Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How the "I pay $15/mo like everyone, i should see everything" mentality has contributed to the curre

HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415

With the recent post by Mark Kern regarding how the casualization or MMO's has essentially ruined the genre got me to thinking about what other aspects have contributed to the "ruining" of mmo's.

Personally i believe the mentality of many of the players that because they pay $15 they should have access to every bit of content in the mmo is both absurd, and heavily contributed to the current state of the genre.

We use the example of a gymnasium, but i think using an example of a themepark is a better idea.

Lets take Disneyworld.  Most people schedule for multiple days when they vacation or visit.  They know that buying entrance for the themepark for one day is not enough time to experience all the things they want to do.  The average person knows that they're paying for ACCESS to all of the themeparks content, but that with their limited time, they are only able to partake in parts of it.   So, they know if they spend 2 hours watching the mickey mouse play with their kids, and then spend 2 hours on roller coaster, that they may not have time to go to the waterpark, etc.

So, normal sane people understood in the early days of MMO's that it was the same way.  You didnt get to raid if you didnt want to spend 4-6 hours online at once.  Nobody begrudged the people who could.  They simply went on and did whatever else was available that was fun.  Whether that was crafting, running a dungeon, exploring, whatever.  Nobody begrudged the crafter who chose to spend his hours investing into crafting at the detriment of his character leveling, or raiding, etc.

Instead, because of the influx of these content locusts casual players, who come in like a flock of squawking birds demanding that everything cater to them.  We have ourselves in our current situation.

You complaining that leveling takes too long because you only have 2 hours a week to play is the same as expecting disney world to make their rollercoasters 1/3 of the length, so it only takes you 5 minutes to get through the rollercoaster instead of 15 minutes.  Or asking them to cut out important parts of the Mickey Mouse show, so its only 20 minutes instead of an hour long.  Its entitled and selfish, and it ruins the purity of the original material.  It dumbs it down, makes it worthless.  Its like trying to cram the entire lord of the rings into a 200 page book because you "dont have the time" to read the whole thing.

So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

«13456

Comments

  • Reza82Reza82 Member UncommonPosts: 40
    definitely  15$ a month ought to give access to all content... but whether you get to it or not should depend on your skill and play..
  • Dr_ShivinskiDr_Shivinski Member UncommonPosts: 311

    You know what bothers me the most about this crowd of people? Most of them still never got around to seeing any of the content they cried for because they were either A. Terrible players, or B. They decided they were not that interested in high end raiding anyways because the rest of us were "Elitists"

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Are you saying you feel it should be replaced with an attitude of "I should see more than everyone else for my $15" ?
  • Dr_ShivinskiDr_Shivinski Member UncommonPosts: 311
    Originally posted by Salahudin
    definitely  15$ a month ought to give access to all content... but whether you get to it or not should depend on your skill and play..

    Everyone has always had access to all content in P2P games. Everyone could raid in WoW. Whether you got around to it was determined by the time you could invest in the game and skill you had to play your character in a raid setting.

    I pay $45 a month (with in game currency) to play EVE online with 3 accounts. Have I done all there is to do in EVE? No. Will I do all there is to do in EVE? Will I fly EVERY ship in EVE? No. But I have the same chance as everyone else who subscribes to the game to ANYTHING I want as long as I put in the time and effort to train skills and be a good pilot. 

  • Jadedangel1Jadedangel1 Member UncommonPosts: 187
    Originally posted by Hrimnir

    With the recent post by Mark Kern regarding how the casualization or MMO's has essentially ruined the genre got me to thinking about what other aspects have contributed to the "ruining" of mmo's.

    Personally i believe the mentality of many of the players that because they pay $15 they should have access to every bit of content in the mmo is both absurd, and heavily contributed to the current state of the genre.

    We use the example of a gymnasium, but i think using an example of a themepark is a better idea.

