Moral Obligations and MMOs

In the threads about Super Packs, I've seen a few people point out that it's the Dev's job to make money for the company, and that that's the reason the game exists. It is NOT their job to make us happy, unless that makes more money than making us unhappy.

True enough, I guess.

It got me to thinking, though. If the Devs of any MMO (and game itself) have no moral obligations to the players, then what moral obligations do the players have to those Devs and their game?

This isn't a question of right and wrong, that's another issue. What I'm asking is what people like us should consider ourselves obligated to do FOR the MMOs and Devs of said games we play?

If we know of an exploit but we're not using it, do we still have a duty to report it? If we're on a test server, do we have a responsibility to actually test instead of just mess around and have fun? If we find a bug in-game, do we need to report it?

The Devs are there to make money, but the players are paying that money to enjoy themselves. At what point should a player feel that they need to stop having fun and help the Devs with the game in some way?

Again, this isn't about right or wrong, nor is it about how we deal with other players. Being a jerk to players OR Devs is wrong. Abusing an exploit is wrong. I'm just wondering where people think we can draw the line that allows us to shrug our shoulders and say "Not my problem, I'm here to enjoy myself".

((PS: It's late and I'm tired. Sorry if I rambled a bit. It's hard to get the exact question into words when I'm about to faceplant onto my keyboard.))

I think the simplest answer is that the players and Devs all want what is best for the game. We are all here because we like COH, and that's what should be kept in mind. When it comes to exploits, no. No one should feel any obligation to report anything.

Are you paying the Devs to play their game, or are they paying you to test it? That being said, some might feel inclined to help with that sort of thing. I myself have sent in many bug reports, the most recent of which being the TPN crash issue, but that was only because it derailed my playing experience.

What it boils down to is, if you feel the need to report a bug, go for it. If you honestly think that you can do something to help make the game better and/or expand its longevity, and you enjoy playing the game, you might feel an obligation to yourself to do everything you can to support the game that you care about. Other than that though, see the second paragraph of this post.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions, and are responsible for only their decisions.

I could quit because I dislike super packs, or I could merely dissent over super packs and continue to play.

I have no obligation to continue playing and they have no obligation to continue providing service. It's in their EULA, bascially, they can do whatever they want.

Of course, they will consider what we think into their decision process because A) most people are generally good and B) they want to continue to make us happy so we continue to provide them revenue.

I've left behind my sense of moral obligation long ago. Some things may be frustrating or upsetting, but morally obligated? I'm pretty sure they can do whatever they want, and so can I, in a sense. But luckily, we like playing, and they like improving the game. So, as long as continue in that same direction, I'll probably still be here.

Moral Obligations and video games...hmm..not seeing the connection.

Paragon is producing a product. When a player decides said product is worth paying for, money changes hands. Assuming we're not interested in picking nits about attached legalities, responsibility to one another largely ends there.

Morality doesn't begin to factor in. One may love the game, but the studio doesn't love them back for it.

A vendor/customer relationship exists between game owners & players in which all the obligations are spelled out in the EULA. I am not emotionally attached to the vendors to do anything more for them than pay their fee; obey their rules & adhere to the laws that protect their product. Beyond that, you do what you will because you want to.

On beta server, I actively test, looking for bugs, errors, omissions, and ways to improve the product & I report back to them on my findings. I do this because I like doing it - no moral issues involved.

No moral issues involved in my disapproval with the super packs - I simply will not spend $$$ beyond the normal subscription fee, not @ CoH nor for any of the iOS games on my iTouch. It is a budgetary pact I have with myself. No moral issues involved.

The morals issues you may want to consider are those involving player to player contact. But that maybe is for a different discussion topic.

There are no moral obligations on either side. The only obligations are those agreed to by contract in the EULA and such.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be guided by morality when playing the game or interacting with Paragon employees (or vice versa.) That's a matter of conscience, not obligation.

the term "Moral obligations" is an oxymoron.

Something that is morally correct can never be an obligation. It must be a choice.
If you force someone to do the right thing, it's just as bad as forcing them to do the wrong thing.

You're under obligation to QA the game when you're drawing a paycheck from NCSoft to QA the game.

WARNING: I bold names.

Whose morals would they be obliged to follow?

The "controversy" around the super packs is that some people believe Gambling Is Wrong, even sinful. Obviously this is not a widely held belief, otherwise Native Americans would be running malls, not casinos, and Las Vegas would not be as ridiculously successful as it is.

Then there are people who believe women in skimpy clothing is immoral. Does Paragon have a moral obligation to them?

The problem of figuring out whose morals to follow aside, the only obligation a studio has is to create a product that enough people enjoy and want to spend money on that the studio turns a profit. Sometimes morality gets involved in that, when so many people are disgusted that profits are significantly threatened, but it's not a necessary component of the economic equation.

IMHO, most of the social contracts that make up the cultural mores of a decent and sustainable people are in tatters due to the rugged individualism De Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America. I could say more but it would likely get my post edited if I haven't said too much already. But my parting thought on this topic: there is much more to living life than making money, and shared enterprises, organized as corporations or otherwise, should reach for nobler goals than mere monetary profits.

^It's actually not as bad as people write about, since media focus always tends to be shifted on negatives. Those guys in small communities who'll watch your house for you... no one ever writes about them. Contrast that to thousands of years ago where the idea being sustaining social contracts was to kill those who disagreed with the group.


Anyway, what I would say has been said by others. No other obligations than those in the EULA (for those who bother to agree to it). There is, of course, a correlation between making money and making the players happy.