How Do You Feel About Legislation Towards Mmo's?

[ErudiusNacht]

In my free time (meaning no Raids, no grinding, no writing and just chilling out), I often find myself on some random topic in Wikipedia.

 

Now, I'm not a Westerner (okay, no specifics there), but when it comes to Video Games and MMO's in particular, I find a lack of regulation and oversight even from the West. In the East it's only, I dunno, evident in Japan and Korea, but everywhere else in Asia it's pretty much free-for-all. Can't speak about Russia because I'm uninformed about their policies.

 

And if there is legislation, there's more focus on content identification and classification. I haven't come across any legislation targeting business practices of the game makers and publishers. Content regulation, fine, you can't touch that because of the First Amendment, but hey, what's stopping Devs from releasing unfinished products into the market?

 

It's like, "Hey, we're selling these new burgers, try them out. You can have them pre-ordered for pickup and we'll throw in some mustard and a little toy. Also, if you buy it from Restaurant A, you can have tomatoes. But if you buy from Restaurant B you'll get lettuce. We'll sell different types of onions and ketchup separately on a monthly basis. No refunds."

 

I can't even...

 

With regards to MMO's though. Why the extended Testing Phases? I mean, look, game companies will announce a product, put it through alpha, then closed Beta, then Open Beta, [insert X number of years] then product release. Even though unfinished, it's dubbed "free-to-play". Wait, I thought we were testing?

 

Testing, test. Test-ers. In this "free-to-play" model (they don't call it free-to-test), the Beta testing phase is where you supposedly iron out the final kinks in the game, correct? If it's a testing phase, why are there in-game markets, trading, cash shops and real world merchandise? 

 

So to simplify things, if you're a paying customer for Beta Testing a video game, you're paying the developers so that you can test their game and give them feedback? So going back to our previous example:

 

"Hey, we might sell these new burgers, try them out for free. You can have them pre-ordered for pickup if you invest in our company and we'll throw in some mustard and a commemorative toy. Also, if you get it from Restaurant A, you can have tomatoes. But if you get it from Restaurant B you'll get lettuce. We'll sell different types of onions and ketchup separately on a monthly basis. Every few months we'll be selling different wrapping and bags that's more expensive than the burger. No refunds. Oh, and yeah we're just trying out a new recipe, we might not like how it tastes so we'll make changes to it. Lastly, our customer service and feedback page are offline from time to time. No promises!"

 

So, how are we looking at this? Play nice guys. 

[XxCurtennoxX]

I have no idea what any of this is.

[bejuizb]

It's not enforced because it primarily boils down to customer choice to fund the incomplete project. Most early access games are essentially crowd funded content, and no legislation exists to stop that practice, primarily because of the benefits of crowdfunding content.

 

Now are developers and publishers taking this concept too far? That's debatable, but sadly nothing can be done as long as you have people willing to pay money for it.

[Larsurus]

Now I'm hungry for hamburgers

[ClockworkSpectre]

The free to play model is still changing (especially with free MMOs) what is considering standard practices so much you really can't say its close to being pinned down. 

 

As far as "regulation", I want governments to stay the F*** away from games.  That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what some game companies are doing, and I think that some of it really really needs to change.  But, legislation/regulation of the games industry is not the answer.  A lot of the problems I see are with AAA titles and the crap they pull with microtransactions and pre-orders, and the "we need to release a new version every year" crap. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by ClockworkSpectre

[TheBrsrkr]

I'd like for the government and producers alike to remember that games are an art form and should be treated as such, and the "vidya gaems r 4 kids" thing is like, 50 years old.

[Sziklamester]

Entertainment.

[VampirePirate]

It is called free enterprise.

[S.T.M.P.D]

...You do realize Warframe is pretty raw, right? You S#&$-talk "infinite betas" you S#&$-talkin this game.

[Guest]

I find you are utterly disgusting.

 

 

With regards to MMO's though. Why the extended Testing Phases? I mean, look, game companies will announce a product, put it through alpha, then closed Beta, then Open Beta, [insert X number of years] then product release. Even though unfinished, it's dubbed "free-to-play". Wait, I thought we were testing?

