Author Topic: Another Massively article on closing MMO's  (Read 14498 times)


Reaper

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 06:49:23 PM »
Very good article.  I felt the same way about an author's work ending and a virtual world disappearing.  At least with an author's creation, you can go back and read the story to try and recreate the feelings and memories you had.  With a virtual world, it may never come back and be gone forever.

BTW, I just noticed Tony posted there, so I have to go back and read what he had to say.   ;)

Patiently lurking from the shadows...

TonyV

  • Titan Staff
  • Elite Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,175
    • Paragon Wiki
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2013, 06:51:17 PM »
I'm really glad this article was written. Here are my thoughts on the issue.  Feel free to reply (or like!) to agree or disagree or offer more thoughts on what I said.

Quote from: TonyV
You make the point that you "do not agree with the use of art (games are art) without the owner's permission, no matter what."  Fair enough, but it's not that simple.  In spite of EULAs and Terms of Service, an MMORPG isn't only the creation of the developers.  There are a lot of players who pour hundreds or thousands of dollars into a game, as well as hundreds or thousands of hours into building the world into a place that directly financially benefits the developer and publisher.  And in many cases, especially in games like City of Heroes, for example, there is an extensive character creation and customization system and user-generated content that probably totals in the millions of man-hours of work.  This is artistic creativity that, when a game shuts down, typically is irrevocably lost.

I can't help but believe that it's more than a bit unethical for a publisher (NCsoft, in the case of City of Heroes) to shut down a game that is still profitable because, in their words,"...the franchise no longer fits within our long term goals for the company."  If using art without the owner's permission is bad, what does that say about a company that is willing to needlessly destroy the art and creativity that fans who have been paying them money have been producing, permanently locking it up to be inaccessible?

Does this mean that I think that companies should be forced to keep games going at a loss?  No, but I do think that there is a moral responsibility for publishers and developers to do everything possible to preserve these worlds and the immense amount of artistic and creative work that the fans have put into them.  I have two simple proposals that I believe would solve this issue satisfactorily:

1)  There needs to be either an MMORPG consortium of publishers and developers who jointly create a "retired game" clearinghouse, or else publishers and developers need to work with a third-party company such as Valve (via Steam), GOG.com, or someone else, to create a place where one can go to play unmaintained MMORPGs.  The clearinghouse company can charge one-time and/or monthly fees to continue playing their catalog of games, perhaps having a "free tier" of lower-population games that do not require many resources to run and a "premium tier" of higher-population games that require more server resources.  Business details on how to to run such an enterprise would need to be worked out, but I think that such an arrangement would be greatly beneficial to both customers and the company that runs the clearinghouse.

2)  For publishers and/or developers who do not want to participate in the above plan, before permanently shutting down servers, they should either modify either the client or server (which could be scaled down and possibly even sold as a one-time as-is purchase) to allow former players of the game to operate in a single-user or small-group mode, with the caveat that the software will no longer be supported.  This is not as onerous a task as it might appear to be.  At the Titan Network (a central gathering place for remaining City of Heroes players), we have developed a small utility based on reverse engineering research that allows the client to operate in single-user mode.  In this article it is mentioned that there is a way to run the Glitch Flash client.  While this may cost the companies some money to pull off, it would also send the clear message that if you invest your time, effort, and money into that company's games, you won't simply be kicked to the curb and abandoned, your investment wiped away, if the company decides later to change directions.

I wish I had more connections and resources to pursue this.  If anyone has constructive suggestions on how to make something like these proposals happen, I'm all ears.  Hopefully, at the very least, I've given Massively readers (including industry insiders) food for thought and serious consideration.

Reaper

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2013, 07:05:12 PM »

before permanently shutting down servers, they should either modify either the client or server (which could be scaled down and possibly even sold as a one-time as-is purchase) to allow former players of the game to operate in a single-user or small-group mode, with the caveat that the software will no longer be supported.


I agree with everything you said; this part especially.  Although I would miss the dozens of players I teamed with, I would at least like to be able to play alone or with a small group of people, regardless of continued support or updates from the publisher.  I'm glad someone has addressed this.
Patiently lurking from the shadows...

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2013, 08:15:10 PM »
"before permanently shutting down servers, they should either modify either the client or server (which could be scaled down and possibly even sold as a one-time as-is purchase) to allow former players of the game to operate in a single-user or small-group mode, with the caveat that the software will no longer be supported."



This i how it should be and should of been.

I wonder who bright idea was it in the first place for the current system and what group of gamers was out of their mind to go along with it when it's was in it's infancy stage and could have kicked out right then and there?


Captain Electric

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
  • Crime doesn't pay, evildoers!
    • CoH Faces Profile
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2013, 08:41:04 PM »
I'm going to put this as succinctly as possible.

Imagine if every new book was destroyed as soon as its print runs were discontinued. One day, it graces your shelf, and the next day, you find it missing, with perhaps a small slip of paper--a notice of discontinuation. What would happen to our libraries, our used book stores, our personal libraries, our stored knowledge, history, our civilization's collective identity?

Now imagine if technology allowed this very thing to happen. Oh, wait. It does.

Contained within City of Heroes were many thousands of stories. Many of them moved me. Many of them held and addressed powerful moral and ethical dilemmas, or forced your characters to face them. Many of them were entertaining, many of them deserved criticism. Just like in your local library or used bookstore.

These publishers support and work to create the emergence of a world where stored knowledge and entertainment and the wisdom of the pen can all flit out of existence as soon as it's not benefiting them directly any longer; a world where all of our species best, most timeless qualities are made into a disposable product with shelf life.

Against these forces I will spare no quarter, no respect for their principles, which are insidious enough to be called evil.

eabrace

  • Titan Moderator
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,291
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2013, 08:47:26 PM »
Honestly, my opinions on the matter are pretty much in line with why I still buy CDs instead of just downloading MP3s.  I'm leery of spending money on anything I don't own my own hard copy of.
Titan Twitter broadcasting at 5.000 mWh and growing.
Titan Facebook

Paragon Wiki admin
I was once being interviewed by Barbara Walters...In between two of the segments she asked me..."But what would you do if the doctor gave you only six months to live?" I said, "Type faster." - Isaac Asimov

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2013, 09:04:34 PM »
Against these forces I will spare no quarter, no respect for their principles, which are insidious enough to be called evil.

Sounds like we, the society, created a monster. You ready to go up against this monster? I'm with you all the way. May take a while, may take years, may take dozens more games to get shut down before people get really fed up and band together and say they are not goign to take it anymore and cant be lured in with a carrot that appeal to their game desires only to get yoyoed over and over again. "hey new shiny." "ah they shut down my game. Curse you!" "hey they brought it back, Yay. All praise corporation." "Aw they shut it down again, the evil pricks." "Hey they brought it back. They are angels." "Aw they shut it down. Spawns of satan!"

Eventually it have be an roar as a whole of , "Enough is enough and no matter what sugar plum ya dangle in front of us, unless you change policy, we aint going for it."



But yeah I'm a CD person (one to support the artist instead of free download) because it's there. The other day I took out a cd that I havent played since 1998. It worked still. Now where is my download from 1998? huh? where is my download?

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2013, 09:21:41 PM »
The best way to combat this trend is to demonstrate that an alternative model can and will prove profitable above and beyond the current flawed one.

Ultimately, what motivates the culture of a service industry more than anything else is demonstrated capacity to generate wealth. And that is done by providing a service that people want enough to pay more for it in aggregate than the alternatives can earn.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2013, 09:36:48 PM »
The best way to combat this trend is to demonstrate that an alternative model can and will prove profitable above and beyond the current flawed one.

Ultimately, what motivates the culture of a service industry more than anything else is demonstrated capacity to generate wealth. And that is done by providing a service that people want enough to pay more for it in aggregate than the alternatives can earn.
exactly.

SkyStreak

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2013, 04:55:20 AM »
I am quite leery now of most cloud based 'services.'

I paid for a service and product from NCsoft, and while I still own the product, they discontinued the service.

What happens if Amazon discontinues the Kindle service?  Sure, you have whatever is on your devices, but what if you lose that data?


Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2013, 12:51:27 PM »
Sure, you have whatever is on your devices, but what if you lose that data?
Eh, this is one of the "online data" arguments that bugs me on a logical level.

Borders went out of business. Sure, I still have the books I bought from them on my shelf, but what if I lose them?

If what you worry about is the data on your device being lost, then the cloud service is just a plus, as it lets you recover it (in theory). Losing the cloud service only puts your eBooks in the same condition-of-risk as your physical books: you have them as long as you don't lose them somehow.

ROBOKiTTY

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
  • KiTTYRiffic
    • KiTTYLand
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2013, 03:26:56 PM »
The difference is books are still demonstrably much more durable than digital devices. The only sensible way to secure digital data is redundancy, and sometimes that isn't possible with data loaded down with vendor lock-in and DRM.

My view on software copyright has always been that there needs to be an independent entity to which all software makers must supply their source code in order to be eligible for copyright protection. Software-based services must supply a new version of their source code every six months. This source code database would then be made accessible to universities and schools. Imagine the massive benefits this would bring.

