Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Why did MMOs become about the money and numbers?

1911131415

Comments

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

     

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    Oh you mean the market data showing most big budget AAA MMORPGs collapsing within 3 months of launching? Firing devs, merging servers, rushing out expansions, going free to play? Great sign of success in the booming MMO industry? What's that, most companies have pulled out of it? Oh right, it's because we have had maybe one solidly successful big budget MMO in 7 years, GW2. SWTOR, AoC, WAR, Aion, FF, Rift, STO, DCUO, all collapsed, shrank in size, merged servers, and stopped growing almost right away.

     

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

     

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    Oh you mean the market data showing most big budget AAA MMORPGs collapsing within 3 months of launching? Firing devs, merging servers, rushing out expansions, going free to play? Great sign of success in the booming MMO industry? What's that, most companies have pulled out of it? Oh right, it's because we have had maybe one solidly successful big budget MMO in 7 years, GW2. SWTOR, AoC, WAR, Aion, FF, Rift, STO, DCUO, all collapsed, shrank in size, merged servers, and stopped growing almost right away.

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises.

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is.

  • dwarfusdwarfus Arlington, VAPosts: 93Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TheScavenger

    why did MMOs become about the money and numbers? What happened to the love that went into them? 

    Wow, surprised this question has gotten so many responses. 

    Wake up - money drives everything in this world. Even marriages or "love" is filtered to the context of money. Want to argue my point, become a jobless, homeless person and let me know in a year if you're dating someone or married. 

    Money makes the world go round. Want to change that - start a revolution.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,633Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    If tens of millions are playing, and the market is making billions .. what can we conclude? It is not like MMORPGs are the only entertainment out there.

    If people are spending time in them, as opposed to movies and other types of games, they must like it to some extent.

    Ahem. We have been here before, just because people buy something in baulk does not mean it has quality.

    No one is arguing that a Big Mac is the same as a good steak. Stop with the strawmen and stay on topic. The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them.

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak.

     

    I did not say "anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it." Enough with the hyperbole, strawmen and other antics instead of addressing the topics and questions presented.

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

     

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by dwarfus
    Originally posted by TheScavenger

    why did MMOs become about the money and numbers? What happened to the love that went into them? 

    Wow, surprised this question has gotten so many responses. 

    Wake up - money drives everything in this world. Even marriages or "love" is filtered to the context of money. Want to argue my point, become a jobless, homeless person and let me know in a year if you're dating someone or married. 

    Money makes the world go round. Want to change that - start a revolution.

    do you believe everybody who creates anything does so for the love of money and only for the love of money?

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    If tens of millions are playing, and the market is making billions .. what can we conclude? It is not like MMORPGs are the only entertainment out there.

    If people are spending time in them, as opposed to movies and other types of games, they must like it to some extent.

    Ahem. We have been here before, just because people buy something in baulk does not mean it has quality.

    No one is arguing that a Big Mac is the same as a good steak. Stop with the strawmen and stay on topic. The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them.

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak.

     

    I did not say "anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it." Enough with the hyperbole, strawmen and other antics instead of addressing the topics and questions presented.

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

     

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

    wait what? Yes, that is what you said. You said that people are satisfied with these games because people are playing and paying for them. Just because somebody is paying for something DOES NOT mean they're satisfied and doesn't mean they aren't disappointed. There's no hyperbole here.

     

    And no, it's not logical to conclude that. I don't know if more people are playing MMO now than last year, but assuming they are that could be for any number of reasons. As I pointed out, creating products designed for a larger group of people just means you're dealing with bigger numbers, it doesn't mean those people like your product any more than the people playing niche games like those products. Any industry can have a general sense of dissatisfaction, regardless of its size.

     

    And now who's setting up strawmen? I didn't say anything about whether or not people were entertained. You can be entertained and disappointed, quite easily. I enjoyed the Dark Knight Rises, but I was also disappointed by it. 

  • WraithoneWraithone Salt Lake City, UTPosts: 3,592Member Uncommon

    The short answer, the suits and investors took over. Why? Because these games take major amounts of money to create, and few people in their right minds are going to trust creatives (Dev's) with that much money, without the major decisions being made by suits.

