User Generated Game Content: Watching the Sandbox

Electronic Arts’ Spore was finally on the brink of release after years of development. The system was complete, the game's "cell to civilization" game play finalized, and the servers were up and running. The only thing missing in Spore's “universe” were creatures to inhabit it. Instead of standard procedure of having internal artists and designers put together creatures, Spore was designed with the goal of not only giving the players control of their world, but having their creations appear throughout the galaxy. The designers had done their work in creating the procedures and rules that would govern how the creatures moved from the ground up, making all the pieces fit together. Within weeks of the creation tool's release, over a million creatures had been created and uploaded to the servers. At the same time, people had begun creating configurations with crude depictions of genitalia and other objectionable content. EA began banning and removing the creatures as they found them or as they were flagged offensive by the community.

The novelty of user-generated content arises from the classic complaint that, “I could do better than that.” Everyone wants the chance to be the director, and now that developers can make a viable framework for other people can create in, it’s no wonder that some of the most popular and most promoted titles are cast in that mold. However, the “brave new sandboxes” that game designers are building (and letting their players loose in) have more than a few patches of quicksand, which present brand-new challenges to the companies trying to keep control of this virtual performance space.

The fact is, members of the gaming community tend to push the limits of the spaces they’ve been given. Give players the opportunity to modify a game, and they’ll create new material, new graphics, and even create new genres for the same game. One of the most popular additions to first-person-shooter Half Life 2 is the simply titled “Garry’s Mod” which turns the action-adventure game into a open environment where players can go wild with the game’s physics engine, freely manipulating the world’s objects and characters. The cycle of content feeds on itself, and can keep up a constant stream of new creations for quite a long time. At the same time, users push other limits as well- good taste, common sense, and even copyright law.

Companies have little choice but to respond with broad efforts at controlling the content. Their terms of service are encyclopedic, requiring that users relinquish all potential intellectual property rights and indemnify them against any claims of intellectual property infringement brought by third parties. Furthermore, companies are quick to err on the side of taking content down, using both actual agents and autonomous computer scripts to either flag content for review or remove it outright.

 Though the Communications Decency Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act offer broad protections if properly attended to, game developers in this genre can leave themselves vulnerable to third party claims as a result of user conduct- someone making a Guitar Hero: World Tour song that mimics a current hit, or a Spore creature that looks like a Super Mario Bros. character. Moreover, developers of titles that are accessible worldwide through the internet must conform to the content restrictions of every country where the game is accessible.

While the Grand Theft Auto series has always been controversial, one of their more recent firestorms may have been stirred up unintentionally. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, a game initially bearing a Mature rating from the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB), the game industry's ratings board, came under fire when players who picked through the game’s code found hidden, unused, and highly sexual content that was inaccessible in the main game. Those players then released a mod of the game which integrated the sexual content into standard gameplay. The “Hot Coffee” mod was named after the original, unused, trigger.  The game’s protagonist was invited in for coffee, leading to an interactive sequence of sexual intercourse. The controversy raised outcry from parents and legislators, and eventually resulted in the game being re-rated Adults Only until a new version of the disk could be released with the offending content completely expunged.  In 2006, a class action suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District alleging consumer fraud.  After a year of negotiation a $35 million settlement had been reached.  At the eleventh hour, the settlement was objected to and the class was decertified, forcing aggrieved parties to, after years in court, start from scratch with individual claims.

 For online game creations, the ESRB has already effectively surrendered- attaching their disclaimer of “Online Experience May Change During Play” as the sole warning as to the potential content. This little phrase is all that’s there to encapsulate the entire online world- including all of the game’s players and their creations. Even if  this disclaimer proves effective, if Spore or Little Big Planet has its reputation ruined or its rating challenged, the potential damage to their sales could be tremendous. Wal-Mart has become one of the biggest retailers of video games in the US, and they refuse to stock Adults Only games on their shelves. As the rating rises, the potential audience shrinks dramatically.

The editing situation, from the player's point of view quickly becomes volatile and frustrating. Terms of service and the license agreements carve out space for companies to take down content without specifying a specific reason. The automated scripts used to keep up can sweep too broad a net- a Spore user with a sense of humor at the original rush of explicit content created a relatively ordinary creature (by Spore standards) with the title “Not A Penis.”  That user received a take-down and temporary suspension in short order.  When an average gamer receives a take-down notice, especially one perceived as unfair, it’s may be enough to stop them from playing, much less contributing.

A disintegrating player base has the potential to be just as disastrous as a legal challenge or a publicity nightmare. The loop is simple; More players means more content, keeping current players happy. Besides, in today’s linked-in world, people end up purchasing and playing “that new thing I saw my friend playing all month.” If everyday players get upset, the first people to be effected will likely be the most prolific creators. Lose enough creators, and the loop can collapse and kill the game.

The dilemma is balancing the players’ sense of what they should be entitled to with what the companies can provide. The feedback that the players get comes almost entirely from popularity within the community. Popular users cultivate fans, and sometimes receive perks: popular song creators on Guitar Hero: World Tour receive additional upload slots to put more of their creations online, for example. This kind of recognition is essential, but also part of the problem. People on Youtube still post current, copyrighted shows in violation of the terms of service, have them taken down for infringement, and re-post them in cycles because while they are up, the clips are always highly watched. Even on large services, the potential for a small number of people to manipulate the ratings, or drive off competition by flagging their works for moderation, is a major obstacle in trying to make the rewards for top creators substantial. Most of all, only so much of the effort of community management can be automated, compared to the moderation side.

So with the stakes high, the developers push against 'content violations', and the players make what's popular and push back. Players will keep bending or breaking the rules, both for their own amusement and for popularity, and the battle continues.  None of the developers have discussed their process for the take-downs in depth, nor the operational cost. There's no doubt that this format is popular- Spore’s one million sales in its first month show that much. The question is how long can the developers keep the balance, and whether it's worth the risk.

 

Comments

[kamagra online]

From the outset had no legacy to leave us Mario Bros, that's good for console games like Mario All Stars SNES or Mario Car, Super Mario March. Blog real good all this great happiness.

[coach outlet]

Um...like the style of your writing.

[coach outlet]

In my opinion, most certifications (i.e. Microsoft, A+, etc.) are useless pieces of paper that, at most, show somebody spent some time scanning through books or sample tests and can regurgitate answers to questions that might appear on a "certification" exam.

Hands-on industry experience is far more valuable and useful in the real world. It proves (1) that you indeed possess sufficient knowledge of a given topic/technology, and, (2) if you are confronted with a problem or situation in which you lack expertise, you are resourceful enough to obtain (whether it be via colleagues, reading manuals, conducting web research, calling vendor support, etc.) the information necessary to arrive at an effective solution.

[coach handbags]

faulty logic-- swooning over a character in a movie doesn't equal hitting on someone. men of all ages have been drooling over the likes of britney spears (when she first came out), taylor swift, and even dakota fanning now for ages. megan fox is something like 23 and i know for a fact that 40 year old men make no secret of wanting to bang her stupid.

as for cradle-robbing relationships, most girls i know date older guys, whereas dudes tend to date younger. way younger. case in point: a 32 year old male friend dating a 20 year old girl. for that matter, that same friend and i had sexy times and he's six years older than i am.

[cheap nike shox]

This is a very good idea! Just want to say thank you for the information, you have to share. Just continue to write such a position. I will be your faithful reader. Thank you again.