The MMOG Debate

Hi there,

This week I would like to write a little bit about Sal Humphrey’s (2005) journal article entitled Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. I would also like to make a few points in reference to the lecture she gave last week about gamers’ rights, particularly those who play Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOG) like EverQuest and World of Warcraft.

Firstly, in the lecture Sal Humphrey suggested that an MMOG is not necessarily a good or a bad thing. In response to this idea, I agree. MMOGs are social arenas where players collaborate to take on challenges within the game, whilst forming binding relationships with each other. Therefore, in these virtual spaces, players receive rewards for being sociable. For example, in EverQuest, if a raid is successful, the players involved become more powerful. What I take issue with here is that for some people, these MMOGs are not just fun games of social interactivity. For some players, these games in fact become a central part of their day-to-day existence, where forty to fifty hours per week is invested inside a virtual world. Sal suggested that these player’s identities are not fixed within the game, nor are they fixed in the external world. The problem I have with this argument is that these players, who are hardcore addicts, are in fact living their life through a fantastical identity, which doesn’t exist in the real world.

Furthermore, Sal argued that players such as these, who have invested an extraordinary amount of time, money and emotion in these MMOGs should be entitled to greater legal freedom. At present, End User Licence Agreements are fixed, in favour of the enterprise. This has caused many problems within what Ms Humphrey refers to as “owned proprietary worlds” where users have been banned without explanation or negotiation. This agreement also forbids players to sell their characters for money on auction sites like eBay after they have invested time building them up. In her journal article Humphrey (2005, 37) states that the structural differences presented by online multi-user games like EverQuest compared with the distribution of “fixed” texts such as Napster have created new tensions in the relationship between commerce and culture. This means that because players are now producing free content for these games and building social infrastructures such as guilds, the line between what an enterprise can claim as Intellectual Property, and what actually belongs to the user is harder to define.

Additionally, like Ms Humphrey, I believe that the balance of power weighs too heavily in favour of companies like Sony Entertainment, who have the power to cancel a loyal player’s subscription for any reason at any given time. However, it is important for players to understand that without the enterprise, their worlds would never exist. It is important to respect the rules and regulations of any infrastructure you become a member of, whether that is a school, university, virtual space or workplace. Without these codes of conduct, there would be no order. I believe that the current legislation needs to be restructured which gives players greater ownership of their identity within the game and the content they produce. In doing so, hopefully gamers and enterprise can work in a collaborative relationship to ensure that Massively Multiplayer Online Games remain a fun and enjoyable experience for all.

I am sorry that this entry is so long! I got really involved in Ms Humphrey’s ideas because I found that she took a very extreme approach to gamers and their activities. I hope that you didn’t find this too lengthy to read! Until next time, take care!

Emilie x

References
Humphrey, S. 2005. Productive Players: Online Computer Games’ Challenge to Conventional Media Forms. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 12 (1):36-50.