    Suits and Dev's have different mind sets, and thus world views.  Looking at how MMO's have developed over the last 15 years, its not difficult to explain how things ended up like they are.   Suits tend to be risk adverse (working with major amounts of other peoples money, tends to do that) and are focused on the best ROI they can get.  Dev's for the most part, just want to make the best game they can.  The conflict of interest should be obvious.

  • cybersrscybersrs New York, NYPosts: 161Member
    Because games are made by corporations?
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,633Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    If tens of millions are playing, and the market is making billions .. what can we conclude? It is not like MMORPGs are the only entertainment out there.

    If people are spending time in them, as opposed to movies and other types of games, they must like it to some extent.

    Ahem. We have been here before, just because people buy something in baulk does not mean it has quality.

    No one is arguing that a Big Mac is the same as a good steak. Stop with the strawmen and stay on topic. The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them.

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak.

     

    I did not say "anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it." Enough with the hyperbole, strawmen and other antics instead of addressing the topics and questions presented.

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

     

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

    wait what? Yes, that is what you said. You said that people are satisfied with these games because people are playing and paying for them.

    And since everything I've written on the matter is in print only a few lines up, it's obvious you're seeing what you want to and not even reading the words. I can't work with you if you don't try, man. Need some effort on your part.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? [Straw man: He never claimed that] This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. [Speculation] You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it. [Straw man continues]

     

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak. [Metaphor intended to antagonize i.e. troll]

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
     

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises. [Same straw man still]

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is. [Egotistic comment]

    A straw man is:

    A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    Added some aids in red. Your welcome.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? [Straw man: He never claimed that]

    It's following the thought process out to its conclusion. Do you understand the argument? He's saying that because millions of people are playing the game, that means they're satisfied. That's what he said!  Here:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    What on earth is wrong with me pointing out that in order to make that statement, he's also making the one I presented??

    This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. [Speculation]

    No, it's not speculation. By claiming that "millions of people playing/paying" = satisfied customers, he's in FACT not taking into account things like marketing or the possibility of certain tactics that keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves. That's not speculation. These are things that he's not taking into account.

    You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it. [Straw man continues]

    No, it's not. You can't make that connection, and people here (including him... you saw the quote yes?) continue to make it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak. [Metaphor intended to antagonize i.e. troll]

    It's a bit antagonistic, but not in excess of the average level of troll in this thread or on these forums.

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
     

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises. [Same straw man still]

    It's not a straw man! It's their argument! Why else would you bring up the fact that a lot of people pay for these games if you WEREN'T trying to make that or some other similar connection? 

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is. [Egotistic comment]

    I guess? It's just true. So much time is wasted swatting down obvious fallacies, like the ones littered throughout your post here.

    A straw man is:

    A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    Added some aids in red. Your welcome.

    Why are you even talking to me? Every single time I have any kind of engagement with you, you quickly give up and just ignore my posts. IMO people should be banned for that. It's incredibly pointless/frustrating to have a conversation with somebody and then they just suddenly stop responding when they have nothing left to say. You do it, Gdnemai or whatever does it, Narius does it, VengeSaur does it, Lizardbones does it (to a lesser extent. he usually sticks around longest), Jean-luc is probably the worst, Icewhite (I think that's the name?) does it. 

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    No, it's not speculation. By claiming that "millions of people playing/paying" = satisfied customers, he's in FACT not taking into account things like marketing or the possibility of certain tactics that keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves. That's not speculation. These are things that he's not taking into account.

    You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it. [Straw man continues]

    No, it's not. You can't make that connection, and people here (including him... you saw the quote yes?) continue to make it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak. [Metaphor intended to antagonize i.e. troll]

    It's a bit antagonistic, but not in excess of the average level of troll in this thread or on these forums.

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
     

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises. [Same straw man still]

    It's not a straw man! It's their argument! Why else would you bring up the fact that a lot of people pay for these games if you WEREN'T trying to make that or some other similar connection? 

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is. [Egotistic comment]

    I guess? It's just true. So much time is wasted swatting down obvious fallacies, like the ones I littered throughout your post here.

    A straw man is:

    A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    Added some aids in red. Your welcome.

