Rivers Run Red: Still Running (Red?)

 Rivers Run Red, the Webby Award-winning development and marketing firm that is known for its groundbreaking work in Second Life, has officially left Second Life. In the context of the internet this is old news, but the past few years of quiet and the shut down of the Immersive Workspaces project in Second Life stirred some questions this February when Rivers Run Red announced that they had moved their services and clients after using Second Life for nine years. Justin Bovington, the CEO of Rivers Run Red, says that Rivers Run Red has been silently busy, working behind the scenes to stay ahead of the game.

Rivers Run Red has been planning for the future. According to Bovington, the decision to leave Second Life was primarily a financial one. "We just couldn't justify it. The clients were saying they loved it, they really enjoy doing it, but it was a real sticking block going forward in terms of the costs." Instead, Rivers Run Red is moving to the more affordable Kitely. But the price isn't the only benefit of Kitely. Companies in Kitely are able to have their own private region, and unlike Second Life there's no focus on the commercial marketplace. Rivers Run Red didn't need the marketplace, but instead wanted a private area where companies can run securely. Kitely provides that security, and allows companies to create a space that feels like their own, rather than a small piece of someone else's product. Additionally, Kitely allows Rivers Run Red to back up their clients work. Since Rivers Run Red's internal design team creates everything there's no reason clients shouldn't be able to do so, but it was never an option in Second Life.

Kitely is only a small piece of what's ahead for Rivers Run Red.  Bovington anticipates that we'll see "the link between physical and virtual getting closer," and Rivers Run Red is planning on it. In response to this prediction, Rivers Run Red is working to allow clients to connect to Immersive Workspaces via tablets or even smart phones, as well as computers. Bovington suggests that the massive success of Facebook indicates a move toward text-based worlds, which will run more successfully on tablets and smartphones that don't have the graphics cards needed to run worlds like Second Life. Bovington said that Rivers Run Red is "looking at tablets to be the next level of immersion. I think we're going to find that proximity based systems like tablets will become part of the virtual experience because we can all bend information between those systems quite successfully." He also emphasized that the Immersive Workspaces project isn't dead. Bovington argues that it's still relevant and useful, but that it needed a new platform after the Second Life Enterprise platform was discontinued. The relevance, immediacy, and security of private worlds that can be accessed by tablet will provide a better system for clients to work together virtually.

Even beyond Kitely and tablets, Rivers Run Red has created a mystery gadget called the MELUX, and is looking to expand into Unity 3D, an engine which allows for the creation of games. Bovington expects that they will remain quiet for a while, but indicates that they're looking to truly take advantage of the niche market of virtual worlds. Rivers Run Red has battled through rumors of failure and cronyism, and their fair share of bad press, but in the end it really comes down to one thing for Bovington: "We are just very enthusiastic entrepreneurs who are trying to create cool stuff."

Investments

We regularly discuss how essential a player's emotional investment is for the game. We've talked about the need for more player input, the troubles that players have when they are griefed, and how difficult it is for players when they get banned or kicked from a world. We've talked about how traumatizing in-game experiences can be for players, and how players are able to build deep and lasting relationships with other players through virtual worlds. But I don't get it.

I realize that I've had very little experience in virtual worlds and spend much less time participating in them than the average user, but I'm just not understanding why in-game occurrances are so emotionally devastating to players. I've been approaching this discussion from a very logical point of view. There are risks and there are rewards in all aspects of life, and devoting time or money to virtual worlds is no different. Especially when someone else makes the game.

I noticed that my attitude about this was a bit different from others when we discussed the sexual assault that took place in LambdaMoo. Though I have no doubt that this was a traumatizing experience for the players involved, I really took issue with people comparing it to real world rape. Whether the intent was to compare it to real world rape or not, use of the term rape automatically compares it to real world rape. But in my mind, it's sexual assault. It was a written sexual attack. That makes it sexual assault. And in the real world we differentiate between sexual assault and rape. Why? Because no matter how horrifying sexual assault is, it's unfair to people who have actually been raped to say that typed words have the same impact as physical contact. But our class seemed to think that the emotional investment in virtual worlds makes it rape.