    Lets take Disneyworld.  Most people schedule for multiple days when they vacation or visit.  They know that buying entrance for the themepark for one day is not enough time to experience all the things they want to do.  The average person knows that they're paying for ACCESS to all of the themeparks content, but that with their limited time, they are only able to partake in parts of it.   So, they know if they spend 2 hours watching the mickey mouse play with their kids, and then spend 2 hours on roller coaster, that they may not have time to go to the waterpark, etc.

    So, normal sane people understood in the early days of MMO's that it was the same way.  You didnt get to raid if you didnt want to spend 4-6 hours online at once.  Nobody begrudged the people who could.  They simply went on and did whatever else was available that was fun.  Whether that was crafting, running a dungeon, exploring, whatever.  Nobody begrudged the crafter who chose to spend his hours investing into crafting at the detriment of his character leveling, or raiding, etc.

    Instead, because of the influx of these content locusts casual players, who come in like a flock of squawking birds demanding that everything cater to them.  We have ourselves in our current situation.

    You complaining that leveling takes too long because you only have 2 hours a week to play is the same as expecting disney world to make their rollercoasters 1/3 of the length, so it only takes you 5 minutes to get through the rollercoaster instead of 15 minutes.  Or asking them to cut out important parts of the Mickey Mouse show, so its only 20 minutes instead of an hour long.  Its entitled and selfish, and it ruins the purity of the original material.  It dumbs it down, makes it worthless.  Its like trying to cram the entire lord of the rings into a 200 page book because you "dont have the time" to read the whole thing.

    So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

    I agree with a lot of what you said, but not everything can be blamed on casual players and their entitlement. A lot of this is on the developers shoulders. Yes, these are games, but for the developers its a business too. And they want that business to be profitable. If games were so great back then before all the casuals stepped in, the developers wouldn't have had to implement the easier features we expect today. But this was not the case. Though the players that they had enjoyed the game, it was not enough to sustain them profit wise. Next came the "If you build it, they will come" way of thinking, and like fish drawn to bait, the casual players were hooked in. You can't have the egg before the chicken, and likewise you can't fully blame casual players for asking for more of what was first handed out to them.

  • DivonaDivona Member UncommonPosts: 189

    And so we now have free entry to the theme park Carnival where some of the ride require you to buy ticket first. Oh, and gift shop. Then people ended up spend more than $15 a month.

    Usually the mentality you mention is come from single-player game where there is a clear end goal. When you pay money to the game, you own it, not about pay for the service provides.

  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785

    So WoW came up with a decent solution imo. LFR, normal and heroic modes. LFR is for everybody, Normal is for guilds and heroic is for less than the top 3% of players.

    Or are you simply upset that people even get to see the inside of a raid if it isn't the hardest setting?

     

  • Dr_ShivinskiDr_Shivinski Member UncommonPosts: 311
    Originally posted by Rusque

    So WoW came up with a decent solution imo. LFR, normal and heroic modes. LFR is for everybody, Normal is for guilds and heroic is for less than the top 3% of players.

    Or are you simply upset that people even get to see the inside of a raid if it isn't the hardest setting?

     

    Yeeeah...no. I know plenty of people in "casual raiding" guilds that are clearing heroic content. They nerf the content within two weeks of releasing it with nothing for the people who cleared it at the peak of its difficulty to show for it. Not that WoW content has been all that difficult for quite some time now.

  • BrenicsBrenics Member RarePosts: 1,939

    Personally I think F2P is ruining the makeup of the games. P2P is why we got games like WOW that brought in millions of players that would never have played an mmo. People complain about how games need the best gfx, best lore, best play style but they don't want to pay for it. 

    Kids today want everything for nothing. The mentality of that is what is destroying this generation. People want free healthcare, along with free phones and to sit home and play games or watch TV.

    It use to be to have the best in life you had to work hard for it. When I go to Disneyland or Cedar point I pay for at least a 3 day pass so I can see everything I want to see. It worries me that if developers keep letting these kids get their way with F2P it will make games far less exciting. Personally I would love to see a game like Ultima Online made with today's gfx, but enhance the crafting, play style original UO has. It is also why the original swg was ruined because people just didn't want to pay for the best and then got the worse.

