Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal lemming's Journal: Virtual Property 4

I've been saying for a long time that, IMO, the chief reason "gold selling" is disallowed in most MMOGs is for lawsuit protection--the more precedence for in-game property to have value, the more likely the game company can be sued for, say, suspending an account.

I may or may not be right, but that's what's happening in this case, at least. Second Life interests me because they officially maintain an exchange rate (from a non-gaming standpoint, it's by far the most interesting MMO out there--check it out at Wikipedia). Their TOS clearly state that Linden Labs has the right to shut down an account at any time for any reason, but the fact that they maintain an exchange rate between dollars and lindens (in-game currency) seems to contradict this somewhat.

I think it makes for very interesting consideration--it brings into play a superset of the usually addressed IP concerns. Here's the question I want answered:

If you posses virtual property on someone's server, that at some point in time has some "value", do they have a legal responsibility to preserve that value to any extent?

It's well within the power of those running the game to, instead of taking away your in-game money, just multiply everyone else's wallets by an amount sufficient to render what you have worthless. It's tricky to apply any traditional metrics to this sort of thing. (Of course, this example is simplified when you consider that the dollars/lindens rate has to change similarly.)

Anyway, IANAL and all that. Whuddya think?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virtual Property

Comments Filter:
  • As things currently stand, the answer is 'no'. Otherwise, for example, ISPs would be liable for the lost business of websites that people can't access because of broken connections. (Which makes for a spin on the net neutrality hooplah that I haven't seen before.) Most everything currently has something either in the TOS or the EULA that says "your money is buying you a service, which we may change at any time. If we change the service and you get screwed over, sucks to be you. 'Course, you can also stop p
    • Hmm, my formatting got eaten. Assumed I didn't need to use [br]s, silly me.
    • There very much is a clause like that in the EULA, and they make it hard *not* to read, IIRC. Furthermore, in regards to this particular case, most people think it'll be an open and shut case long before any of this considerations can even be brought up.

      The thing is, if something is commonly understood or implicit from the way a company goes about its business, my understanding is that sometimes that can take precedence over the wording of a contract. The EULA is as cut-and-dry as it can be on this matter

If you sell diamonds, you cannot expect to have many customers. But a diamond is a diamond even if there are no customers. -- Swami Prabhupada

Working...