 

Testing, test. Test-ers. In this "free-to-play" model (they don't call it free-to-test), the Beta testing phase is where you supposedly iron out the final kinks in the game, correct? If it's a testing phase, why are there in-game markets, trading, cash shops and real world merchandise? 

 

So to simplify things, if you're a paying customer for Beta Testing a video game, you're paying the developers so that you can test their game and give them feedback? So going back to our previous example:

 

"Hey, we might sell these new burgers, try them out for free. You can have them pre-ordered for pickup if you invest in our company and we'll throw in some mustard and a commemorative toy. Also, if you get it from Restaurant A, you can have tomatoes. But if you get it from Restaurant B you'll get lettuce. We'll sell different types of onions and ketchup separately on a monthly basis. Every few months we'll be selling different wrapping and bags that's more expensive than the burger. No refunds. Oh, and yeah we're just trying out a new recipe, we might not like how it tastes so we'll make changes to it. Lastly, our customer service and feedback page are offline from time to time. No promises!"

 

So, how are we looking at this? Play nice guys. 

 

First of all no one ask you to test anything. You willingly to give up your time to test whatever that INTERESTS you. Free to play is what a company announce their business model, every cooperation has their adjustments to the way they practice their business models. A MMO is arguable never finished, the MMO model was to keep their players on the wheels like we put our hamsters on theirs. If you take WoW for an example, it was never or will never finished, contents update frequently, class skills adjustments almost every month. It's depends on how you justifies a finished MMO, in my understanding and experience, there were never one finished MMO. 

 

Second, you volunteered to test the game. You think that makes you the king? You are entitled to better than other players that joined later? That you deserves to grab whatever it is  on the market?  Anyone pointing a knife at your neck to force you buy anything? You typing this BS here to express that companies should think about how to not get you into buying stuff in a their product?  If you at least know how to control yourself, what is the problem they are selling stuff at Alpha and Beta phase? You are the buyer, you know it is Alpha and Beta, if you acknowledged the game cannot be played without spending money, is it your responsibility to THINK if you should continue to play the game by paying or at this phase it is not worth your money and stop playing.  AND NO YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER, don't your dirty hands touch that word. Testers are far from being a developer, especially end user testers, you just a baby crying for changes from here and there to make your personal experience in the game better, not actual debugging, you ever log on to an Alpha test and not experience the game instead you just try to break the game and find bugs, then send a business report with time, location, and details how you break the game? That is a tester, not some guy log into the game and play around giving feedback about how OP which class is or how broken one weapon is. Developer don't give a sh!t about those, that's the designer's job. 

 

Your overestimation of yourself and greediness disgust me.

[Datsher]

While we are testers, accounts will carry over when "open beta" ends. When open beta and if it ends is entirely up to DE. There are ingame shops and merch because DE needs to fund itself to develop games.

[ErudiusNacht]

Okay, it's a nice discussion. First of all, might I remind you I said earlier that content regulation wasn't the main topic guys. Art is art, and as long as something is important or influential to someone, that how it counts. I was focusing on business practices and the like.

 

 

It's not enforced because it primarily boils down to customer choice to fund the incomplete project. Most early access games are essentially crowd funded content, and no legislation exists to stop that practice, primarily because of the benefits of crowdfunding content.

 

Now are developers and publishers taking this concept too far? That's debatable, but sadly nothing can be done as long as you have people willing to pay money for it.

 

True, it is debatable if companies are taking the crowdfunding too far by milking people's generosity. And that's precisely why there should be oversight right? To make sure nobody steps out of line. But first we have to draw a line methinks.

 

 

The free to play model is still changing (especially with free MMOs) what is considering standard practices so much you really can't say its close to being pinned down. 

 

As far as "regulation", I want governments to stay the F*** away from games.  That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what some game companies are doing, and I think that some of it really really needs to change.  But, legislation/regulation of the games industry is not the answer.  A lot of the problems I see are with AAA titles and the crap they pull with microtransactions and pre-orders, and the "we need to release a new version every year" crap. 