Maybe if I was more invested in a virtual world I would get it. Maybe if I liked LOTRO or Second Life or spent more time in Club Penguin, I would understand the emotional importance of what happens in virtual worlds. But for now I will continue to distinguish between the real world and virtual worlds. The emotional connections that happen in virtual worlds may be real, but the action isn't and the character isn't. And things that happen to me will always be more real than things that happen to my avatar. That's just how it is.

EULA: Rewrite

The exciting town of Eula, Texas

Well, this week we talked about EULAs. Only slightly more exciting than Texas, most EULAs are pages long and have lots of formal words. MMO producers require players to agree to End-User License Agreements, referred to as EULAs, which are legally binding contracts that lay out the rules and laws of that particular virtual world. Jack M. Balkin wrote Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play In Virtual Worlds, which we discussed extensively. In it he covers the main issues with law in virtual worlds, and how he proposes these issues be resolved. One of the biggest problems with law in virtual worlds is the lack of a neat line between real world law and virtual-world law. Virtual worlds need their own rules, but they're not entirely separate from the real world. This creates complications when things go wrong and real world governments get involved. Additionally, when real world governments do get involved, they are often ill prepared to deal with virtual issues. Current laws are not able to effectively address the complexity within virtual world gameplay.

Minecraft has the shortest EULA of those we discussed. Essentially, Minecraft is a game in which players to build a variety of things using cubes. The EULA is only one page long and contains no legal jargon. It is incredibly informal and casual, with only one very clear rule: players may not distribute the game or any components of the game. This EULA would do very little to protect Minecraft in the case that they have legal issues. Minecraft does however give players the rights to their own creations. I think Balkin would have some objections to this. Not only does the EULA do little by way of clarifying rules and rights, but  it gives players rights. Balkin says that the more rights players have to virtual property, the more there is a need for law. The fact that Minecraft gives players rights but has very few rules and laws to protect itself makes for a weak EULA and puts Minecraft in a difficult position should they need to protect themselves.

Balkin might note that Second Life has a very extensive EULA. Second Life is a game where players purchase property, create and trade virtual objects, and socialize with other players. Balkin would probably be in support of Second Life's ridiculously long EULA because second life grants players the rights to all content that they create in the game. Since players can build a variety of things and the trading and selling of these objects is a huge part of the game, Second Life needs many rules to make sure that it is protected. The one objection Balkin may have to the Second Life EULA is that it is quite long and may be challenged in court because it is inaccessible or users may not be able to understand it. Second Life has already had their EULA challenged and the court decided that part of the EULA could not be held up because of unreasonable requirements.

EVE Online is a space based fictional MMORPG. Its EULA is mid-length and contains standard information and rules. Balkin probably would say that the EVE Online is adequate given the level of player involvement that the game allows, but also that lengthy EULAs may not stand up in court anyway. In general it seems that Balkin thinks of the EULA as a good precaution, but not more, since it can be challenged so easily. With this is mind, it seems that the EVE online EULA covers all the bases, but isn't as ridiculous and lengthy as the Second Life one.

Gold Farming

Gold Farmers across Ultima Online are feeling the impact of the feud between Blacksnow and the EasyUO Cartel. Rich Thurman, a leader of the EasyUO Cartel and user of the exevents code, has been repeatedly banned from Ultima Online following a conflict with the Blacksnow-Ingotdude coalition. Blacksnow is now reeling from massive account losses, attributed to the hard work of the EasyUO coalition.

