How about a different perspective? I'm not sure I can express this in English but I try.
So you want to limit how much time a player can play. Then I assume you would agree with: a player spends too much time in my game.
So why is he spending so mush time in game? How is that time spent? Why is that time spend? Is it "grinding xp" or is it "playing some kind of long quest"? Is it only "to get to next lvl" or maybe "because it is fun way to spend time with online friends"?
Above are just examples but I believe you can find right points that will answer a question: is the problem with how much time a player DECIDE to play or is is how much time a game TAKE to play?
I'm not sure is it clear in English but the point is: if you think that a player should play just a short sessions then design a gameplay in way that will not give benefits due to long play time.
Also it is general knowledge that a positive feedback is better then negative if you want to enforce some rule. So instead of doing negative "artificially limit the time one can play" do it positive "for a limited time one will get a bonus". Of course this wont stop some from playing long time. But it is like DRM - pirates will still find a way around and legitimate customers will find it too much hassle to buy it. And thats the best way to fail.
It's not exactly like that. MMORPG's are very unique from other genres in the fact that players can grind their characters to some sort of level/power cap because, after all its an RPG. Furthermore players are ENCOURAGED to grind even more than single player rpgs because of the competitive nature of online multiplayer. RPG progression is based on learning the mechanics and some amount of twitch gameplay but overall most of your character's power comes from grinding either levels or gear.
However, the content of these games is designed to be played in that 6-10 hour semi-hardcore window because if you made it less hardcore players would not be satisfied, if you made it more they'd burn out, and if you keep it like it is they play it as much as they physically can for a few weeks/months and then burn out anyway because they want to compete. Yes I agree the negative presentation makes it highly unpalatable, making it a stronger positive feedback than we've already seen in games does lower the power gap between players and encourages more responsible play. However a positive feedback does nothing to alleviate the economic imbalances imposed by gold farmers and botters.
-Players doing physical harm to themselves by playing too much
It doesn't curb botting, it just creates the need for more bot accounts. The best way to handle this is to have the SSID restrictions. The current standard in Korea is that you're only allowed to create on average 3 accounts per SSID for a specific game. Allowing for bans in a F2P game to have some permanence. The # of accounts per ID is up to the hosts.
-Players doing physical harm to themselves by playing too much
It doesn't curb botting, it just creates the need for more bot accounts. The best way to handle this is to have the SSID restrictions. The current standard in Korea is that you're only allowed to create on average 3 accounts per SSID for a specific game. Allowing for bans in a F2P game to have some permanence. The # of accounts per ID is up to the hosts.
Exactly. You curb the effectiveness of bots in general by limiting how long they can farm, and you limit the number of bots by SSID restrictions.
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
OP then design and publish this game and lets see how many players stick with it. My guess not many.
Too many restrictions in life already, dont want it to spill over into my gaming life as well.
NO limits!
This. I dont need "Big brother " to tell me I am "gaming too much"-
How does your system make it "fair" and slow progression down for someone in MY situation (which is many of us-) where I dont game at all (other than possibly log in and check auctions and such) during the week, but might crank our 20- 30 hours during some weekends or when on vacation?
-Anyhow, my mom and dad used to limit my time playing video games- I moved out.
As an adult I am fully capable of setting my own rules and the only one who has any say on what I do (or how much time I spend doing it) is my wife. I sometimes go a week or two without logging in due to a hectic schedule , but when I have a few days off or a vacation, I pop open a few beers , make frozen food and try not to leave my couch (I game on my couch BTW-) and I have spent nights playing until I was so tired I just rolled over and slept here.
Anyhow, your game fails. But would probably be some Pay to win garbage anyhow so I wouldnt be playing to begin with- I imagine your "cash shop" would sell items for those about to get disconnected mid-raid, lol.
In my opinion I think the idea is bad. I feel like capping out how much someone can progress may make the server a little more balanced, but what about people who didn't have a chance to play the past few days, and they wanted to catch up, unless it builds when you aren't playing those people essentially get screwed simply because they were unable to play and wanted to pull off a long play session. I'm against this idea, but it's definitely something interesting to think about.
Originally posted by Scot You do realise in this age of MMO's for maximum profit, the idea of limiting playing time will never float? Suggest that one at a SOE board meeting and you can expect to be looking for a new job real soon.
It works in a subscription game. In fact it's better for them cause it extends the life of the game. The real challenge is presenting it in such a way that players won't hate it.
What subscription MMO does not have a cash shop now days? If you are not online you are not spending. So yes I would see this as somewhat more viable in a subscription MMO but still not viable enough. What you are putting forward here is good gaming ethos and the days gaming companies worked to good gaming ethos are long gone. It is money first and foremost.
Did they make more money when they had a good gaming ethos, or now when it's money first and foremost?
