This may be a synthetic worlds version of 'Edict of Nantes' decreed by King Henry IV in 1598, France. The history after the Edict of Nantes shows us the Divorce of King (ie the Publsher) and the Pope (ie the Developer), the Secularization of Politics (Playing) compared to the renewal of the Catholic church (traditional Gaming), the emergence of legal person or incorporation (ie the Virtual Commune) in accordance with market & cities growing, and revolutions and civil or people's right (the Glorous revolution, the American revolution, the French revolution, the Russian revolution) that brings spring of the Modern, and the fall of the Middle ages. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation.

Consider a starter scenario, what if we can now wonder the possibility of fiscal drains for game worlds. What if, for example, developers levied transaction fees, payable in the currency of the world? Wisely crafted, could one build a *world fiscal policy* that is immersion friendly? In-game trades are protected, those lured to jump the grind queue enter a "meta-immersive" (real-world aware) state to execute simple accounting and ledger cultivation, and while they are at it, thank you sir, pay a bit for the betterment of all.

I think the more interesting aspect of this will be the response of the player community. Those who use IGE to trade Sony-related assets will obviously start using the Sony marketplace (more secure, less fraud, will presumably be priced competitively). But what of those who, like Ted, actually seem to care about role playing, and who see asset-trading as an evil foist on the world by the like of Brock Pierce? (I'm assuming that these guys actually exist, and the statements on the webboards to this effect are genuine. On the one hand this may seem like technical arcanum, but note that we all often pretend this point in our discussions and comments on Terra Nova and elsewhere. It is how most of us conceptualize a simulation.

I'm not sure what I think about this. If nothing else it puts paid to the old chestnut that Sony was actually responding to player preferences by forbidding trading in virtual assets. It turns out that they're functional equivalent to the RIAA: they want to ban the technology until they have a way to control it and monetize it. The knock-on effects are going to be most interesting. Will PayPal be forced to recognise this form of virtual object (as Julian has pointed out, they don't have a problem with other forms of virtual stuff). I submit for your comments the idea that the reason many developers have a hard time finding anything of value not only from researchers, but often from their own players, is that they are, in effect, seeing a different world, all the time. They looked friendly enough--at least, no one had fruit ready to throw at us.

This is a bad move for gamers because it breaks the social contract inherent in competition. It may be a good short-term move for SOE in that it will rationalize and decriminalize the problem of virtual property distribution, but there's strong potential for the cure to be worse than the disease. A gross-level analogy by way of example: Thor and Biff meet on the PvP field of battle. Both are skilled players and both have the same amount of knowledge. Thor, however, in real life is a 50-year old dentist who makes $85,000 a year. Biff is an undergraduate at Generic State U. with $12,000 and counting in student loans. Thor thus has the +5 Sword of Noggin-nocking, while Biff has the +1 Sword of Thrift.

Before we see the system in action it is difficult to know what the consequences are going to be. In the sort term this could be good news for SOE customers (well those that want to trade), if SOE takes responsibility for transaction tracking and customer service. That is, we know that one up-shot of MMOs is a rise of old crimes revolving around new objects. While SOE's move will not help in crimes of virtual passion like we saw in China recently, they might help with the various forms of scamming that we see. I submit for your comments the idea that the reason many developers have a hard time finding anything of value not only from researchers, but often from their own players, is that they are, in effect, seeing a different world, all the time.

[Eds: Professor Edward "Ted" Castronova was told of Sony's announcement and immediately slipped into some kind of a fugue state. Currently resident in the University of Indiana's Secure Psychiatric Facility, he is officially unable to comment. However the enterprising editorial team at Terra Nova managed to insert an embedded journalist into the facility. This journalist--known only by his nom de joue "Dr Bombay"--managed to convince the orderlies that he was at least as insane as Dr Castronova. He refuses to explain how he managed to infiltrate the facility, but it seems that if you advise the IRS that your main source of income was selling imaginary assets, you will be committed.

We're all doomed. I told you so damn firk dink blast. Obviously too, of course, that cost fluctuates according to the player’s mindset. A farmer, for instance, will only value his goods in terms of their real-world price, while a hardcore role-player might be so unlikely ever to eBay her stuff that its effective opportunity cost must be discounted almost to zero. A programming language and a programming paradigm can shape how we engineer a world. As with our natural languages perhaps there is a cognitive dimension, but without having to even reach that far it is safe to say that engineering practices establish approaches to problem-solving that bias solutions.

We thought this was such a Terra Nova moment that we all should have a chance to comment, in a kind of virtual roundtable. Here are initial thoughts of as many Terra Novans as we could afford to fly to our hunting blind in the undisclosed location: It hurts all the time now. And I know why. It’s WoW. I thought it was just me then I read Tanya Krzywinska’s latest “Hardcore” piece over at DiGRA where she talks about WoW and “the toleration of aching shoulders”.

In other news today, Daniel Terdiman also reports that the consumer-side of There is being spun out of its military uses by a couple of its execs. Whether it can thrive outside the military simulation market is an open question (it had a bad time of it last year, and since then Second Life has become much stronger). I for one hope that it takes off. I've always had a soft spot for There.