Whether you enjoy it or hate it, Diablo III is an important game. I myself have lost an almost shame inducing amount of time playing it and have enjoyed it thoroughly. The importance of this game though is one mechanic that could have a major impact on the interactive media industry, the Real Money Auction House (RMAH). For those who are unfamiliar, the RMAH serves as a place where players can place the in-game items they find for sale; either for in-game gold or real world currency. For games with large player bases and involved communities, these types of transactions are nothing new. However, Blizzard's involvement is what makes this move so important.
Historically, if a player wanted to sell an item for real money they would have to frequent websites hosted by third parties. Publishers explicitly prohibited the sale of in-game items through such websites but could do little to stop them. The exact reasons and justifications are unknown, but Blizzard attempted cut out the third party websites and control the market themselves with Diablo III. From a business standpoint, it makes sense. There is currently a $1 transaction fee taken by Blizzard for every completed transaction that occurs on the RMAH. While transaction statistics aren't available, this could easily provide for a steady stream of ancillary income from the game. [Thanks to Reddit user gakpad for pointing out my original error].
So what could be the problem? Well, at a certain point when money is changing hands a consumer begins to wonder what he/she is actually getting. In law school, every student quickly learns that owning property is similar to a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing one of the rights you have. You get the right to use, the right to exclude others from using, the right to convey, and the occasional right to destroy. You hold the bundle, and use whichever stick you want when you want. But what about virtual commodities and in-game items? Publishers like Blizzard claim that consumers are merely purchasing a license to the game and like any copyright license it is revocable. In-games items are only an extension of that license and often times the End User License Agreement and Terms of Use make this explicit. But that doesn't mean the legal discussion is over; in fact it hasn't started yet.
Back in 2006, a case came rather close to a judicial ruling on the rights consumers hold in their in-game items. The case was Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. and involved virtual land purchased in Second Life. The reason this case was important is because most EULA's contain a mandatory binding arbitration clause which prevents a judge from hearing any arguments or deciding on the legal substance of the dispute. Before it was settled, the judge in Bragg threw out the arbitration clause and was ready to let the case proceed. Unfortunately, the parties settled before the case was argued. As of now, there is no binding case law determining what rights consumers hold for their in-game items. I can literally research whether sneezing on a person is considered a battery for civil or criminal claims and find adequate case law, but if you ask me what rights you have to your Trifecta Gloves for your Demon Hunter in Diablo III, I've got nothing.
But with Blizzard in control of the market through the RMAH, there is no middle man. The third party websites previously served as a buffer between the publisher and players. If any transaction went sour or if an item lost value due to in-game changes, there was no liability on the publisher because they weren't involved in the transaction side of the business. The RMAH changes that and could lead to a judicial determination of the rights consumers have in the in-game items. It only takes one angry consumer and one legitimate screw up from the publisher for a case to begin, and if you read the Diablo III forums there would appear to be an excess of at least the former.
Law school taught me to have more fun in discussing the questions than the answers. This question of property rights would force the courts and the industry to deal with some very tough questions. If I do have a property right in the items I acquire, does that mean there has been a taking of my property when Blizzard alters values and mechanics through patches? If I don't have any rights in my items, then can Blizzard legally wipe my account and my items without cause? Whether you take a Lockean labor theory or a strict copyright license approach, any hardline approach would likely change the industry. The conundrum is whether answering the question will be worse than not knowing.
No comments:
Post a Comment