Consent of the Governed

[MAWorking]

Repeatedly, the developers have found themselves for having failed to deliver on "promises" they didn't even remember making. "[Class X] is a formidable fighter" is a disposable piece of marketing fluff to the developer, but to the player who reads it and bases on it his picture of the character of Class X he will create in the game, it represents a solemn promise. And so the developer and the player stare at each other in mutual incomprehension, unable to grasp why the other cannot see the blatantly obvious truth of their position, brought to stammering, incomprehensible rage by the other's obtuse refusal to talk *sense*.

The developer simply wants to make the game, do something interesting for a living, and make money. The player simply wants to play the game, hang out with their friends, and have fun.

You talk about the implied social contract, and I do agree that this exists, but excuse me if I view this as an article pointing out the reaction, but not the cause.

You yourself dropped the CSR to the lowest level of the chain. The one (or group) that actually has communication with the players.

The issue isnt they don't understand each other.... the issue is false expectations.

The break down starts early with the description.
"[Class X] is a formidable fighter"
And allowed to fester and grow over the time from announcement, through testing to release.

Marketing gurus and the King/Dictator throw out the term "formidable" and "fighter" and leave it there for players to ponder for months on end.

Left unaddressed, formidable becomes a physical size... a giant of a player, or one that is hardy. Fighter becomes a dual sword wielding ninja type or a complete and utter tank of a player.

Are they accurate? Who knows? No one bothered to try and paint a more realistic description. The false expectation of the player is allowed to wander through the world of creativity and dreaming with no one to say, no thats not true.

In my opinion, the issue isn't the command chain or the lack of the right hand talking to the left. The issue has been the inability of developers to address the expectations of the players.

Let them dream and they will create a world of their own. Leave it unanswered, and they will eventually feel cheated... the promise was broken... their false expectations allowed to become reality and ultimately the social contract is broken.

The CSR, the marketer or the Community Manager must not only identify the expectations, but address them and put them to bed early, with no dinner.... The CSR is low man on the poll, when reality is they should be the center of the hub... the one person, or group, that knows all, and knows all to distribute it in a meaningful way.

[Gor'bladz]

I have heard and read many different essays that try to make analogies between some facet of online roleplaying games and real world governments. I generally don’t buy any of them. I’ll grant you the very last point that you try to make, if only in a narrow way. Game companies can do well if they adopt some of the PR and political organization techniques of real governments. But you can say the same thing about guilds, and about supermarkets, and about professional sports teams, and about a dozen other organizations that deal with the public.

Yes, there are similarities between governments and game companies. Yes, some of the best practices of each will overlap. But you are stretching the point greatly when you try to draw a map between all the various different game company functions and real world government functions. Game companies are not governments. Game players are not governed by game companies. Fundamentally, the relationship between game companies and players is not one of government and governed. While there are some superficial similarities, those are mostly obvious, and it really doesn’t enlighten us very much to have those pointed out. I would find it more instructive and interesting to discuss how the relationship is different, or more to the point how the relationship is unique in our experience.

Probably the biggest reason I hate discussing game issues from the context of governments is that it always seems to encourage people to try to make the wrong analogies. They try to take real world government and legal issues like freedom of expression and right to due process and erroneous claim these therefore apply in their gaming actions

[MAWorking]

Political tactics are nothing more then marketing and getting the word out. It is influencing, often educating, an opinion in your favor.

Much like what I said above... it is all about expectations.

And I agree... take on some of the political tactics. Poll, survey and ask questions of the player base. Ensure that your vision is infact being seen the way you want it to be... and as it really is.

[mikedsc]

I've always wondered why people deviated from the idea that the Coders are Gods, not Legislators.

For ease of use and effectiveness of analogy, let's say the Coders are the Gods of Greece and the players are the denizens of the Aegean. The Gods demand tribute in the form of burnt sacrifice. Coders want their money. Gods occasionally walk incognito through their lands. So do Coders. Gods like to play with their subjects and continue getting worship. So do Coders. Theoretically, had the Gods collectively decided that Gravity shouldn't be around, everyone would be floating around. Coders have the same power.

You can switch Coders for Developers or Designers however you wish.

You exist at the mercy of these nebulous figures that only appear to True Heroes. They can annihilate you at whim with a thunderbolt. They can turn the world off. These guys aren't the government. They're ABOVE kings and presidents. Kings and presidents quake in fear because that same thunderbolt might be headed for them too.

The only difference is simple: the Coders really want those burnt offerings, and they have to somehow coerce them out of the denizen Players. That's the rub that makes people think governments are better analogies.

[Bear]

Originally posted by mikedsc
I've always wondered why people deviated from the idea that the Coders are Gods, not Legislators.

For ease of use and effectiveness of analogy, let's say the Coders are the Gods of Greece and the players are the denizens of the Aegean. The Gods demand tribute in the form of burnt sacrifice. Coders want their money. Gods occasionally walk incognito through their lands. So do Coders. Gods like to play with their subjects and continue getting worship. So do Coders. Theoretically, had the Gods collectively decided that Gravity shouldn't be around, everyone would be floating around. Coders have the same power.

You can switch Coders for Developers or Designers however you wish.

You exist at the mercy of these nebulous figures that only appear to True Heroes. They can annihilate you at whim with a thunderbolt. They can turn the world off. These guys aren't the government. They're ABOVE kings and presidents. Kings and presidents quake in fear because that same thunderbolt might be headed for them too.

The only difference is simple: the Coders really want those burnt offerings, and they have to somehow coerce them out of the denizen Players. That's the rub that makes people think governments are better analogies.

Um.....with one problem. Real gods need not worry about their worshipers jumping ship and moving to another universe, leaving them high and dry and offering-less.

Bear

[Nom]

Originally posted by Bear
Um.....with one problem. Real gods need not worry about their worshipers jumping ship and moving to another universe, leaving them high and dry and offering-less.Um... Which 'real gods'.

From a monotheistic world view there is one 'real god' over everything. Whether people acknowledge him/her/it or not they are still subject to the god.

From a polytheistic world view there are many 'real gods'. Indeed, people can offer loyalty from one god or another in exchange from protection from other gods. Sounds very much like 'leaving them high and dry and offering-less'.

From a mystical world view gods are just subjective ways of viewing a transient and/or illusionary reality that people attempt to step beyond.

From a naturalistic world view there are no gods - anything that is not subject to repeatable scientific testing is subjective.