I have a friend who has been in the game industry since the 80s, who play UO, EQ and SWG back in the day. He certainly can't be a new generation out of touch with it player and he thinks housing is a waste.
Ever ask him why?
Or is he the type who hides his G.I. Joe in his dresser and talks out of his ass 90% of the time?
who cares why lol.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
VS
"LOL U IS BABBY, PLAY FARMVILLE" (followed by sputtering noises and stroking his no-no bits)
I just saw the "I know a guy who says it sucks" part and had trouble seeing a valid argument beyond that. As for the proof, I don't think that it's forthcoming. I think it's just people who hate housing being backed by devs who don't want to do it.
I'm trying to picture people standing around in MMOs glaring at the player housing and seething with rage.
Player Housing IS possible. It just is not a priority. If people do not like the game or if they do not find the game fun, they will not build a house.
The reasons make sense though. You could create the best housing feature-set we have ever seen in a game but if nobody enjoys the game to that point, they will not stick around just to have a cool house.?
Seem as if developers now days see no importance in this feature known as player housing. The quote has a point. If Developers put too much resources into Housing over other features, than players may not be interested in the game and wont build houses regardless of how detailed that feature is.
but why has this feature been tossed under the bus over the last few years? seem like this feature has become very unpopular in the developers offices lately.
Player Housing seem like a dynamic feature that gives players something to do when raiding/leveling/other grinds come to a end. Seem like a win win feature from a consumer point of view, but not from a developer.
What turn of events causes this?
Very simply......
Because WoW didnt do it. WoW got away just fine without doing it. WoW is the most successful mmo of all time without doing it. So why do it?
If WoW had done them and right away in some form, then it would probably still be done more often than not. But because they didn't and never have and probably never will and just rake in the constant cash, others devs wont do it either. At least the ones looking to WoW for ideas. Which 99% of them do.
Oh and to make this clear, I am not a very big fan of WoW. Burned out on it way back.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess.
If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it.
** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess.
If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it.
** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
re-read the orginal first post here.
First person: 'X is true because of Y'
Second person:' no its not'
The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
If a sizeable number of people were asking developers for player housing, then the developers would be including player housing. Now you can make the argument that nobody is asking but everyone wants it, but that's a claim that makes little sense. Developers respond to what players want. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who care.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
If a sizeable number of people were asking developers for player housing, then the developers would be including player housing. Now you can make the argument that nobody is asking but everyone wants it, but that's a claim that makes little sense. Developers respond to what players want. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who care.
I am saying if one party has the burden of proof but not the other than in this case its the first party.
party one is making a statement, giving a reason. the other party is simply saying its not true. The second party cant have the burden of proof for a declaration made by someone with a reason and no published evidence to support that declaration.
not only that, you know it.
aka..
party 1 :'santa is real'
party 2:' no he isnt'
party 2 is the party who has to proove a negitive? I dont think so
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
I don't know who is making what claim. But from a dev's point of view, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on the side who claim there is a big demand for player housing, if they are going to spend any resource on it.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
I don't know who is making what claim. But from a dev's point of view, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on the side who claim there is a big demand for player housing, if they are going to spend any resource on it.
the first post is basically this:
'santa is real because people like toys'
the reply is:
'no its not'
the burden of proof is on the person who is making the first declaration which is a positive declaration (something is true instead of something isnt true) and in addition providing unprooven evidence. I cant think of a more classic example of someone who has the burden of proof then this one.
besides: people saying 'well people dont ask for it' is silly. people dont ask for combat either is that evidence that people dont want it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
I don't know who is making what claim. But from a dev's point of view, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on the side who claim there is a big demand for player housing, if they are going to spend any resource on it.
the first post is basically this:
'santa is real because people like toys'
the reply is:
'no its not'
the burden of proof is on the person who is making the first declaration which is a positive declaration (something is true instead of something isnt true) and in addition providing unprooven evidence. I cant think of a more classic example of someone who has the burden of proof then this one.
well,
1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.
2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.
3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.
2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.
3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it.
all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'
sorry never gonna happen that way.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by GTwander
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.intresting. The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.odd. There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess. If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it. ** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it. re-read the orginal first post here.
First person: 'X is true because of Y'
Second person:' no its not'
The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
It doesn't matter what gets 'proven' here in this thread or where the burden of proof is. The developers know why housing is not a priority feature. Nobody in this thread can prove anything, except that they may have really strongly held opinions on the matter. We're just typing out stuff to watch our words show up in white on black text.
