Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why did MMOs become about the money and numbers?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
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.
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.
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
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
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??
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.
No, it's not. You can't make that connection, and people here (including him... you saw the quote yes?) continue to make it.
It's a bit antagonistic, but not in excess of the average level of troll in this thread or on these forums.
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?
I guess? It's just true. So much time is wasted swatting down obvious fallacies, like the ones littered throughout your post here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
It has no other function than to be antagonistic. Speaks volumes on your intentions.
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.
Fallacy... I do not thing it means what you think it means. You did no such thing.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
The "I" was a typo. I was going to type something else but forgot to delete the "I".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I said defending the status quo because I was talking about like half a dozen people and wasn't being specific. You may take it personally because you're on that list, I'm merely pointing out that he's possibly glad to be counted among that list because he's similar to the people on that list.
I don't know when satisfied enough becomes satisfied becomes ecstatic. It's not really relevant to the discussion. The discussion came about because I was making a point about MMO's nowadays (what else is new?) and I concluded it with something like "that's probably why MMO's are often disappointing." From there somebody disagreed that they were disappointing. Somebody pointed out that people on the forums complaining about MMO's being disappointing may not be a perfect representation of how disappointed people are. I said that I agree that it's not perfect but we don't have much else to go on. That's when the conversation turned to "how many people are playing." So to say that people are satisfied (in this case, NOT disappointed) because they're playing the game, is just not right.
Does the strictest definition of the word "satisfied" mean that people are technically satisfied simply because they're putting up with the game? Well... no I don't really think so. It seems to me that the definition of satisfied would mean more than just putting up with something. For instance, look at the 1st definition of satisfy:
1.to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.); give fullcontentment to: The hearty meal satisfied him.
But now I'm just kind of nitpicking because all that really matters is how it fits into the context of the debate.
I would point out that some people are getting confused between a straw man and an analogy. When you use an analogy you are pointing out the similarities in a situation, it does not mean you are trying to substitute one argument for another.
Some posters every time they see an analogy are shouting "straw man".
Here are the reasons given for a straw man on Wikipedia:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version
As an example lets take a look at comparing fast food to modern easy MMO's, as it is one I used in this thread. I think you will agree that the only possible way that such a comparison could be described as a straw man is number 1 or 5. But analogies by their very nature simplify a concept or situation. That's the whole idea, you don't use an analogy to make the discussion more complex.
So the next time someone uses an analogy think it through. Analogies are not meant to illustrate the whole truth about an issue. They just give a different way of thinking about them. If you don't like one that is used point out how it is misleading or think of one yourself that is more appropriate.
I would also invite posters to go over those straw man definitions again, if you don't like someone's argument there is an awful lot of space to simply shout Straw Man! It seems to me to be a great way to dismiss ideas you do not like.
Showing how the minority view on the gaming industry is everywhere:
Dodgy business practice - http://whatculture.com/gaming/8-things-very-wrong-with-the-game-industry.php
Corporatization of the gaming industry (and some agreement for those think all problems are down to angry gamers
)
http://redkingsdream.com/2010/10/the-biggest-problem-facing-the-games-industry/
All about making money and the franchises, no room for anything new, the risk of making anything new, graphics more important than gameplay, WoW clones and a lot of issues we hardy ever talk about on here:
http://www.nowgamer.com/features/983293/the_biggest_problem_facing_the_games_industry_today.html
(from 2005, these problems go back a long way) The money needed to make a game, branding, graphics before gameplay, some issues now outdated but full of good stuff:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_8/50-Death-to-the-Games-Industry-Part-I
The problems of having gaming based on sequels:
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/711135/video-game-sequels-does-the-gaming-industry-have-a-problem/
Look. Millions of players are playing and paying for their entertainment and, so far, it has gone up every year. It is prudent to assume that most of those people are satisfied with those games. If they weren't they wouldn't be playing or paying for them. No one claimed that "a lot of players = satisfied players".
Haven't MMORPGs always had grind? I remember grinding a lot in old school MMOs. That's why I didn't like them. So I am one of those people that don't like grind. Still, if someone does, who am I to tell them their fun is not genuine?
As long as you refuse or cannot put any numbers on the table, it is mere speculation. It has no weight. It is a weak argument. You are not proving his statement wrong, only raising suspicions. And no one claimed everyone was satisfied in the first place.
I don't throw antagonistic metaphors around do I? My tone can be antagonistic, but my arguments are not.
His point is essentially: MMORPGs are not the only form of entertainment. People can play other games or do other activities with their money and time if they wish it. It is implied that, since millions decide to spend their money and time on MMORPGs, they are satisfied with what they have.
