Recently there have been some reports floating around about a married couple who found out, in a classic and horrible twist of Oedipusian fate, that they are actually twin brother and sister, separated at birth. It must have been terribly traumatic for them, something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. After, all, one of the most important social taboos disallows incest, it's also outlawed in the bible and, of course, there are the detrimental generic consequences. The couple have since separated, and and I'm sure we all hope they learn to come to terms with the revelation and get on with their lives happily.
Social taboos are a bit of an interesting thing. Clearly, this one is very positive for society, due to the need for genetic diversity in reproduction so that the gene pool adapts and strengthens. But have you ever wondered how this taboo came about? Presumedly it has been around for a long time, if there is a ban in the bible. But, even though I imagine the church would have been a very forwarding thinking and culturally advanced institution back in the early years AD, the study of genetics and the theory of natural selection were still along way off. So what inspired this brilliant leap of logic? How did we end up with such a reasonable taboo? Were genetic defects in the first born incestuous generation so immediately obvious and attributable that there was no question of cause and effect? And if so, did anyone stop to ask why?
My best guess is that this was early Christianity's way of distinguishing itself from other societies of the time that were perhaps heavily inbred. It seems that Christianity imposed a number of precepts to social change away from behaviours it saw as counter-productive. For example, the religion initially outlawed all idols--because this was the preferred mode of worship of Roman pagans. That law seemed to only last as long as it was useful, however, and as paganism in the west declined, idolatry became an important part of the church. Similarly--and I'm speculating here--homophobia in the early church may have been a reaction against all male societies of the time, such as some very early groups of Jewish men, around the time of the writing of the dead sea scrolls.
Now; the proper form of Japanese discourse involves never actually mentioning what you're really talking about until you're almost done. The Japanese are much more skillful with it, but I'm just going to jump across to another topic.
Modern online games have become a bit of a microcosm of real world societies; and following that, they tend to start to display strange habits that seem somehow familiar. For instance, in World of Warcraft, many social rules that developed, above and beyond the rules of the game. These come from no specific source, seem to develop independently on different servers, so that they sometimes exhibit discrepancies from one place to another. There is no central authority (that is, assuming playing with a group composed of the general public, rather than an internal guild group), so these rules are not maintained and recorded in any place; instead they are just accepted by convention, and there is an unsaid expectation that everyone knows them, agrees with them, and will abide by them. This leads to a certain vagueness, and sometimes contention. As a result, the game can sometimes be an exercise in diplomacy. Furthermore, since they are not enforced by the game, the rules can be broken. When that happens, there is no clear recourse, except to publicly condemn the offender before a generally disinterested audience.
And yet, despite the lack of enforcement, the general vagueness, and the location specific; these rules, these taboos, as followed surprisingly well. But the truly surprising thing is, they don't tend to benefit the powerful or well connected. Instead, they tend to even out the playing field. The purpose of the taboos is to make the game more fair than even the "hard-coded" rules would do, and given everyone an equal opportunity to profit. In short, these social rules, which have sprung up naturally and uncalled for universally and across cultural and language boundaries, have not done so to benefit any specific group or social strata. They're there exclusively to make the game more fair for one and all.
The types of rules that fit this form are things like: the "all pass" rule, rules that determine was is appropriate use of "need" and "greed", rules about which classes can legitimately bid on which items, legitimate and illegitimate tactics in AV, and others. One of the most important is the taboo against paid leveling services and use of real cash to purchase gold. These shouldn't be confused with another class of rules--those that determine guild behaviour. Extra-game mechanics such as "DKP," "Suicide Kings," and "Loot Councils". These are very different because there is a central authority. They have been developed to meet specific goals, and are actively researched so that their relative benefits are understood at a conscious level. As a result, these rules are written down, and actually have names.
Now, what's curious about these online taboos is that some people do break them intentionally. It's habitual racism to label some of these people Chinese, but the reality is some are actually Chinese. Being culturally distinct, there are some things they just don't agree with. Or, in the (fondly-intentioned) words of the link below...
on group missions they do not like to respect the tacit rules of profit division. For those "pedantic" European and American gamers, Chinese players are like fearsome pagans...Chinese gamers are better suited to jungle-style gaming.
So imagine my delight to discover that some bright types have found a way to capitalise on that tendency. And in this case, "capitalise" is the right world, because it seems in the Chinese online game "ZT Online," character progress can and must be bought with real money. In other words, the more you spend, the better your character is and the more you enjoy the game. Combine that with a overtly competitive gameplay and desirable social rewards for the powerful, and you've got a compelling, addictive money sink where anything goes.
Here's the link from danwei.org. I haven't read it all, but it's worth a scan.
Ah, here we go. This sound more like the society I know! A game for the wealthy, by the (soon to be) wealthy. These guys know what side of the bread has the butter on it.
This isn't the first example this type of real-wealth sponsored gameplay, either. One of the particularly curious aspects of online games is they open the door to many different funding schemes. A few years back there was a humble web-based space trading style massively multiplayer game that required people to buy fuel for their space craft using real money. Again, the more your spend, the more mobile you are and the quicker you can progress and compete. Straight from the pragmatically capitalist minds of a couple of young American entrepreneurs.
Well, then. So much for socially responsible taboos that arise organically and inexplicably from a diverse society. Clearly it's time for some game developers to step in with a bit of reality of their sleeves, is it not?
That then, brings me finally, and happily, to the last paragraph. Because, as well as delighting my sense of incentive-based economics, these games highlight very clearly what might become a very serious issue for all online games in the near future. That is, at some point, it's difficult to distinguish between an online massively multiplayer game and an online casino type game--even without further innovation in the field. Once that line is blurred, the legislation surrounding online casino games could very quickly bring the oh-so-critical massively multiplayer genre to an abrupt halt. This is, as I understand it, the fundamental reason why Blizzard doesn't allow trading of World of Warcraft items and characters for real money, why tournaments with cash rewards are regarded cautiously, and why in-game simulated casino games between players, for virtual game currency, are strictly banned. The mischaracterisation of WoW as an online casino game is the spectre haunting the massively multiplayer segment of the industry; it seems inevitable that sooner or later there will be public debate about what these games can and cannot do; and, regrettably, every passing quarter it seems more likely, and more worrying. Because exposing children to adult concepts is another taboo, be it within the microcosm, or without.
0 Responses:
Post a Comment