    Why are you even talking to me? Every single time I have any kind of engagement with you, you quickly give up and just ignore my posts. IMO people should be banned for that. It's incredibly pointless/frustrating to have a conversation with somebody and then they just suddenly stop responding when they have nothing left to say. You do it, Gdnemai or whatever does it, Narius does it, VengeSaur does it, Lizardbones does it (to a lesser extent. he usually sticks around longest), Jean-luc is probably the worst, Icewhite (I think that's the name?) does it. 

    We do it because your posts are continuously littered with straw man arguments, twisted facts, cherry picked facts.  It's pointless holding a conversation with you.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    Why are you even talking to me? Every single time I have any kind of engagement with you, you quickly give up and just ignore my posts. IMO people should be banned for that. It's incredibly pointless/frustrating to have a conversation with somebody and then they just suddenly stop responding when they have nothing left to say. You do it, Gdnemai or whatever does it, Narius does it, VengeSaur does it, Lizardbones does it (to a lesser extent. he usually sticks around longest), Jean-luc is probably the worst, Icewhite (I think that's the name?) does it. 

    We do it because your posts are continuously littered with straw man arguments, twisted facts, cherry picked facts.  It's pointless holding a conversation with you.

    No, you do it because you run out of bunny trails to lead the conversation down. Feel free to point out a strawman argument of mine. Because what will happen is you'll point it out, I'll explain how it isn't one, and then you'll stop responding.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    I think the majority today are fairly satisified with games today and it is just forums like this that say the opposite. 

    Well it obviously may not be as accurate as possible (vocal minority and all that) but what else do we have to go on?

    Market data.

    If tens of millions are playing, and the market is making billions .. what can we conclude? It is not like MMORPGs are the only entertainment out there.

    If people are spending time in them, as opposed to movies and other types of games, they must like it to some extent.

    Ahem. We have been here before, just because people buy something in baulk does not mean it has quality.

    No one is arguing that a Big Mac is the same as a good steak. Stop with the strawmen and stay on topic. The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them.

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak.

     

    I did not say "anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it." Enough with the hyperbole, strawmen and other antics instead of addressing the topics and questions presented.

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

     

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

    wait what? Yes, that is what you said. You said that people are satisfied with these games because people are playing and paying for them.

    And since everything I've written on the matter is in print only a few lines up, it's obvious you're seeing what you want to and not even reading the words. I can't work with you if you don't try, man. Need some effort on your part.

     

    YOU:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    ME:

    "So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay."

     

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

     

    YOU:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    ME:

    "So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay."

     

    You don't realize that those are 3 different argument with one just being speculation?  And even if marketing or human nature is in there they are still paying AND PLAYING.

    If they continue to play, yes they are satisfied - and since the market is increasing, the majority are continuing to play.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAPosts: 1,571Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    YOU:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    ME:

    "So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay."

     

     

    It does not seem reasonable to assume that people will pay (and continue to pay) for products that they are unsatisfied with. I will agree that there is a gap between satisfied, and unsatisfied, and that many consumers may be in this gap.  

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

     

    YOU:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    ME:

    "So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay."

     

    You don't realize that those are 3 different argument with one just being speculation?  And even if marketing or human nature is in there they are still paying AND PLAYING.

    What's speculation? I'm not claiming any 1 game in particular is using false marketing and carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. I'm saying that because these things exist, you can't just assume that players paying/playing means they're satisfied or not disappointed.

    If they continue to play, yes they are satisfied - and since the market is increasing, the majority are continuing to play.

    No, this is exactly the same mistake he's making. You're assuming that if they're playing a game, that means they're satisfied with that game. That is NOT taking into account that it could be due to other factors like marketing or as I said before carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You do realize what that is yes? It's game design that's basically by definition set up to string people along with promises instead of giving them gameplay.

     

    And it's worse than that, because the argument is about the market in general. We're not even talking about one specific game. The argument people are making is that since millions of people are playing MMO's, that means that MMO's aren't disappointing, or that people are satisfied with them. That is just simply straight up not a connection you can make.

     

    And there's ANOTHER THING which I mentioned before but obviously hasn't been addressed: By appealing to a larger playerbase you're automatically going to have higher numbers than a product that isn't going after a playerbase that big. So by saying there are X amount of people playing, you're not saying anything about the particular products. Even if you had data on player retention, it still wouldn't mean that people are satisfied because some games are specifically designed to keep people around.