Lee Caldwell, a leader of Blacksnow and Ingotdude, originally contacted Thurman and the two discussed the possibility of joining forces to control the economy of Ultima Online. Thurman’s team was made up of strong programmers, while Caldwell’s team had extensively studied the market and had already been successful at manipulating the market. If the two groups combined their skills, they could completely control the market, and would have immense power within Ultima Online, possibly even more than game developers had. But Caldwell wanted access to the exevents code in exchange for his teams’ talents, and Thurman was unwilling to agree. Thurman explained that the creator of exevents did not give it to ay outsiders, and that it was impossible for Caldwell to get the code. Caldwell and Thurman parted on good terms without coming to an agreement.

But one day later Caldwell contacted Thurman with the news that someone had been reposting his characters to game masters, and that his characters had been banned. Thurman denied any involvement and claimed that all of his characters as well as his team members’ characters had also been banned. A suspicious Caldwell found a character belonging to Josh, another member of the Cartel, and asked Josh about the widespread banning. Josh explained that exevents had been given to a blackmailer to keep him quiet. Caldwell reported this information back to Thurman who denied everything and stood by his original statement that exevents could not be given to players outside of the Cartel. Thurman also claimed that exevents had been shut down by its creator, and that other players could no longer use it. Caldwell was infuriated that Thurman gave exevents to a blackmailer after refusing to give it to Blacksnow in exchange for their cooperation. After a brief argument, Caldwell promised that he would get revenge, while Josh promised to destroy Blacksnow.

Reports now state that Blacksnow has had massive account losses, which are credited to the work of the Cartel. In response to the conflict, Blacksnow has been searching for and immediately reporting and banning every character that is created by Thurman. Thurman has not yet been able to keep a new character in the game. The Cartel is now looking to discover new bugs that will allow them to continue to farm with less exposure and less competition.

Pool's Closed

Bridget Blogdett discuses virtual protests and theories behind virtual collective action in her article And the Ringleaders Were Banned: An Examination of Protest in Virtual Worlds. Blogdett explains that hacktivism is how social movements use the Internet to advance their cause, while Computer Mediated Communication "examines the roles of communication channels in shaping social practices." Blogdett also analyzes a few different examples of virtual protests under the theoretical framework for virtual collective action. To do this she discusses each protest's degree of virtualization, legality, cultural homogeneity, and limits on participation. The degree of virtualization refers to the "percentage of the amount of organization and participation that was achieved offline or virtually." Legality is how legal both planning and holding the protest was, while cultural homogeneity is what level of diversity exists between individuals involved with the protest. Limitations on participation is a measure of how many people cannot participate in the protest and what prevents them from participating. In all of the cases Blogdett examined, participation was limited to those who had access to a computer and the specific game the protest took place in.

Habbo Hotel had an in-game protest in 2006 which has been commemorated annually since then. A group of avatars wearing identical business suits and afros gather near a pool in Habbo Hotel and blocked the entrance. At the time, Habbo Hotel did not allow avatars to walk through other avatars, so other players were unable to use the pool. This protest was in response to perceived racism by Habbo Hotel's moderators. These avatars had been gathering to block off public spaces of Habbo, but on July 12th of 2006 they planned and organized a large protest with numerous avatars. It was rumored, specifically on 4chan, that Habbo's moderators were blocking mainly black avatars, so players created the black, fancy suit-wearing avatar to represent a wealthy black man.

The Pool's Closed protest of 2006 was almost exclusively online, though not entirely in-game. The Source of unrest was in fact 4chan comments, though they referenced in-game occurrences. The planning and marketing of the protest also happened online, using a variety of different websites. Additionally, though not directly part of the protest, there were real-world implications that resulted from the Pool's Closed protest. People dressed as the avatar and rallied at the headquarters of the parent company of Habbo Hotel. Any real world occurrences relating to the protest happened after it occurred in game, but could still be considered a part of the protest.
The Pool's Closed protest was probably legal in terms of real-world law, but it's in game legality is questionable. The raids were quite disruptive and caused some big problems for Habbo, and many participants were banned. Based on the banning of numerous avatars, I'll conclude that Habbo considered it illegal or it was against their EULA.
There was a fair amount of diversity amongst those involved in the Pool's Closed raids. Though many were Americans, as the protestors marketed themselves, it became of interest to many of the users of Habbo. Since Habbo is owned by a Finnish company, it has many  international players who may have been involved with the protest. It is also quite difficult to know who was involved because the protest was advertised widely across the internet, and all of the avatars were intended to be the same.
The main limit to participation in the Pool's Closed raids was access to Habbo. To participate, a player needed knowledge of the raid and the proper avatar to make, as well as the basics of computer and internet access. Beyond that, nearly anyone could participate.