I also disagree with the article writer's absolutist stance on owner rights. We need to step back and look at the big picture. Intellectual property rights exist for the purpose of promoting science and the arts. IP that is locked away, almost always for business reasons, promotes nothing but corporate hoarding. And I've never seen artists and game developers who are happy about their creations being shut down by their bosses.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 03:45:33 PM by ROBOKiTTY »
Have you played with a KiTTY today?

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2013, 04:20:15 PM »
This is going to sound harsher than I mean it to, for which I apologize in advance.

If artists are going to be upset that their art is sealed away by their bosses, then they should probably be their own bosses. IP is "Intellectual Property." If you believe that the artist should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how, I am not necessarily against you. However, in that case, the artist can't really get paid to produce it.

As well say that mechanics are being treated unfairly when a car owner has them fix up his car and then puts it in his private garage.

Artists who are paid to produce art for their bosses are creating a product. They are creating IP that is owned by the person who paid for it.


I suspect you'd be just as upset if Matt Miller had personally produced everything in CoH, and then he decided to shut it down. Or if Micheal Jackson, on his death bed, demanded publicly that all copies of his work be destroyed, that it might die permanently with him.

IP laws exist to allow "intellectual" works - works of art and creativity - to be assigned value in a meaningful way, so that those who create it can use it to support themselves and be encouraged by the desire of others to expend their resources on supporting them to continue to produce more. They exist to transform "ideas" in the form of their execution into products which can be bought, sold, and owned.

It may well be that "artists' bosses" are all evil corrupt monsters who abuse them like slaves, but if so, that's just a sign that artists are, for whatever reason, willing to put up with that or are unable to achieve greater reward for the value they produce. I'm not saying laws as written are perfect, but I am saying that it is very dangerous to the actual interests of artists to muck about with laws naively. Good intentions pave hell. Be very careful to consider what artists are paid for that they lose control of IP under current law, and whether they could find work doing that sort of creative production under whatever system you propose.

I'm fond of moving as much towards direct-marketing of art and the like as possible; it does mean there are fewer middle men taking a cut of what people will pay artists for. However, there are still many things production and publication companies do: marketing, venues, resource acquisition and management... all of these things are expensive and can give new artists a huge leg up. The exploitation that infamously occurs (real or fictional; I honestly don't know) is not something laws prohibiting IP transfer would fix. It would just change the shape of it, and make it harder for naive and inexperienced artists to "break in" to anything because they would know less about how to sell their product.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2013, 04:35:41 PM »
This is going to sound harsher than I mean it to, for which I apologize in advance.

If artists are going to be upset that their art is sealed away by their bosses, then they should probably be their own bosses. IP is "Intellectual Property." If you believe that the artist should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how, I am not necessarily against you. However, in that case, the artist can't really get paid to produce it.

As well say that mechanics are being treated unfairly when a car owner has them fix up his car and then puts it in his private garage.

Artists who are paid to produce art for their bosses are creating a product. They are creating IP that is owned by the person who paid for it.


I suspect you'd be just as upset if Matt Miller had personally produced everything in CoH, and then he decided to shut it down. Or if Micheal Jackson, on his death bed, demanded publicly that all copies of his work be destroyed, that it might die permanently with him.

IP laws exist to allow "intellectual" works - works of art and creativity - to be assigned value in a meaningful way, so that those who create it can use it to support themselves and be encouraged by the desire of others to expend their resources on supporting them to continue to produce more. They exist to transform "ideas" in the form of their execution into products which can be bought, sold, and owned.

It may well be that "artists' bosses" are all evil corrupt monsters who abuse them like slaves, but if so, that's just a sign that artists are, for whatever reason, willing to put up with that or are unable to achieve greater reward for the value they produce. I'm not saying laws as written are perfect, but I am saying that it is very dangerous to the actual interests of artists to muck about with laws naively. Good intentions pave hell. Be very careful to consider what artists are paid for that they lose control of IP under current law, and whether they could find work doing that sort of creative production under whatever system you propose.

I'm fond of moving as much towards direct-marketing of art and the like as possible; it does mean there are fewer middle men taking a cut of what people will pay artists for. However, there are still many things production and publication companies do: marketing, venues, resource acquisition and management... all of these things are expensive and can give new artists a huge leg up. The exploitation that infamously occurs (real or fictional; I honestly don't know) is not something laws prohibiting IP transfer would fix. It would just change the shape of it, and make it harder for naive and inexperienced artists to "break in" to anything because they would know less about how to sell their product.

basically this.

I was in middle of writing a reply and your reply rendered it moot. Thanks alot :P.


Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2013, 05:32:43 PM »
basically this.

I was in middle of writing a reply and your reply rendered it moot. Thanks alot :P.
Heh, sorry. Glad to help voice a shared view, though! :)

CatMan

  • Underling
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2013, 04:58:45 AM »
Ironically, a good number of public libraries are falling into the popular trap.   There are lot of popular books you will find in a local library, but some of the classics, rarer books, and less popular books, are harder to find. 

CoH sort of went that way.  It was there, supported itself, but was not wildly popular according to the standards of NCSoft.  So it was cut off and discarded.   The worst part is that it was boxed and put into a very dark, dank, corner as opposed to being resold. 

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2013, 05:03:58 AM »
Ironically, a good number of public libraries are falling into the popular trap.   There are lot of popular books you will find in a local library, but some of the classics, rarer books, and less popular books, are harder to find. 

CoH sort of went that way.  It was there, supported itself, but was not wildly popular according to the standards of NCSoft.  So it was cut off and discarded.   The worst part is that it was boxed and put into a very dark, dank, corner as opposed to being resold.
yeah.

dwturducken

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,152
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2013, 12:14:12 AM »
Ironically, a good number of public libraries are falling into the popular trap.   There are lot of popular books you will find in a local library, but some of the classics, rarer books, and less popular books, are harder to find.   

My mother is manager of one of the branch libraries, here, so she has final responsibility for the ordering for her branch. I was over at her house one night while she was watching Defiance, and we got to talking about the game that goes with the series. She says, "Oh, we just got that in! Should I check it out for you?"

Now, I avoid buying any kind of MMO second hand(and, the place buying them should really know better), but I can't imagine a library having a copy of one available for checkout being viable for more than one person, who just got it for free, if it's B2P.
I wouldn't use the word "replace," but there's no word for "take over for you and make everything better almost immediately," so we just say "replace."

Sin Stalker

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2013, 09:38:18 AM »
I bought the game. I paid $50 for CoH. I own a part of the game and therefore have a right to play it just like I do other games I buy, whether it be PC or console.

I think its a crime for NCsoft to shut down their servers and not allow private servers to come about. Its akin to theft.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2013, 11:44:10 AM »
If you believe that the artist should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how, I am not necessarily against you.

I don't know, but I suspect what the previous poster is saying is that no-one should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how. If we're going to have something like the modern system of copyright, then we should remember its purpose is to promote the availability of art, and it should never be possible to use it to lock things away again.

Sin Stalker

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2013, 11:58:31 AM »
I don't know, but I suspect what the previous poster is saying is that no-one should be the sole arbiter of whether it's available and how. If we're going to have something like the modern system of copyright, then we should remember its purpose is to promote the availability of art, and it should never be possible to use it to lock things away again.

I thought the point of our modern system of copyright was a totalitarian/utilitarian method to stimulate creativity and profit.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2013, 12:29:21 PM »
I thought the point of our modern system of copyright was a totalitarian/utilitarian method to stimulate creativity and profit.

America has it "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" although since they also have it "for limited Times" and that rule is effectively moot as long as Disney can afford bri- campaign contributions.

I think we might say, at _best_ the modern system of artificial scarcity can serve to promote the availability of art by incentivising creation.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2013, 01:07:54 PM »
Less "incentivizing" creation and more "enabling it to be something the originator can make a living from."

Well, I suppose those kind-of amount to the same thing, but my point is, without it, you or I could create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and his setting, and within a month see Disney making a mint off of the new cartoon series they've built without so much as letting us know it was in their plans. They're bigger than I am, and they can get the word out, the ads out, they'd be under no obligation to share any profits with us. And we couldn't get a word in edgewise unless we were VERY savvy about reaching people and being believed that we really did it first. Even then, at best, we cold only hope for C-list celebrity status at conventions. Disney's bigger and better-advertised production would be what advertisers wanted to buy space on, and our own productions would be slower and possibly lower-technical-quality (even if we wrote much better scripts or jokes or what-have-you). We'd come off as the fan-fic of our own creation!

That's what copyright law is designed to prevent. If Disney saw our brilliant work and wanted to make their own enormously-profitable cartoon series out of it, they MUST get us to give them permission, which means we have a property they want to buy, license, or otherwise acquire so they can legally use it.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2013, 01:29:07 PM »
Less "incentivizing" creation and more "enabling it to be something the originator can make a living from."

No, not really, that's part of the industry's usual routine about starving artists. Obviously making a living is an incentive; but it is also expected to incentivise rockstars even though they are unlikely to be short of a penny, and to incentivise garage bands even though they will be lucky ever to see a penny. (Arguably, the fate of the second lot is not ideal in the current setup).

