
As another poster pointed out FFXI seems much closer to what you want in terms of philosophy. When they wanted to stop players from training mobs on other people they changed the code rather than making ham-fisted rules.
Yet I’ve never seen you talk up FFXI. A true crusader would subscribe to that game out of principal. Or really any game other than WoW, which is by far the worst it seems.
As long as you speak with your wallet what you write is completely meaningless. That goes for everyone on this board.
Clearly you don’t have any major problems with Blizzard given that you pay them $15 a month for a crappy game.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:41 am
there’s an interesting thread going on about this at the Escapist Magazine blog site: http://blog.escapistmagazine.com/blog/2006/01/29/what_belongs_in_the_game#comments
January 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
WTF Sirlin, did you read Snow Crash or something?
January 31st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
James–the end of Sirlin’s original post seems to imply that he cancelled his subscription to WoW.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
James M mentions everything necessary to suggest he knows the question is “What rights should a company willingly grant its players if it wants to make a lot of money off a virtual world?” But he still manages to miss the boat and instead finds himself on the Yacht of Condescension by telling us to read a book. It’s called Snow Crash, James. If you don’t think your kids will consider virtual worlds a part of their reality someday, and if you don’t care that today’s idiots are designing tomorrow’s virtual worlds, maybe you’re the one who’s out of touch with reality.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:02 pm
It does seem to imply that he cancelled, although it’s hard to say for sure. It “seems” like they lost him as a customer? I don’t know if that means they lost him in spirit or in wallet. If he did unsub (and can stay unsubbed, that’s the real test!) then more power to him.
To anon: Um…are you talking to me? I didn’t mention Snow Craft. (Although I have read it) WoW is not a virtual world - in fact as far as MMORPGs go it’s the LEAST virtual world out of all of them.
Here is a fair description of WoW: Kill a bunch of scorpions, reach level 60, then kill a bunch of much bigger scorpions, over and over again.
Did I leave something out?
I am a big proponent of freedom of speech but WoW is no different from a private club. I think private clubs that are very exclusionary suck, and I’m not a member of any. The same thing applies here. Nobody is forcing you to play WoW and it serves no purpose other than a time-wasting distraction. You don’t have a right to kill trolls in WoW.
I like to save my serious voice for things that actually matter. If I’m going to get outraged about something I’ll choose something like a protracted real-life war, not the opressive rules of a boring game.
“What rights should a company willingly grant its players if it wants to make a lot of money off a virtual world?”
Given how much money Blizzard is raking in - very few. What they are doing may actually be hurting their bottom line, it’s really impossible to say. But it certainly isn’t tanking them. WoW is far and away the most popular western MMORPG of all time, so whatever they have done wrong clearly they have done a lot more right in the eyes of the players.
I don’t see Blizzard’s actions really hurting anyone, and in this case they did say the Gay/Lesbian groups could recruit on message boards, just not in in-game chat. I don’t like that policy but it’s hardly something to get up in arms about.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:17 pm
I actually think it’s a reasonable policy, although I don’t know why they only ban it on in-game chat, and not the forums too. Advertising for a gay/lesbian guild would WITHOUT A DOUBT attract a lot of harrassment, and probably with some bordering on hate. Blizzard has a responsiblity both morally and financially to ensure that their players have the most enjoyable time that they can. They’ve basically only said that they don’t want them to advertise openly, but I don’t think that Blizzard is going to give a sh*t if a guild happens to have a lot of gays/lesbians.
Dawolffman
February 1st, 2006 at 12:54 am
Pat, thanks for that link- I’m more or less in line with that author and some that posted there. It should be up to Blizzard to say to players, “check it at the door”, just like the swimming pool analogy, or walking into someone’s home who expects you to take off your shoes. If you want to make a game that recognizes sexual orientation, controversial political views, and religious affiliations, such a game would probably be quite a purple cow, indeed. But I think it’s safe to say that you might as well throw out any hope of maintaining a sense of disbelief if you go that route. If you start messing that much with sense of disbelief and still try to call it a game, _that_ is something I could be outraged about because the Experience may suffer.
I have to say that if a college campus group called itself “Asian-friendly”, it certainly would be a reflection of their view of other groups/the campus itself. So then you say, “The real problem is the campus- Asians are being brutally victimized by racial slurs, prejudice, and discrimination!” but the administrative decision made is to prevent you from defining camps of “us” vs. “them”. They won’t allow that because you would effectively be adding fuel to the fire. “But they started the fire!!” That’s not what the firemen need to know when putting it out. I see Blizzard acting more as firemen, instead of over-policing as complained, in this case.