Second Life (Second Try)

Cory Ondrejka extensively discusses creation as an essential element of the theoretical Metaverse. The Metaverse is an "online environment that [is] a real place to its users". It is a virtual world where users can socialize, conduct business, be entertained, and do a variety of other things, similar to those they do in real life. Ondrejka states that the Metaverse cannot exist without creation. This makes sense since our world would not exist without innovation and invention, and the Metaverse is essentially a virtual version of the physical world.

Ondrejka sees a distinction between creation, where users have the ability to alter gameplay with objects that they have created in-game and use in-game, and crafting, where users can make items within the confines of the game designer's programming. Crafting will never allow for completely new objects or new interactions, but only lets players discover objects which are new for them. However, creating allows for the introduction of truly new items. Ondrejka sites Second Life as a step forward toward the Metaverse because of its inclusion of true in-game creation.

In Second Life I've made a boulder and a small wooden table. I made my wooden table or stool or whatever it is by using five separate shapes. I started with four cylinders, adjusted their size, placed them on an equal distance apart in a square, and then used a rectangular shape to make the top. Again I adjusted its size significantly. Then I locked them all together and picked an external texture for the whole thing. I believe it looks like cherry wood. This is a very simplified form of creating. In real life, I could make a small table out of wood and stain it to be a reddish hue. Additionally, though I made a very simplified object, I was not limited only by my inexperience, not by the game code. Using spheres, cylinders, cubes, and a whole variety of other dimensional shapes, I could have made pretty much anything. My table can be hot pink, clear, or covered in velvet. Anything I desire and that is possible in the context of the real world is also possible in Second Life. This is much different from the crafting that I've done in LOTRO. In LOTRO I simply chose to craft an item, found the materials, and then crafted it. It required no creativity, and there was very little choice involved. Though I "made" it, the object was previously designed by game designers, and I was just making a replica of it. In Second Life, I can make anything and use my own design, I'm not constricted by the designers or their code.

Ondrejka sees this as an essential component of the Metaverse. Second Life offers players the ability to take a given sphere, make it oblong, add a small indentation, create inconsistencies in its size and shape, and add a variety of textures to it. In the end it looks like a rock. But players can also copy the rock hundreds of times to make a stone wall or carry the rock around with them. More experience and knowledgeable players may be able to throw the rock or add a script to make avatars interact with it differently. The ability to make an entirely new object, and to use it, is of great important in the real, physical world. And so it's no surprise that it's of great importance to the Metaverse. After all, the Metaverse is just an online version of the real world.

An awesome user-made Second Life Motorcycle.

EULA

The exciting town of Eula, Texas

Well, this week we talked about EULAs. Only slightly more exciting than Texas, most EULAs are pages long and have lots of formal words. MMO producers require players to agree to End-User License Agreements, referred to as EULAs, which are legally binding contracts that lay out the rules and laws of that particular virtual world. Jack M. Balkin wrote Virtual Liberty: Freedom to Design and Freedom to Play In Virtual Worlds, which we discussed extensively. In it he covers the main issues with law in virtual worlds, and how he proposes these issues be resolved.