I think we should ask Sanya Weathers. She would have some sort of insight into why developers do or do not put player housing in the games they make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting. The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.odd.
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess. If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it. ** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
re-read the orginal first post here.
First person: 'X is true because of Y'
Second person:' no its not'
The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
It doesn't matter what gets 'proven' here in this thread or where the burden of proof is. The developers know why housing is not a priority feature. Nobody in this thread can prove anything, except that they may have really strongly held opinions on the matter. We're just typing out stuff to watch our words show up in white on black text.
I think we should ask Sanya Weathers. She would have some sort of insight into why developers do or do not put player housing in the games they make.
so there you are walking down the road and this guy comes up to you and says:
'people do not want virtual s*x machines because they clearly arent very prevalant and people are not asking for them'
you say 'that is not really true I think if they did exist properly many people would like'
he says 'ah well I dont have to proove anything but you have to proove the statement you just made'
too funny.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it.
all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'
sorry never gonna happen that way.
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory. Then, people go and poke holes in the theory, proving it wrong, or they fail to prove the theory wrong. Things are done this way because most of the time, it's far easier to prove something wrong than to prove something right. Even with lots of evidence showing a theory is correct, there is always the possibility that it could be wrong until every single, remotely possible case is tested. You only need one case where a theory is wrong to prove it wrong. The only time things aren't done this way is when the correctness of a theory is self-evidence...which does not happen.
** edit ** It's up to anyone who opposes a theory to prove it wrong. Theories are almost never proven right, they can only be proven wrong or exist in a state of not proven wrong, but accepted as right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by GTwander
Well, there is a difference between a guy with a solid argument that "it takes a lot of resources to make, and only X amount of people seem to use it, or even care" (which I would like to see proof of, btw, and using SWG or VG as an example, not a half-assed system like LotRO - which *I* don't even give a shit about).Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.intresting. The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.odd. There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess. If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it. ** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it. re-read the orginal first post here. First person: 'X is true because of Y'Second person:' no its not'The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence. It doesn't matter what gets 'proven' here in this thread or where the burden of proof is. The developers know why housing is not a priority feature. Nobody in this thread can prove anything, except that they may have really strongly held opinions on the matter. We're just typing out stuff to watch our words show up in white on black text. I think we should ask Sanya Weathers. She would have some sort of insight into why developers do or do not put player housing in the games they make. so there you are walking down the road and this guy comes up to you and says:
'people do not want virtual s*x machines because they clearly arent very prevalant and people are not asking for them'
you say 'that is not really true I think if they did exist properly many people would like'
he says 'ah well I dont have to proove anything but you have to proove the statement you just made'
too funny.
No, I'd stop talking to the person who tried to talk to me about s*x machines. I might punch them in the throat and run.
In your example, both people have submitted theories. They don't need to prove their theories, only submit the evidence they have saying their theory is right. It's up to anyone who cares to prove either theory wrong, otherwise they might get accepted as not proven wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it.
all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'
sorry never gonna happen that way.
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory.
he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
everyone should be able to proove statements if possible HOWEVER, if the BURDEN (implying one has to do it but the other doesnt have to it) in that case it almost always goes to the person making the first positive declaration.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it. all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'sorry never gonna happen that way.Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...without any evidence to proove the theory.
he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong.
The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it. all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'sorry never gonna happen that way.
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory.
he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong.
The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
no the evidence is too weak.
1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it.
2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I remember back in the late 80s early 90's when people would say " A Computer? In my home? $4+k for a calculator and word proccessor? Why would anyone want that?"
Now that computers have many MANY more functions that just a Calc and WP, its a staple in the home.
Add more functionality and usefulness to MMO Housing and it might just very well become a staple and something that is needed and wanted in a MMO
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
I remember back in the late 80s early 90's when people would say " A Computer? In my home? $4+k for a calculator and word proccessor? Why would anyone want that?"
Now that computers have many MANY more functions that just a Calc and WP, its a staple in the home.
Add more functionality and usefulness to MMO Housing and it might just very well become a staple and something that is needed and wanted in a MMO
because the function of housing is explictly designed to not intersect with the rest of the game and character development it makes the entire conversation radically different then it would otherwise. People are thinking in the context of existing housing, they see a few changes and just a minor side note to the conversation. The problem is they do not notice that intersecting your housing functions to the development of your character is a HUGE step and is anything but a superfluous factor
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here is a list of top 10 selling games in May 2012. 8 out of 10 are combat games. All the gameplay are combat in these 8 games, except may be Diablo 3, which has a AH component. Just D3 sells 6.3M copies.