DeathPony, thank you for explaining about developing a character on both sides, but I still don’t quite see how that negates my point. I sort of imagine the game allowing out-of-game groups to lose focus of why people play in the first place- you might be able to block it out, but other people have non-game core values (not to mention religions). Beating the other player/server should be enough motivation to play, and the out-of-game groups are a potential distraction away from gameplay. It shouldn’t matter if he’s a Colts fan. I feel out-of-game groups should be left out of the game.
I mentioned the Special Olympics really to point out a contradiction or two in Mr. Sirlin’s earlier post (can’t say something’s “gay”, but “retard” is ok and characters that look homosexual as a valid critique).
I have never seen an undead priest in Arathi Basin… but if guilds are allowed to have names like “Jesus Saves”, you probably have a valid point about a double standard. Even in this case, I think it’s clear enough that Blizzard’s intent would be to ban such a reference as well (without starting up more fires)- if they could stand up to institutions that have been around a few years longer like say, the Catholic Church.
Michael Jackson? I didn’t say anything about dancing like Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson wasn’t accused of being gay, so much as he was accused of being into man-boy love, something that the NAMBLA organization supports. (The Catholic Church might practice it, but they don’t officially support it.) The gay community at large has effectively turned its back on NAMBLA for years, cut them off, and left them out in the cold to wither up and die. But this isn’t about the gay community doing the discriminating this time. No, I don’t think all gays and lesbians only care about dressing up and becomming seamstresses- but if you have this online community where people routinely use “gay” as “bad” (–and I don’t mean “Michael Jackson” bad–) but those same people saying “that’s so gay” are busy sewing clothes all day and having these fantasies about being fairies and elves, farming herbs and spices in their garden, dressing up in leather, etc., sorry princess but doesn’t that seem a little contradictory to you? Anyway…
Blizzard isn’t trying to control the in-game, so much as it’s trying to keep specific things _out_ of the game. Mr. Sirlin might not be happy about it, but it’s probably for the best.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:02 am
Well if Blizzard were to allow a guild to say its a “safe have for Gays & Lesbians” it is allowing to say that normally the game is not friendly to those individuals This is, of course, rubbish since ones sexuality should not come up at all in-game. If people are dumb enough to go on about their sexuality in a virtual world its their own bloody fault.
As a few other people mentioned: it Blizzard’s world and if you don’t like it…don’t play.
NB: I have stopped playing WoW because I think its dull as dishwater for high level toons unless you are a hard-core player with time to do uber-raids.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:22 am
Regarding the Nambla thing, pedophilia IS NOT homosexuality.
Not any more than is a 50 yr old man liking the 13 yr olds is heterosexuality.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 am
How is WoW NOT a virtual world? It’s a game? Of course it is but you’re still interacting with other players. It’s a place where these people have a similar interest, they can make friends and share other interests. Should people NOT want to create these kinds of relationships? Why don’t they just get rid of chat then. People could just talk with preset phrases. The appeal of these games is NOT the ‘deep’ combat or craft systems. Further, I don’t think it’s entirely escapist and becoming less and less everyday. This is where people meet and interact at a social level. Take facebook and myspace. Most of these people are talking with people they’ve already met in real life.
Lagwolf… DUMB ENOUGH? Are you freakin’ serious? If people want to share their beliefs, views, and thoughts they have a right to it.
Boudreau… Seriously, if you’re just gonna be hateful, shallow, and ignorant. STFU
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Anonymous really hit it on the head with this: “If you don’t think your kids will consider virtual worlds a part of their reality someday, and if you don’t care that today’s idiots are designing tomorrow’s virtual worlds, maybe you’re the one who’s out of touch with reality.”
Virtual worlds are not just something we can dismiss as “a game so who cares.” They are going to be a big part of life in the future. Not many of them are going to look like these ridiculous MMOs we have today. Figuring out how virtual worlds are going to have free speech and recongnize ownership is a lot more important topic than anything else ever discussed on this site.
