In the linguistic shorthand of Eve-Online some minerals are said to be "rare." The rarer mineral is the scarcer one in market terms: they are more expensive than the less scarce ones (fn1). Yet minerals are much less rare than one might suppose: I know where they are, I know how to extract them, and yes, I can even arrange the logistics. But I don't do it myself. Why? Minerals in Eve-Onine are scarce for lack of another in-game resource which can be indeed quite rare in some areas: The structures that players use to manage security in Eve-Online can be substantial. MMOG experiences in general seem to revolve around metering in-game resources out to the players for an intended (game design) effect.

To my view, Eve Online extends the pattern of (C.) insisting that the organization of players and their ability to access regions is the scarce resource. It differs from (C.) in that the ostensible resources sought (minerals) are relatively abundant and would be easily obtainable were it not for other requirements. The Eve-Online variation of the problem becomes: Do I have enough logistical support ("haulers", tech, ships, etc) to make doing so cost-effective. It also includes organizational overhead: getting enough people to show up at the right place on time. Do I have enough player provided security in place to protect my operation to extract that ore. I have simplified away here two important details.

Alliances reside in 1/3 or so of the 5000 "plantary systems" (e.g. political map) that comprise the Eve Online universe. Their territory covers locations where some of the most valuable mineral ore can be found. In the lingo, alliances live in the "0.0 space." Thus, one narrow view of the alliance system in Eve-Online is as an economic and security arrangement to protect and support mining operations in those areas.

One advantage of alliances is that much of the security cost of an operation within its borders is amortized by the whole organization (see 1.-3. above). Without it, the direct cost of security at an operation site can be significant. As a for instance, operations where a beefed mining security extends well beyond the site to a convoy route is not unheard of (to guard against pirates molesting haulers). Whether directly or indirectly, all those guns have to be paid for. The alliance system helps substantially to defray those expenses by limiting their need. Yet, I'd guess most of the mining in Eve-Online is retail: a couple of guys with perhaps an "alt" (alternative character) to help out.

My plan to teach a course here at the Johnson School has blossomed into a partnership with Metaversed to present a public speaker series and website called "Metanomics." Thie series is open to anyone who wants to hear from—and engage with—academics, industry leaders, regulators and influential virtual-world residents. So far, our speakers list includes legal scholars Joshua Fairfield and Bryan Camp, the unclassifiable Ted Castronova and Julian Dibbell, Congressional Staffer Dan Miller, Second Life tycoon Anshe Chung, and senior representatives from IBM and Intel—with many, many others yet to commit. Yours truly is kicking off the series with a session entitled "Metanomics 101." This post defines metanomics, clarifies the scope and goals of the series, and asks Terra Novans for some help.

It feels somewhat silly to coin a new word, but "metanomics" does a nice job of communicating the scope of the series—and a field of study—in a single term: Metanomics = metaverse + economics. The term isn’t perfect, as this field of study is broader than just economics (it will include hefty doses of law, social science and technology), and everyone quibbles over the term "metaverse." But economics is the supremely imperialistic social science, and there is hardly anything economics haven’t laid claim to as their jurisdiction. My definition of the metaverse is equally broad—I don’t see any reason to exclude social networking sites or communication technologies like Skype from the metaverse, for example.

Residents of Second Life frequently talk about immersionist and augmentations perspectives for residents. As the name suggests, immersionists immerse themselves a truly separate second life, while augmentations add Second Life to their real life. (If anyone knows who coined these terms, please let me know.) In metanomics, we can take similar perspectives. The immersionist perspective of metanomics treats the economic issues of the metaverse in their own right, without reference to the outside world. For example, immersive metanomics might ask how the economy of EVE Online operates, for example, or how its residents resolve business disputes. The augmentations perspectives asks how the outside world might impinge upon the metaverse (by taxing virtual-world transactions, say), or how the addition of the metaverse to the business world might change how businesses operate.

Metanomics is geared toward the type of people I normally teach: executives, research-oriented doctoral students and faculty, MBA students, and the occasional undergraduate. Of course, because metanomics is so highly interdisciplinary, just about every speaker will have to bring the audience up to speed, so this will be much like a survey course. The goal of the series is not simply to have interesting people speak to in Second Life to an island that holds only 70 avatars. We want to reach everyone interested in metanomics, even if they don’t a computer with the power to run Second Life. So although events are all streamed into Second Life, and most will take place there, they will also be broadcast live on the web, courtesy of Second Life Cable Network.

Many contemporary virtual worlds draw a lot of their structure of play as well as thematic content from Diku-Muds, which I would argue in turn drew a lot of their structure and themes from pen-and-paper roleplaying games (and from early non-multiplayer computer games like Wizardry that also drew from pen-and-paper as a source). I think we sometimes do not pay enough attention to the embedded influence of pen-and-paper games on current virtual worlds, both in terms of how they are designed and in terms of some of the gamer practices and discourses that surround them. In this context, it's interesting to look at the discussions swirling around announced plans for a 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons, which will begin rolling out in 2008. The new edition is intended to have a substantial online, digital, subscription-based component.

For example, one discussion I've seen in a few forums regards the role of a game mechanic like "taunt" in the 4th edition. "Taunt" is a classic game-mechanical kludge in a Diku for a tanking class. Since most contemporary virtual worlds don't implement collision detection, largely due to the potential for griefing (and players getting stuck) that follows on that feature, there isn't any way for a tank to control combat using the spatiality of virtual worlds. (E.g., by having well-protected characters block access to more vulnerable characters). But a computer-controlled virtual world can't deal with the subjective and creative ways that a pen-and-paper character might "taunt", either. In a pen-and-paper world, a player controlling a fighter might simply say to the DM, "I tell the orc chieftain that I spotted him smelling the pretty flowers and singing a happy song outside his cave", and the DM can decide subjectively if that aggravates the orc chieftain into preferentially attacking the fighter.