Spinks has a great post up on player behavior, and it’s well worth reading for the main points…
but what really caught my attention was a tangential concern, that of account sharing. I made note of it over there, but I wanted to echo it here.
Perhaps it’s just one piece of the “anarchy” puzzle that is Tesh, but I’ve never liked that account sharing is technically against the Terms of Service in most of these MMO things. It’s my account, I should be able to decide who to trust with that data. As it happens, I’ve done so, letting my wife or siblings play with my accounts in games. Yes, I did so knowing full well that the company could pull a jerk move and delete my account for it, but I did so because I trusted my family with my data.
And ultimately, that should be my choice. I’m therefore a conscientious objector to that part of the standard MMO TOS (as well as other parts, for that matter). Then again, I’m also the sort that believes strongly in individual responsibility rather than state mandates. I don’t talk politics much here (on purpose), but I can’t help but see parallels between the State of the MMO Provider and the State of the Union (and politics vs. human nature in general).
Ultimately, society works not because government (or the Provider) is perfect, but because We the People work together (even though we aren’t perfect). Top down design in games (“thou shalt group”) and top down design in government (Chrysler much? Bailout nation? Moral hazard?) are both dangerous. In both cases, if someone gets ripped off, it’s their own fault, and it’s not Big Brother’s job to swoop in and right the wrongs, whether it’s with a bailout or a banhammer.
This is also why I see no problem whatsoever if an MMO player wants to sell their account (or if someone wants to buy one). I’ve always thought restrictions against that were ridiculous as well. It’s technically against the rules for most MMOs, but as I consider those rules ill-advised in the first place, I have no problem breaking them. Maybe that makes me a terrible scofflaw, but then… I’ve always thought that pointing out and objecting to bad laws and dumb rules is a moral obligation, and a cherished right in the country I live in.
Funny how quick we are to sign (or vote) that away sometimes.
Actually I dislike account sharing. Like a lot of RPers, I think of my character as more than just a token with some stats attached. In the virtual world, it is me. I would no more share its login than I would my underwear.
Oh, I can understand that, but it underlines that your approach is a personal one, not a systemic one (as are so many aspects of MMO playstyles, for that matter). You choose not to share, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m certainly not saying people *should* share, since that’s just a position opposite the company’s to be contrary.
I just assert that players should have the option to share (or sell) their account and not be banned for it.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you’re in favor of it, by the way, just that your post made mention of it, which spurred my thoughts. Thanks for the clarification.
Let me first comment to spinks: I dislike account sharing, too. And I personally never share my account. Not even to wife or friends. Right, not even my best friends know my passwords. While they have no problem to give me their passwords …, and I always tell them to change them, or flat out refuse. You know, if they get hacked due to social engineering, I would not like the slightest shade of suspicion on me.
But account sharing should be legal. They cannot really check it if it is me, my cat, bots, my cousin or the guy who just took me prisoner playing my char. And it also makes no sense – whoever is playing is subject to the rules of the game, and if he screws up and my account gets banned, well, then it is my problem for having him let play my char.
There are many more rules in EULAs and terms of services that are not even legal in many countries or just gibberish.
I also want to support Tesh on the political tangent of the argument. I have grown up in a society where privatization was the wonder cure for every bad firm, which will make it 1000% more productive and make the future of the whole world brighter.
And today? Not so many years later, some banks or firms get declared “system relevant” (they coined that term) in Germany and get rescued with billions of tax payer money by the state, while other’s don’t get any help. What is “system relevant”, actually? Every bank seems to be system relevant, and major car manufacturers, but besides that, they pretty much decide out of their ass or well, due to connections…
Germany is about to save Opel with a lot of money, while the new finance minister actually believed an insolvency similar to chapter 11 (IIRC) in the USA would be the best solution for the firm and the nation.