Any reasonable person will agree that there is a demand for combat gameplay. BTW, the rest of the 2 are 1 sports game and 1 dancing game.
If combat is not so popular, violence in video games will not be such a hot topic. I believe you can do your own web search to find tons of such articles. Here is one to get you started ...
"Nine out of ten (89%) of the top-selling video games contained violence; about half of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game.18"
Here is a list of top 10 selling games in May 2012. 8 out of 10 are combat games. All the gameplay are combat in these 8 games, except may be Diablo 3, which has a AH component. Just D3 sells 6.3M copies.
Any reasonable person will agree that there is a demand for combat gameplay. BTW, the rest of the 2 are 1 sports game and 1 dancing game.
If combat is not so popular, violence in video games will not be such a hot topic. I believe you can do your own web search to find tons of such articles. Here is one to get you started ...
"Nine out of ten (89%) of the top-selling video games contained violence; about half of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game.18"
1. there is no proof that has been provided that people are not asking for housing so really just on this point only the entire debate is based on bullsh*t assumptions.
2. saying that people 'dont ask for it' as evidence is silly. Does that mean I dont want a bl*w job from my favorite porn star? because I didnt ask for it? come on guys
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here is a list of top 10 selling games in May 2012. 8 out of 10 are combat games. All the gameplay are combat in these 8 games, except may be Diablo 3, which has a AH component. Just D3 sells 6.3M copies.
Any reasonable person will agree that there is a demand for combat gameplay. BTW, the rest of the 2 are 1 sports game and 1 dancing game.
If combat is not so popular, violence in video games will not be such a hot topic. I believe you can do your own web search to find tons of such articles. Here is one to get you started ...
"Nine out of ten (89%) of the top-selling video games contained violence; about half of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game.18"
1. there is no proof that has been provided that people are not asking for housing so really just on this point only the entire debate is based on bullsh*t assumptions.
2. saying that people 'dont ask for it' as evidence is silly. Does that mean I dont want a bl*w job from my favorite porn star? because I didnt ask for it? come on guys
My post was NOT about housing ... it was in response for your issue on whether there is evidence to support "there is demand for combat gameplay".
But to your point ..
1) There is also no proof that people are asking for it.
Now here is what we have evidence FOR:
a) Devs do not think that housing is important -> obviously, otherwise they will put more resource into it.
b) Devs see more player data than we do -> this one is obvious ... they logged everything people do in game, and have full log of official game forums.
You draw your own conclusion based on these two points.
Originally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it. all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'sorry never gonna happen that way.
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory. he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong. The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
no the evidence is too weak.
1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it.
2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence.
Let's prove the theory that people are not asking for it wrong. Look through this forum...people are asking for housing or are upset that housing doesn't exist in every single MMORPG that exists. If you look at the forums for specific games like WoW, you'll see posts crop up asking for housing or asking why it doesn't exist.
The theory that players do not ask for housing or do not want housing has been proven wrong. We could further nail it down by asking some developers, but we don't really even need to do that. Boy, that was easy. That's why the burden is on the people wanting to prove theories wrong. It's generally pretty easy when the theory is wrong. Far easier than proving a theory right.
Don't even bother poking holes in the provided 'evidence'. It's not even necessary. When the theory is wrong, you don't even need to see the supporting evidence.
** edit ** Dur. The theory was, "Not enough people are asking for it". This has the double defense of being plausible, but also hard to disprove. The person positing this theory still doesn't have to prove it right...it's a theory. That doesn't mean others have to accept the theory though. It doesn't 'win' by default. It has to be accepted as true, which doesn't usually happen without some decent challenge to its validity.
I would really like to get Sanya Weather's input on this. :-) I'm hoping there's an automated bot that skims forum posts so maybe we can get an article from a certain person with an inside view into the industry.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I just saw the "I know a guy who says it sucks" part and had trouble seeing a valid argument beyond that. As for the proof, I don't think that it's forthcoming. I think it's just people who hate housing being backed by devs who don't want to do it.
I'm trying to picture people standing around in MMOs glaring at the player housing and seething with rage.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Very simply......
Because WoW didnt do it. WoW got away just fine without doing it. WoW is the most successful mmo of all time without doing it. So why do it?