    This is why games like swtor and lotro are so dumbed down and had to go F2P. Maybe there is a guy out there working in his garage on a game like UO or AC and will release a true ground breaking mmo that will make F2P a thing of the past. I know it's wishful thinking but an old man can always hope. 

    Of course this is only IMHO!

    I'm not perfect but I'm always myself!

    Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event


    4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.

    http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/

    Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!

  • Reza82Reza82 Member UncommonPosts: 40
    Originally posted by Dr_Shivinski
    Originally posted by Salahudin
    definitely  15$ a month ought to give access to all content... but whether you get to it or not should depend on your skill and play..

    Everyone has always had access to all content in P2P games. Everyone could raid in WoW. Whether you got around to it was determined by the time you could invest in the game and skill you had to play your character in a raid setting.

    I pay $45 a month (with in game currency) to play EVE online with 3 accounts. Have I done all there is to do in EVE? No. Will I do all there is to do in EVE? Will I fly EVERY ship in EVE? No. But I have the same chance as everyone else who subscribes to the game to ANYTHING I want as long as I put in the time and effort to train skills and be a good pilot. 

    Which is a great thing, no?  I don`t see the problem with paying $15 a month for a game.  the way I see it, if you can only play an hour a week and STILL decide to pay, then what`s the big deal?? what are you losing?? you are still seeing new content as you play, you aren`t getting ALL of it like a basement dweller mind you, but you are still willing to pay for it and you`ll get to play "new to you" content..

    I agree with the OP,there are people out there that want it all just cause they can`t play as much and because they pay they feel they ought to have it.  I also understand that there are those that can play all hours of a day and night and cruise through the content and get geared up like crazy causing the developers to continuously advance content or else have those players get bored and frustrated.  I always felt that maybe having "regular" and "heroic" content would be a mechanism to solve the problem of meeting the needs for these two types of players but it hasn`t.  This is because, for the most part, people are envious and when they see people with "heroic" gear or certain titles, rather than accepting that they don`t have it because of their play time limitations, they go the I pay so i want route. 

    I don`t have time to play a lot but I still pay subs and I`m quite happy doing so.  Even if I start a game at launch, I am still rather late at reaching level cap/end game content relative to the majority.  

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 31,937
    Originally posted by Hrimnir

    With the recent post by Mark Kern regarding how the casualization or MMO's has essentially ruined the genre got me to thinking about what other aspects have contributed to the "ruining" of mmo's.

    You know, I've seen a few posts where people have said this but I really wonder if the majority of people have this attitude or just realize that they can only do "so much" and if they can at least have fun with what they can do then it's satisfactory.

    Because, I have to tell you, the commoditization of these games is still going to achieve the same thing.

    If you let me pay x dollars in order to see y content then I'll pay it.

    Why wouldn't the devs/game companies do this?

    Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb." 

    Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w


    Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547

    Try the "Special Edition." 'Cause it's "Special." https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/64878/?tab=description

    Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo 
  • PNM_JenningsPNM_Jennings Member UncommonPosts: 1,093

    wasn't the good old days that started the whole $15/mo. thing? i think if you're looking for the source of these durn casuals you need to look somewhere else.

    EDIT: also sovrath nailed it. and while we're on the subject of the durn casuals... so you're complaining that people are having fun while you aren't and that because you were here first somehow that leaves you and a handful of people like you more entitled to enjoying yourselves than tens of millions of other people? wow. entitlement is right. just might want to think who the word should really be applied to.

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG Member UncommonPosts: 1,387
    Originally posted by Robokapp

    Not everyone paying his college fees gets As and degrees. 

    ^ This, right here, should  end the thread.

     

    No more needs to be said. Absolutely true.

     

     

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347

    You're conflating a bunch of different issues in this thread that need to be addressed separately.  At an absolute minimum, we need to separate the issues of cumulative time spent on a game across many play sessions versus time spend continuously in a single play session.

