This is a bad example for a lot of reasons. First of all, it's make-believe. I doubt that many people who go to see Iron Man put much thought into patent and ownership issues while watching it. But a lot of artists and inventors face these issues in a much more realistic setting every day. Second of all, the Iron Man suit could pose a significant danger to the public if unleashed on everyone, if the technology behind it were to suddenly be freely distributed. Third of all, it's extraordinarily unrealistic. Nothing like Iron Man could really happen, because we all know that the government would most certainly have access to this technology itself through superior research or, if necessary, *ahem* appropriation from Tony Stark.
I don't think that this is being disputed, at least not by most people. I have never said that NCsoft doesn't have the legal right to shut down the game and shutter Paragon Studios. What I do argue about, however, is that I feel that NCsoft has a moral responsibility to do everything they can that's feasible to keep the game going. This means that if it's turning a profit, don't shut it down. If it gets to the point where it's not turning a profit, they have a moral obligation to take steps so that it will. If they just can't, then they need to make it available for acquisition by someone who is willing to buy it for a reasonable price and who can. Shutting down the game and shuttering the studio should have been the absolute, dead last resort reserved only if NCsoft were literally about to go bankrupt and simply had no way to sell the game and its IP to someone else.
The reason why is because as I mentioned in my comment to the article, NCsoft isn't the only stakeholder in the game. A lot of players invested a lot of money, time, and energy into the game. In fact, I've mentioned this before, but the fact that the game was profitable mathematically means that the players invested more money into the game than NCsoft did. We created works of art ourselves in the game, and now NCsoft has taken the canvas they rented us, art and all, and either destroyed it or locked it away. No matter how you slice it or dice it, that's just not right.
Worse, they've poisoned the well, so to speak, when it comes to MMORPGs. How many people here have expressed disdain with MMOs after the game shut down because of NCsoft's actions? I know that other than a few days of messing around with some games, the only game I seriously played for a while is Neverwinter, and I haven't even logged into it for several weeks now. Thanks to NCsoft, I'm not so eager to take up another MMO, especially an MMORPG, precisely because I've experienced firsthand what happens when a company simply decides for no good reason that a game is going to be irrevocably gone. They've taken the hypothetical case of, "Here's what a company can legally do if they don't really care about their customers" and turned it into a depressingly concrete reality. This doesn't just affect NCsoft, it affects the industry as a whole. If I owned another publisher trying to get people to play my MMOs, their actions would piss me off even though I am a competitor, because I'd be afraid of what affect they have on my own games.
But I digress. The point is that companies (and individuals) every day engage in activities that are technically legal but morally reprehensible. Most of the people who are boycotting NCsoft's products aren't doing so because they think that NCsoft broke the law, they're doing it because they were burned. And one thing that gets on my nerves is that some people are of the opinion that those who were burned shouldn't speak out about it because, hey, it was legal. I strongly disagree. I think that people speaking out against is exactly what needs to happen, and the louder, the better, because it's the only way for NCsoft and the industry as a whole to realize that while treating customers like crap may be legal, there is a price to pay, to keep them from doing so.
And yes, copyright and patent law desperately needs to be rewritten. The simple fact is that no matter how many allegories or analogies we spit back and forth, what happened with NCsoft isn't exactly like anything that was relevant fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago. I wish the law did take into account media in which users participate and generate content. I wish that the law would account for how companies are trying so very, very hard to turn our ownership society into a rent-everything culture, where ownership is only reserved for the rich and powerful.
Yup moral and legal are sometimes two different things.
It would be nice if everyone did the morally right thing, but then, even morals are not cut and dry. Who morals to follow? That person? This person?
Yep, I think they should, on a moral standpoint not shut the game down. But sometimes people, even here confuse moral and legal. It's one thing to say that it was immoral, by their definition, as even morals vary from person to person, and to say it was illegal or should be illegal for them to shut it down. When the word "legal" or it's evil twin "illegal" is thrown around then the focus tends to not be about morals and end up about...well whether it was legal or not. Then some say it should be illegal because it was immoral. Well, deep down personally, in a way I definately agree. But then again going back to the first few question. By who or what definition of moral?
Yes customers put a lot of money sweat creative brain work into their creations and it was immoral, by my definition for them to take it away. In fact, I think it was immoral for the allowment of them or any company of games able to just shut down a game on the whim and it should have never been allowed to be written in their TOS, EULA, what ever its' called enforceable or not, believalble or not, it shouldnt have been allowed in the first place. How did it get that way? Well I havea few theories one that customers/consumers took the carrot instead of looking at the possible fine print. And it went from indy games, to corporations where it will be nearly a cold day in hell before they change it now.
Legally, though, lets say they had the moral obligattion to keep the game running. Well then, with laws cant single out one industry's products and ignore the rest. Exemptions are already in placer of live and death things, which unfortunately I dont think games fall into that category as addictive as they can be sometimes. Then what? Take the right away for any company or anyone to discontinue their work? A guy copyright a song, but decide to not publically release it at the moment, should he be forced to relinguish his work? A company wants to clear their product line to make rom for another, should they give up all rights to the said product because they dont wish to make it anymore and want to clear the path for a new product? Sounds good in theory, it really do. I can enjoy Surge until I buy the farm and my kids can enjoy it and their kids can enjoy it and their kids can enjoy it until 3,000 years later it's still around and being made. Then will it stop at businesses? Small business resturant wants to shutter because he wants to retire and live peaceful, but then get a letter saying he cant because people liked eating there so he either must stay open or give away his work, a place he built and worked at for 50+ years and watch someone else make money off his work while he gets nothing. Or anything a person is not using after a certain time period, they must give away or continue using for the sake of their neighbor's enjoyment. Might went into tin foil terriotory but history has learned that even the most noble causes end up as big regrets from short sighted thinking.