I can’t believe anyone in this thread thinks it makes sense to stop gay guilds because they might be harassed. First of all, if they might be harassed, all the more reason they NEED a guild. Here’s
Gus Mastrapa’s comment on that point from escapist.com: “If homophobia weren’t so pervasive in online worlds, this wouldn’t be as much as an issue. I can’t blame players for trying to make a safe place for themselves within Azeroth where they don’t have to bite their tongue every time their guildmates make an insensitive comment. Where an offhand comment about race would be immediately decried, we still live in a time when homophobic slurs and slights are simply laughed.”
Next the policy seems to overlook that it’s highly offensive to gay and lesbian players that this policy exists in the first place. It’s also offensive to me, because regulating what player-run guilds do is crazy thing. The only people who really aren’t offended are homophobes, I guess.
It’s far too flimsy to fall back on this “it’s a game, real life issues should stay out” arguement. If that were REALLY the issue, we’d have to make a list of the top 1,000 cases of real-life seeping into the game. This gay/lesbian thing might make #998. Non-game issues are rampant in World of Warcraft, just check out general chat or Barrens chat any day of the week. In between people asking for the location of Mankrick’s Wife or Kranal Fiss, there is tons of real world chat…AS THERE SHOULD BE. Virtual worlds (and the really special case of MMORPGs we have now) thrive on community. The whole point of this type of game/world is that you socialize and meet friends. Those friends can be very real and you can be moved them. Anyone taking the opposite stance of “nah, you don’t make any real friends in virtual worlds, it’s all just meaningless” isn’t going to get very far, and should probably read this wonderful essay by Raph Koster: http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/essay1.shtml
So really we’re back where we started. There are no good reasons for this Blizzard policy. It’s oppressive and offensive. Are they free to make such a policy? They definitely are. I would fight just as hard to ensure that a company can do whatever they want with game rules for their own games. But it’s still a really saddening, neandertal kind of policy that is not helping the future of virtual worlds at all.
My question has never been “should Blizzard do [this or that]?” It has always been “Given the terrible policies we’ve seen from Blizzard, how should WE build a virtual world?”
–Sirlin
February 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Are there any MMORPGs where the players are encouraged to be “players” rather than characters? That is, a place where part of the game’s story is that the players are all travelers from this world called Earth, or a world much like Earth, and so they have all this baggage carried with them from “the other world” despite their avatar form?
I’ve actually thought that could be a hook for a game that would allow us to suspend disbelief a little more easily–especially since it’s a lot closer to the truth than, say, fully-grown men and women adventurers appearing out of thin air inside a training guild, ready for adventure inside this world they should already be somewhat familiar with… And if real life were part of the game’s sphere, it would be easier to encourage true “free speech”–or even in-game consequences for that free speech.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I agree Blizzard’s policies are stupid and unnecessary but I have to disagree with this whole “virtual world” thing. I was a long time player of Second Life(I only stopped because I couldn’t think up any new projects) and most Second Life players are big on this whole Virtual World thing and I hear it all the time. It seemed to be some sort of philosophical issue with them… And in the case of Second Life atleast it’s some what relevent(Though people still held crazy expectations).
I think people loose sight of the fact that these are games. These in no way should be expected to fill this theoretical Virtual World postion(Yes, literally speaking, WoW is a world that is VIRTUAL, but these are two different sets of expectations).
As far as I’m concerned online multiplayer games are entitled to give their players absolutely no rights what-so-ever. It is their world and they can do with it what they wish — and they should! They should set the standards of their game the way they want for it’s there.
Now, do I want a company to come along and make an MMO or “virtual world” full of player rights and freedom? Sure I do. I think that alone could be a selling point for such a game. Do I think a point should come when all games are like this? No I do not. I want game designers to do what they want and allow what they will to make their game experience the way they want it.
Sure, our children will certainly take virtual worlds more seriously, growing toward the metaverse concept. On the other hand, there will likely still be plenty of games that are just games and nothing more.
I think people are setting themselves up for unnecessary disappointment when they hold this standard to every MMO that comes out. The time will come when these games begin to grow and attempt to implement these ideas and concepts. Thats when we should all start bitching about these sort of things — not by holding a game like WoW to a standard it was never meant to fill.
Again, WoW’s decision is still rather silly but it was their right to make it.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Forgive me if that was a little incoherent, I was kinda just rambling. :P
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Why should players be allowed to bring real life references into Blizzard’s virtual world? Why should Blizzard give you with the same freedoms America does?