    One general principle of game design is that, to as great of an extent as is practical, a game should fit around the schedules of its players rather than forcing players to schedule their lives around the game.  It would be ideal if players could play the game whenever they had time and do the same content regardless of the lengths of play sessions or time of day.  Some things simply aren't practical to do in discontinuous five minute chunks, but a game should never say that players need to play at a particular real-life time of day or for an extended continuous play session unless there is a good gameplay reason for it.

    If one game requires you to set aside four hour blocks of time to do things while another game lets you split those same four hours into four separate one hour play sessions, and the two games let you do the same content, then the latter is a much better game than the former.  Not just a little better; a lot better.  If one game says that certain content must be done from 6-7 pm and another game says that the content takes an hour but you can do it whenever you feel like it, then the latter is a much better game than the former.  Again, not just a little better; a lot better.

    The only good gameplay reason that I'm aware of to require contiguous play sessions of more than an hour or so is to make group content long enough to justify the effort that it takes to assemble the group.  But even this isn't that great of a reason; the real solution is to make it quicker and easier to assemble a group.  The only good gameplay reason I'm aware of to require players to do content at a particular time of day is for one-time events.  But of course, I'm not aware of any good reason to do one-time events in most games.

    -----

    Cumulative time spent is a different issue entirely.  If one player plays a game 5 hours per day and another plays 5 hours per week, it's reasonable to expect that the latter player will take about seven times as long (in real-life time) to get to content as the former.  What's unreasonable is if the latter player is never allowed to get to some content, rather than merely taking longer to get there.

    As for the latter player demanding faster leveling speed, it depends some on the nature of the game.  If the game mostly consists of stupid grinding whose only real purpose is to slow people down in their leveling, then it's perfectly reasonable for the second player to demand that that be removed.  But the reason it's reasonable isn't that he wants to level faster and ought to be allowed to do so.  Rather, the reason is because stupid grinding with no purpose other than slowing players down is bad game design and should be removed on general principle.

    If a game doesn't have very much content, then it might be perfectly fine as a short game.  Interspersing massive amounts of grinding among tidbits of content means will only mean that what could have been a good, short game will instead be a bad, long game.

    However, for the second player to demand that real content be removed in order to allow him to finish the game faster is wholly unreasonable.  But when do players ever demand that?  The problem with "kill 1000 furbolgs to proceed" isn't that you're asked to kill furbolgs.  The problem is that once you've killed 10, you've demonstrated that you readily could kill 1000 if you put the time in, but actually going through the motions of grinding something stupid to proceed is boring.

  • maplestonemaplestone Member UncommonPosts: 3,099
    Originally posted by Robokapp

    I should see more than everyone else because I am willing to go looking around and doing what it takes. Meritocracy.

    That's a perfectly valid gaming style and a perfectly valid expectation to have for an esport (it's ok to be an elitist in a competitive environment).

    The problem is that not everyone wants that.  But people still want their playstyle to get as much attention as yours for their $15.  So it's going to be in the form of an easier difficulty on the same content, or other content that they will be playing more than you.

    I worry that spinning your playstyle as a meritocracy isn't convincing other people to play your way - it's just blinding you to the validity of other playstyles.

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Jadedangel1
    I agree with a lot of what you said, but not everything can be blamed on casual players and their entitlement. A lot of this is on the developers shoulders. Yes, these are games, but for the developers its a business too. And they want that business to be profitable. If games were so great back then before all the casuals stepped in, the developers wouldn't have had to implement the easier features we expect today. But this was not the case. Though the players that they had enjoyed the game, it was not enough to sustain them profit wise. Next came the "If you build it, they will come" way of thinking, and like fish drawn to bait, the casual players were hooked in. You can't have the egg before the chicken, and likewise you can't fully blame casual players for asking for more of what was first handed out to them.

    I understand where you're coming from on the profitability argument, the problem is that MMO's can be extremely profitable with a lot less subscribers than people think.

    Just for some numbers. Rift cost approx $50 million to make (original Rift, not sure on xpac).