German politicans are also about to save me from the brutal and violent videogames that I have played for ages, as some guys always believe they cause people to go on a killing spree… this silly debate always surfaces again in summer when there are little news, and before elections. Sigh. The campaign against smoking AND smokers (! – yeah, it is getting personal) is also going very far in the european union. I am not a smoker, but I guess this is what Tesh was pointing out: The state tries to be our nanny, to take personal responsibility away from me. Good intentions maybe, but horrible in practice.
Regarding account sales, getting back to MMO gaming from politics: This also has only one thing in mind, that new customers have to pay the X bucks for the download/copy of the game, too. Or maybe, that the customers will always have the option to come back, as they still own the deactivated account… :>
Interestingly, some developers started to talk about their MMOs as a service by now.
I wonder how long it takes for the “start service” extra fee to disappear… then account sales should not be a problem either.
Great article. I can’t comment on the politics side to it all but I can totally see where you’re coming from with the freedom aspect. I think the account sharing clause in the TOS is to cover the bases on any loop holes in the prevention of selling of accounts. I think it’s a sticky wicket with MMO companies and, IMO, it boils down to one thing: money.
MMORPGs are based on the principle of time = money. Every month someone subscribes, is extra cash in their pocket. Although there are certainly strong arguments that buying plat and buying accounts is ‘bad’ for the gameworld, I personally believe MMO companies are against it because they would ultimately lose a lot of money from it.
Think about how much time a player invests leveling, earning gear, harvesting, crafting or any such activity that earns money or experience. All of this contributes to the developer’s coffers. Now imagine if it was legal to buy and sell accounts. Suddenly you would have dozen of internet companies selling pre-leveled characters for low prices.
Could anyone say they honestly wouldn’t be tempted to buy a blank slate level 80 character for $100? In terms of value for money, that’s a fraction of the price you would pay if you leveled up your own character (assuming you earnt $15 or $20 an hour).
I think the fact that account sharing/ selling is generally against EULA is … kind of weird. I mean, I agree with it in a sense, but it’s oddly virtual worldy for gaming companies if you see what I mean.
I suspect a lot of the virtual world pioneers would have something to say about the sanctity of the player’s avatar. There is more theory to this than meets the eye, but I’m surprised that gaming companies don’t just cater to the average gamer. There may be ownership issues also, and something non obvious along the IP lines that they want to protect themselves from.
And I know that I personally prefer not to mix with people who freely share their characters around. I really do like to know that I’m talking to the person I think I am. btw, I didn’t mention this in my post because I really want to try to keep my personal biases on the backburner when I’m describing player behaviour.
Longasc,
“Good intentions maybe, but horrible in practice.”
Exactly. “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
One encapsulation of the notion is charity vs. welfare. Most major religions teach that charity is a good thing, and even socially (nonreligiously), those who are willing to give of their bounty to those who are less fortunate tend to make society a better place overall. Welfare is about giving away other people’s money, and misses the point of giving of self. There are definitely “good intentions” in welfare, but the mechanics thereof undermine the character-building aspects of true charity, both for the giver and the receiver; the giver has no choice, and therefore makes no moral progress or sacrifice for others, and the receiver is encouraged to turn to the State for help instead of family and neighbors. That way lies trouble in a lot of different facets.
Spitfire, it’s definitely about money, both for what you assert and for legal fees that may come from disgruntled customers. Bleh. I can understand the paranoia, and even the desire to keep as much as possible under the iron fist of the State or the provider. That doesn’t mean I like it.
I can also understand the unease that comes with the social side of account sharing. (Spinks, feel free to vent over here to keep things clean at your place.
) I’ve not had trouble with it, and any time that my wife has played on my account, she just doesn’t chat, or most often, plays on her own character that happens to be on my account.
I’m one of those cynical sorts that doesn’t trust internet contacts on general principle. “Anonymous until proven trustworthy” or something like that.