     

    Oh, another thing: If somebody's favorite genre is MMO, he may be inclined to keep playing MMOs even if he's not satisfied with them in their current state. He can be disappointed with the current state of MMO's and still just wait around playing the crappy ones until EQN comes out or whatever. Hell, that's me! Not really waiting for EQN, but I am playing other MMO's that are kind of disappointing simply because i'm waiting for something better.

     

    Sorry this got so long but all of these arguments are meant to show how silly it is to make the blind connection between people playing the game and people being satisfied with not only that game, but the market in general.

  • MaelkorMaelkor Friendswood, TXPosts: 465Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by dwarfus
    Originally posted by TheScavenger

    why did MMOs become about the money and numbers? What happened to the love that went into them? 

    Wow, surprised this question has gotten so many responses. 

    Wake up - money drives everything in this world. Even marriages or "love" is filtered to the context of money. Want to argue my point, become a jobless, homeless person and let me know in a year if you're dating someone or married. 

    Money makes the world go round. Want to change that - start a revolution.

    People have tried. All have failed. There is a reason for that but not really on topic for this overall discussion. Just the basics of Money = Resources. It takes a certain amount of resources to make anything. Money is portable and much easier to use than bartering so money will always win out over a barter type system. A system in which no one gets paid to do work =  a system in which very little to no work gets done(one reason the USSR collapsed in the 80's). If the amount of resources required to produce something exceeds the amount of resources that item will gain in return that item will "fail" and no longer get produced. The only exception to that are items with government subsidies in which the government takes resources from those that produce excess to give to those who are unable to produce enough.

     

    If anyone is familiar with Burning Man this is the best example of kind of what I am talking about. It started out as a sort of communistic everyone bring what they can and everyone share to a much more highly developed trading/bartering system with every note of capitalism except hard currency(money). Even at that people resort to using money even there from time to time.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
     

    No, this is exactly the same mistake he's making. You're assuming that if they're playing a game, that means they're satisfied with that game. That is NOT taking into account that it could be due to other factors like marketing or as I said before carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You do realize what that is yes? It's game design that's basically by definition set up to string people along with promises instead of giving them gameplay.

     And it's worse than that, because the argument is about the market in general. We're not even talking about one specific game. The argument people are making is that since millions of people are playing MMO's, that means that MMO's aren't disappointing, or that people are satisfied with them. That is just simply straight up not a connection you can make.

     

    And there's ANOTHER THING which I mentioned before but obviously hasn't been addressed: By appealing to a larger playerbase you're automatically going to have higher numbers than a product that isn't going after a playerbase that big. So by saying there are X amount of people playing, you're not saying anything about the particular products. Even if you had data on player retention, it still wouldn't mean that people are satisfied because some games are specifically designed to keep people around.

     

    Oh, another thing: If somebody's favorite genre is MMO, he may be inclined to keep playing MMOs even if he's not satisfied with them in their current state. He can be disappointed with the current state of MMO's and still just wait around playing the crappy ones until EQN comes out or whatever. Hell, that's me! Not really waiting for EQN, but I am playing other MMO's that are kind of disappointing simply because i'm waiting for something better.

     

    Sorry this got so long but all of these arguments are meant to show how silly it is to make the blind connection between people playing the game and people being satisfied with not only that game, but the market in general.

    No it isn't wrong.  If they are still playing they are obviously satified enough to continue playing.  If they were not satifised they would stop.  This does not mean that they are ecstatic or that things could't be better but they are satisfied enough to keep playing. Marketing and psychological tricks will not keep people playing that do not like the prodcut.

    Appealing to a larger base does not mean you lose all the old ones.  IMO it's not even reasonable to assume you lose a majority of the old base.  You will not get 100% of the new market in whatever market you are going for so if you are growing it is reasonable to assume you are holding onto a good percentage of the old market and adding new people.

    If they are not satisfied they will stop playing.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
     

    No, this is exactly the same mistake he's making. You're assuming that if they're playing a game, that means they're satisfied with that game. That is NOT taking into account that it could be due to other factors like marketing or as I said before carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. You do realize what that is yes? It's game design that's basically by definition set up to string people along with promises instead of giving them gameplay.