Quote
Well, I suppose those kind-of amount to the same thing, but my point is, without it, you or I could create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and his setting, and within a month see Disney making a mint off of the new cartoon series they've built without so much as letting us know it was in their plans.

If that's your point then I'm afraid you're just talking past me. I'm not trying to argue the overall merits of the current system; that's another discussion. What I'm trying to say is that if you do create the next awesome heart-warming cartoon character and enjoy the protections granted you by copyright law, it should not then be possible to lock away said character completely. The public good is not served by doing so.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM »
Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

He has good reasons for doing so, largely centered around a distrust of what certain other powers would do with it if they got it. But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private could be used to say Stark should not be allowed to keep his Iron Man suit private.

...and I just pictured Robert Downey Junior playing Ned Stark. >_<


*ahem* Anyway. Where was I?

Ah, yes. The creator of a work, the man who performs the labor, unless employed by another to do it for them (and given compensation to which he agreed in order to do it), is the sole rightful arbiter of how that work is to be used. At least, up until the point that he DOES choose to distribute it to others, at which point he has chosen how to use it and that use has given rights to others to do the same.

And even then, such distributions (barring him having transferred full ownership) must be in line with however he agreed to distribute it in the first place. This is due to IP's "intellectual" nature - that is, how easy it is to replicate and build upon without needing a physically scarce item unique to the original creation.

It's complicated, but there are good solid reasons for all of the consideration that goes into it.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2013, 03:19:25 PM »
Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

I'm not sure we should regard implausible fictional characters as particularly good role models. However, something like the situation I advocate does exist for inventions; if you choose to patent one, you enjoy the additional protection of the patent - but you must reveal how it was done; you cannot lock the invention away forever. (Leaving aside the discussion of how well patents work for, say, software.)

Quote
But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private

Not an argument I am making. By all means keep it private; but if you publish, using the artificial monopoly granted you by copyright law, you should not then be able to make it private again. (I appreciate that at present much of your mechanism for keeping it private is also granted by copyright law, but that is not set in stone).

Quote
It's complicated, but there are good solid reasons for all of the consideration that goes into it.

I think it is at best optimistic to suppose that the current structure of the law (even if we accept that artificial scarcity is the best way to do it, but that's another argument) is optimal - especially in a situation where we have an example, dear to our hearts, of how it gets it wrong.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2013, 03:35:36 PM »
As each year passes, the current outdated form of copyright becomes harder and harder to enforce.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

srmalloy

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 450
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2013, 04:27:21 PM »
America has it "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" although since they also have it "for limited Times" and that rule is effectively moot as long as Disney can afford bri- campaign contributions.

You mean the "Mickey Mouse Perpetual Protection Act"?

TonyV

  • Titan Staff
  • Elite Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,175
    • Paragon Wiki
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2013, 06:44:11 PM »
Neither is "the public good" served by an inventor keeping his invention private and only using it, himself. And yet, we celebrate "super heroes" who do just that: Tony Stark's Iron Man suit is a prime example.

He has good reasons for doing so, largely centered around a distrust of what certain other powers would do with it if they got it. But any argument that says that an artist should not be allowed to keep his art private could be used to say Stark should not be allowed to keep his Iron Man suit private.

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.

Ah, yes. The creator of a work, the man who performs the labor, unless employed by another to do it for them (and given compensation to which he agreed in order to do it), is the sole rightful arbiter of how that work is to be used...And even then, such distributions (barring him having transferred full ownership) must be in line with however he agreed to distribute it in the first place.

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.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2013, 06:49:57 PM »
moral responsibility

Since when has that ever mattered to big business?
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2013, 06:58:16 PM »
Worse, they've poisoned the well, so to speak, when it comes to MMORPGs.

It amazes me that other publishers didn't make more hay out of that. "Hey, look at us, Everquest 1 is still going! We promise it will be in another ten years time!"

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2013, 02:35:47 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 02:54:10 AM by JaguarX »

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2013, 02:49:52 AM »
Legally, though, lets say they had the moral obligattion to keep the game running.

To either keep the game running or allow others to run it, so you're already a _bit_ into a straw man here.

Quote
A guy copyright a song, but decide to not publically release it at the moment, should he be forced to relinguish his work?

You know, explicit registration of copyrights went out in 1976 even in the USA, so a guy doesn't "copyright a song".

You're completely into a straw man here; we're discussing not never-released works, but works, once released, being locked away again.

Quote
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.

Yes, physical objects don't have the convenient property of being duplicable with minimal effort. I'm not sure this is news. But _if_ the restaurant could be copied essentially for free, _then_ perhaps if he doesn't want to run it anymore, he should not be allowed to deny the person opposite the opportunity to run a copy of the restaurant - even if they make money!

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2013, 03:00:46 AM »
To either keep the game running or allow others to run it, so you're already a _bit_ into a straw man here.

You know, explicit registration of copyrights went out in 1976 even in the USA, so a guy doesn't "copyright a song".

You're completely into a straw man here; we're discussing not never-released works, but works, once released, being locked away again.


 I dont think it's straw man. I think you are missing the point. You're thinking small, NCSoft and the game.

And the last quote, yes if you read further I go into works that have been released.

Basically it seems you are saying there should be a law that take away the main rights of purpose of owning something. Even adding "or allow someone else to run it" the point remain the same. That's you being straw there or simply missing the point.

I dont think there should. I think it should be kept asa choice. If one chooses to keep it or sell it, it should be their choice to do so and not be forced by law to relinquish their property.

JanessaVR

  • New Efforts # 12,000!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2013, 08:33:01 AM »
Honestly, my opinions on the matter are pretty much in line with why I still buy CDs instead of just downloading MP3s.  I'm leery of spending money on anything I don't own my own hard copy of.
Exactly!  You and me both.  To assuage my CoH loss, I've ended up getting into The Sims 3, not another MMO.  And I've never purchased the digital versions, just the cold, hard DVDs that live on my shelf.  Combined with a locally stored copy of the latest game updates, even if EA went out of business tomorrow (which I know would please many, many people), I could still play The Sims 3 indefinitely.  NCSoft totally destroyed my trust in any MMO (that isn't owned by our community).

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2013, 11:46:49 AM »
I dont think it's straw man.

Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.

Quote
You're thinking small, NCSoft and the game.

No, actually, if you read what I write, you'll find I discuss (for example) the music industry, patents, etc.

Quote
And the last quote, yes if you read further I go into works that have been released.

That doesn't mean that your mention of unreleased works isn't responding to a point that wasn't being made.

I did read further, but frankly it all becomes a bit incoherent.

Quote
Basically it seems you are saying there should be a law that take away the main rights of purpose of owning something.

Well, no. The purpose of "owning" something, in this context - remembering that we are not discussing physical property - is to make money from it. That is why NCsoft owned City of Heroes. When you aren't willing to sell it anymore, manifestly, that purpose is no longer relevant.

Quote
I dont think there should. I think it should be kept asa choice. If one chooses to keep it or sell it, it should be their choice to do so and not be forced by law to relinquish their property.

A lovely soundbite, but it does rather miss the point that we aren't discussing property in the sense of your physical possessions, but something that has value because you are granted an entirely artificial state-created monopoly on the sale of it. If the state chooses to grant you such a monopoly it is entirely reasonable that it puts the condition on that you actually sell the commodity in question. No sale; no monopoly.

(Incidentally, I think a much better counterargument here is "what if it's hopelessly intertangled with trademarks?". Suppose DCUO is to close and in my world it must be kept running, sold as a going concern, or put in the public domain... the latter's going to open a giant can of worms.)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 11:54:29 AM by thunderforce »

ROBOKiTTY

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
  • KiTTYRiffic
    • KiTTYLand
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2013, 12:18:22 PM »
Copyright transference is completely counter to the intended purpose of copyright, and yet it's the norm in the industry. Artists and programmers create works whose copyrights are instantly transferred to their company because of a work-for-hire clause, and the rights are then up to corporate whims. The real original creators have no protection, and despicable anti-competitive practices are used to stifle creativity. Microsoft and EA are both well-known offenders; they acquire IP franchises to bury them.

Copyright law in its present and historical forms simply do not work for software. Even going back to the original 14 years is untenable; hardware and software turnover is simply too fast-paced. Imagine running software released in 1999 today without any compatibility patch or emulation software, or the obsolete hardware it ran on. Imagine antiquated games written before OpenGL for long-defunct consoles. What good would they contribute to society, even if they went into the public domain today miraculously with source code and assets intact?
Have you played with a KiTTY today?

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2013, 12:38:57 PM »
Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.

Wait a sec. now. How and when did I say you said that? First of all I replied to Tony V so how this become about something you said and my post in replying to Tony V

No, actually, if you read what I write, you'll find I discuss (for example) the music industry, patents, etc.

That doesn't mean that your mention of unreleased works isn't responding to a point that wasn't being made.

I did read further, but frankly it all becomes a bit incoherent.

Well, no. The purpose of "owning" something, in this context - remembering that we are not discussing physical property - is to make money from it. That is why NCsoft owned City of Heroes. When you aren't willing to sell it anymore, manifestly, that purpose is no longer relevant? And secondly as I said, even if you add your little bit of "Or allow others to run it." It's still the same point.