But really moral and legalities are sometimes best kept separate. Think about the current laws passed through where people are saying that a person cant or shouldnt be legally allowed to get married to another because it's morally wrong in their eyes. Sometime the separation of morals and legal are good. And all the other rights now taken for granted that someone in the past said it would be morally wrong if legally allowed. Or a laws that are now defunct that stood around for as long as they did because someone decided it was the morally right thing to do. Sometimes it's good they intertwine.
The sad part is that unfortunately, businesses have a lot of the politics i ntheir pockets, so we have to figure something out or this will happen again to another game and the next game and so on with the same results. The player base getting pissed about it, saying it's morally wrong or legally wrong should not be allowed and so on, just like the past games. The question is, what can we do? I think many are doing what they have to do already and that is good, the first step. Some vowed off NCSoft. Ok, that is fine and dandy but what about all the other game companies that have the same writing int heri EULA? The problem still remains. A game company can shut down a game at anytime, as I said years ago. Yes, it's unlikely just as it was said it was unlikely that COX would get shut down. Well...it was unlikely a purple IO dropped in many cases but for some it happened didnt it? Eventually we asa player base have to say "Enough" not with only forums not with empty words, but with our wallets. RIght now bid the time. But when those new games come about that says it will never shut down, and bets believe I will hold them to their word, but I have faith they wont disappoint, then we can speak with what matters most. Money. Then they have to evolve to survive.
At one point in time, F2P was laughed upon as a stupid idea not long ago. Well lo and behold most games are jumping on the band wagon now. They change and follow them oney. They dont care about gripes, unless it affect money they care about. They dont care about blogs forums, a few people boycotting especially if they closed down the game and written off that playerbase to begin with. They probably never even ever logged into their own games. Only thing many know of their game is that little chart that comes across their desk every month or quarter. The game they care about is grinding that line in the right direction and grinding cash. They play the real life market like people played the WW market. They have the ability to take away our game anytime anywhere for any reason and believe it or not we have the power to take away theirs but most dont realize that. Instead they ratehr be a level 1 taunting a fully IOed level 50. Sure you might tick 1 health here and there and to the level one, that is big damage but to the IOed 50 that is nothing they go about it all day. Now lets say that level 50 walk through the same town and nothing to fight nothing to kill. Knwo what this mean? He cant grind inf if there is nothign to kill. He cant get drops if there is nothign to kill to get drops from. AT this point he wishing for a level 1 but even the level 1s have boycotted and left him. Now if they return, he'll have new found respect even for the level ones and realize they need it just as much as they need him. Right now, corporations have too many believing that they dotn need us but we need them and the sad part is many bought into it. Remember how did they get their millions and billions in the firts place? Usually not by their own genius of making money but people gave it to them. We up hold our end of the bargain but we allow them to not even have to hold up theirs. What I'm saying is that this is our chance when the new games come out. We will have choices. We can continue to fall under corporations with the writing that the ycan shut down anytime and reason, whether they do or not is irrelevant...until they do... and that is a folly to fall into believing. It's like knowing that I have a missle and can drop it on someone hosue anytime I feel. Even if I probably wont, you think that person that know that this missle is pointed at their home can sleep or should sleep easy knowing that at the whim I can blow up their entire existance? Maybe I'm best friends with them and then one day their dog get lose and tears up my yard and ina rage I let loose. Or maybe I'm bored and decide to let loose. Or for the hell of it because I can, like it is right now with mmos and the game companies. It may not be likely but as long as it exist the choice is there for any reason any time any moment. Unfortunealty some people that invested heavily into this game thought it was like console games and it would be no possible way or at least until it's in the red. Yet ignored the lettering or overlooked it or didnt read it to begin with that it didnt say only when unprofitable or only when they lose money or only when everyone leaves. It said anytime any reason. Sad they found out the hard way, it would have been courteuos especially to at least give a proper notice, but again not legally bounded to. Morally, should they? Probably. But again, morality can be a flood gate when mixed with law. How about not even allowing that option. Meaning when the choices are there it's up to us to use them even if the carrot looks liek the most delicious thing in the world, if they can take it away anytime, then what good is it compared to the other carrot where you know it's yours for good. The choice will be ours. Now lets get ready to make some real noise and show them that a game that put people at ease that it wont just up and go away at anytime can make money. And they can do if they are willing to remove that clause for good.
I remember doing research on Sam Walton. In the beginning, this guy knew the name of all the customers and if someone had a complaint he addressed it personally. He was a small mom/pop store then. His business go large and huge, of course, he couldnt remember everyone, impossible, but anyone notice that it seems, while in the chase of efficiency, corporations forget who and how they got there? Big investors most of the time came after the fact after they already was big. The customer got them there and they forget that. They have consumers fooled into thinking they are powerless, when in reality we hold all the power. They know that, we asa whole consumers just dont know that. It's like a drug dealer drug user relationship. The drug user thinks he needs the drug dealer but in reality, without the drug user the drug dealer makes nothing no matter how much drugs he has. And as long as the drug user thinks he needs the drug dealer, the dealer can make great amount of money while at the same tiem treating the drug user anyway they feel like treating them. I seen some treat their customers in ways that would make even JP Morgan, rest his soul, blush.