That said, I’ve made a few friends here and there, by blogs or forums, and found a few that I feel I can trust. Perhaps one key is that our communication isn’t solely in-game. It’s also been built over several months if not years. Also, I’m not deeply invested in any of my accounts. If I were a few years and a few hundred dollars into a WoW account, or even a GM, for example, the barrier would be more significant, but even then, I’d trust family and close friends. They would know enough not to mess with any important characters.
On thing that I’ve seen used to great effect in Puzzle Pirates is an “officer account” that the upper officers in a crew (guild) use interchangeably to manage the crew assets, but they maintain their own accounts for when they play “in character”. Perhaps that’s another notion, then; the ability to manage a guild divorced from playing any one character. (Or even free from a secure website, rather than a client login that requires an active sub… but that’s a tangent too far, perhaps.)
Still, this underlines again that people will approach these games differently, and that the “clothing” of an account might be underwear for one person, and merely a hat or signet ring for another. It seems to me that both should be legal options. It’s a matter of personal preference, and should be treated as such, on a personal level by those who are paying for the account.
Oh, and for my personal take, I’m not against those who want to share with me, and I’m not averse to offering to share with close trusted friends… but I’m definitely leery of anyone who would *ask* for such a thing. That nicely parallels the charity comment, actually; offering is completely different from requesting.
Meridian 59 explicitly prohibits account sharing and account sales. Mostly because I’m a petty dictator who gets off on telling others what to do.
Well, actually, it’s a bit more than that.
We Fly Spitfires wrote:
I think the account sharing clause in the TOS is to cover the bases on any loop holes in the prevention of selling of accounts.
Gordon is mostly right here. It’s basically because it’s the simplest option for us. For example, let’s say Gordon wants to buy an M59 account from Tesh. Gordon logs on the character before paying to “make sure the character is as promised,” but then proceeds to change the password and go on a PvP spree (or strips the equipment to sell as a gold farmer) so Tesh calls up customer service to complain. How do we fix this situation? The proper answer is that Tesh shouldn’t have shared his account information in the first place, so we have rules in place to encourage that behavior. People who violate that and cause us problems get an account ban (but not a credit card-based ban like cheaters do).
The same principles apply for account sharing. Despite Longasc’s statement that, “whoever is playing is subject to the rules of the game, and if he screws up and my account gets banned, well, then it is my problem for having him let play my char,” people don’t take responsibility. Cheaters almost never fess up; if I had a dollar for every time a speedhacker claimed, “It wasn’t me, it was (someone else)!”, I could have funded a new game by now. I’ve mentioned before that one time someone explained, “I didn’t cheat, but nobody has my password except my boyfriend, and he wouldn’t do that to me!” Again, the threat of banning is extra encouragement not to share account information.
Personally, I don’t care about account sharing. Actually, one time while I was working up a mortal character (that wasn’t known to other players), someone gave me their login/password to practice spells upon their mule. Now, if I were a fascist stickler for the rules, I would have banned the person there for violating the rules. However, I was pretty confident I wasn’t going to cause myself any problems, so I practiced my PvP spell in peace.
The moral of the story is that normal account sharing isn’t a problem. But, these provisions are a “resolve sticky problem where someone is going to get pissed off anyway” method that provides the simplest path to resolution.
Oh, aye, I understand that, but I wish that people would take personal responsibility, and that petty dictators could expend their energy on making the game better, not policing brats.
I tend to see that sort of “petty dictatorship” as the sort of manhandling that Klaus Wolfenbach has to indulge in in the Girl Genius comic storyline. At one point, he notes that keeping the peace is “like running a Kindergarden”. In short, it’s because of the people who abuse trust and try to con the system, or those who can’t be bothered to live responsibly, that the whole system has to be straitjacketed and ruled with an iron fist. Klaus doesn’t like to do that, and I suspect that MMO providers don’t like dealing with those who abuse the system.