 

Well, we can't really keep them away that long anyways. Gaming is now a legitimate industry and that governments, either benign or malignant, will always notice things that greatly affect their citizenry. Question is, how do we ensure that the governments will appropriately help citizens in doing business with game companies?

 

 

I'd like for the government and producers alike to remember that games are an art form and should be treated as such, and the "vidya gaems r 4 kids" thing is like, 50 years old.

 

Well, an M or AO rating doesn't just come from the printing press. I think it's the parents job to proactively understand and involve themselves in what their children are taking in.

 

Entertainment.

 

Well, games did start that way.

 

It is called free enterprise.

 

No such thing. Even if you say it's free enterprise, there's taxes, regulations, policies and such. Death and taxes my friend. This things are in place to protect the interests of producers and consumers alike, and there should be things like this in place of the relatively new and growing gaming industry.

 

 

...You do realize Warframe is pretty raw, right? You S#&$-talk "infinite betas" you S#&$-talkin this game.

 

First of all, I was talking about MMO's in general, not warframe in particular. But since you're quite passionate about the topic, hey, Warframe has been out (counting Beta) for 3 years. You really can't say it's raw by that measure. Three long years with weekly updates. You know, I like the game too, but I understand that it will have to end some time and don't put everything in only one basket.

 

 

I find you are utterly disgusting.

 

 

 

First of all no one ask you to test anything. You willingly to give up your time to test whatever that INTERESTS you. Free to play is what a company announce their business model, every cooperation has their adjustments to the way they practice their business models. A MMO is arguable never finished, the MMO model was to keep their players on the wheels like we put our hamsters on theirs. If you take WoW for an example, it was never or will never finished, contents update frequently, class skills adjustments almost every month. It's depends on how you justifies a finished MMO, in my understanding and experience, there were never one finished MMO. 

 

Second, you volunteered to test the game. You think that makes you the king? You are entitled to better than other players that joined later? That you deserves to grab whatever it is  on the market?  Anyone pointing a knife at your neck to force you buy anything? You typing this BS here to express that companies should think about how to not get you into buying stuff in a their product?  If you at least know how to control yourself, what is the problem they are selling stuff at Alpha and Beta phase? You are the buyer, you know it is Alpha and Beta, if you acknowledged the game cannot be played without spending money, is it your responsibility to THINK if you should continue to play the game by paying or at this phase it is not worth your money and stop playing.  AND NO YOU ARE NOT A DEVELOPER, don't your dirty hands touch that word. Testers are far from being a developer, especially end user testers, you just a baby crying for changes from here and there to make your personal experience in the game better, not actual debugging, you ever log on to an Alpha test and not experience the game instead you just try to break the game and find bugs, then send a business report with time, location, and details how you break the game? That is a tester, not some guy log into the game and play around giving feedback about how OP which class is or how broken one weapon is. Developer don't give a sh!t about those, that's the designer's job. 

 

Your overestimation of yourself and greediness disgust me.

 

Well, I was talking about branding and marketing a game as "Beta Testing" and "Release". I never said anything about "Finished". Yes arguably MMO's are never finished, but they do have formal releases AFTER beta testing. What I ask is why companies are making profits during a testing phase? I know full well that customers have the prerogative to buy what they want, it's just that with all the money Beta Games are making, you'd expect more content, a concrete timeline and a release date which is often not the case.

 

Second. Yes, we volunteered to test the game. But I was talking about PAYING testers. In any market or product, paying customers have lawful rights. Unfair as it may be, but paying customers do actually have more entitlement than non-paying ones. Just go to any business establishment and this truth will be inherent. 

 

I never said anything to "express that companies should think about how to not get you into buying stuff in a their product", that's an unusual and often ineffective strategy called "negative marketing". I'm saying there should be oversight and policies so that customers are fully informed and and safe from overstepping companies. 

 

I AM NOT A DEVELOPER, I never would claim to be one. I never did. I scanned my post and didn't see any claim of the sort. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. But I'm a Business Manager and Consultant, so I know my business phases, processes and strategies. And in my professional opinion, doing business like misleading marketing is disagreeable.