Either way, you aint address none of the points you aint even open for discussion. All you did was look at a few points and decided to focus on those.

So what is the point of discussing it further.


Ok so you think that they shold give up their property by law if they are not using it, OR BE FORCED TO ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO RUN IT. I dont think so by law they should be forced to.


Well here we are. If you want to discuss difference without calling what you disagree with straw man, and saying I'm saying something you said when in my original post I wasnt even replying to you, and really dont want to discuss it, then fine. Lets not go through the motions and end it right here. The main point that you missed is that property ownership rights in the form of trademark IP copyright and etc. is what spawn competition. It dont allow taking of others property. That is why there are different games. I dont think NCSoft should be forced to keep a product or forced to allow someone else to run it. Someone should make their own, which they are, to fill the gap if one is missing or the owner decides to make it defunct. In fact, they could have done so while COX was up and running if they wished. COX may be the only COX but it's another MMO, by law and catergory, where NCSoft actually dont have a monopoly and thus shuttign it down is not takign away a monopoly in any way. What is straw man is thinking they should be forced to give up their ownership rights. And again I ask why? Did you answer that? No? Just avoided every single point and immediately went straw man which leads me to believe you dont have a good reason for it besides that COX was a game you were playing, probably the only game you played, but it;s not the only game out there, so again, why should they give that up? If anything it opened up a market that anyone can tap with their own creativeness which I think is about to happen. 

You think it's straw man. What ever your opinion. I think you want people' property to be taken away and yes, being forced to allow someone else to run it is taking a right of ownership away. I'm sure there are objects laying around your place you either aint used ina while or dont plan on using. Relinguish owner ship this instance. That is the type of law you want in place. But of course probably not for you. For businesses so you can enjoy your game forever at what ever cost and regardless of the owner. That's not heroic. That is selfish. Just as selfish as you accuse the corporations of being. The difference is that they actually are the owners of said game.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 12:59:56 PM by JaguarX »

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2013, 12:57:05 PM »
Yes, it is. The straw man is "they should be forced to keep running it", which is something I haven't said.
Wait a sec. now. How and when did I say you said that?

You responded to that idea. If no-one's actually advocating that idea, and they're not, that's a straw man.

Quote
Either way, you aint address none of the points you aint even open for discussion. All you did was look at a few points and decided to focus on those. So what is the point of discussing it further.

Obviously I can only address the points where you have managed to write in something approximating coherent English. I can't reply to the stream-of-consciousness stuff because it doesn't make any sense. Sorry, and all that. You're quite at liberty not to continue the discussion if you don't feel it's productive.

Quote
You think it's straw man. What ever your opinion. I think you want people' property to be taken away and yes, being forced to allow someone else to run it is taking a right of ownership away. I'm sure there are objects laying around your place you either aint used ina while or dont plan on using. Relinguish owner ship this instance.

Well, this is just the confusion with physical property again. An analogous situation would be that there is an object lying around my place - let us say, the sofa - and the state grants me an artificial monopoly on sofas, so that no-one else can have a sofa. _In that case_ should I be forced to give up the sofa (or the monopoly) if I'm not using it? Absolutely, yes.

(Of course, the idea that ownership of unused land, houses, etc. is an absolute right is also one that gets examined critically from time to time, but let's not get into that.)

Quote
That is the type of law you want in place. But of course probably not for you. For businesses so you can enjoy your game forever at what ever cost and regardless of the owner. That's not heroic. That is selfish. Just as selfish as you accuse the corporations of being. The difference is that they actually are the owners of said game.

Well, not quite; if they can be said to be the "owners", they're so because they have been granted a monopoly in a fashion originally intended to promote the public interest. The public interest is not promoted by having them lock it away.

(As for "That's not heroic. That is selfish.", please can we try for some sort of coherent argument, rather than rhetoric? I must admit, I wasn't aware I was a superhero - or prohibited from advocating my own interests!)

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2013, 01:03:45 PM »
Wait a sec. now. How and when did I say you said that?

You responded to that idea. If no-one's actually advocating that idea, and they're not, that's a straw man.

Obviously I can only address the points where you have managed to write in something approximating coherent English. I can't reply to the stream-of-consciousness stuff because it doesn't make any sense. Sorry, and all that. You're quite at liberty not to continue the discussion if you don't feel it's productive.

Well, this is just the confusion with physical property again. An analogous situation would be that there is an object lying around my place - let us say, the sofa - and the state grants me an artificial monopoly on sofas, so that no-one else can have a sofa. _In that case_ should I be forced to give up the sofa (or the monopoly) if I'm not using it? Absolutely, yes.

(Of course, the idea that ownership of unused land, houses, etc. is an absolute right is also one that gets examined critically from time to time, but let's not get into that.)

Well, not quite; if they can be said to be the "owners", they're so because they have been granted a monopoly in a fashion originally intended to promote the public interest. The public interest is not promoted by having them lock it away.

(As for "That's not heroic. That is selfish.", please can we try for some sort of coherent argument, rather than rhetoric? I must admit, I wasn't aware I was a superhero - or prohibited from advocating my own interests!)

Well if you cant read it or understand it maybe you weren ot the intendeded audience.

How about go trolling someone else. When you want ot havea logical discussion about the matter, come back to me.

Yeah your own interest. Gotcha. But want to take away that right from NCSoft, in the name of your interest. Well glas you are not the law maker. So I guess NCSoft is safe for now.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2013, 01:33:20 PM »
The restauranteur example is actually a pretty good one.

He runs it successfully. He decides he's sick of it and doesn't want to run it anymore, perhaps with some anger or bitterness in his heart (tragically) over the way the town treated him or his customers treated him or - maybe - over how somebody who wanted to take it over behaved.

He does not want to "give it to the community" by any means, not by selling it, not by giving it away; he doesn't want it to still be running, because he - perhaps selfishly - doesn't want to have to see it out there.

Or maybe, he honestly thinks its name would be tarnished if run by somebody else, somebody who would change it into something it wasn't, or somebody who would run it with the intent to compete against him in the wider market.

Maybe he's going on to bigger and better things, and has made money on this little restaurant sufficient to open a big chain or few. But the people who want to buy it from him are people who've pissed him off, or worse, whom he fears will use it to undermine his marketing campaign that involves its success.

For whatever reason - foolish or not - he does not want that restaurant to still be run. Does he have no moral right to close it, and say, "No, I will not sell; never again will that restaurant be the one that I ran, under its name and with its menu and themes?"

I say he does have a right to make that choice. Whether it is "moral" or not will, in large part, be demonstrated by whether he could be doing better if he had made the other choice.

He has no right under any moral nor ethical system to tell somebody else that they cannot open a restaurant in that town, and try to replicate his cooking style and themes. They can't use his name or his logos, but they can try to make their own that evoke the same feel (as long as it doesn't come off as trying to fool people into thinking it's the same one).

And that's how the moral righteousness comes to the fore: if he could be doing better, somebody can come in and show him how by doing it.

Anything that undermines his right to control the fate of his property undermines his agency, and that same philosophy could be used to prevent people from starting businesses in the vacuum left behind. The moment you can decide that something must exist so much that you can force people to give up their agency over what they create, you not only limit the impetus to try new things (out of fear they'll become slaves to it, somehow, or otherwise have to answer for their choices in more ways than the natural consequences of mistakes), but you create a mindset that says some external force has a legal right to tell people what they must do "for the good of the community" with their property.

If they can say, "you can't shut that restaurant down," can they also say, "you can't stop offering that dessert?" Can they not say, "You have to offer this new entree?" Why not? Where is the line drawn, and why?

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2013, 02:17:41 PM »
Anything that undermines his right to control the fate of his property undermines his agency, and that same philosophy could be used to prevent people from starting businesses in the vacuum left behind. The moment you can decide that something must exist so much that you can force people to give up their agency over what they create, you not only limit the impetus to try new things (out of fear they'll become slaves to it, somehow, or otherwise have to answer for their choices in more ways than the natural consequences of mistakes), but you create a mindset that says some external force has a legal right to tell people what they must do "for the good of the community" with their property.

That's a bit misleading. First of all, some external force does have a legal right to tell people what they must do for the good of the community with their property - actual property, not "intellectual property" - at any rate, I assume you live in a jurisdiction where people pay taxes, and very likely in one with a concept of eminent domain/compulsory purchase/etc.

Secondly, people's "agency over what they create" is already limited. The duration of copyright is limited (in theory, aha); the scope is limited (if you write a book, you can't stop libraries lending it to anyone, or have all existing copies returned; the doctrine of first sale exists in most places, for all the DRM crowd would like it not to; etc). Why should the present limitations on that scope happen to be "just right"?

Thirdly, once again, that control over what they create is entirely artificial, created _by_ the state. Why should it serve the individual's whim rather than the public interest?

Quote
If they can say, "you can't shut that restaurant down," can they also say, "you can't stop offering that dessert?"

