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.