Game over

There’s a fine line to be drawn between doing a topic to death and contributing something worthwhile to an ongoing debate, especially one that’s been so widely and consistently covered as Linden Lab’s relationship with its users, however i’ve been pondering something of a new line of enquiry – for me, anyway – that i thought you might like to consider.

Since an awful lot of the current feeling from the residents’ camp seems to be running along the lines of ‘The Lab are plain crazy and are pursuing a path of utter madness’, to which the Lab’s response has been, well… nothing, i’ve been running a few scenarios through my head in an attempt to try to find whether there’s anything at all that might explain what is really going on, and – rather fittingly, you may think – i’ve come up with Game Theory.

i’m not going to go into Game Theory in any depth, like so many theories, it can get insanely complex and i find that it’s usually much better to stick with the basics. (For example: String Theory – the universe is held together by bits of string; Theory of Relativity – the universe is held together by your relatives; Theory of Evolution – it’s always evolving, etc). Game Theory is used across multiple disciplines, particularly the social sciences, economics, business and, of course, gaming and is concerned with the rules that govern how people interact to achieve a desired outcome.

Let me give you a very basic and simple example of Game Theory in action…

We’ll take 2 people, let’s call person ‘A’ Lynne Donn, and person ‘B’ Rosie Dent. We’ll put them in separate rooms and offer them a million bucks, subject to the following rules:

  1. If both Lynne and Rosie elect to share, they’ll both get half the money;
  2. If either Lynne or Rosie elects to share, and the other elects not to share, then the money goes to the selfish one and the other gets nothing;
  3. If both Lynne and Rosie choose not to share, neither will get a penny.

In this scenario, Game Theory suggests that the best strategy is always for both to choose to share – that way nobody loses. It doesn’t preclude taking other options, but to do so introduces significant elements of uncertainty and risk, and with them a whole range of other variables that need to be considered, including circumstance and human nature. Anyone who’s ever watched ‘Golden Balls’, or perhaps ‘Deal or No Deal’, will understand exactly how this works.

Let’s apply this sort of thinking to sl and Linden Lab: Both residents and Lab have historically been ostensibly in the same position, that is, one of mutual benefit and gain. As long as the Lab provided and maintained the sl platform for the benefit of the residents, the residents would build the world, populate it and provide an income stream for the Lab – a win/win situation equivalent to Lynne and Rosie sharing their cash – an assumption that the residents have always made. Unfortunately for us, it’s a false premise that fails to take into account that, unlike Lynne and Rosie who are, as far as we know, equals, there is a fundamental inequality between the Lab and sl users that we need to take into consideration.

Imagine for a moment that Lynne is already a multi-millionaire and that Rosie is destitute: This changes the relationship between the two in a manner that is likely skewed against Rosie. It’s probable that Lynne will opt not to share, since the risk for her is low – a million bucks would be nice, but it’s not going to be the life-changing sum that it represents for Rosie, much less 500,000 if she was to share. Rosie, on the other hand is almost fated to lose – whether she thinks big and risks going for the lot, or plays things cautiously and shares, the chances are she’ll go home with nothing because the game is weighted in Lynne’s favour. Of course, neither Lynne nor Rosie knows this, but Lynne still has the overall advantage and knows that her element of risk is comparatively low.

The same is true of the relationship between us and LL – we are not equals in a partnership; the Lab always has always had the upper hand. If that doesn’t feel right to you then consider who ultimately has the power of veto – it’s the Lab that controls the servers, the Lab who have the ability to throw the ‘off’ switch and, more recently, the Lab who have started to call the shots about third party viewers and now have full control over the ‘shared user experience’. They resonate with Lynne, whilst we are the destitute and desperate Rosie on the other side, hoping against hope that Lynne will do ‘the right thing’ and give us the break we ‘deserve’ – misplaced faith in the benevolence of human nature might offer us a grain of hope but Game Theory predicts that we’re stuffed!

There are those who might suggest that it makes no sense for the Lab to ‘take the money and run’ and that may well have been true in the past, but times have changed. Linden Lab is no longer a one-trick pony – they’re diversifying and exploring the market and even if we all quit and moved to Opensim tomorrow, the loss of sl wouldn’t necessarily spell the end for LL. Indeed, as the poor Rosies in this infernal partnership, it seems that we’re in a no-win situation: If we do stick around, it’s unlikely that we’ll be happy with the sl of the future, if indeed it survives – alternatively, if we choose to do what so many are advocating and start investing our time and energy into other virtual platforms, then we’re sending a powerful signal to the Lab that it makes perfect sense to deprecate sl and invest their own time and money into more popular and profitable ventures – if there’s falling numbers and less investment in the virtual economy, then what incentive is there to the Lab to maintain sl?

