Blizzard, Hong Kong, and the Question of Ownership in Digital Games
What do you do when they control all the cards?
Blizzard has indicated its pro-Chinese stance on the current political struggle in Hong Kong. This highlights an issue regarding ownership in digital games: Blizzard (like other game companies) controls all digital assets associated with their IP. Hearthstone is one example, with many players accumulating large collections of arguably valuable digital playing cards. If players become disillusioned with Blizzard, there is no recourse. Physical trading card games like Magic: The Gathering involve physical card ownership. Blizzard’s Hearthstone does not, even though digital cards can have similar values. This raises the follow up question, “is there a better way?”. My opinion is yes, and it leverages blockchain technology. One exciting example is Gods Unchained, an Ethereum blockchain-based game. The game is currently in open beta (referral link).
Opinions are my own, I’m not affiliated with any company mentioned in this article
Blizzard has joined the growing number of high-profile companies and organizations criticized recently for bending to Chinese government influence. The specific incident involved penalizing a professional Hearthstone player for supporting the Hong Kong protests in an interview, banning him from future tournaments and revoking his winnings.
The overarching political struggle between pro-democracy protesters and the Communist Party of China is undoubtedly a massive touchstone political event of our generation. It also highlights another, somewhat orthogonal issue involving ownership of digital assets in centralized video game ecosystems. I’m not qualified whatsoever to offer analysis on the protests or the political nuances, but you should go read more about the situation and consider helping however you can.
Read more about the protests in Hong Kong:
What I do feel qualified to do is provide commentary on is the issue of ownership in games that’s been highlighted by this situation, which I’ll get in to in the following.
Ownership in centralized games
What does it mean to own something in a video game? Up to this point we’ve been sailing in mostly uncharted waters, with game companies holding the cards in terms of ultimate power. No mater how much money you spend within in-game economies, companies like Blizzard can revoke your access at-will with bans or account deletions in response to violations of End User License Agreements. There are other game companies besides Blizzard that this applies to, however Blizzard is unique in that it owns many popular online games, including Overwatch, Hearthstone, World of Warcraft, and StarCraft.
EULAs, unlike laws created by governments, exist exclusively to protect or increase the profits of the companies who write them. Even if your World of Warcraft account is potentially worth thousands of dollars, you don’t ultimately control any of the assets and you are always operating at the whims of hopefully benevolent dictators.
In addition to not having any real control over the value you’ve attained or bought, most EULAs prohibit you from selling or otherwise receiving monetary compensation from your in-game assets. Selling accounts is usually a big no-no, punishable by bans and account deletion.
It should be noted that not all online games completely disallow you from profiting via in game assets. The first-person shooter Counter Strike has historically been a game where purely cosmetic ‘skins’ could be sold for real money. RuneScape, a browser-based MMO, allows players to buy memberships using in-game currency. However, the ultimate control over these economies ultimately resides with the companies who made the games. If individuals ever find themselves in opposition to the values of those companies, they are powerless to do anything, including moving their generated or purchased assets elsewhere.
No matter what they say, game companies exist to make money for themselves, which at best only indirectly aligns them with the values of their player base.
Ownership in decentralized games
What is the alternative? Almost all games operate under the principles of ownership outlined above, namely that players don’t really own or have control over anything. We’ve recently seen some advancements made in other arenas regarding the idea that users own the data they generate online, but these ideas haven’t really made it to mainstream gaming.
An alternative to central organizations or companies that control the value generated by individuals is to move that value into a decentralized system, not implicitly tied to a single organization. To some readers, this is obviously hinting at several of the core value-propositions of blockchain technology, but even if you’re not a hardcore cryptocurrency enthusiast it’s still possible to see the value in being able to manage in-game value outside of any central authorities and instead give control to the players who are generating the value in the first place.
The idea of building games using blockchain tech is not new, and various examples have been evolving since the very early days of Bitcoin. An in-depth exploration of blockchain games is out of the scope of this, but a pretty good overview can be found here.
The types of blockchain games that are exciting to me involve a specific idea in the blockchain world known as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Again, a more in-depth/better overview is available here, but the basic idea enables unique ‘tokens’ to be assigned ownership to individuals. These tokens can be anything, and an early well-known example of this type of blockchain-based game is CryptoKitties.
The game-play aspects of something like CryptoKitties is obviously lacking for those of us coming from games like those in the Blizzard ecosystem, but it was only a matter of time before that idea was expanded upon and used in other game archetypes. Several games in this category have followed the pioneering felines, but in my opinion one of the most exciting use cases is digital trading card games. Also in my opinion, the best example of that so far is the online trading card game, Gods Unchained.
Gods Unchained
Coming from the world of Hearthstone, Gods Unchained is especially familiar. The game-play follows a similar curve, and most of the mechanics are shared. This ends up being pretty awesome. Gods Unchained takes most of what makes Hearthstone easy and fun game-play-wise, and adds a whole bunch more in terms of meta-game mechanics and card economy. Some key highlights include:
- Collectable, provably unique cards
- Super rare and valuable single cards (one sold for $64,000!)
- A free-to-play model that allows players to ‘play-to-earn, generating real monetary value from effort spent playing
- An incredibly active and engaged balance team
- Really nicely polished art and assets
- A fun and supportive community
- A pledge to pay Hearthstone player ‘Blitzchung’ his lost winnings
If your reaction to Blizzard’s handling of recent events was anything like mine, then you’re now in a place where you don’t want anything to do with their games anymore, but also itching for a better system, one where you don’t have to just walk away from all the time, effort, and money you’ve put into a game because of the shitty actions of an indifferent international company ever again. I think Gods Unchained is a big step in the direction of having that type of system, and if you’re anything like me you’ll be game to give it a shot.
Check out the open beta here.
📝 Read this story later in Journal.
👩💻 Wake up every Sunday morning to the week’s most noteworthy stories in Tech waiting in your inbox. Read the Noteworthy in Tech newsletter.
