I left this as a comment here,
but it is currently in moderation and I don’t know if it will ever be approved (it’s out of moderation). So I’m posting it here on my blog.
This is a load of bull. I presume that game designers are able to figure out the consequences of rule systems they design. Yet I wonder whether you realize what system you are setting up by grafting these rules onto Jason’s game/religion thing? You are doing two things:
1. Selling the right to play the game to the highest bidder
2. Somehow reserving the right for famous people to play the game
This is insane. You’re basically saying that the way to participate Jason’s in project is to have expendable cash, or be famous. There is absolutely nothing reverent about that. It is completely counter to the tone of the talk that Jason gave at GDC.
The fact that the money goes to charity is irrelevant: if you are trying to say that you want the game to go to the person who does the most “good” by donating money, that is such a myopic view of goodness that it makes me quake with anger. Have you considered that there are people who should play this game who maybe don’t have a bucket of expendable cash they are sitting on?
I understand that when you get something powerful in your hands, your next thought is “how can I put this toward some form of social good?” But you are subverting the intent of the original project, and doing it in a way that makes it an exclusionary practice, rather than a thing of beauty and grace that travels from hand to hand, building a rich lore that goes along with it.
Instead, you would like someone to say, “I won it in an auction so I could meet Will Wright.” Which is maybe the worst thing that could’ve happened to Chain World.
Addendum: I do see the irony of this. On some level I think it’s funny that this “game as religion” thing was immediately twisted into something stupid by its very first “disciple.” But please don’t mistake this for performance art: this is a very real instance of someone “crapping on a great idea”.