     And it's worse than that, because the argument is about the market in general. We're not even talking about one specific game. The argument people are making is that since millions of people are playing MMO's, that means that MMO's aren't disappointing, or that people are satisfied with them. That is just simply straight up not a connection you can make.

     

    And there's ANOTHER THING which I mentioned before but obviously hasn't been addressed: By appealing to a larger playerbase you're automatically going to have higher numbers than a product that isn't going after a playerbase that big. So by saying there are X amount of people playing, you're not saying anything about the particular products. Even if you had data on player retention, it still wouldn't mean that people are satisfied because some games are specifically designed to keep people around.

     

    Oh, another thing: If somebody's favorite genre is MMO, he may be inclined to keep playing MMOs even if he's not satisfied with them in their current state. He can be disappointed with the current state of MMO's and still just wait around playing the crappy ones until EQN comes out or whatever. Hell, that's me! Not really waiting for EQN, but I am playing other MMO's that are kind of disappointing simply because i'm waiting for something better.

     

    Sorry this got so long but all of these arguments are meant to show how silly it is to make the blind connection between people playing the game and people being satisfied with not only that game, but the market in general.

    No it isn't wrong.  If they are still playing they are obviously satified enough to continue playing.  If they were not satifised they would stop.  This does not mean that they are ecstatic or that things could't be better but they are satisfied enough to keep playing. Marketing and psychological tricks will not keep people playing that do not like the prodcut.

    Appealing to a larger base does not mean you lose all the old ones.  IMO it's not even reasonable to assume you lose a majority of the old base.  You will not get 100% of the new market in whatever market you are going for so if you are growing it is reasonable to assume you are holding onto a good percentage of the old market and adding new people.

    If they are not satisfied they will stop playing.

    Now you're shifting it from "satisfied" to "satisfied enough to keep playing." Because by doing so, it validates your argument that people playing = people satisfied. It doesn't mean that. As I've pointed out, you can be disappointed and still play, right? That's a rhetorical question because I'm living proof of that and I have no doubt MANY of the people you're speaking for are just like me: we play MMO's, but we're not satisfied with the games being produced.

     

    And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the old base vs the newer base argument. I'm merely saying that pointing out that there are "millions" of people who are playing/paying for games isn't really an argument. It could be a small indie game with 100 players and those 100 players could be more satisfied than the millions of people playing MMOs. Just because it's a bigger market, doesn't mean it's a satisfied market.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? [Straw man: He never claimed that]

    It's following the thought process out to its conclusion. Do you understand the argument? He's saying that because millions of people are playing the game, that means they're satisfied. That's what he said!  Here:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    What on earth is wrong with me pointing out that in order to make that statement, he's also making the one I presented??

    First, you can't follow his "thought process to its conclusion", because you can't claim to know what he thought. You make mistakes like that. Just like you did. Later he specified:

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

    By any measure of good reading did he meant to say what you claimed he did.

    This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. [Speculation]

    No, it's not speculation. By claiming that "millions of people playing/paying" = satisfied customers, he's in FACT not taking into account things like marketing or the possibility of certain tactics that keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves. That's not speculation. These are things that he's not taking into account.

    "...keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves." You meant "not enjoying", right?

    To put any weight on this you would have to define what this type of "marketing" and these "tactics" are. And then you would have to put a number on it, else it could very well be between 0 and 100%. Your guess is as good as mine; hence, speculation. But all this is irrelevant since he didn't wrote what you claimed he did.

    You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it. [Straw man continues]

    No, it's not. You can't make that connection, and people here (including him... you saw the quote yes?) continue to make it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak. [Metaphor intended to antagonize i.e. troll]

    It's a bit antagonistic, but not in excess of the average level of troll in this thread or on these forums.

    It has no other function than to be antagonistic. Speaks volumes on your intentions.

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
     

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises. [Same straw man still]

    It's not a straw man! It's their argument! Why else would you bring up the fact that a lot of people pay for these games if you WEREN'T trying to make that or some other similar connection? 

    Do I need to point out the obvious and tell you nobody would make such an argument because it is completely ridiculous? The whole notion is laughable. How you summarized "a lot of players = satisfied players" from his earlier post is astounding.