It doesn’t make any sense. No one is forcing you to play Blizzard’s game.
Even if virtual worlds are going to be a big part of the future, which I doubt(at least I’m guessing you mean outside of games, you’re not very clear on what you mean), why does it matter right now what virtual worlds are like if they’re only limited to games based on addiction? You might have a point if World of Warcraft was a big deal, but it isn’t. You’re too attached to the game.
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
This is sorta off topic here,
Private ownership of property in MMOGs might work on Community based MMOGs, would probaly help on Economy based MMOGs, but would most likely be a disaster for combat based MMOGs. (A Combat based MMOG would be one whose main objective is to kill things.)
Let’s say for a moment that some MMOG gives players the 3 rights you were talking about. Then what if I kill you and take your +5 Sword of Ultimate Destrutsion? Is that stealing? Or what if I cast a curse that hurts your stats? Is that vandilism? And what if you bet all your gold in a battle, and lose? Is that gambling? These questions will invariably summon disputes, and then lawsiuts.
And what about the aftermath? If the court rules that such things are stealing, vandilism, and gambling respectively, then any sort of PvP that could negitively effect anyone could become illegal. And thus, with pvp banned, player interaction will die down and the game denerate into a bunch of interconnected solitare games. The virtual world would become like Niflheim, cold and icy.
And what of the other possiblity? That the court rules that it is not stealing, or vandilism, or gambling? In this case, PvP would become a legitamate way to profit. And then all insanity would break loose, for how long will it take for some powerful player to realize that he could quit his job, and instead go around and kill everyone? Not very long of course. And with items and character legitamely being sold on the market, a group of investers could buy a bunch of items/characters, and go off to the nearest PvP area and kill everyone. With all this PvPing for Profit, anywhere that PvP is allowed could become a Warzone. The virtual world would become firery and chaotic, like Muspellheim.
Well, that’ my 2 Yen on the issue.
P. S: If you’re looking for real compition, try Puzzle Pirates. If you win a swordfight, it’s because you’re better at it than your oppenent, not because you spend more time on the game.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I just wanted to clear some things up that bother me about people’s responses to articles like these.
First, arguing that “it’s just a game and you shouldn’t worry so much about it” is totally missing the point. People argue what is important to them regardless of how insignificant it is to the rest of the world, whether it be games, sports, or underwater basket weaving. Not every discussion of every minute can be dedicated to the top 100 most important things in the world. If you don’t think these things are worthwhile, don’t even waste your time telling us so. We think they’re interesting and important.
Secondly, NEVER has the point that Blizzard can do WHATEVER they want been contested in Sirlin’s articles. Everyone who says “it’s Blizzard’s game, don’t play it if you don’t like it” has again missed the point. Nobody has ever argued Blizzard’s RIGHT to do this, we’re just arguing that in the ideal MMO we wouldn’t do what Blizzard is doing, and we think it was a stupid move on their part. Yes, you’re right, we don’t have to play Blizzard’s game and what they are doing is NOT illegal, now can we get past that and start discussing what we would do better, or why what they did was better?
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Hasn’t anyone noticed that these mini-worlds are reflections of real life? People are just as homophobic, intellectually challenged, opinionated, offensive, politically minded, articulate (or not), witty, passionate, and emotional online as they are in real life. Isn’t that why an MMO isn’t “just a game”, because you can identify with your character in ways you just can’t identify with, say, Ryu? You choose your character’s name on the opening screen, and you make your own name for yourself in the world of Azeroth.
If you can create a world for people (not just characters) to interact, you have the power to make a world that’s better or worse than real life, that could influence it accordingly, depending on your programming, design, and policy decisions. Talk about the ultimate example of life imitating art instead of vice versa. If you think our virtual worlds don’t reflect today’s real-world problems, you’re deluding yourself. You might not know a real-life couple who met while running a PUG through Stratholme, but it might just happen to your 16-year-old daughter. If you want to write off a game like WoW as an irrelevant addiction, go fight the drug war and get back to us after you’ve won it (the temperance era was equally successful). If you want to be outraged about a real-world war yet ignore the possibility that a virtual world community’s viewpoint could someday hold the power to change real world decisions, then take your small-minded views to someone else’s website.