 

Now, I may seem confident about myself, but then again, I was a HIghschool State Scholar, a College State Scholar Major in Business, and am almost finished with Masters in Business. National Banks and Private Companies have come to me for consultations and advice even as early as my mid twenties. I apologize if I overestimated myself then. At least I don't insult other people without the proper credentials and without proper English. Thank you.

[Mr.ToastForPresident]

Why would any other company outside of the gaming industry ever release unfinished products?

 

If it is stupid but it works it is not stupid. That is the whole concept behind engineering things. We as gamers have dug ourselves into this pit of accepting half finished products and buy into them. How? Well because we bought those half finished products. Look at minecraft, which sold tons of copies without being out of early access. Other companies noticed that they too can release early access beta's or whatever and still make money. And that is the point of companies: to make as much money as possible, even if it means cutting corners as much as possible. 

 

You take the examples out of hamburgers saying that no hamburger joint would sell half finished burgers or free burgers as try outs then sell you other packs for more. But the fast food industry has their own way of selling half baked products. You can get a burger for $1, but with some cheese that will cost you more! Don't even bother with fresh meat, ours is packaged from over a year ago! Oh, you want a package of sauce? Well pay us more money!! You want a free drink with that? Don't make us laugh.

 

 

See, all industries have their bullsh!t practices that harm the consumer, but yet they still sell. It may seem like the gaming industry is alone in giving out payed early access, but in reality, all business's have their own equivalent. And that is the way the world works. You can't force the government to look after your buying habits, it is your own responsibility to decide if the product that company is selling is worth your purchase. If you don't like early access, then don't buy into early access. You say you are a business major, yet don't understand why companies build off of early access. It is because it makes money, and money is what talks in this world.

[ErudiusNacht]

Why would any other company outside of the gaming industry ever release unfinished products?

 

If it is stupid but it works it is not stupid. That is the whole concept behind engineering things. We as gamers have dug ourselves into this pit of accepting half finished products and buy into them. How? Well because we bought those half finished products. Look at minecraft, which sold tons of copies without being out of early access. Other companies noticed that they too can release early access beta's or whatever and still make money. And that is the point of companies: to make as much money as possible, even if it means cutting corners as much as possible. 

 

You take the examples out of hamburgers saying that no hamburger joint would sell half finished burgers or free burgers as try outs then sell you other packs for more. But the fast food industry has their own way of selling half baked products. You can get a burger for $1, but with some cheese that will cost you more! Don't even bother with fresh meat, ours is packaged from over a year ago! Oh, you want a package of sauce? Well pay us more money!! You want a free drink with that? Don't make us laugh.

 

 

See, all industries have their bullsh!t practices that harm the consumer, but yet they still sell. It may seem like the gaming industry is alone in giving out payed early access, but in reality, all business's have their own equivalent. And that is the way the world works. You can't force the government to look after your buying habits, it is your own responsibility to decide if the product that company is selling is worth your purchase. If you don't like early access, then don't buy into early access. You say you are a business major, yet don't understand why companies build off of early access. It is because it makes money, and money is what talks in this world.

 

Finally, another good response. Thank you.

 

Though, again, my point being was not the content of the product, but oversight and regulation of these companies. That is what the title was supposed to be about. It's about having more government and private sector transparency and regulation.

 

Also, I understand that it's a viable (not necessarily ethical) marketing strategy to have customers slobber about incomplete products. Even pharmaceutical companies do this with drugs. There have been cases also of desperate cancer patients paying to try out avant-garde treatments when they haven't even been published. Of course, that's a moral gray area but I'm saying that it's unhealthy and everyone should be involved in curbing the bad habit.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ErudiusNacht

[Freelancer27]

I do believe the reason why the Legislation had to be imposed was from all that early access money that cheap con artists managed to pull out of just to pay it back.

[VKhaun]

IMHO playing for free during development and paying to fund active, communicative, consistent development is preferable to buying full prices boxes and not enjoying 9/10 games, or buying sale/bargain games and being a few years behind the curve of MMO's, or paying a company $15/mo for them to just turn around and use it to downsize, merge servers and convert to free to play rather than make content.