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is. [Egotistic comment]

    I guess? It's just true. So much time is wasted swatting down obvious fallacies, like the ones I littered throughout your post here.

    Fallacy... I do not thing it means what you think it means. You did no such thing.

    A straw man is:

    A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    Added some aids in red. Your welcome.

    Why are you even talking to me? Every single time I have any kind of engagement with you, you quickly give up and just ignore my posts. IMO people should be banned for that. It's incredibly pointless/frustrating to have a conversation with somebody and then they just suddenly stop responding when they have nothing left to say. You do it, Gdnemai or whatever does it, Narius does it, VengeSaur does it, Lizardbones does it (to a lesser extent. he usually sticks around longest), Jean-luc is probably the worst, Icewhite (I think that's the name?) does it. 

    Because I can't help but feel entertained. I also improve my english, my logical thinking, my debating skills, my knowledge on games, my understanding of other players... All the names you listed are few of the more clear-thinking posters here. I am actually honored to be counted among them.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Holophonist

     

    Now you're shifting it from "satisfied" to "satisfied enough to keep playing." Because by doing so, it validates your argument that people playing = people satisfied. It doesn't mean that. As I've pointed out, you can be disappointed and still play, right? That's a rhetorical question because I'm living proof of that and I have no doubt MANY of the people you're speaking for are just like me: we play MMO's, but we're not satisfied with the games being produced.

     

    And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the old base vs the newer base argument. I'm merely saying that pointing out that there are "millions" of people who are playing/paying for games isn't really an argument. It could be a small indie game with 100 players and those 100 players could be more satisfied than the millions of people playing MMOs. Just because it's a bigger market, doesn't mean it's a satisfied market.

    No there is no shift.  Satisfied does not mean ecstatic, it does not mean they do not hope things could get better it means they like it enough to keep playing.  Many many many (I would say most) people are satisfied with things while still hoping that something better comes along. 

    If you are disappointed in the game it means it did not live up to all your expectations, but if you hare aving fun, you are still satisfied, but not as satisfied as you hoped to be.  Right?

    If people do not like the product they will stop playing.

    If you were not satisfied, if you did not like the game, you would stop playing, unless you have abuse issues (no this is not an addiction so we won't go there)

    If they continue to play they are satisfied, maybe they are still hoping for something better, but they like the game enough to keep playing. 

    You are equating satisfied with being extremely happy, or not wanting any change.  That is not what it means.  It means they are currently ok with the way the product is.  They are content with it as is, they are pleased with it as is.  They can do that and still hope for something more.

    I curently have $8000 in the bank right now, I'm satisfied, however I would like $10 million.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    So you do realize that you're claiming that anybody who pays for something isn't dissatisfied or disappointed with it, yes? [Straw man: He never claimed that]

    It's following the thought process out to its conclusion. Do you understand the argument? He's saying that because millions of people are playing the game, that means they're satisfied. That's what he said!  Here:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    What on earth is wrong with me pointing out that in order to make that statement, he's also making the one I presented??

    First, you can't follow his "thought process to its conclusion", because you can't claim to know what he thought. You make mistakes like that. Just like you did. Later he specified:

    If millions of people are playing and paying for a particular type of entertainment, AND the number that do so - along with the amount that gets spent - goes up every year, then it is logical to conclude that the majority today are fairly satisfied with the entertainment service provided. If the majority weren't fairly satisfied, the number of people playing MMOs, as well as the money being spent on MMOs, would decline each year.    

    Now, it's entirely possible that the majority of MMO gamers are so completely broken that they are paying monthly for entertainment that isn't entertaining to them, but I don't think that's probable. Do you?

    By any measure of good reading did he meant to say what you claimed he did.

    Yeah except that's still not true, it's just drawn out into multiple sentences. You can't assume that people are satisfied with games simply because there are people playing them, and not even by an increase in people playing them. So whatever clarification you think he offered, it didn't change differ from his original statement.

     

    And you still haven't shown me why my statement was different from his or a straw man in any way.

    This doesn't take into account marketing or the human nature that developers exploit using carrot-on-a-stick gameplay. [Speculation]

    No, it's not speculation. By claiming that "millions of people playing/paying" = satisfied customers, he's in FACT not taking into account things like marketing or the possibility of certain tactics that keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves. That's not speculation. These are things that he's not taking into account.