Sirlin’s view appears to be that if you try hard enough, you can create a world where everyone does what they want, and “want” somehow coincides with “should” (or at least, doesn’t destroy the experience for the rest of us) without the need for excessive parental, government, or religious interference. Isn’t that every teenager’s wet dream? Shouldn’t it be yours? Why shouldn’t you create a virtual world with all the qualities you dream of, that smacks the Real World upside the head and says “THIS is what’s possible, THIS is how it should be, stop fighting with each other and GET IT RIGHT”? Wouldn’t you leave your petty, overly censored, paternalistic MMO to play in Sirlin’s world and send a big Fuck You to everyone else who couldn’t get their act together? Then why aren’t you giving him advice on how to create it? Why are you making stupid comments like “That’s the way it is, accept it,” “It’s just a game,” “It’s not a problem yet so why think ahead,” and “I prefer to let other people dictate my future”? Are all the visionaries tired of reading posts from stupid people who are nowhere in the same league as the author? Or have the visionaries moved on to other sites as the intelligence quotient of this thread trickles down to double digits?
A better contribution to this thread would have been to immediately go here http://www.sirlin.net/.ubb/Forum17/HTML/000001.html to start making suggestions. /sigh
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I see alot of 2 things… and 1 is spilled milk.
February 5th, 2006 at 1:46 am
I actually honestly believe Player Rights would a negative factor to many MMOs. When I say it’s “just a game” I don’t mean it should be taken seriously — It’s that it’s a game. I think in most games now and to come, player rights would simply add baggage to the game that does not belong.
Of course this in no way means more “free” games shouldn’t or won’t exist. They should exist — but I do not see them inherently inferior or superior to each other. I also believe the player right to rush all over and abuse every glitch(short of completely game disrupting), as it simply takes so much work to bug fix such a vast amount of content. Granted perhaps the performence standard in MMOs will increase and this will become more achievable.
Granted this shouldn’t stop anyone from dreaming up a “free” MMO and discssing. It just seems like WoW is getting grief for the wrong things. And I hate WoW.
February 5th, 2006 at 6:53 am
It seems that many reasonable people consider it quite a sad state of affairs when so many other people in games are regularly using the term “gay” as if it were “bad”, as in, “That’s so gay”, referring to things like in-game talents/abilities/items, or even other players.
I wonder if the same reasonable, disappointed people might also take issue with another vernacular phrasing of gamers: to “own”, as in, “We engaged in an agreed form of healthy competition, and I won, so that makes you my slave.”
Now, all reasonable people know full well that slavery was abolished many years ago in most developed nations. Reasonable folks can also realize that slavery and human trafficking still goes on in many places of the world today. Most of the victims of human trafficking will probably not have much chance to ever play games like World of Warcraft, but it’s conceiveable that their ancestors might, someday, just as some blacks in the U.S. do so today though their ancestors never had any such dreams. Some blacks might conceiveably lose a game, or, get “owned” online, despite the fact that their real world has abolished slavery. As a reasonable person, are you comfortable with all this? Do you use the phrase “own” in that way, yourself, and if so, will you continue? Maybe slave ancestors are just pissed about losing the game itself, and I need to lighten up, and this is a ridiculous assertion. As a reasonable person, what do you think?
It seems that a lot of these games have a theme of medieval heirarchy, where the backwards concepts of royalty and divine right are both perfectly acceptable. But it’s 2006, we have advanced ourselves from subjects and serfs to members of democracies and voting citizens; who actually thinks it’s fun to go back in time and kneel down to a king? I think the answer to that question is, “a whole lot of people”, unfortunately. George Washington must be rolling in his grave.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Sirlin, I’ve liked you for ages already, but now? If I weren’t a lesbian, I’d marry you.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
>> I weren’t a lesbian
Oh I’m sure he could get over that. :P
February 7th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
In the end player “rights and freedoms” will progress only if it is competitively advantageous to the maker of the MMO. Take EQ2 and WoW for example, EQ2 is apparently egalitarian, whereas WoW is, in Sirlin’s words, fascist. But does this difference in policy affect the bottom line of the company? Obviously not, since players are more interested in the escapist aspect of the MMO and the particulars of the game.
If WoW were to have lenient servers, with an emphasis on less enforcement of the EULA, would more players move there? Why would Blizzard even do this, as it is in their interest to maintain as much power as they can while keeping the player base happy and hence making their maximum profit.
This reinforces the necessity of competition for the progression of player rights, but only as a peripheral bonus, always secondary to the actual game.