Again, I understand it, but I don’t like it, and I think that overall, both statism and MMO devs err too far on the side of letting subjects shirk responsibility, thinking that Big Brother policies are the only way to keep the peace. These restrictions on accounts are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since the real banworthy things should be cheating. As with so many other things, I suggest dealing with the disease, not amputation.
What I wish devs would do is allow account sharing and sales, but tell people that they are out of luck and have no leg to stand on come conflict time. Again, leave it in the players’ court, and if they screw up and wind up getting cheaters on their account, swing the banhammer and tell them “too bad”.
I suppose that merciless banning of hacking would need to be the “big stick” the “soft speaking” of letting people have some freedom would need to be balanced. Still, shouldn’t cheaters be banned anyway? I have little pity for those who claim “my dog did it” in any walk of life.
Meh, account sharing and selling is something impossible for them to police anyway (assuming the parties involved aren’t idiots who shout it out in local chat).
So you’re pretty much free to do whatever you want.
EULA’s of software in general are still a pretty controversial area. Most people assume that whatever’s written in there is like the law or something, but it’s quite possible for companies to state B.S. in there that won’t hold up in court.
In Australia, (at least as of last year) there haven’t been any cases involving EULA’s and the approach that will be taken (i.e. whether they are enforceable or not, and to what degree) hasn’t been figured out yet. I’m sure this is the same in some other countries too.
So, yeah. Poo to EULA’s.
Tesh, it is your choice.
This is direct from WoW’s “Terms Of Use”: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html
6. Username and Password.
“You may not share the Account or the Login Information with anyone other than as expressly set forth herein.”
So…does it say anything else about sharing Account or Login Information anywhere else in the TOU or EULA?
Yes, in one other place.
TOU – 10. Security of Login Information.
“You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the Login Information, and you will be responsible for all uses of the Login Information, whether or not authorized by you.”
So you have the right to do whatever you want with your Account name or the Login Information, but of course Blizzard reserve the right to “…SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ACCOUNTS AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO YOU.” (Their CAPS, not mine.)
Account Sharing is not a violation of either the EULA or the TOU because Blizzard make you responsible for your Login Information, so if you choose to share it with family or friends that’s your choice and it’s a choice Blizzard let you make.
They can still Ban your Account though, and not for violating the EULA or TOU but just because they can. They don’t need a reason, they don’t need to give you one, they can just Ban you.
Account Sharing. It’s your choice, and it’s NOT a violation of the TOU or the EULA.
http://mashable.com/2009/06/15/tattoo-twitter-name/
Mass adoption of personal responsibility is a nice dream, however that’s about all it is.
There’s also the instances where a person takes your account info and doesn’t cheat. They just walk away with all your stuff. Now if the EULA says account sharing is hunky dory there isn’t anything that can be done. Of course the personal responsibility line is ‘waagh, they shouldn’t have shared it’, my response is ‘who gave a shit about them anyways, it’s the known thief wandering around my game that worries me.’ If account sharing is against the rules, then the person was an active participant in breaking the EULA and they can be banned. Ideally, I’d just ban the thief anyways even if there wasn’t an EULA justification, but with systems as large as MMOs it’s not always possible for those decisions to be made at the level of the person who could do the banning.
I currently share my account with friends.
I pay $15 a month for it, and barely get to play. Someone else might as well enjoy my investment. My other option is to just stop paying completely. Certainly Blizz appreciates my $15 a month.
They can ban the account anytime the like. It won’t bother me. I know the risks in the account sharing process so it is mine alone. Of course, I am probably more reasonable than others who share and get their stuff banned.
I have purchased and sold accounts in the past, and paid for levelling and bought gold. This was before I understood the ramifications (not personally, I knew they could always ban me for it – but the account hacks and what not I didn’t know I was contributing to that).
The whole time I would have been happier paying Blizzard for the opportunity but it wasn’t an option.
Without those ancillary purchases I wouldn’t have continued paying my sub fee.
It is a symptom of a greater problem – if the game mechanics encourage players to cicumvent them through exterior spending than the design needs to be looked at more seriously.