Well, indeed. If I have a government-imposed monopoly on offering a given dessert, and I won't offer it, I should lose the monopoly. That's sort of the point.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2013, 03:37:13 PM »
That's a bit misleading. First of all, some external force does have a legal right to tell people what they must do for the good of the community with their property - actual property, not "intellectual property" - at any rate, I assume you live in a jurisdiction where people pay taxes, and very likely in one with a concept of eminent domain/compulsory purchase/etc.


And what point is NCSoft's COX one of those commidities that is open for the good of the public?

Taxes, I see. Yes. Provide funding for government.

Eminent domain- even that is not exactly cut and dry but usually it's for the good of the comminuty usually in economic commercial means. yes


But a game? Not tryign to be a smart butt, but please explain how one game, COX, as great of a game as it was, is on the same level of community neccessity or rather "for the good of the community" as taxes or eminent domain and etc? NCsoft do not even have a monopoly on the indusrty not even a government-imposed one.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2013, 03:49:55 PM »
But a game? Not tryign to be a smart butt, but please explain how one game, COX, as great of a game as it was, is on the same level of community neccessity or rather "for the good of the community" as taxes or eminent domain and etc? NCsoft do not even have a monopoly on the indusrty not even a government-imposed one.

I thought you flounced out of the discussion with me? Never mind. Going back a bit, if you read the thread, you may remind yourself that the purpose of copyright was thought to be (for example, in terms of the American Constitutional framework for it) to promote the availability of creative works, which is a public good. Indeed, you will find that in many countries some tax money is quite explicitly spent (for example, via the UK's Arts Council) on creative works.

Another thing that may need to be explained to you is that of course I am not suggesting that NCsoft have a monopoly on the industry as a whole. However, the copyright holder of any creative work has a government-created monopoly on the supply of that particular work.

TonyV

  • Titan Staff
  • Elite Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,175
    • Paragon Wiki
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2013, 04:43:19 PM »
The restauranteur example is actually a pretty good one.

No, it's not.  Among other reasons, unless it's a really unusual restaurant, the guy who owns the restaurant didn't actively solicit its customers to create recipes that directly contributed to his financial success, and then once he decides to shut down, lock those recipes up forever so that the people who submitted them can't enjoy them again.  For another, his chefs aren't forbidden from ever preparing the recipes they've worked on in another restaurant.  (Recipes are actually a small subset of works specifically exempted from copyright law.)  There are a few other differences, but hopefully this is enough to show that the analogy is extremely poor, and it breaks down when applied to an MMORPG.  Like I said, there's no analogy that applies 100% to the situation, which is why I feel that it definitely needs to be addressed and copyright and patent law updated.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 04:50:29 PM by TonyV »

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2013, 05:21:19 PM »
No, it's not.  Among other reasons, unless it's a really unusual restaurant, the guy who owns the restaurant didn't actively solicit its customers to create recipes that directly contributed to his financial success, and then once he decides to shut down, lock those recipes up forever so that the people who submitted them can't enjoy them again.  For another, his chefs aren't forbidden from ever preparing the recipes they've worked on in another restaurant.

In all fairness, Segev is responding to a rather more wide-ranging proposal from me, which doesn't constrain itself to things with masses of user-generated content.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2013, 06:45:25 PM »
If I have a government-imposed monopoly on offering a given dessert, and I won't offer it, I should lose the monopoly. That's sort of the point.
But you dno't. You have a monopoly on "thunderforce's Delectible Delight," which is a really popular form of chocolate pastry (for example). You can't stop me from selling "Segev's Succulent Samples," which are a form of chocolate pastry I have designed specifically to cater to the same tastes as your pastry.

The analogy, here, in case we're drifting too far to follow easily, is this: NCSoft must have the right to do with CoH as they wish, or you are condoning slavery or theft, by forcing them to continue to sell their "chocolate pastry" that they don't want to make, or to arrange for somebody else to do so. However, NCSoft has no right nor power to stop otehr people from making Superhero MMOs. In fact, there ARE other offerings. Right now, many think they don't taste as good as the original pastry they loved, so there are others in the works to try to better capture that delicious flavor and texture.

There is no sane reason to say, "NCSoft must be forced by law to allow others to have CoH." You can argue that it was a stupid business decision (and I think it was), or that it was on the shady side of ethical given the inability of players to use things they'd purchased without the service, but the most you've got room to argue for is the right to create private servers, at that point. And even then, NCSoft should not be under any obligation to build them for us. I think they're missing a big opportunity in not putting a skeleton crew on adapting their server tech for sale to others to use privately, at this point, as it would be a big cash cow (they could probably charge somewhere around 5 digits for each copy and there'd be people who'd pull together to buy one so they could run it).

But, again, it's their right to decide it's not worth it.

And it should be. People must be free to make bad business decisions as well as good ones, because often, the only person who can really judge it is the historian, many years down the road.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2013, 06:50:52 PM »
NCSoft must have the right to do with CoH as they wish, or you are condoning slavery or theft, by forcing them to continue to sell their "chocolate pastry" that they don't want to make, or to arrange for somebody else to do so.

No, I'm not condoning "slavery or theft" by doing so, obviously, since no-one is being enslaved and nothing is being stolen.

Let me try to anticipate the next reply. No, it's not "stealing" City of X from NCsoft, for two reasons. First of all, it's not stealing for the same reason that it's not stealing when you pay tax. Secondly, their right to sit on City of X is already constrained - for example, by fair use, by the end of the copyright term (ha ha), etc. Would a reduction in the copyright term be "stealing"? No? Then another change to the circumstances in which copyright applies would not be.

Quote
There is no sane reason to say, "NCSoft must be forced by law to allow others to have CoH."

I think in fact I've explained a perfectly good reason; that one should enjoy the protection of copyright when it serves the intended purpose of that protection, not when working directly against that purpose.

Quote
People must be free to make bad business decisions as well as good ones, because often, the only person who can really judge it is the historian, many years down the road.

This is pure rhetoric. People must be free to do so within the constraints of what the law allows. That doesn't magically make what the law presently allows the best possible option.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 06:56:13 PM by thunderforce »

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2013, 07:13:21 PM »
This is one of the reasons why creating the spiritual successor to CoH is so important - it's a symbol of resistance to the injustice of big business - a kind of digital offshoot of the Occupy movement, a sign that consumers aren't going to let corporations get away with unethical actions.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

adarict

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2013, 09:22:57 PM »
This is one of the reasons why creating the spiritual successor to CoH is so important - it's a symbol of resistance to the injustice of big business - a kind of digital offshoot of the Occupy movement, a sign that consumers aren't going to let corporations get away with unethical actions.

Really?  Please tell me you are being sarcastic, because that is a silly parallel to make.  A successor to CoH is a fantastic idea, but let's not make it into some great crusade.  It is for personal gratification of those of us who loved the game.  It is no different than all the other times that people have decided "Hey, I want another game like this game that I liked, but no one is making one!  Let's make our own".  The only real difference being, we have ended up with some pretty professional teams out of it rather than just a bunch of random people.

Sure, a successor IS a symbol.  It is a symbol that we liked the game a lot, and since we can't have what we wanted, we will carry on and make something to fill that void.  It isn't a symbol of resistance  to injustice. 

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2013, 09:45:19 PM »
This is one of the reasons why creating the spiritual successor to CoH is so important - it's a symbol of resistance to the injustice of big business - a kind of digital offshoot of the Occupy movement, a sign that consumers aren't going to let corporations get away with unethical actions.
exactly.

This can be the chance to put the actions to the words.

People say the yare tired on "unethical" treatment by major corporations, in this case game corporations. Well now, here is the chance to stand by those words. After these three games, there will be no more excuses about there being no choices, especially for super hero mmo.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2013, 09:52:39 PM »
I thought you flounced out of the discussion with me? Never mind. Going back a bit, if you read the thread, you may remind yourself that the purpose of copyright was thought to be (for example, in terms of the American Constitutional framework for it) to promote the availability of creative works, which is a public good. Indeed, you will find that in many countries some tax money is quite explicitly spent (for example, via the UK's Arts Council) on creative works.

Another thing that may need to be explained to you is that of course I am not suggesting that NCsoft have a monopoly on the industry as a whole. However, the copyright holder of any creative work has a government-created monopoly on the supply of that particular work.

oh yeah, NOW you want to use that as an excuse. But even after I said that you decided to continue it in more replies so I assumed you insisted on continueing. So I obliged. If you wanted it to end you could have let it end right then and there but you chose not to. So dont try to use that now to dodge the question. It was your logic, just asking clarification. Kind of curious to see what "logic" you will use to explain your beliefs. Yet again, all you did was dodge it again. I think you know your statement that ncsoft should by law should be forced to either give up their property or allow someone else to have it is not very wise. Of else I'm sure you would have explained it by now. Along with your statement of it being like taxes and eminent domain. Do you think before you speak or you just throw stuff out there and see what sticks and hope no one asks about it and when they do you do everything to avoid the subject.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2013, 10:25:05 PM »
Let's not try to paint ourselves with political brushes. I assure you that the Occupy movement is not something we want to be thought of as being like. We are not lawless, we are not violent, and we are not engaging in any sort of effort to threaten people and try to shout for violent action against Wall Street Executives, NCSoft, or anybody else, no matter how deserving we may think they are.