If WoW had done them and right away in some form, then it would probably still be done more often than not. But because they didn't and never have and probably never will and just rake in the constant cash, others devs wont do it either. At least the ones looking to WoW for ideas. Which 99% of them do.
Oh and to make this clear, I am not a very big fan of WoW. Burned out on it way back.
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing.
A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting.
The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration.
odd.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess.
If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it.
** edit **
We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
re-read the orginal first post here.
First person: 'X is true because of Y'
Second person:' no its not'
The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If a sizeable number of people were asking developers for player housing, then the developers would be including player housing. Now you can make the argument that nobody is asking but everyone wants it, but that's a claim that makes little sense. Developers respond to what players want. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who care.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I am saying if one party has the burden of proof but not the other than in this case its the first party.
party one is making a statement, giving a reason. the other party is simply saying its not true. The second party cant have the burden of proof for a declaration made by someone with a reason and no published evidence to support that declaration.
not only that, you know it.
aka..
party 1 :'santa is real'
party 2:' no he isnt'
party 2 is the party who has to proove a negitive? I dont think so
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't know who is making what claim. But from a dev's point of view, the burden of proof is CLEARLY on the side who claim there is a big demand for player housing, if they are going to spend any resource on it.
the first post is basically this:
'santa is real because people like toys'
the reply is:
'no its not'
the burden of proof is on the person who is making the first declaration which is a positive declaration (something is true instead of something isnt true) and in addition providing unprooven evidence. I cant think of a more classic example of someone who has the burden of proof then this one.
besides: people saying 'well people dont ask for it' is silly. people dont ask for combat either is that evidence that people dont want it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
well,
1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.
2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.
3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it.
all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'
sorry never gonna happen that way.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing. A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting. The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration. odd.
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess. If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it. ** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
re-read the orginal first post here.
First person: 'X is true because of Y'
Second person:' no its not'
The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
It doesn't matter what gets 'proven' here in this thread or where the burden of proof is. The developers know why housing is not a priority feature. Nobody in this thread can prove anything, except that they may have really strongly held opinions on the matter. We're just typing out stuff to watch our words show up in white on black text.
I think we should ask Sanya Weathers. She would have some sort of insight into why developers do or do not put player housing in the games they make.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
so there you are walking down the road and this guy comes up to you and says:
'people do not want virtual s*x machines because they clearly arent very prevalant and people are not asking for them'
you say 'that is not really true I think if they did exist properly many people would like'
he says 'ah well I dont have to proove anything but you have to proove the statement you just made'
too funny.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory. Then, people go and poke holes in the theory, proving it wrong, or they fail to prove the theory wrong. Things are done this way because most of the time, it's far easier to prove something wrong than to prove something right. Even with lots of evidence showing a theory is correct, there is always the possibility that it could be wrong until every single, remotely possible case is tested. You only need one case where a theory is wrong to prove it wrong. The only time things aren't done this way is when the correctness of a theory is self-evidence...which does not happen.
** edit **
It's up to anyone who opposes a theory to prove it wrong. Theories are almost never proven right, they can only be proven wrong or exist in a state of not proven wrong, but accepted as right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually the argument should be "there is no proof that players care". The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a big market. Why? Any features cost money and devs should only consider those features which have solid player backing. A simply "there is no evidence to the contrary .. and some people MAY like it' does not cut it as a business case.
intresting. The first party is making a claim and that claim is 'players dont care much for housing' and yet somehow the burden of proof is not with first party making the first claim of a positive statement but rather the second party making a reply to a declaration. odd.
There's no way to prove why player housing is not a priority, unless we interview some developers who did not put housing in their games, or developers who added player housing only after the game released. Those guys know why it wasn't a priority for them. We can only guess. If the idea of this thread is that there is a dearth of player housing, even though players want housing, then there needs to be proof that there is a financial incentive to put the effort into developing player housing. An investor would have to be convinced or a developer would have to be convinced that spending an investor's money on player housing is worth it. ** edit ** We should ask Sanya Weathers about it.
re-read the orginal first post here. First person: 'X is true because of Y' Second person:' no its not' The burden of proof is on the first person, not the second person. The first person has declared a fact without any evidence.