 

I'd argue it was the industry's failures in the above areas and other that lead to this, rather than some scheme to milk people.

 

 

 

 

 

Example quote to reply to logic, not a direct response to the quote itself:

Testing, test. Test-ers. In this "free-to-play" model (they don't call it free-to-test), the Beta testing phase is where you supposedly iron out the final kinks in the game, correct? If it's a testing phase, why are there in-game markets, trading, cash shops and real world merchandise?

 

Clearly not. Your conditions for using that word are not correct. If you don't think your definition is wrong maybe your definition is just outdated, but it doesn't change the bottom line. The problem isn't the rest of the world or an entire industry. The problem is just you trying to enforce a definition that obviously doesn't apply.

 

I may have missed it, but I didn't see any specific recommendation for a law you want made so I ASSume you're talking about making laws about what terminology they can use to advertise products, but that just goes down the same road. The best you could hope for is to be a giant pain in everyone's behind by making your definitions law and forcing the industry and consumers to spend time and money to adjust. The end result would be an expenditure of taxpayer money and government time to create unnecessary costs for companies and unnecessary confusion for customers.

[ErudiusNacht]

IMHO playing for free during development and paying to fund active, communicative, consistent development is preferable to buying full prices boxes and not enjoying 9/10 games, or buying sale/bargain games and being a few years behind the curve of MMO's, or paying a company $15/mo for them to just turn around and use it to downsize, merge servers and convert to free to play rather than make content.

 

I'd argue it was the industry's failures in the above areas and other that lead to this, rather than some scheme to milk people.

 

 

 

 

I think it was the gamers themselves who started the trend and companies just started going on the band wagon. Gamers wanted more and more earlier and companies had to rush themselves in meeting demand. Upstarts used this trend to enter the market. The thing is, it's about time this was regulated so that product and service quality doesn't fall out.

 

 

 

Clearly not. Your conditions for using that word are not correct. If you don't think your definition is wrong maybe your definition is just outdated, but it doesn't change the bottom line. The problem isn't the rest of the world or an entire industry. The problem is just you trying to enforce a definition that obviously doesn't apply.

 

I may have missed it, but I didn't see any specific recommendation for a law you want made so I ASSume you're talking about making laws about what terminology they can use to advertise products, but that just goes down the same road. The best you could hope for is to be a giant pain in everyone's behind by making your definitions law and forcing the industry and consumers to spend time and money to adjust. The end result would be an expenditure of taxpayer money and government time to create unnecessary costs for companies and unnecessary confusion for customers.

 

 

I agree, I'm using established business models in my head when I talk. Then again, nobody's really started a business modelling on the game industry since it's only started three decades ago, and it's target demographic are young adults and younger. It'd be interesting to do a market study on that.

 

I didn't recommend a specific recommendation since I didn't want to enforce my own definitions as you said. Laws about advertising I think is just one thing to consider. 

 

To be more specific and not be a pain in the back, and be productive, I'd recommend that governments impose a regulation on the testing phase duration. 

1. You can Beta test for 2 years - additional time upon approval (I think 2 years is enough, thoughts?)

2. Transparency of cash flows if crowdfunding

3. Testing phase should be Non-profit;

        a. Sell whatever you want, but all proceeds should go into development

        b. No "Retained Earnings" in the Balance Sheet

        c. No "Income After Tax and Interest" in the Income Statement

        d. Cash Flow Statement should have Null Balance

 

This way, companies are forced to actually focus on making and releasing the game instead of milking consumers.

 

 

... you want made so I ASSume you're talking about ...

 

I see what you did there.

Edited November 27, 2015 by ErudiusNacht

[(PSN)MoRockaPDX]

Legislation, no. Far far more important things are legislators should be doing. A body of industry members, maybe. But hard to say what kind of teeth they would have. Really it would take a technology that has a set of regulations attached to it, that is so good or ubiquitous that everyone has to follow it.

That I expect is the best you could hope for.