Commodifying Virtual Worlds

JB

I’m floored by three aspects of this story: First, that so many people have that kind of time to become so immersed in computer games. Second, that people will actually pay that amount of money for fictional game tokens that have been "earned" (by playing the game) by somebody else.

And third, that anybody would get their knickers all in knots over the practice of selling these virtual items. (Blizzard and, for its part, Sony officially prohibit this practice in the rules, but there’s no such thing as game police.) OK, it’s not something I would do--but if there are willing buyers and sellers, what, exactly, is the harm?

Gamers (and game designers) generally have no problem with in-world commodification-- buying and selling things within the world, because that is part of what makes the simulation fun. Commerce helps create social fabric and civil society just as it does in real space. But many of them do have a problem with real world commodification, because that often gives people an unfair advantage within the space and can also undermine the virtual community. (To give only one example, people can buy and sell their identities as well as their items).

Pogue is mystified about the debate because he doesn't yet understand that massively multiplayer online games are evolving into something much more than mere entertainment. They are an remarkably important front in the evolution of cyberspace generally. Here a shameless plug for my recent University of Virginia Law Review article, "Virtual Liberty," on some of the legal problems of virtual worlds, and, in particular, how to preserve free speech rights and deal with real world commodification. My solution is to create different frameworks for different kinds of worlds, some of which permit real world commodification and some of which prohibit it, with fair warning both to game designers and players about their choices.