Aside from not changing that, open up your own store to kill the third party RMT shops and triple your own revenue.
Y’know, Capn’, I should have remembered that. You did a great article about it a while back. *headdesk*
Chris, agreed heartily with blaming the game design, and company control of the revenue streams.
Sara, I know that people will be idiots a lot of the time, but if the system encourages it, the system needs to be changed.
Thanks for chiming in, everyone!
It’s the best system of protection. Nothing’s perfect but legally it protects from liabilities.
You are still free to do whatever you want. It’s not a law. You can’t be fined or sent to jail for doing it.
But you’ve no doubt seen how the majority of people out there, especially in free-to-play games are doing it anyway.
In fact, most players do it, all the time, and don’t know it’s not against TOS.
This also results in hundreds, if not more, of problems that end up with the player practically screaming to be compensated for something that was there fault.
It’s pretty common knowledge that there are those out there that usually share their account with a “friend” and the friend refuses to return the account, and demands the company to help them rectify it.
I totally agree with the TOS on these terms. It prevents many many more problems than it creates.
The TOS/EULA limitations for account sharing and sale can also lead to betrayal.
The buyer and seller breaking the rules of the game is only the tip of the iceberg.
It can also lead to funny things like WoW account sale betrayal. One of my friends once bought an account with a top notch Shaman. Note, I told him this is BS for various reasons… The original owner proved with the original key that it is his account. He got it back from the “account thief”. I do not remember the sum, but my silly friend paid quite some money for the account…
… he got the money back, he got the phone number of the seller and contacted the mother of the younger player. And we all know, moms solve such problems. He got his money back. Still, it was quite humiliating for him, as she told him a story about men playing such games! ;>
The morale?
1.) My friend should definitely have been SMARTER in this regard and just level up his damn char normally.
2.) The TOS did not prevent this break of the TOS and actually were only successful in shifting this shady account sale business to the realm of more serious fraud.
See, I’m of a mind that such matters of trust aren’t the Provider’s business, just like breach of contract isn’t the Government’s business.
The Provider should just ban hackers, since they have abused the Provider’s systems, no matter what the player situation is. If there’s a trust issue and theft, that’s entirely on the head of the person who got duped and needs to learn who to trust. It was their mistake, they should deal with the repercussions. Big Brother can’t be a safety net; it’s expensive to try to be and it promotes the sort of moral hazard mentality that bailouts inevitably bring.
In other words, if there’s a clear “cheat and be banned” policy, you’re able to treat the actual problem, cheating. Who actually did the cheating, whether it’s “my dog” or “my alternate personality” or “really me, but I’m a lying sack of crap”, it doesn’t matter one bit, and there doesn’t need to be an appeals process (read: cheaper to maintain). “Cheat = ban”, pure and simple, and account sharing has absolutely no input on that simple equation.
Similarly, if a contract is broken in the real world, the parties should settle it through the legal system. If a company winds up going bankrupt because of fraud or incompetence, they should fail and take the consequences of their actions, not turn to Big Brother to bail them out. When Big Brother is a backstop for mistakes, people will inevitably abuse the system. That’s moral hazard, and when the system explicitly encourages that sort of behavior, there will be trouble.
It’s….no good…..captain! The pull of Tesh’s….black hole of off-topic….political commentary……is too strong! Arrrgghhhh!
Didn’t you hear? Black holes are now portals through spacetime. It’s entirely possible that comments made now won’t be actually posted for 25 years or so.
Or, if you want to escape, just chuck your warp engines in and *will* yourself away.
I thought that black holes were always portals through spacetime… only now you can apparently cross through them without being turned into spaghetti.
Nah, black holes are singularities. Wormholes are the portals.
I’m confused, are we talking about science or science fiction.
If the former, wormholes are supposed to be “naked” singularities, which could possibly exist but have no proof as to their existence.
If the latter, well, anything can be whatever you want