I wouldn't bail mid-discussion if I didn't have something else to do meanwhile. Alas, this is the nature of forum discussions: I am sorry I cannot be glued on the monitor until you're done.
They're not defending the status quo, no more than combat faulty logic and frustrated false statements about the industry and the market today. I know some of them work in the industry - they are developers themselves. The arguments against the "status quo" are often quite ridiculous so a humorous, dismissive reply is the only worthy response.
Nobody is an authority to tell which game is good and which game is bad. Not you, not me, not DavisFlight, Loktofeit, or anyone else. The only objective measurement to go by, and what is available to us, are the sales/sub numbers. As it has been brought up in this thread before, retention rates would be another, but sadly companies do not disclose that information.
You are welcome to argue how much relevance sales/sub numbers have on the quality of those games, but like narious and many others have told you time and again, to each his/her own.
Your premise seems to be that you know better. That your preferred style is the fine dining of MMORPGs whereas others are eating fast food. But an equally apt metaphor would be that I am eating a steak inside a good restaurant while you are outside, wet and cold eating some burnt up animal you spent hours catching beside a fire you spent hours making. Yeah, you go on and tell yourself you're "hardcore".
All joking and bad metaphors aside. What I am telling you is this: You do not know any better than anyone else. And no matter how disgruntled you are on the current state of MMORPGs, it is not an excuse to come up with tin foil hat theories how the companies are all about greed and people are tricked to play games they don't like. Its all bullshit. Many posters have explained to you why things are the way things are, and you just have to learn to deal with it. There's nothing more you can do really.
I am not currently playing any MMORPGs, but I am not bitter.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yeah you're just kind of not listening I think. Just because people are playing a game doesn't mean they're satisfied with it, and it absolutely does NOT mean that they aren't disappointed. I play MMO's and I am both not satisfied and disappointed.
Also, we're talking about the market as a whole. Just because there are many people within the realm of MMO's doesn't mean people are satisfied. You don't think there are a lot of people jumping from game to game?
And yes, many people have claimed that a lot of players = satisfied players. Narius did and Lok mentioned that "millions of people...." are playing MMO's.
Except you don't know who is having fun grinding and who is just doing it because of some promised reward which may end up being disappointing but by then there's a new thing to work towards. Some people may genuine enjoy the grind, but some people may not. Some people may be disappointed and not satisfied but still stick with it because that is EXACTLY what that kind of game design is meant to do.
This is why these arguments go nowhere, because you guys just refuse to accept obvious things like that.... I literally JUST explained that and I have to explain it all over again.
I don't think you get how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove that he's wrong, he's the one that has to back up his claim. I'm showing that it's not NECESSARILY accurate to assume that because somebody is playing a game that they're satisfied and not disappointed. I don't have to prove exactly how many people are playing games that they're not satisfied with.
AGAIN, it's not speculation for me to point out his ASSUMPTION doesn't take into account all possible factors. That's not speculation.
Wow... talk about splitting hairs.
1) Some people may naturally prefer MMO's in general but currently be disappointed with the games coming out. As I've pointed out, that's ME. I'm walking proof that his opinion is wrong. I play MMO's and I'm not satisfied and I am disappointed. So just because I have a natural affinity towards MMO's doesn't mean I'm happy with the games in the MMO genre.
2) Some people have more than 1 hobby. Maybe they watch movies AND play MMO's. Maybe they play MMO's AND other video games.
Honestly these are just straight up silly arguments. You cannot assume that because somebody is spending their money on something, that they're satisfied with it and/or not disappointed by it. Many people watch shows that they know aren't good, many people eat food that they know is bad for them, etc.
You don't have to respond instantly, but you should respond at some point. No excuse not to, frankly. And it's not that you can't leave until I'm done, but if you're going to leave you should do so gracefully. Admit you don't have anything left to say. Don't just...... leave.
The point is you agree with them so naturally you're glad to be counted among them. I don't see how you can be proud of deserting a discussion as everybody on that list has done, some many times.
Yes yes, nobody knows any better than anybody else. Everybody's opinion is the same. Companies didn't change their mindset after seeing the success of WoW. It's all just crazy tin foil hat theories. These are all things people say when they're wrong and have no argument. So... companies aren't looking to cash in on easy money? Does that mean there's no such thing as a "WoW clone"?
If you want to pick out something specific I've said on the matter, do so... oh right, you have and then you just completely bail when you're beaten in an argument, as you'll probably end up doing here very soon.