We are instead engaging in what makes capitalism and freedom of opportunity so great: we are seeing a vacuum left by an idiotic business decision that we disliked, and we are stepping up to fill it. The successor project(s) will, in fact, show the world what the right path is, but not because we're an angry bunch of people demanding hand-outs. Rather, it is because we recognized that nobody else would do it for us, so we have rolled up our sleeves, and we are making what we want. It is the height of the American dream and of all the principles I have been espousing in this and other threads.

We are good and honest people doing good and honest work. We are not letting anger and bitterness consume us; we are standing on our own two feet, learning what we need to learn, and making something grand happen for our sake and the sake of all who share our interests. And when we succeed, we will demonstrate ingenuity, innovation, and a business model that may well help pave the way forward for a more productive relationship between online businesses and their customers. A win for everybody!

Anger, vitriol, and demonization hurt only ourselves. We're building something; let's not compare ourselves to divisive groups that have yet to produce even as much as we've already achieved.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2013, 10:34:18 PM »
Let's not try to paint ourselves with political brushes. I assure you that the Occupy movement is not something we want to be thought of as being like. We are not lawless, we are not violent, and we are not engaging in any sort of effort to threaten people and try to shout for violent action against Wall Street Executives, NCSoft, or anybody else, no matter how deserving we may think they are.

We are instead engaging in what makes capitalism and freedom of opportunity so great: we are seeing a vacuum left by an idiotic business decision that we disliked, and we are stepping up to fill it. The successor project(s) will, in fact, show the world what the right path is, but not because we're an angry bunch of people demanding hand-outs. Rather, it is because we recognized that nobody else would do it for us, so we have rolled up our sleeves, and we are making what we want. It is the height of the American dream and of all the principles I have been espousing in this and other threads.

We are good and honest people doing good and honest work. We are not letting anger and bitterness consume us; we are standing on our own two feet, learning what we need to learn, and making something grand happen for our sake and the sake of all who share our interests. And when we succeed, we will demonstrate ingenuity, innovation, and a business model that may well help pave the way forward for a more productive relationship between online businesses and their customers. A win for everybody!

Anger, vitriol, and demonization hurt only ourselves. We're building something; let's not compare ourselves to divisive groups that have yet to produce even as much as we've already achieved.


yup.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2013, 11:37:37 PM »
A successor to CoH is a fantastic idea, but let's not make it into some great crusade.

A damn fool idealistic crusade?

Quote
It isn't a symbol of resistance  to injustice.

"Heroes and Villains" is  a symbol of several things - the rising phoenix can apply to several things, not all of them confined to in-game symbolism.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

downix

  • Phoenix Project Technical Lead
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,962
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #56 on: July 04, 2013, 12:53:56 AM »
Since when has that ever mattered to big business?
Properly from 1923-1981, when it actually was law for businesses to engage in ethical activities. The arguments of a few then-radical economists was that business must be amoral and unethical to prosper, which then became the mantra for a political movement, and we all saw what happened.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #57 on: July 04, 2013, 02:06:12 AM »
Properly from 1923-1981, when it actually was law for businesses to engage in ethical activities. The arguments of a few then-radical economists was that business must be amoral and unethical to prosper, which then became the mantra for a political movement, and we all saw what happened.

well somewhat, while at the same time very true. During those times they usually at least tried to look ethical, even when they was not. Old saying- "The appearance of the law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken." -Assigned to Boss Tweed. (disputed if he actually said it or not.)

Now- "Law? Ha ha. What law?"

Menrva Channel

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #58 on: July 04, 2013, 04:25:53 AM »
Interesting article and I like some of the ideas behind it. I like Tony's even more. I wish there was a way to really... express how much the players become part of the game. I agree with Tony on the money stand point /and/ the time--we invest and pour in creative energy, literally putting tears and sweat into our characters. Isn't there a way that these characters who are ours, can still be ours? (And technically, since we pay them, aren't we like investors?) Now, I know I'm probably simplifying this big time, but... what /about/ us, the fans? A game is nothing without a community. 

downix

  • Phoenix Project Technical Lead
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,962
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #59 on: July 04, 2013, 05:31:07 AM »
well somewhat, while at the same time very true. During those times they usually at least tried to look ethical, even when they was not. Old saying- "The appearance of the law must be upheld, especially when it's being broken." -Assigned to Boss Tweed. (disputed if he actually said it or not.)

Now- "Law? Ha ha. What law?"
Of course there are companies who would skirt, if not break,the law if they thought they could get away with it. But those laws put shareholders on the hook if companies broke the law. Eliminating that ethical code, combined with the radical idea that the executives work for the shareholders and not the companies, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #60 on: July 04, 2013, 01:10:16 PM »
But even after I said that you decided to continue it in more replies so I assumed you insisted on continueing.

Er. I'll continue the discussion if I think it is worthwhile. You continue the discussion if you think it is worthwhile. You said it wasn't, so I inferred you would stop.

Quote
I think you know your statement that ncsoft should by law should be forced to either give up their property or allow someone else to have it is not very wise. Of else I'm sure you would have explained it by now.

I have. Bluntly, it's not my fault that it went over your head. I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I suspect you'll find Segev _understands_ my position, even if they disagree completely, just as I understand their position but disagree completely.

Quote
Along with your statement of it being like taxes and eminent domain.

Which in the sense that they illustrate that it is already the case that "some external force does have a legal right to tell people what they must do for the good of the community with their property", it is, which is the context I made that remark in.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #61 on: July 04, 2013, 04:50:20 PM »

Which in the sense that they illustrate that it is already the case that "some external force does have a legal right to tell people what they must do for the good of the community with their property", it is, which is the context I made that remark in.

Oh you infered I would stop, while you continue with the straw man talk. Easy way to get in a cheap shot huh. "oh since he isnt going to continue the discussion I'll keep it going and add some insult to it while purpose missing the entire point." is what you thought. If you took it seriously, then you wouldnt try to keep it going. you would have still left it alone. So dont throw that up now. I was done with it. You choose to reply, I chose to oblige. You wasnt ready  for the convo to end, you looked liked you needed some stuff answered, and thus I did. Now you want to say "I thought you wanted the conversation to end when you cant explain your logic, saying that a superhero make believe video game is like taxes and eminent domain. Saying that NCSosft should be forced to keep a game running. Yeah of course there some laws that dont give total ownership[ rights but should the government tell you to give up your property in you garaage or storage to the needy because it would be good for the community? Should a person with more than one car be forced to give up one for the good of the community? Should you be forced to work at your job with no pay 7 days aweek for the good of the community? Should you be forced to kill yourself to cut down on thep opulation, for the good of the community? I mean since we are putting silly stuff like games on the same level taxes and eminent domain, how about any property from clothes you can no longer fit to money you are not using. Should you be forced to give all of that away for the good of the community? There are plenty of countries with no property rights, and if that what you are looking for, you can find them and feel right at home. But...interestingly, most of those countries never had COX nor have much MMOS for that matter. Go figure.

Good for the community. yea yeah  of course, but how is a game, on the same level of seriousness as taxes and eminent domain?

My point is that it's nowhere the same thing. Sure we say we are a community. Call a city planner and say that NCSOft should be forced to keep their game running because it's like taxes and eminent domain and good for the community and see what they say. I can call one tomorrow and see what they say. My guess they either will hang up thinking it's a prank caller or or laugh/ Why? Because saying that NCSOft should be forced to keep their game open under the definition of good of the community as taxes and eminent domain is a stupid statement and you know it. You cant even explain it and is why you keep dodging it. You have no logical explanation for it. Its just some whacko statement you brought up because as far as you concerned, it was a game you played, damn all the other games that ncsoft shut down and other companies shut down, you dotn give a crap but they shut down your game you're angry and because it was your game that means it's on the level of good for the community of taxes and eminent domain. That is a pure slap in the face to people that actually lost their home to eminent domain so the economy can make millions and slap i nthe face of tax payers in today's economy to actually compare those things to the loss of a game. Very insulting and you should be ashamed. Go talk to people that actually lost something due to eminent domain and been voted out because the new shopping mall is said to create 10,000s of jobs and bring in 100s of millions into the city economy a quarter which is no way in hell logical as, you cant even explain it, on the same level of a video game.