    "...keep people playing even if they're enjoying themselves." You meant "not enjoying", right?

    To put any weight on this you would have to define what this type of "marketing" and these "tactics" are. And then you would have to put a number on it, else it could very well be between 0 and 100%. Your guess is as good as mine; hence, speculation. But all this is irrelevant since he didn't wrote what you claimed he did.

    Yes, even if they're not* enjoying themselves.

     

    And an example of marketing would be the rhetoric we hear from companies regarding pvp and catering to "all gameplay styles." an example of a tactic that could keep people around is, as I've said a number of times already, carrot-on-a-stick game design. AKA grinding forever to get some "thing." I promise you there are at least some people that do not enjoy grinding to get these items and aren't even particularly satisfied when they do get them, but by that time there's a shiny new "thing" for them to work towards... except THIS TIME IT'LL BE DIFFERENT. 

     

    And no, I don't have to put any numbers to them. I'm not the one making the claim that people playing = satisfied people. The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm calling that statement into question by pointing out other possible factors. He's the one that has to put numbers to these ideas. He's the one that has to back up his statement that because people are playing the game, that means they're satisfied. That's the claim. It's not "speculation" for me to point that there are other possible factors. I'm not claiming to know exactly how many people are sucked in  to games they don't like with these tactics... I'm only pointing out why the amount of people playing isn't necessarily indicative of how satisfied people are.

    You just simply cannot make the connection between quality/satisfaction/whatever and total subs, so you all should really just stop doing it. [Straw man continues]

    No, it's not. You can't make that connection, and people here (including him... you saw the quote yes?) continue to make it.

    I am glad that you seem to be recognizing the difference in game types is akin to comparing a Big Mac with steak. [Metaphor intended to antagonize i.e. troll]

    It's a bit antagonistic, but not in excess of the average level of troll in this thread or on these forums.

    It has no other function than to be antagonistic. Speaks volumes on your intentions.

    Similar to the end of your post, right?

     

    "Added some aids in red. Your welcome."

     

    That's not antagonistic, right? Maybe stop being so petty? People sometimes get antagonistic on the internet. And I definitely have a right considering how often you (in particular) and others just drop arguments in an instant when it doesn't serve you anymore.

    Originally posted by Holophonist

    Originally posted by DavisFlight
     

    Anybody who thinks that a lot of players = satisfied players or a good product doesn't understand economics AT ALL. Making products that are designed for a larger audience means you're going to have more people consuming your product than a well made, niche product will. It's like saying people were more satisfied with The Dark Knight Rises than they were with Upstream Color simply because more people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises. [Same straw man still]

    It's not a straw man! It's their argument! Why else would you bring up the fact that a lot of people pay for these games if you WEREN'T trying to make that or some other similar connection? 

    Do I need to point out the obvious and tell you nobody would make such an argument because it is completely ridiculous? The whole notion is laughable. How you summarized "a lot of players = satisfied players" from his earlier post is astounding.

    FIRST OF ALL, that quote isn't even from the same argument..... so.... wtf? Here's the preceding comment that sparked THAT conversation:

     

    "If tens of millions are playing, and the market is making billions .. what can we conclude? It is not like MMORPGs are the only entertainment out there."

     

    Secondly, Lok did kind of bring itup:

    "The majority today are fairly satisfied with games today, which is evident by the millions of people that are playing and paying for them."

     

    Why include the word "millions"? 

     

    We really are just straight up dealing with children and it's becoming increasingly obvious how much of a waste of time it is. [Egotistic comment]

    I guess? It's just true. So much time is wasted swatting down obvious fallacies, like the ones I littered throughout your post here.

    Fallacy... I do not thing it means what you think it means. You did no such thing.

    The "I" was a typo. I was going to type something else but forgot to delete the "I".

    A straw man is:

    A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    Added some aids in red. Your welcome.

    Why are you even talking to me? Every single time I have any kind of engagement with you, you quickly give up and just ignore my posts. IMO people should be banned for that. It's incredibly pointless/frustrating to have a conversation with somebody and then they just suddenly stop responding when they have nothing left to say. You do it, Gdnemai or whatever does it, Narius does it, VengeSaur does it, Lizardbones does it (to a lesser extent. he usually sticks around longest), Jean-luc is probably the worst, Icewhite (I think that's the name?) does it. 

