I just finished reading Ernest Adams’ latest Gamasutra article, “Damn All Gameplay Patents!” It’s a well-intentioned piece that argues passionately against gameplay (as opposed to technology) patents, and contends that developers should not pursue them under any circumstances. I genuinely appreciate the sentiment that drove Ernest to write this article and agree with much of it, but I feel that some nuance is in order. Consider the following:

Patents are Somewhat Like Nuclear Weapons

In many ways, gameplay patents are like nuclear weapons. They’re expensive to develop, and they engender feelings of fear and mistrust. Put plainly, most of us would prefer to live in a world without them.

Unfortunately, like nuclear weapons, many gameplay patents already exist and are in the hands of many different owners. No matter how passionately we write, those owners will not simultaneously and universally revoke their patents tomorrow. Which means that some companies have nuclear weapons (I mean, patents)… and some don’t.

And just like in the real world, asking the countries without nuclear weapons to avoid developing them rarely works — even with economic perks or threats as incentive. More often than not, the countries that couldn’t afford to develop nukes anyway, or that don’t feel threatened, play along, while those that can/do proceed with development. Witness India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Read the rest of this post >>>

Via Joystiq, an interesting controversy: id co-founder John Romero has accused the modding community of hurting the game industry by exposing or introducing inappropriate content (i.e. nudity) in PC games. His post was in response to the ESRB’s re-rating of Oblivion (which happened after a nudity mod surfaced.) John’s exact words: “modders are now screwing up the industry they’re supposed to be helping.”

There are a number of interesting comments on John’s original post which you may wish to read. Meanwhile, this raises a couple issues that I’ve been meaning to write about:

Whose Side Are They On, Anyway?

When consumers decide to create content for a game (or anything else), they’re doing it to indulge their own creative impulses, and/or to share something with friends, and/or to gain notoriety, and/or other reasons that have little to do with “wanting to help the industry” (or the developer, for that matter.) Let’s not kid ourselves: the guys who made Counterstrike didn’t do it to make Valve rich… that was simply a nice side-effect.

Read the rest of this post >>>

Via Gamasutra, news of a squabble between EA and Ubisoft over the latter’s habit of asking employees to sign one-year non-competition agreements. Says EA: “In the spirit of creative freedom, economic emancipation and workers’ rights, EA has in fact accepted the application of an employee who had been working at Ubi Soft…”

A bit bizarre hearing the industry’s 800-pound gorilla complain about competitive practices. (Was EA acting “in the spirit of creative freedom” when it inked an exclusive agreement with the NFL, torpedoing any franchise that competes with Madden in the process?) Irony is alive and well.

Note to future Ubisoft employees: a non-competition clause (like most things in an employment offer) is negotiable. Ubisoft has the legal right to request that you temporarily restrict your future employment opportunties following termination of your relationship with Ubisoft… and you have the right to request a higher salary, bigger bonus, and/or a significant guaranteed severence package (etc) in exchange for sacrificing some of your precious liberty. Capitalism cuts both ways. ;)

Terra Nova just posted an article about a recent change in Second Life that has effectively devalued the property of many SL denizens. The article quotes a lawyer who cites established legal precedent to explain why Linden Lab (developer of SL) may be at legal risk in this (and related) matters. The basic argument: LL gave users good reason to think that some virtual land plots are worth more than others, so LL can be held liable for actions that devalue the land, no matter how many waivers users agree to when playing SL.

This is just one of the many unresolved legal issues popping up for MMOGs, and especially MMORPGs. I couldn’t find a good, succinct list online, so I’ve compiled one:

1. What happens when one player steals another player’s property?
2. What happens when players generate content that infringes upon the copyrights or trademarks of real-world companies? (Here’s an example other than City of Heroes). For that matter, what happens when one player copies another player’s work? Can they sue each other, and/or the developer?
3. What happens when players (especially underage players) engage in “legally indecent” acts? Can EA (developer of Sims Online) be sued for letting a ten-year old operate a virtual brothel? Can it be sued by players who suffer real financial damages at the hands of a virtual mafia?
4. Can developers be sued for impeding free market forces that generate real monetary value for players? (An especially interesting question, given that those forces are the key to many other potential liabilities on this list).
5. What forms of gambling are permissable in an MMOG? Is it really legal for me to play slots in Second Life, given that SL currency has real world value?
6. Do players have a right to free speech and expression? Can game EULAs contain (and developers enforce) a morals clause, like those in some employment contracts?
7. At what point (if any) does a developer become liable for failing to prevent players from harrassing other players? What constitutes sexual harrassment?
8. If virtual property has tangible value, how badly does a player need to violate a game’s EULA before a developer may evict them… without compensation for their virtual property?
9. Can players use legal means to prevent the deactivation of an MMOG, or to force developers to open source a game prior to deactivation? (i.e. to protect the value of their property?)

I wonder how long it will be before the first in-game court system pops up in an MMOG….

PS. If I’ve missed any notable legal demons, don’t hesitate to comment.

Recognizing the value of active fan participation in media, Vivendi Universal Games has granted a group of dedicated volunteers the right to complete and distribute a sequel to the much-beloved (but discontinued) King’s Quest game franchise, so long as they do not use the King’s Quest name.

The volunteer group, calling itself Phoenix Online Studios, was initially ordered by Vivendi to cease and desist all activity. A movement to save the sequel was started, and apparently VUG took notice.

First: many congratulations to VUG for making this rare move. The vast majority of entertainment companies would never have relented.

Question: was it necessary to prevent the group from using the “King’s Quest” name, as opposed to simply requiring them to put “Unofficial” in the title? Perhaps, in exchange for use of the name, the developers could have been asked to require players to purchase the “King’s Quest Compilation”, which VUG is releasing in early 2006. Counter-Strike drove sales of Half Life in large part because you needed to buy Half Life to play.