Roleplaying Game Taken to Court

[Tsyr]

How many times has this issue been raised in one form or another?

I, personaly, don't see where the legal debate is. The second you play the game, you agree to the terms that Mythic/Funcom/Verant/Billy-Joe-Bob's Garage Games/etc lays forth. If you violate them, you are the one in the wrong.

Where is this even vauge enough to make a case? I ask this honestly, because I'm not a lawyer and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty darned clear cut to me. If you agreed to a "contract" if you will, signed with with a (now legal) electronic signature, and then violate it by breaking the terms of the agreement, how can you persue legal action against the other party? The blame is totaly on your shoulders.

 

[Storm Raven]

I, personaly, don't see where the legal debate is. The second you play the game, you agree to the terms that Mythic/Funcom/Verant/Billy-Joe-Bob's Garage Games/etc lays forth. If you violate them, you are the one in the wrong.

Where is this even vauge enough to make a case? I ask this honestly, because I'm not a lawyer and maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty darned clear cut to me. If you agreed to a "contract" if you will, signed with with a (now legal) electronic signature, and then violate it by breaking the terms of the agreement, how can you persue legal action against the other party? The blame is totaly on your shoulders.

As a lawyer, my guess is that the terms of agreement may not have been real specific on this score. The only thing I can think of is that the original service agreement didn't really contemplate this kind of activity, and now the players who are being told they can't sell their stuff are complaining that they have been saddled with new restrictions.

I haven't seen the contracts at issue here, so I have no idea if this is the case, but it is the best I can come up with via speculation.

 

[KDLadage]

Economics and legal issues asside, I guess the whole thing bothers me on an RPG level...

People playing the game ("players") have "Player Characters." These Player Characters accumulate money, equipment and so forth.

The company running the game ("Dungeon Master" or "Game Master") haver decided that, in thier game, real world transactions cannot and will not interfere with the fairness of their game.

If you, as a DM, saw someone accepting $25 for a character, would you allow the player to relinquish control over the "property" and play in your game?

If so -- good for you. If not -- then that word is final. End of story. In this case, the Dungeon Master has said no -- no ammount of "but there is nothing wrong with it" or "nobody is getting hurt" matters any more (at least to me).

 

[Tsyr]

As a lawyer, my guess is that the terms of agreement may not have been real specific on this score. The only thing I can think of is that the original service agreement didn't really contemplate this kind of activity, and now the players who are being told they can't sell their stuff are complaining that they have been saddled with new restrictions.

I haven't seen the contracts at issue here, so I have no idea if this is the case, but it is the best I can come up with via speculation.

I'll have to look over the agreement when I get home, I'm one of those sort that never intends to violate any rules anyhow so I rarely do more than skim agreements like that.

Question though... Since the person has to, as I recall, agree to the license each time they play, doesn't that in effect give Mythic the ability to make whatever changes they want, legally? Ethicly perhaps not, but sadly ethics and legality aren't the same thing.

 

[Pielorinho]

How many times has this issue been raised in one form or another?

I, personaly, don't see where the legal debate is. The second you play the game, you agree to the terms that Mythic/Funcom/Verant/Billy-Joe-Bob's Garage Games/etc lays forth. If you violate them, you are the one in the wrong.

I think the controversy comes from the ambiguous state of software.

If I buy a tennis racket, I could then come up with a new sport, Xtreme Frisbee Tennis, in which you smack frisbees at each other at a relentless pace. If the tennis racket company told me to stop, I could freely ignore them. If a tennis racket company tried to sell their rackets with a contract forbidding them to be used in Xtreme Frisbee Tennis, people would look askance, and the contract might not hold weight in court (hee hee).

If I buy a seat at a restaurant, then it's very clear that I don't get to use this seat for whatever I want: my uses are very limited.

If I purchase Microsoft Word, and I write a document in it, I can sell that document. If it turned out that Microsoft had put a clause in thier user agreement stating that they were to be paid royalties on all documents produced, I might have a good case for weaseling out of that requirement in court.

As for a computer game? Is it a Tennis racket, a restaurant, or a word processor?

Contract law isn't supreme; it's balanced against other considerations. I don't think this one has been quite figured out yet.