    Now, according to this article they sold a million copies of the game as of about 3 months after release:

    http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/07/rift-has-almost-one-million-folks-playing-it-according-to-trion-wolrds/

    According to this article, as of 9 months after release, they made over $100 million in revenue:

    http://www.gamespot.com/news/rift-revenues-reach-100-million-in-2011-6348954?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600&width=850&caption=GameSpots+PlayStation+3+News

     

    So, basically with less than a million subscribers, keep in mind that was 1 million sold over the three months, that wasnt neccesarily 1 million subbed as of 3 months later.   Whatever they lost in the months following up to the end of the year (guesses at the time were down to between 400 and 500k actual subs), they made back their development costs and then an extra 50 million on top of that.

     

    That means it was already extremely profitable.

     

    An mmo could have a 100 million dollar budget, sell 500k copies, and retain 40% of those subs and it would be profitable within a couple of years.  And thats on a HUGE budget.  They could easily make a fantastic mmo with a 20-30mil budget, sell 500k copies, retain 40% of that and be profitable in less than a year.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • mrrshann618mrrshann618 Member UncommonPosts: 279

    Bahhh, I call Shenanigans on the OP's Theory.

     

    I'm one of those casual players who only get to play a handful of hours a week. I personally think things level to fast.

    I went back to wow several years ago because a friend said things have changed for the better. I made it to cap (I think it was frozen throne of something like that, Liche king... whatever) within 2 months of "MY" schedule for being able to play. I canceled my sub as to me THAT wasn't worth it.

    "Content locust" are not to blame for any more than those who call themselves purists. Everyone Votes with their wallet and it is all worth the same in the long run. I'm now a F2P player... WHY for the love of god do you ask? I LIKE the exp gimp, it makes me explore the world more, it makes me actually EARN my levels rather than having them handed to me. EVERYONE keeps on playing the game "hoping" that it will get better, but they still pay the game, so the devs and backers think "WOW they all like it, we are not loosing a single person!!"

     

    But then again, it is always the fault of someone else right?

    Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going!
    -->  http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs  <--
    Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,105
    Actually the invention of the F2P is the best way for casuals can get to see content.  It allows the them to pay real life $$$ to skip inconvenience's.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Access to everything for 15 bucks is one thing, being able to reach everything is entirely something else. The 10% are important customers to cater for as well, and without difficult to reach content, they hardly ever stick around.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Jadedangel1
    I agree with a lot of what you said, but not everything can be blamed on casual players and their entitlement. A lot of this is on the developers shoulders. Yes, these are games, but for the developers its a business too. And they want that business to be profitable. If games were so great back then before all the casuals stepped in, the developers wouldn't have had to implement the easier features we expect today. But this was not the case. Though the players that they had enjoyed the game, it was not enough to sustain them profit wise. Next came the "If you build it, they will come" way of thinking, and like fish drawn to bait, the casual players were hooked in. You can't have the egg before the chicken, and likewise you can't fully blame casual players for asking for more of what was first handed out to them.

    I understand where you're coming from on the profitability argument, the problem is that MMO's can be extremely profitable with a lot less subscribers than people think.

    Just for some numbers. Rift cost approx $50 million to make (original Rift, not sure on xpac).

    Now, according to this article they sold a million copies of the game as of about 3 months after release:

    http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/07/rift-has-almost-one-million-folks-playing-it-according-to-trion-wolrds/

    According to this article, as of 9 months after release, they made over $100 million in revenue:

    http://www.gamespot.com/news/rift-revenues-reach-100-million-in-2011-6348954?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600&width=850&caption=GameSpots+PlayStation+3+News

     

    So, basically with less than a million subscribers, keep in mind that was 1 million sold over the three months, that wasnt neccesarily 1 million subbed as of 3 months later.   Whatever they lost in the months following up to the end of the year (guesses at the time were down to between 400 and 500k actual subs), they made back their development costs and then an extra 50 million on top of that.

     

    That means it was already extremely profitable.