They had property they chose to continue to provide their property anymore by the laws of the US and the excercised those property rights by those laws that have been established, which until they did you probably had not a single thought of wrong about them until it affect you. You are not coming from the nagel of "good of community. You are coming at this for the good of you. You want to play COX and threw "good for the community" in there to make it sound good. There is no law that I know of where it explicitly states that you havea right to play as a non-owner of City of Heroes for however long you see fit for personal pleasure without buying it andbecoming the owener of said property. If you wanted it to be that way, maybe you should have created City of Heroes yourself that way you could have kept it up, "for the good of the community". But you didnt, and thus it's in someone else hands and they made a decision that was good for their community. NCSoft exec community.  Do your "rights" over ride their community rights? Maybe they do and then maybe you should go after them in a legal manner then. Claim eminent domain for COX see how that pan out.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 05:12:11 PM by JaguarX »

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #62 on: July 04, 2013, 05:37:30 PM »
I'm afraid that is too incoherent to reply to at all. It would help if you responded to the arguments actually put forward, rather than grabbing six words and flying off the handle based on something they might possibly mean. As far as I can make out, half of that is an enraged response to the idea that keeping a videogame open is somehow the same thing as eminent domain, which is quite simply something I didn't say.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 05:57:32 PM by thunderforce »

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2013, 07:20:41 PM »
I'm afraid that is too incoherent to reply to at all. It would help if you responded to the arguments actually put forward, rather than grabbing six words and flying off the handle based on something they might possibly mean. As far as I can make out, half of that is an enraged response to the idea that keeping a videogame open is somehow the same thing as eminent domain, which is quite simply something I didn't say.

There is nothing in there that is enraged. Nor flying off the handle.

Again you simply refuse to stick to the point. You keep dancing around it.

All I'm asking is how is it even in the same category. Ok disregardng all your other statements saying it is in the category, as you what you said in this post that is not in fact the same thing, which is the point, that it's not the same (just in case I lost you already), I was making. So there was no point in bringing in eminent domain and taxes into the comparison since as you just so right now yourself, it isnt the same. So then it goes back to the original question. Why should they be forced to keep the game running or turn it over to someone else by law? I dont think you have an answer for why. You dont know why. All you know that you want ot play that particular game and since you cant because you dont own it then NCSOFT should be forced to keep it open so that you can have the game that you want to play. It has nothing to do with that "good for the community" stuff or anything. It's merely that this game, COX, is a game you want to play and you're salty as hell because you dont have the power to make that decision of whether or not it stays open or not. There is one way to solve that so you can get what you want. Buy it. Other than that, the property rights are with the owner. Just as if you owned it or created the game, you would have been able to make that decision of keeping the game running forever. Unfortunately you dont. Sorry, that is the perk of ownership. If you want those perks, be the owner.

ROBOKiTTY

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 183
  • KiTTYRiffic
    • KiTTYLand
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #64 on: July 04, 2013, 09:05:57 PM »
NCsoft did not create CoX and therefore has no moral right to it. CoX was created by Cryptic and maintained by Paragon Studios. All NCsoft did after purchasing the franchise was provide (rather poor) support as a publisher. Given that CoX was giving NCsoft more than it took from their resources, NCsoft had and continues to have every ethical obligation to give the franchise away for fair compensation (e.g. the price NCsoft paid to acquire it, adjusted for inflation) when they no longer had the will to support it.

What NCsoft did is the equivalent of a similarly despicable practice in real estate. A company purchases a low-rent housing complex from its original owner. The company do very little to maintain the building, leaving most work to its tenants. Because of low profit margins, the company decide to evict all tenants, despite the years they spent there and kept the place in good shape, and turn the building into a warehouse. The company may have every legal right to do so in its jurisdiction (at least until a court decides otherwise), but from ethical and social standpoints, this is completely unacceptable.

To put it more bluntly, [intellectual] "property is theft".
Have you played with a KiTTY today?

Sajaana

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #65 on: July 04, 2013, 10:25:53 PM »
I find that it's a real good sign that more and more people are talking about this issue in the wake of the CoH closing.  Frankly, it wasn't even seen as an issue before.

Indeed, the CoH closure exploded a few myths I had about MMORPGs:

1)  The myth of persistance.  I used to buy into the notion that these games were played in a persistant world.  I typically thought that persistance was a world that didn't go away just because you did.  And, for awhile, that definition stuck.  But what I have come to realize is that these games--far from being persistant--were some of the least persistant games in the history of games.  Some games in this genre don't even last a year, and when they are gone, there is no way to get them back.

2)  The myth of profitability.  I used to think that if the game made more than it cost, there would be no reason to take it down.  What CoH taught me is that profitability alone will not protect you or your game if the owners have other plans.  If they think you are "old hat" or you aren't part of a demographic they like, your fun will get canned for their peace of mind.

3)  The myth of ownership.  They have tried--very hard--to make the purchase of digital goods seem like the purchase of real goods.  When you buy something, you felt like you owned something.  But this ownership isn't real ownership.  It is merely the illusion of ownership: an illusion that is revealed as such as soon as its in the publisher's interest to cancel you.

4)  The myth of satisfaction. The hardest thing, for many here (myself included), is how empty we felt after the game closed.  Far from feeling satisfied at time well spent, we tended to feel empty, like a part of us was taken away.  Whatever we had just wasn't enough, and despite how exploitive the business model was, we continued to pour more time and money into something that would, by design, get taken away from us.  This shows me that MMORPGs are addictive, and are purposefully made so in order for us to throw more money into the illusion.  Veteran rewards, hero packs--even things like the day jobs--provide soft "carrots and sticks" to keep you in the illusion.  But far from making your time more satisfying, such incentives only served to deepen the psychological need for the game.  All the more reason why we were treated with such a lack of consideration at the end.  We were treated like the junkies we were, as things to use and throw away without a second thought.

5)  The myth that virtual worlds are a new paradigm in expression and community.  Surely we thought so, and the idealists among us are going to keep on reiterating about all the virtues of this type of society we build in these places.  But there is no society, there can be no society, when there isn't a parity between those who run the game and those who play the game.  I'm sure a compulsive gambler calls his card playing buddies and bookie friends, too.  But to the bookie taking the bet, to the casino owner who lends out the high roller suite, there is nothing special about the casino or the relationships made there.  It's a wealth extraction machine, not a place for friends and community.  When it ceases to be the kind of wealth extraction machine the owner wants it to be, he doesn't cry a tear when he tears it down.  Why not? It was always "nothing personal," just business all along.  They'll say it was our failing to think it was anything else, even though it was easy--far too easy--to actually believe differently.

You see, there is so much in our world that is miserable, drab, unrewarding, unsatisfying and lonely, that whoever can sell us an illusion of success, ownership, community, stability and fame will never lack for customers.  CoH was certainly that and more.  But we really don't get a sense of how easily exploitable we are until something like the CoH closure happens.  We discover, at that point, how vulnerable we are.

The best among us might swear off MMOs for good, but if there's one thing we all have gained from this closure, it's the resolve to demand better.  We won't be taking a producer's claims at face value.  We won't be playing games that don't have protections in place.  We won't be investing in games--financially or emotionally--as freely anymore.  We won't be taken in by the hype as easily.  And we'll build up our lives outside of the games, so when the companies do take away our fun, we won't be left empty.


JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #66 on: July 04, 2013, 10:51:16 PM »
I find that it's a real good sign that more and more people are talking about this issue in the wake of the CoH closing.  Frankly, it wasn't even seen as an issue before.

Indeed, the CoH closure exploded a few myths I had about MMORPGs:

1)  The myth of persistance.  I used to buy into the notion that these games were played in a persistant world.  I typically thought that persistance was a world that didn't go away just because you did.  And, for awhile, that definition stuck.  But what I have come to realize is that these games--far from being persistant--were some of the least persistant games in the history of games.  Some games in this genre don't even last a year, and when they are gone, there is no way to get them back.

2)  The myth of profitability.  I used to think that if the game made more than it cost, there would be no reason to take it down.  What CoH taught me is that profitability alone will not protect you or your game if the owners have other plans.  If they think you are "old hat" or you aren't part of a demographic they like, your fun will get canned for their peace of mind.

3)  The myth of ownership.  They have tried--very hard--to make the purchase of digital goods seem like the purchase of real goods.  When you buy something, you felt like you owned something.  But this ownership isn't real ownership.  It is merely the illusion of ownership: an illusion that is revealed as such as soon as its in the publisher's interest to cancel you.

4)  The myth of satisfaction. The hardest thing, for many here (myself included), is how empty we felt after the game closed.  Far from feeling satisfied at time well spent, we tended to feel empty, like a part of us was taken away.  Whatever we had just wasn't enough, and despite how exploitive the business model was, we continued to pour more time and money into something that would, by design, get taken away from us.  This shows me that MMORPGs are addictive, and are purposefully made so in order for us to throw more money into the illusion.  Veteran rewards, hero packs--even things like the day jobs--provide soft "carrots and sticks" to keep you in the illusion.  But far from making your time more satisfying, such incentives only served to deepen the psychological need for the game.  All the more reason why we were treated with such a lack of consideration at the end.  We were treated like the junkies we were, as things to use and throw away without a second thought.

5)  The myth that virtual worlds are a new paradigm in expression and community.  Surely we thought so, and the idealists among us are going to keep on reiterating about all the virtues of this type of society we build in these places.  But there is no society, there can be no society, when there isn't a parity between those who run the game and those who play the game.  I'm sure a compulsive gambler calls his card playing buddies and bookie friends, too.  But to the bookie taking the bet, to the casino owner who lends out the high roller suite, there is nothing special about the casino or the relationships made there.  It's a wealth extraction machine, not a place for friends and community.  When it ceases to be the kind of wealth extraction machine the owner wants it to be, he doesn't cry a tear when he tears it down.  Why not? It was always "nothing personal," just business all along.  They'll say it was our failing to think it was anything else, even though it was easy--far too easy--to actually believe differently.