It doesn't matter what gets 'proven' here in this thread or where the burden of proof is. The developers know why housing is not a priority feature. Nobody in this thread can prove anything, except that they may have really strongly held opinions on the matter. We're just typing out stuff to watch our words show up in white on black text. I think we should ask Sanya Weathers. She would have some sort of insight into why developers do or do not put player housing in the games they make.
so there you are walking down the road and this guy comes up to you and says:
'people do not want virtual s*x machines because they clearly arent very prevalant and people are not asking for them'
you say 'that is not really true I think if they did exist properly many people would like'
he says 'ah well I dont have to proove anything but you have to proove the statement you just made'
too funny.
No, I'd stop talking to the person who tried to talk to me about s*x machines. I might punch them in the throat and run.
In your example, both people have submitted theories. They don't need to prove their theories, only submit the evidence they have saying their theory is right. It's up to anyone who cares to prove either theory wrong, otherwise they might get accepted as not proven wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
without any evidence to proove the theory.
he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
everyone should be able to proove statements if possible HOWEVER, if the BURDEN (implying one has to do it but the other doesnt have to it) in that case it almost always goes to the person making the first positive declaration.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory.
he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong.
The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
no the evidence is too weak.
1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it.
2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I remember back in the late 80s early 90's when people would say " A Computer? In my home? $4+k for a calculator and word proccessor? Why would anyone want that?"
Now that computers have many MANY more functions that just a Calc and WP, its a staple in the home.
Add more functionality and usefulness to MMO Housing and it might just very well become a staple and something that is needed and wanted in a MMO
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
because the function of housing is explictly designed to not intersect with the rest of the game and character development it makes the entire conversation radically different then it would otherwise. People are thinking in the context of existing housing, they see a few changes and just a minor side note to the conversation. The problem is they do not notice that intersecting your housing functions to the development of your character is a HUGE step and is anything but a superfluous factor
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You really want to go there? It is so obviuos and so much evidence that I do not even where to start. Since you ask ..
Here is some recent evidence that there is a demand for combat:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/14/npd-diablo-iii-tops-retail-charts
Here is a list of top 10 selling games in May 2012. 8 out of 10 are combat games. All the gameplay are combat in these 8 games, except may be Diablo 3, which has a AH component. Just D3 sells 6.3M copies.
Any reasonable person will agree that there is a demand for combat gameplay. BTW, the rest of the 2 are 1 sports game and 1 dancing game.
If combat is not so popular, violence in video games will not be such a hot topic. I believe you can do your own web search to find tons of such articles. Here is one to get you started ...
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=14092
And I quote
"Nine out of ten (89%) of the top-selling video games contained violence; about half of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game.18"
1. there is no proof that has been provided that people are not asking for housing so really just on this point only the entire debate is based on bullsh*t assumptions.
2. saying that people 'dont ask for it' as evidence is silly. Does that mean I dont want a bl*w job from my favorite porn star? because I didnt ask for it? come on guys
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My post was NOT about housing ... it was in response for your issue on whether there is evidence to support "there is demand for combat gameplay".
But to your point ..
1) There is also no proof that people are asking for it.
Now here is what we have evidence FOR:
a) Devs do not think that housing is important -> obviously, otherwise they will put more resource into it.
b) Devs see more player data than we do -> this one is obvious ... they logged everything people do in game, and have full log of official game forums.
You draw your own conclusion based on these two points.
Let's prove the theory that people are not asking for it wrong. Look through this forum...people are asking for housing or are upset that housing doesn't exist in every single MMORPG that exists. If you look at the forums for specific games like WoW, you'll see posts crop up asking for housing or asking why it doesn't exist.
The theory that players do not ask for housing or do not want housing has been proven wrong. We could further nail it down by asking some developers, but we don't really even need to do that. Boy, that was easy. That's why the burden is on the people wanting to prove theories wrong. It's generally pretty easy when the theory is wrong. Far easier than proving a theory right.
Don't even bother poking holes in the provided 'evidence'. It's not even necessary. When the theory is wrong, you don't even need to see the supporting evidence.
** edit **
Dur. The theory was, "Not enough people are asking for it". This has the double defense of being plausible, but also hard to disprove. The person positing this theory still doesn't have to prove it right...it's a theory. That doesn't mean others have to accept the theory though. It doesn't 'win' by default. It has to be accepted as true, which doesn't usually happen without some decent challenge to its validity.
I would really like to get Sanya Weather's input on this. :-) I'm hoping there's an automated bot that skims forum posts so maybe we can get an article from a certain person with an inside view into the industry.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.