Words, Design, and Play - Wordplay and the Discourse of Video Games - page 160

a new expansion into the game that allowed players to see more of their
characters, 9 the developer also released a new currency system that enabled
players to buy premium clothes for their characters. EVE 's original cur-
rency is ISK, but a secondary currency of PLEX was introduced to help
combat the real-money trade. PLEX of ers players a thirty-day extension to
player accounts, so players who are rich in ISK can buy more time to play
the game with currency they earn in the game. Conversely, players seeking
more in-game currency can use out of game dollars or Euros to buy PLEX,
which they can sell for ISK in EVE 's markets. This system of exchange gives
both PLEX and ISK a fl oating exchange rate with out of game currencies,
leading to frequent USD valuations of various EVE items. The newly added
currency was dubbed Aurum and is purchased by exchanging 1 PLEX for
3,500 Aurum. 10 Aurum can be spent on merchandise to accessorize your
character, including an “infamous $ 70 monocle.” 11
Players were vocal in their opposition to these decisions, but their words
were fueled by allegedly oi cial CCP communication leaked to EVE
News24. First, an internal developer newsletter titled “Greed is Good?”
outlined ideas “to squeeze more money out of players and plans for further,
game-altering microtransactions in the future.” 12 This missive sparked a
minor revolution as
EVE players complain all the time, of course—nearly every change in
the game brings some loud, vocal faction of players who dislike it. But
this time the rage has gone Titan-sized: in-game protests of hundreds,
reported subscription cancellations in the thousands . . . even players
going so far as to name and shame (and possibly shoot down in-game)
the few tens of monocle wearers. 13
The design change sparked words from both sides, which was exacerbated
by another leaked CCP document: an email CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar
Petursson allegedly sent to the CCP global mailing list. The email called
the player outrage “very predictable” and contended that “[h]aving the per-
spective of having done this for a decade, I can tell you that this is one of
the moments where we look at what our players do and less of what they
say.” 14 The position taken by CCP, while blunt, highlights the weakness of
a player's words in online disputes with game companies. It is quite easy
for players to say they are going to quit over any little issue, but whether
or not they actually quit is a matter of much greater import for developers.
Words can mean a lot in the context of wordplay, but in practice they can
also prove empty.
Rooted in a design decision that changed the economic structure of the
game and intimately tied to the intense competition among players that
drives play in the game, the Aurum controversy was driven by words.
Words from both developers and players demonstrate their feelings about
what the game is and what it should be. Tension was initially sparked by