     

    An mmo could have a 100 million dollar budget, sell 500k copies, and retain 40% of those subs and it would be profitable within a couple of years.  And thats on a HUGE budget.  They could easily make a fantastic mmo with a 20-30mil budget, sell 500k copies, retain 40% of that and be profitable in less than a year.

    Problem is.. out of that 100mil, how much of that do you think actually went to the developers? Between publisher fees, investor returns, and tax codes, that 100mil tends to shrink substantially, and fast. The reality of the situation is many of these big budget game studios are struggling to stay afloat. They are either heavily backed by a publisher (which ensures their games get out and sell, but also has their cashflow severely handcuffed in most cases), or they are not trying to make MMOs.

    Indies are mostly doing alright, but it's impossible to deliver on all demands 100% with the turnaround expectations of the average gamer. Combine that with the issue of financials when trying to ship a game like an MMO, and it's no big shocker that studios will often buckle on a design decision if it means their game will get financed, and they are much more likely to get a return. It's extremely rare to be able to control a passion project 100%, especially if you are working on a large / complicated project (which is pretty much every MMO ever).

    The irony of all this, is that gamers like to complain about how little the devs 'listen to them'. When the whole time devs are trying to give gamers as much of what they want as possible. This isn't always true, but it's a lot more frequent then a lot of people here seem to realize. Many of the things we are seeing in this latest batch of MMOs are a direct result of gamer criticisms over the last group of MMOs. The problem is these games take ~5-8 years to make, and by then it's often too late in our eyes. We criticise MMOs like we do standard games, which often have ~1/8-1/10th the production schedule of an MMO.

    Entitlement is definitely a hugely toxic component to todays games. Gamers are entitled there's no other way to put it, even if you think you're innocent, it's probably not true. The big problem with entitlement isn't even that devs are catering to it. It's that people aren't really supporting the games that don't, and then complaining that they have no games. Just to make a point, how many people on this site are waiting for the perfect MMO that never comes? It's not going to come if none of the games that are trying to implement some of your desired features are shown there's a market for those features.

    MMOs, by their nature, cannot be treated like an 'all or nothing' genre. It's time we stopped viewing them in such ways. All MMOs will have features that not every likely. It's something we need to put up w/ if we want to enjoy playing with others. Also, MMOs have been improving, it just takes 5x longer to see the changes than it does w/ other genres (due to a 500% + production timetable)

  • TealaTeala Member RarePosts: 7,627

    I think the OP is grabbing at straws.   The problem with these MMO's is they stopped being persistent virtual worlds and become Disney Land.   Everything was laid out for you - they were stagnant.   In games like AC with monthly story updates - whole towns could be laid waste.   Also, players could impact the story...there is still a statue that pays respects to the players of a server in AC that changed the outcome of the Shadow Invasion and won - no other populace on the other servers did this.  

    Unlike EVE, today's MMO's are lacking any kind of player involvement.    EVE continues to grow while these other games continue to die and EVE was one of the few MMO's that hasn't gone free to play yet.  

    I've said it before...and I will keep saying it...the further these games move away from their roots - the more they will slip into the abyss of mediocrity. 

  • rodingorodingo Member RarePosts: 2,870

    I don't think I have ever seen anyone complain about how long it takes to level in an MMO on these forums.  Well maybe except for Aion when it first launched. 

    The thing is, a casual's $15 is the exact same value as a hardcore player's $15 when you are talking p2p games.  The hardcore didn't need to spend anymore money and the casual wasn't able to spend less.  It was a flat rate for everyone, no matter what. 

    So if you build a theme park with only a certain number of rides that mainly catered to one group of people, you would probably notice that the Jones' theme park down the street that has more rides catering to even more types of people is making more money and also people from your theme park visit and buy tickets with them as well. 

    Business is about competition and catering to your customer's needs and wants.  If you can't supply that then sure, you will have some loyal customers who like your few products that you offer, but you will lose out on all that profit from sales from other customers if you would have diversified.  So you have to stay competitive and offer more goods and services to attract more customers. 