You see, there is so much in our world that is miserable, drab, unrewarding, unsatisfying and lonely, that whoever can sell us an illusion of success, ownership, community, stability and fame will never lack for customers.  CoH was certainly that and more.  But we really don't get a sense of how easily exploitable we are until something like the CoH closure happens.  We discover, at that point, how vulnerable we are.

The best among us might swear off MMOs for good, but if there's one thing we all have gained from this closure, it's the resolve to demand better.  We won't be taking a producer's claims at face value.  We won't be playing games that don't have protections in place.  We won't be investing in games--financially or emotionally--as freely anymore.  We won't be taken in by the hype as easily.  And we'll build up our lives outside of the games, so when the companies do take away our fun, we won't be left empty.

Yep.

Many people joined the club. Still sad that they had to learn it through such a harsh lesson.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #67 on: July 04, 2013, 11:33:35 PM »
There is nothing in there that is enraged. Nor flying off the handle.

Of course not. "Should you be forced to kill yourself to cut down on thep opulation, for the good of the community?" is not any sort of overreaction to what I wrote.

Quote
All I'm asking is how is it even in the same category.

Because eminent domain is an example of how property rights are not absolute but can be overruled for the public good, and (inasmuch as "intellectual property" is property) I was suggesting that the "property" right in copyright might be overruled for the public good (as of course it is already in many respects). You'd know that if you'd actually comprehended what I wrote.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #68 on: July 04, 2013, 11:37:29 PM »
Indeed, the CoH closure exploded a few myths I had about MMORPGs:
1)  The myth of persistance.

I think part of my point is it doesn't have to be a myth. If I were in charge of marketing, say, Everquest, I would have been right on top of the CoX closure. I would be saying, "we promise you, we won't shut it down. We might stop developing it - although of course we had a content release quite recently - but most of our costs scale with the number of players. As long as there aren't fewer than 100 players who log in every month, we'll keep the game alive. We promise." subtext, so give us your money safe in the knowledge that you have persistence.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #69 on: July 04, 2013, 11:58:31 PM »
Of course not. "Should you be forced to kill yourself to cut down on thep opulation, for the good of the community?" is not any sort of overreaction to what I wrote.
Just because i asked the question doesnt mean I am angry or enraged.If this is something you say only when you are angry or enraged, that is fine, but everyone is not like you. By defintion anything and everything can be good for the community in someone eyes. Does that mean all rights should be over ruled for one person such as your definition of the common good of the community which seems to put a game on the same level as eminent domain and taxes?  .



Because eminent domain is an example of how property rights are not absolute but can be overruled for the public good, and (inasmuch as "intellectual property" is property) I was suggesting that the "property" right in copyright might be overruled for the public good (as of course it is already in many respects). You'd know that if you'd actually comprehended what I wrote.

And That is what I comprehended at first but you denied it in the next post. I know that property rights are not absolute and if you read what I said at first you have gotten that already.

"keeping a videogame open is somehow the same thing as eminent domain, which is quite simply something I didn't say." Now you are saying they are alike in some aspects. Which is it? Are you saying they are alike or not alike like you said in your previous post. Do you know? Or is it another tactic to dodge the question in explaining your own statements and logic? Man, you flip fop worse than a politician.

But as I said going by you now saying they are alike and like the first one, that is what I did comprehend it as, and that is how I came up with the question of how is that in any aspect of alike, is forcing NCSOFT to keep the game running and or tranfer it to another by law, like the common good definition under eminent domain and taxes?

Bascially how you would you approach the subject of the reasoning behind in what way is forcing NCSoft to do such action be defined as for the common good? Why would it be overuled? and Why should it be over ruled? 
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 12:14:12 AM by JaguarX »

Sajaana

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #70 on: July 04, 2013, 11:59:24 PM »
I think part of my point is it doesn't have to be a myth. If I were in charge of marketing, say, Everquest, I would have been right on top of the CoX closure. I would be saying, "we promise you, we won't shut it down. We might stop developing it - although of course we had a content release quite recently - but most of our costs scale with the number of players. As long as there aren't fewer than 100 players who log in every month, we'll keep the game alive. We promise." subtext, so give us your money safe in the knowledge that you have persistence.

The sad thing is, I'm not sure people would believe him even if it was true.

If there's one thing NCsoft has taught us, it's that when a developer says "we're committed to the long term health of the game," it really is true...for that day.  But it in no way obligates them to hold the same view tomorrow.

thunderforce

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2013, 01:07:25 AM »
The sad thing is, I'm not sure people would believe him even if it was true.

I'd exploit that by entering into a contract with some appointed group of players' representatives, with a great song and dance.

dwturducken

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,152
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2013, 09:57:56 PM »
Of course not. "Should you be forced to kill yourself to cut down on the population, for the good of the community?" is not any sort of overreaction to what I wrote.

It's a common allegory in science fiction, exploring the notion of worth, particularly of worth in advanced years. It's not an over-reaction at all.
I wouldn't use the word "replace," but there's no word for "take over for you and make everything better almost immediately," so we just say "replace."

Eoraptor

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2013, 03:42:38 AM »
I don't much care for the way the author broadly insists that MMOs are "someone else's art which we are not entitled to" that's like saying that every digital photo or painting is the property of Adobe and Manga Studio because it was created using their software.

someone did indeed create the tools of City of Heroes, of Everquest, of Spellborn, etc... but the individual characters, the private stories, the story telling, that is art created by the individual users. so it's a joint creation, and those of us who created and contributed into it, particularly those of us who paid into it for years, should have been given much more say and much better tools to secure our digital legacies surrounding such games.

I do like the rticle rising questions about the accounts of the deceased. already places like facebook have perhaps as many as thirty million dead members amongst their rolls, and how should that be handled?
"Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story, while others can read the back of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe!"
-Lex Luthor

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2013, 03:47:27 AM »
I don't much care for the way the author broadly insists that MMOs are "someone else's art which we are not entitled to" that's like saying that every digital photo or painting is the property of Adobe and Manga Studio because it was created using their software.

someone did indeed create the tools of City of Heroes, of Everquest, of Spellborn, etc... but the individual characters, the private stories, the story telling, that is art created by the individual users. so it's a joint creation, and those of us who created and contributed into it, particularly those of us who paid into it for years, should have been given much more say and much better tools to secure our digital legacies surrounding such games.

I do like the rticle rising questions about the accounts of the deceased. already places like facebook have perhaps as many as thirty million dead members amongst their rolls, and how should that be handled?

yes but you still have your characters or can still have them and the story to those player created characters.

Ya just dont have that particular brand of canvas. But that is also why most artists never rent their canvas and buy them outright.

Mantic

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2013, 11:26:40 AM »
Insofar as your characters utilize elements unique to the game engine, NCSofts claim of ownership (and yes, they do claim ownership of your CoX characters) remains enforceable.

Blah. Fight the power.

I wonder if folks defending copyright as this boon to individual artists have ever worked as commercial artists. Almost everything out there is done as work for hire, in which case everything individual artists create, collectively or not, is viewed by the law as being a creation of the inhuman lich-beast corporation paying said artist a wage. If a human creator even gets credit it's a rarity (and you might want to check and be sure that cited "author" is not also an intellectual property of said publisher). Most artists rationalize this relationship by saying that the corporate publishers are incentivized to invest in risky new creativity by the rewards gained from their body of IPs. But that is just a rationalization to make everyone feel better about being at the mercy of corporate employers.

If you're an indie creator, sure you might hit the jackpot with something like the Teenage Mutant Turtles, and have enough of an overnight return to fund your efforts parleying that into a fortune of indecent proportions (ie, paying lawyers and agents). But that's a one in a million scenario. Most indie creators cannot afford to pursue the defense of their copyrights, and rely on a mix of decency from human individuals and lack of interest from corporate entities more than the protection of the law.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Another Massively article on closing MMO's
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2013, 12:57:00 PM »
Properly from 1923-1981, when it actually was law for businesses to engage in ethical activities. The arguments of a few then-radical economists was that business must be amoral and unethical to prosper, which then became the mantra for a political movement, and we all saw what happened.
:roll:

Sorry, I can't take this one seriously. Not only is that a horrid straw man of what capitalism and even objectivism (which is not what Reagan instituted) states, but businesses are not allowed to engage in "un-ethical" activities as a matter of deliberate policy now. Unless you mean the mercantilism (A.K.A. "crony capitalism" that isn't capitalism at all) that GE and others are doing by promoting Democrats and Republicans alike in order to get more regulations and laws and sweetheart government programs passed in order to close out competition and give themselves an unfair advantage on the taxpayer's dime. In that case, corrupt practice is, in fact, quite encouraged. But it's the incestuous involvement of government in business that causes it. Increased regulation and empowerment of the "big" companies (read: big donors) to police the whole industry. (Because like it or not, the big money businesses will influence any board you care to create to regulate their industry far more than the little guy who is trying to break in to it...and suddenly can't afford to thanks to regulatory costs.)