First off, I would like to congratulate you on having the foresight to experiment with the future recognition of player rights in virtual property. Im curious Mr. Smedley if this service was a way to prepare SOE for the very likely possibility that virtual game players will be deemed to have some measure of rights in virtual property they "create". I think in some measure it is, and I salute you, for once again proving that you are ahead of the curve. (despite what some might say
)
A couple points and questions on this:
1. The possibilities are limitless for game developers who realize that allowing their players to own and trade in game virtual property are limitless. It is the future.
2. Did you consider the potentially negative effects these RMT servers would have on any future legal battles regarding players virtual property rights? (ie SOE has all but recognized they exist and that such rights are valuable) I have not read the contracts or EULA's for that server, but as I have argued in other posts on this board, they are meaningless if they fail to recognize the virtual property rights of the player. They might as well be ripped, torn and burned for multiple reasons which I wont explain because I get paid to do that, but im sure SOE is aware.
3. It appears that one of your main arguments against some form of widespread recognition of player virtual rights is that a game must be designed with such capability from the start. I think that very well may be valid, but for different reasons than you stated in the interview. I think game developers should be held to bear some responsability for the stability of a virtual world, a world where its players share in the ownership of the virtual property. It can work.