Minecraft has the shortest EULA of those we discussed. Essentially, Minecraft is a game in which players to build a variety of things using cubes. The EULA is only one page long and contains no legal jargon. It is incredibly informal and casual, with only one very clear rule: players may not distribute the game or any components of the game. This EULA would do very little to protect Minecraft in the case that they have legal issues. Minecraft does however give players the rights to their own creations. I think Balkin would have some objections to this. Not only does the EULA do little by way of clarifying rules and rights, but  it gives players rights. Balkin says that the more rights players have to virtual property, the more there is a need for law.

Balkin might note that Second Life has a very extensive EULA. Second Life is a game where players purchase property, create and trade virtual objects, and socialize with other players. Balkin would probably be in support of Second Life's ridiculously long EULA because second life grants players the rights to all content that they create in the game. Since players can build a variety of things and the trading and selling of these objects is a huge part of the game, Second Life needs many rules to make sure that it is protected. The one objection Balkin may have to the Second Life EULA is that it is quite long and may be challenged in court. Second Life has already had their EULA challenged and the court decided that part of the EULA could not be held up.

EVE Online is a space based fictional MMORPG. Its EULA is mid-length and contains standard information and rules. Balkin probably would say that the EVE Online is adequate given the level of player involvement that the game allows, but also that lengthy EULAs may not stand up in court anyway. In general it seems that Balkin thinks of the EULA as a good precaution, but not more, since it can be challenged so easily. With this is mind, it seems that the EVE online EULA covers all the bases, but isn't a ridiculous and lengthy as the Second Life one.

Virtual Law

David Johnson and David Post discuss the jurisdiction of the the web in "Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace". They discuss the big issues concerning the regulation of the internet, which are primarily the lack of physical territory or borders and the difficulties in treating physical life and the cyber world as distinct and separate entities. Dealing with the enforcement of conflicting laws that are defined by geography is a challenge that can only be resolved by clear boundaries online. Johnson and Post support "treating [the internet] as a distinct doctrine, applicable to a clearly demarcated sphere, created primarily by legitimate, self-regulatory processes, and entitled to appropriate deference -- but also subject to limitations when it oversteps its appropriate sphere," which they think will provide the best solution to the issues associated with cyberspace and jurisdiction.

It's no secret that the internet and the laws that govern it are a big topic right now. Between SOPA, PIPA, and Megaupload the media is getting their fair share of web-based stories. Rather than discuss one of these numerous new articles, I've decided that the New York Times' "Room for Debate: What's the Best Way to Protect Against Online Piracy" is a good choice to discuss. "Room for Debate" is a regular section with multiple opinions of "experts" in the field which is being discussed. Chris Dodd, the former senator from connecticut and current C.E.O. of the Motion Picture Association of America, wrote that SOPA and PIPA are the best way to stop piracy. But Maria Popova, a writer for Wired and the Atlantic, as well as an MIT fellow, thinks that congress needs realize the economic implications of these acts, and shouldn't be making laws about the internet until they learn to use it.

It seems to me that Post and Johnson would be more likely to agree with Popova, but would probably think that congress shouldn't be making laws about the internet at all. They might argue that the web needs to be patrolling itself, shutting down websites and preventing copyright infringement. I guess I just don't see that as a very realistic option. It seems clear to me that though cyberspace can ideally take care of itself, we don't live in an ideal world. But I'm not so clear on the solution. I don't think SOPA and PIPA are good solutions, but I also hope that if I ever copyright my own material or work it won't get reproduced or stolen without my consent. I guess we'll  see what happens.

Antisocial Social Play

This week we read some of T. L. Taylor's "Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture." The bit we read (Chapter 2, "Gaming Lifeworlds: Social Play in Persistent Environments") was quite interesting, but before I get there I want to mention that Taylor is female. I realize that there are lots of women in academia writing about a wide array of subjects, but I think it's important to mention that a major academic in this field is female. Not only are there female  gamers, but there are female gamers who study gaming.  Apparently the stereotype of lazy, anti-social, middle-aged men who live in their mother's basements is not entirely accurate.