    TLDR:  In way you thread title is right, except only close minded people will see it as a negative.

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • JRRNeiklotJRRNeiklot Member UncommonPosts: 129
    Originally posted by Hrimnir

    W

    So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

    I agree with your point, but this is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read.  Being a HUGE Tolkien fan, I re-read the LoTR trilogy once a year or so, and it takes me all of about 2 days reading a few hours a day.  That said, Peter Jackson did EXACTLY that with his crappy movies.  If it takes anyone a month to read a book, they should really learn to read.  Every form of entertainment is dumbed down these days, not just mmos.

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    You're conflating a bunch of different issues in this thread that need to be addressed separately.  At an absolute minimum, we need to separate the issues of cumulative time spent on a game across many play sessions versus time spend continuously in a single play session.

     

    *snip*

     

    However, for the second player to demand that real content be removed in order to allow him to finish the game faster is wholly unreasonable.  But when do players ever demand that?  The problem with "kill 1000 furbolgs to proceed" isn't that you're asked to kill furbolgs.  The problem is that once you've killed 10, you've demonstrated that you readily could kill 1000 if you put the time in, but actually going through the motions of grinding something stupid to proceed is boring.

    So, i understand what you're saying, but here is where i differ in opinion.  What you describe is fine when you're talking about a single player game.  I'm all for being able to pause, save, whatever a single player game whenever you want, even if its right before a boss fight.  Thats kind of the point of single player games is that you play them at your pace.

    The mistake you are making is the mistake a lot of people make which is confusing a long leveling curve/time investment with being a "grind".

    Its only a grind when there is a lack of content.  MMO's since WOW have had people level by doing quests.  So if you ran out of quests your only option was to go slaughter mobs until you leveled.  This was a failure in design principles of the game.

    Looking at a game like EQ, which took most people over 600 hours to get a character to max level, worked just fine without having to "grind" because there was a plethora of content.  They also made wise design decisions.  I'll explain further.

    In EQ you had usually between 3 and 6 zones you could go level in at any given level.  It was like today where at best you have 2 small zones, or usually 1 small zone that is level appropriate.    You also had multiple dungeons that overlapped a large range of levels.  So if you didnt want to level outside, you could get buddies together and run a dungeon.  This was incentivized by dungeons having an XP bonus, and by the potential for nice loot.  If it took 10 hours to level one time, it wasn't a big deal because each dungeon was so large, you could easily spend 2 hours getting to 1 camp spot of a dungeon, and you usually had at least 2 other dungeons that were lvl appropriate.

    People only sat in one area for 10 hours on end grinding mobs because it minimized downtime, and like all min/maxers they try to do everything as efficiently as possible.  So yes, they could make XP 10% faster lets say by never moving from one area to another because the 10-15 minutes you spent getting to the new area was XP you weren't getting.  But again, thats just standard min/maxer mentality on everything.

    The problem then comes back to the casual entitlement whiners.  They basically went, "well, i can only play solo by running quests, so you're disenfranchising me by making grouping level faster than soloing quests.  So of course as people pointed out, the developers pandered to these people and made it so that questing was the fastest way of leveling.  This basically negated any reason to run dungeons or pursue any of the other content.  Normally gear would be a reason to pursue the other content, but as Mark Kern pointed out in his opinion piece, when the leveling curve is so fast that the 2 hours you spent in the dungeon getting the sword, had it been spent on XPing via questing, would of outleveled the sword you got...., then whats the point?

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    Originally posted by Hrimnir

    W

    So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

    I agree with your point, but this is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read.  Being a HUGE Tolkien fan, I re-read the LoTR trilogy once a year or so, and it takes me all of about 2 days reading a few hours a day.  That said, Peter Jackson did EXACTLY that with his crappy movies.  If it takes anyone a month to read a book, they should really learn to read.  Every form of entertainment is dumbed down these days, not just mmos.

    I was being generous.  I've seen people at work take 2 weeks to read a novel i would kill in 2 hours.  So, /shrug.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

Sign In or Register to comment.