Daniel

 

[Eye Tyrant]

Wow! I have heard of people buying and selling stuff like this before, but honestly I just don't get it. I mean, next you'll have have players wanting to buy and sell items in table-top games, for real cash. Come on! I couldn't ever bring myself to actually purchase a bunch of 0s and 1s that equate to suit of enchanted armor within a specific software environment, much less a penciled in ancient relic on a character sheet. I think it's ridiculous! And having said so, I will quietly sit back with my +5 Fire Extinquisher! (Which is up for a measly $50 if there are any takers out there)

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

From the EULA to Dark Age of Camelot, which you click to accept every time you start the game:


9. Selling of Items You may not sell or auction any Game characters, items, coin or copyrighted material. The selling of items, coins or any copyrighted part of the Game's player character whether through online auctions (for example Ebay), newsgroup or postings on message board is in violation of this EULA as well as Mythic's Player Code of Conduct. In addition to violating our agreement, selling items and/or coin violates our legal rights and may constitute misappropriation, and/or tortuous interference with our business and tarnishes the goodwill in the Dark Age of Camelot(tm) name.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you, as a DM, saw someone accepting $25 for a character, would you allow the player to relinquish control over the "property" and play in your game?

If so -- good for you. If not -- then that word is final. End of story. In this case, the Dungeon Master has said no -- no amount of "but there is nothing wrong with it" or "nobody is getting hurt" matters any more (at least to me).

Well, most DMs don't sell seats at their table for profit, which is what the online game companies are doing, so I could easily see a distinction between the two situations you are talking about.

As a DM or player in a private arena, I have the right to determine who I associate with and game with. I can make decisions on that score for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all.

If I am selling a commercial service product, I am expected to obey the law. I can exclude people from receiving my service for a good reason (such as they are unwilling to abide by my reasonable contract terms), but not for a bad reason (such as they are hispanic and I don't like hispanic people), and probably not for no reason (since the law is suspicious that those are really cover ups for bad reasons). telling someone they can't play because they bought their character may or may not be a bad reason to exclude them, and a commercial seller may or may not be able to enforce that rule, but it has no bearing on what a DM does in his private life.

 

[Henry]

...I couldn't ever bring myself to actually purchase a bunch of 0s and 1s that equate to suit of enchanted armor within a specific software environment, much less a penciled in ancient relic on a character sheet.

Yet, you would think nothing of purchasing a license to use Microsoft Word in order to expedite your home, work, or scholarly pursuits. That's all we the public are doing right now, except that it is with the understanding that it is a License for I.P. that allows us to do so.

Now, The I.P. we create with it is ours; otherwise, the Makers of MS Word and Quark Xpress would own everything that WotC has created in the past 7 years. Microsoft doesn't tell you extactly HOW to write the next Great Literary Masterpiece. However, no one has CREATED the Magic Sword by playing the game - it was created by the programmers of the game beforehand, and the players of the game gained the sword by following the game play proscribed by the programmers who created it.

The Programmers have included the game play in their licensing, and what you are selling is a software product already included in their program. This would be tantamount to buying Microsoft Office, Breaking out MS Word, and selling it, charging for the labor involved.

In a specific legal phrase, this is a NO-NO. If it is strictly forbidden in the game licensing, you are in violation whether you agree with it or not.

 

[der_kluge]

My $0.02

I used to play Everquest. Like most 20-something, out of college professionals, the time that I could play EQ was limited. I played in the evenings, and on weekends. I just didn't have the time to acquire all of the things that I wanted to acquire. I actually did purchase another player's characters for $100 after he stated in a message board that he was quitting. I don't regret making that purchase - it netted me a lot of things that would have taken months to acquire on my own. I could then enjoy more of the game that I liked, and less of it that I didn't (camping). I played on the test Server, and a few months after that, they wiped everything I had anyway, so it was all for nothing, but I enjoyed it while I had it.

It seems to me that this isn't any different than Magic:The Gathering cards. If you buy M:TG cards at a hobby shop, there's nothing to stop you from trading or selling individual cards between enthusiasts. If you pay $1000 for a Mox(sp) Gem, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. The company seems to encourage it, even, by making certain cards rare, and certain cards common.

EverQuest works the same way - some things are rare, and some things are common. In some cases, creatures that are rare drop 1 common thing, and 1 rare thing - making that rare thing doubly rare!

If MMORPG companies were smart, they would sell rare items to players for real-world cash. Maybe they could even limit it to expensive mundane items. For $50, say, you could start your EQ character in Full Plate armor (a considerable advantage, but not magical). I'd bet boatloads of people would have paid that for the extra advantage.