In any case, Taylor talks a lot about the social aspect of the game and its importance. Specifically, she talks about socializing in EverQuest. She points out that EverQuest is "deeply social" and that players create a "web of networks and relationships" which often exist both online in the game and off-line out in the physical world. She says that players communicate not only for personal socialization, but that "interaction is built into the very heart of the game." Players have to help each other to succeed, and assisting other players becomes one of the unwritten rules of the game. Players can shout for help, gift items to each other, or ignore other players completely. But those who have little or no interaction with other players find that their reputation is poor, and a bad reputation can impact their ability to advance in the game.

A few days ago I started playing LOTRO. I, uh, "rolled" a toon and made it all the way to level 10, and now that I've had some "in-game" experiences I can comment on Taylor's writing and share my experiences. So here it is:

I've literally had no interaction with other players.

I have a few guesses as  to why my gameplay is so far from what Taylor argues is an essential aspect of virtual worlds. To start, I'm a beginner. Not only did I just start playing LOTRO, but I've never played another MMO before either. At this point in my playing I don't really need other players to assist me, and most of my questing so far has been in areas where other people were few and far between. When I have arrived in areas with people, I avoid them. They kind of scare me since I still think of the internet as a dangerous place where creepy stalkers try to talk to you, but I also don't need them for anything right now. One other reason that I've had no in-game interactions with other players might be that I have a gaming buddy who can help me with my game from the real world. So even though his toon and my toon have yet to meet in Middle Earth, Brooks offers helpful advice. Who knew that not only can my toon eat, but it should eat? I certainly didn't. Apparently food replenishes its health after an attack. This sort of assistance in practical gameplay means that I need the help of other players even less. I'm also not playing EverQuest. LOTRO might require less socialization. I imagine that as I continue to play and level up I will become more dependent on other players. I guess we'll find out.

LOTRO

We're diving into the world of MMOs and I've figured out what my toon will be. According to my googling of LOTRO, as well as our class discussions, there are lots of things to consider when choosing a race and class. Different races have different difficulty levels and traits, as well as cosmetic differences. Class determines a toon's skills and abilities, and the role the character plays within the game. After reading up on all of my options, I've decided that I will be creating an elf hunter. Hunters are one of the easiest classes, which is ideal for me since I'm a "noob", and they also cause damage, but at a long range. I've chosen to be an elf primarily because I think their ears are funny. It sounds silly, but I don't really know enough about gameplay to be able to decide if being resistant to disease or being agile are important qualities (both are elf skills) or if it's better to have vitality and might.

I'm definitely nervous to start playing, but I'm also a bit excited. It's a whole new world, and at this point I'm sort of imagining gameplay as a combination between Facebook and Zelda. I'm anticipating that I will be really interested in looking around, understanding the game, and seeing what it has to offer. I'm usually driven by my curiosity. And since I've been learning a bit about digitally created art lately, I'll probably also be really into the graphics. I imagine that once I make sense of the game, I will also want to do well. I have a tendency to obsess over things until I achieve them, so leveling up or accomplishing specific quests will probably become important as well. According to Bartle's four player types, I'm probably primarily an explorer, but with some serious interest in achieving. I'm completely on board when Bartle says "most accomplished explorers could easily rack up sufficient points to reach the top, but such one-dimensional behaviour is the sign of a limited intellect." He pretty much sums up how I view achievement based on socially decided norms in the real world, and I doubt that my view of it will be any different in the virtual world.

Bartle does say that "these areas cross over, and players will often drift between all four," but I have trouble imagining that I will be a killer. Though my interest in socializing is fairly minimal, I understand that it's an important part of an MMO. It's not called "massively-multiplayer" because you play on your own. However, harassing other people just seems unnecessary and cruel. And the killer player type is all about the end goal, but I find that the means to the end are more important the end. We'll see if my perspective changes once I start playing.