I quit WoW too, a month ago. It’s a game that is driven by addiction, deceptively hidden beneath an exterior of brilliant colours and social interaction. Is it possible to make a successful MMO not based on addiction? With investors only concerned about the bottom line, must MMO’s continue to be successful because of the illusion of self-betterment they give the player? To me this is the much more pertinent question, as fiscal accountability tends to degenerate into the exploitation of human addiction when possible.
Only after this hurdle of psychological addiction is overcome should we really focus on player rights. Again, the individual will pursue the game which gives him or her the greatest positive stimulus. For some people this positive stimulus will actually be the freedom of the player, but it will most likely follow a formula similar to WoW, which is deeply saddening to me.
So, in the end, I find this whole dialogue about player “rights and freedoms” to be silly, since it assumes that it is an issue that people are concerned about, rather than the immediate psychological satisfaction it gives the player. Further to this, I argue that WoW is so addicting because it simulates society and has quantifiable class distinctions. Not rogue, mage, warrior. Class distinction as in common, rare, epic and legendary. The individual strives to reach these goals, increasing their status in this hierarchical society. However, once they attain Thunderfury, The Current Ultimate Status Symbol, it only reinforces their desire to get better equipment, the physical representation of their success. In this way, WoW is highly addictive.
Maybe I’ll expand on those thoughts some other time, or at least order them in a logical manner.
Perhaps the day will come when two (or more) MMO’s are equally psychologically addictive, then one will attempt to grab players by allowing more rights and freedoms. Or w/e.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Err, that was me above. Just wanted to add that MMO’s really need to protect their player base from organized money lending. It seems like an innocuous particular, but interest, in all it’s forms, must be avoided for economic stability. This will become an increasingly important topic as the economies of the real world and the MMO intersect. Just remember, credit is bad!
(Particularly when the owner of the MMO retails it’s own “make-believe moneys”… but I’ll let your imaginations extrapolate on that.)
February 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfODSPIYwpQ
February 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
To those of you saying that it would break the immersion of the game, have you SEEN the all chat channell in GW or WoW? There’s a whole lot more to break immersion than “GLBT friendly guild.” Last I checked, Chuck Norris doesn’t exist in WoW, and yet he seems to be the most prevalent conversation topic in the all chat. And my new GW guild is named the “David Hasselhoff Fan Club”- OMG! David Hasselhoff doesn’t exist in GW! WE NEED TO BAN THIS GUILD!
February 9th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
That is just because Chuck Norris kicks so much ass. Did you know that he once roundhoused some guy, so fast, that his foot actually went back in time, and kicked Amelia Earhart while she was flying over the Atlantic Ocean?
Don’t the social aspects of these games require following things like etiquette and protocol, and conforming to cultural norms and mores, such as “Chuck Norris is a real man, and he could show you kids a thing or two about how to win in WoW or GW, or in life in general for that matter,” for example, not “Let’s share and chat with each other on the basis of sexual preference. So… have you ever seen a grown man naked?”
February 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I was born and raised in Wyoming and I find that offensive!! This proud state has never, EVER had anything to do with time travel.
February 13th, 2006 at 3:21 am
Hmmm. I see why you’d want freedom of association for a guild, but I see Blizzard’s dillema.
Say, for instance, that you have a guild with some sort of limited membership for a socially unpopular group. The guild gets harassed all the time. Blizzard is asked to deal with the harassment. What do they do?
The right thing is to discipline the harassers the same way they deal with other problems. The sticky part is that it may be seen as an endorsement of the views or behavior of the guild.
In effect, Blizzard is allowing a ‘heckler’s veto,’ of the guild. If the speech cause a disruption, the speaker is penalized rather than those causing the disruption.
If the guild is religious or political in nature, this could be a huge PR problem. I think it is easy to think of all kinds of unpopular and unpalatable guilds that would have to be protected by a true committment to free speech. This has to be dealt with in the real world, but I am not sure I really want to play a game full of political and religious crazies free to spout their agendas.
I am emphatically not including the GL guild in this category. What worries me is having to listen to racist and extremist trash over chat (even more than I already do- for some reason the internet has a lot more garbage of this sort than the real world.) That would make the game less fun, and I’d be less likely to play.
For Blizzard, in order to make money you need players. If a bunch of players are driven out by unpleasant, though free, speech then they lose money.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Well, look at this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_hi_te/warcraft_uproar