In January 2014 over seven thousand EVE Online players engaged in a 21-h battle that came to be known as the Battle of B-R5RB, in which an estimated $330,000 of virtual property was destroyed, calculated in real U.S. dollars as measured by time.
Aim
To discern why players were willing to commit time and resources to fight in a large-scale virtual battle, which in turn informs how players perceive risk and develop large-scale emergent political structures.
Method
Drawing from multiple case history and journalism reports on the Battle of B-R5RB, the author combines the inductive ideographic case study approach and process tracing method to uncover key causal mechanisms.
Results
The author inductively theorizes that the Battle of B-R5RB resulted from the Null-Sec’s anarchic structure, player commitment to their respective Corporations, measurable economic value, and risk associated with permanent loss. These mechanisms closely align with the offensive realism and anarchy.
Discussion and conclusion
The Battle of B-R5B is a relevant example of real-world emergent political behavior developing in a virtual world setting. Analysis of this single battle suggests that players are willing to project actual value onto virtual assets. Perception of value is magnified in virtual worlds lacking overt governance or security structures. Players must form groups to mitigate risk, and the greater the risk, the greater the commitment to the group.
ColeT.GilliesM. (2021). Thinking and Doing: Challenge, Agency, and the Eudaimonic Experience in Video Games. Games Cult, 16(2), 187–207. DOI: 10.1177/1555412019881536
15.
CoverJ. G. (2010). The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games. McFarland & Co.
EcksteinH. (1975). Case studies and theory in political science. In GreensteinF.PolsbyN. (Eds.). Handbook of Political Science (pp. 79–138). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley
23.
FannonS. P. (1999). The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer’s Bible (2nd ed). Obsidian Studios Corp.
24.
FineG. A. (2002). Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
25.
FrankR.BernankeB. (2006). Principles of Microeconomics (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
26.
GeorgeA. LBennettA (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press.
HoggM. A.HardieE. A.ReynoldsK. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self- categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. Eur J Soc Psychol, (25), 159–177.
29.
HuddyL. (2013). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In HuddyL.SearsD.O.LevyJ.S. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press (pp. 737–773). DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.0023
30.
HuizingaJ. (2014). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Martino Publishing.
31.
JervisR. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Polit, 30(2), 167–214.
32.
JorgensenK (2013). Gameworld interfaces. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
LevyJ. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Sci, 25(1), 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/07388940701860318
36.
LevyJ.S. (2013). Psychology and foreign policy decision-making. In HuddyL.O SearsD.LevyJ.S. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2 ed.) (pp. 301–333) Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.00
McKenzieRichardLeeDwight R. (2006). Microeconomics for MBAs: The Economic Way of Thinking for Managers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MearsheimerJ. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: Norton.
43.
MearsheimerJ. J. (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MilikO. (2017). Virtual warlords: An ethnomethodological view of group identity and leadership in EVE Online. Games Cult,12(7–8), 764–785. DOI: 10.1177/1555412015597814
MurielD.CrawfordG. (2020). Video games and agency in contemporary society. Games and Cult,15(2), 138–157. DOI: 10.1177/1555412017750448
48.
NardiB.A. (2010). My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World Of Warcraft. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
49.
NeelyE. L. (2021). Come for the Game, Stay for the Cash Grab: The Ethics of Loot Boxes, Microtransactions, and Freemium Games. Games Cult16(2), 228–247. DOI: 10.1177/1555412019887658
RenshonJ. (2015). Losing face and sinking costs: Experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders.” Int Organ, 69(3): 659–695.
56.
RuggieJ. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. Int Organ, 52(4), 855–885.
57.
RuggeriK.AlíS.BergeM. L., et al2020). Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nat Hum Behav, 4(6), 622–633. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x
SabinP. A. G. (2014). Simulating War: Studying Conflict through Simulation Games. Bloomsbury Academic.
60.
SchechterB.SchneiderJ.ShafferR. (2021). Wargaming as a methodology: The international crisis wargame and experimental wargaming. Simulation & Gaming, 52(4), 513–526. DOI: 10.1177/1046878120987581
SicartM. (2009). The Ethics of Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
63.
SparrowL. A.GibbsM.ArnoldM. (2021). Ludic ethics: The ethical negotiations of players in online multiplayer games. Games Cult, 16(6), 719–742. DOI: 10.1177/1555412020971534
64.
SteinJ.G.ShefferL. (2013). Prospect theory and political decision-making. In MintzA.TerrisL. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science, (NP). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.013.31
65.
StrimlingP.FreyS. (2020). Emergent cultural differences in online communities' norms of fairness. Games Cult, 15(4), 394–410. DOI: 10.1177/1555412018800650
66.
TajfelH. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
68.
TaliaferroJ. W. (2004). Balancing Risks: Great Power Intervention in the Periphery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personal Soc Psychol Bull, (22), 776–793.
71.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J., et al (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
72.
TurnerV. W. (1982). From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. PAJ Publications.
73.
VerbaS. (1967). Some dilemmas in comparative research. World Polit,20(1), 111–127.
74.
van HaaftenM. A.LefterH.LukoschO., et al. (2021). Do gaming s imulations substantiate that we know more than we can tell?Simulation & Gaming, 52(4), 478–500. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120927048
75.
WagnerA. (2020). The Economics of Online Gaming: A Player’s Introduction to Economic Thinking.Business Expert Press.
76.
WaldnerD. (2014). What makes process tracing good? Causal mechanisms, causal inference, and the completeness standard in comparative politics. In BennettA.CheckelJ.T. (Eds.), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (pp. 126-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
77.
WaltS. M. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, (110), 29- 46
78.
WendtA. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. Int Organ, 46(2), 391–425.
79.
WendtA. (1995). Constructing international politics. Int Security, 20(1), 71–81.