There is another – somewhat uncomfortable and unpredictable – option; one which breaks the rules and introduces a whole new element of risk. What happens if Rosie refuses to play the game, walks away and refuses to let the end result be decided until she’s good and ready? It’s a risky strategy, but it’s a perfectly valid one. What if we refused to be cowed by the Lab’s strategy, began investing in sl as we never have before, shouted about the good things on the social networks and in the blogosphere, engaged with the Steamers and worked with them to create environments that they would want to use, kicked the griefers and hasslers out of the welcome areas and gave noobs a proper inworld introduction, even – God-forbid – reached out to the vampire and zombie communities outside sl and told them what sl can do for them? What if we, the residents, could make sl the place it can still potentially be, despite the difficulties and the lack of co-operation from the Lab? It is within our power… dare i say, ‘your world – your imagination’? Or is it simply a risk that we just don’t have what it takes to even try? There’s no guarantee it would work, but neither is there any guarantee that it won’t – sometimes you just have to make your own rules.

It may be a virtual world… but who say’s it’s not a game?

s. x

Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games
Hiding out in tree-tops shouting out rude names
-Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside
-Whistling tunes we piss on the goons in the jungle
It’s a knockout
Peter Gabriel – Games Without Frontiers

This entry was posted in Linden Love, Philosophicalisticality, RL, SL. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Game over

  1. There is, as always, a third player in the game. In your example it is the person asking the questions (and contributing the million dollars). For SL it is the investors, those with significant RL money in the business.
    One way for Rosie to increase her chances is to team with other Rosies and buy into the game. Is it possible we could do the same? Crowdsource?
    Just say’n 🙂

    • That’s something i did consider throwing into the mix, but i decided not to get into things too deeply! You’re absolutely right and i wouldn’t rule out the prospect of a resident-based or third party developer ‘buy-out’ becoming a possible future for sl – although i don’t imagine we’d ever be free of the Lab’s hardware, or for that matter, an ongoing cost for its use.

      s. x

  2. Clever. And I concur (and please tell me how I can kick the griefers and hasslers out of the not-so-welcoming Welcome Areas! I’ll be glad to do it personally.).

    The bellyachers bray loud and long, but in the end they offer nothing but negativity and calls to mutiny. I have no respect for their “get out and let them die” rhetoric. Second Life is a great thing worth investing in with a positive attitude, despite the inequity of power. It will be interesting to see what happens with the influx of Steam subscribers, as well.

    • Precisely my point, Caliburn – there are loads of people who want to clean up the welcome areas, as there are plenty who want to develop sl from within, but it seems that we’re not much good at turning good intentions into actions.

      It’ll be extremely interesting to see whether Steam brings some fresh life and ideas into sl – i can’t help feeling a little apprehensive about it though – not so much what it’ll bring to sl, but rather what might happen if the Steam community turn up their noses at our virtual world!


  3. I for sure think being a Premium is a advantage, the auctions on land, even if with some losses, allow me to get homes on some of the main continents, and the fact that sim crosses, at least to me and my love, are much easy now, makes the travel without teleporting a joy!
    If i could make a wish that LL would listen to, is increase the will to be premium, allowing more auctions per daily base, make sure All premium know that they can buy abandoned land and most important, make sure being a premium is important for them (If you cant dare to offend the land barons, by offerins full sims without upfront fee, offer more gifts, the idea is great behind the ones already (hoe many knew about sailing or driving before the boat and buggy where given?) and so a few more like furniture or some that will make premium stick and grab a piece of land!

    • The trouble with land is that it has to pay dividends – unless you’re well off enough not to care. If the forums and blogs are to be believed, there’s a huge number of premium and ex-premium users out there for whom tier is simply too much for too little return.

      My personal view is that premium-only incentives do little to encourage non-premium members and are of little interest to premium account holders – as you say, land, competitively priced is a fundamental sweetener that would likely encourage the uptake of premium accounts, (although there are virtual economists who would disagree!), but i get the feeling that the Lab is simply not interested in being competitive – diversification means that lower tier in Opensim or other ‘competitors’ is less of a threat to LL than it’s ever been – they’ll happily bleed us dry then let us go our way, without any qualms – that’s the trouble with holding all the high-value cards in the deck, we can fold, but they still make a profit.

      i think that LL will develop the ‘premium experience’, with more Sims and goodies exclusive to premium accounts – much as some free online games now allow players to unlock additional content, at a price – but has premium membership ever really been that significant an influence in sl, anyway?

      s. x

What do you say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s