    Because I can't help but feel entertained. I also improve my english, my logical thinking, my debating skills, my knowledge on games, my understanding of other players... All the names you listed are few of the more clear-thinking posters here. I am actually honored to be counted among them.

    Well improve it on somebody who doesn't mind when you bail mid-discussion. And how exactly do you improve your logical thinking when you're not following a discussion through to its end? And I have no doubt you think they're clear-headed. Almost everybody on that list has certain things in common: they defend the status quo of themeparks and enjoy getting snarky potshots in against "hardcore" players or people who are calling for a change in the genre.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist

     

    Now you're shifting it from "satisfied" to "satisfied enough to keep playing." Because by doing so, it validates your argument that people playing = people satisfied. It doesn't mean that. As I've pointed out, you can be disappointed and still play, right? That's a rhetorical question because I'm living proof of that and I have no doubt MANY of the people you're speaking for are just like me: we play MMO's, but we're not satisfied with the games being produced.

     

    And I'm not sure what you're getting at with the old base vs the newer base argument. I'm merely saying that pointing out that there are "millions" of people who are playing/paying for games isn't really an argument. It could be a small indie game with 100 players and those 100 players could be more satisfied than the millions of people playing MMOs. Just because it's a bigger market, doesn't mean it's a satisfied market.

    No there is no shift.  Satisfied does not mean ecstatic, it does not mean they do not hope things could get better it means they like it enough to keep playing.  Many many many (I would say most) people are satisfied with things while still hoping that something better comes along. 

    Well it would probably be good if you would read through the thread then and take these things in context. The words "satisfied" and "disappointing" were brought up when I was talking about MMOs nowadays being disappointing and people not being satisfied.

    If you want to claim that the word "satisfied" implies only a minimum amount of enjoyment to keep people playing a game, then it would have been entirely pointless for Lok to even use it in the first place. He would have just been saying "people enjoy the game enough to keep playing, because they're playing them." It doesn't make sense. Obviously the question is about how the community feels about the games that are coming out. Are they satisfied, or are they disappointed?

    If you are disappointed in the game it means it did not live up to all your expectations, but if you hare aving fun, you are still satisfied, but not as satisfied as you hoped to be.  Right?

    No, I would say you're satisfied if you're content playing that game, and not looking forward to or waiting around for something better. It's obviously a subjective state to be in.

    If people do not like the product they will stop playing.

    If you were not satisfied, if you did not like the game, you would stop playing, unless you have abuse issues (no this is not an addiction so we won't go there)

    If they continue to play they are satisfied, maybe they are still hoping for something better, but they like the game enough to keep playing. 

    You are equating satisfied with being extremely happy, or not wanting any change.  That is not what it means.  It means they are currently ok with the way the product is.  They are content with it as is, they are pleased with it as is.  They can do that and still hope for something more.

    I curently have $8000 in the bank right now, I'm satisfied, however I would like $10 million.

    Satisfied means content. How exactly can you assume that if somebody is playing a game, that means they're content? As I've pointed out, I PLAY MMO's and I'm not content with the genre... sometimes I'm not even content with that particular game, but it happens to be better than anything else on the market. How do you deal with that?

     

    And it's not just that, the discussion is about the market in general, not a particular game. So it's very possible that people are going from game to game (and I think a lot of them are), waiting for something better to come along.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,290Member Uncommon

    We're not defending the status quo, I think games can do a lot better, there are many things I would like to see.

    However I do think they are better than before.  I do think by and large gameplay is better than most old games.  I do think the market is getting better and better.

    There is a difference between thinking current games are better than old games and defending the status quo.  That is another straw man arugment.  Maybe a red herring, those are pretty close.

    At what point does satisfied enough become satisfied and then become ecstatic?

    If someone continues to play a game, they are satisfied with it.  They may not like all parts of it, they may hope something will change.  If you did not like the game you would stop playing it.  If someone did not like any game on the market they would find other things they do like doing.  The only people that continue to do things they do not like to do are those with self-control/abuse issues.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

This discussion has been closed.