Just because now you may argue "good gaming ethos" is gone it doesn't mean it will or should always stay that way. Good games come from good game design and despite the sometimes shocking indications to the contrary, good games do sell. Designing systems and that are mutually beneficial for both the consumer and the company makes total sense when you really think about it. As an avid student of game design I ponder over these kinds of things all the time. Good gaming ethos is the only way to push this medium forward; and so it will come no matter what.
Now don't get me wrong, clearly the reaction from this forum indicates that this kind of system is bad game design. Not because of what it achieves (I'm still convinced it achieves it very well), but because it infringes on some core belief that gamers have about their games. They may never play more than 70 hours per week but they'll never touch a game that infringes on their "right" to do so if they so chose. This is goes against something ingrained in everyone in the western world's mind and even if it were beneficial to them they'd reject it simply because it strikes that "freedom" nerve.
But that still begs the question about how could we achieve these goals, about making MMO's that don't pressure the playerbase as intensely, that don't allow gold farmers to accumulate as much gold or powerlevelers to vastly outlevel the players simply through grinding more. About encouraging the players to take their time more and progress through the content at a pace that relatively in line with development without sticking absurdly hard content walls in their face to obstruct them. How do we achieve these things in a social, competitive RPG without putting in a system that players hate? Now that's a good question and it's worth billions of dollars to answer
Progression is the root of all problems. Who cares if you play 80 hours a week if the game doesn't provide you with artificial power for it. Go play eve for 150 hours this week and ill play for 10 hours. See if anyone cares or better yet try to come an own me with your ability to spend time in game. And if you do, at least you have to fund your playstyle , so you have to play the game in order to make others your content. And there is no dev protecting your hardcore bottom from retaliation via the rules.
That's why problems in themeparks are emergent gameplay in v.worlds. Themepark player complain about these tings and for good reason and you wonder what kind of game they are playing that is so ridiculous. Eve players talking about the same things and it sounds like an epic experience
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The only thing going through my head while reading all this is:
1. Why do you care about other people's levels? If they want to ruin the game for themselves by rushing it, let them. How does them being max level in a day hurt you? In anything they have to wait for people to catch up to them to do any end game content. This has absolutely no effect on anyone except that person.
2. Age of wushu - that game was so packed with restrictions it turned off a LOT of people. Every action in the game had a restriction on how many times you could do it. It pretty much made the game pointless to play after 1-2 hours a day. Even the dungeons had a GLOBAL restriction to 7 dungeons a week. Restriction is just a horribly bad idea.
No need for a system like this. It would only affect a tiny fraction of a fraction of the playerbase. Most people have real life restrictions that prevent them from playing nonstop.
Yes, some people will take time off work at launch for a day or two (though I've heard a couple cases where people took a week off) and they will play 10-14 hours on those days, but that's short lived as they have to go back to real life soon after.
Once that initial wave wears off, people self regulate (well, healthy, sane people do anyway) and if I knew where to find data regarding this I'd be willing to bet we're looking at less than 1% of the population. So it would a completely arbitrary system that only blocks a small group of people.
As for botters/gold farmers, they'll just have multiple accounts.
Not true, facebook energy based games are tailored to that demographic. They are designed to be played for minutes at a time, not hours. Sure there are people that spend hours on facebook but that's a minority and there's not much money to be made in catering to them.
MMORPG's are in fact designed to be played within that 6-10 hour window to get the most out of them. Play them any longer and you run out of stuff to do too fast, design them to be played for more and your players suffer from burnout and can't keep up. Many players already do the right thing and play the way the game was designed to be played, but this unlimited access causes competitive players to play more than they normally would, which trickles down and influences other players to do the same. Furthermore it gives freedom to botters and farmers to accrue more resources than a normal would because they are not playing to play, they are playing for a job (and they play in shifts, not one person per account). This impacts the economy and thus the player experience as well.
But yes, I do agree that facebook games are at least proof that energy-based games are definitely profitable.
I wasn't talking about the FB game-playing demographic, but the MMORPG-playing demographic.
There's certainly more support for it being appropriate to a FB game-playing demographic, but I'm not sure I buy into it overall. We can't judge this by how players currently play FB Games, because that doesn't tell us what players want (only what they're forced to play -- short sessions -- due to the Energy mechanic forcing it upon them.)
As for MMORPGs, they aren't "designed" to be played 6-10 hours. You can play that long if you'd like.
Really if a MMORPGs minimum time requirement is over 1 hour (maybe 1.5 hours tops) it's poorly designed. Because a player is always going to be able to choose to play multiple hours in that situation, but they're not forced into an abnormally long session just to do something.
The upper end of how long you could choose to play is basically unbounded. It's best if the game tries to remain as interesting and worthwhile as possible for as long as possible.
But the game itself shouldn't attempt to limit how long you can choose to spend playing, it's just up to players to know how much is healthy for them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only way I could see the OP's ideas working is if players were given something for not being online. The idea that you are gaining while not there could appeal. But that would lead to players who were in game feeling that players who were not playing as much were getting something for free.
We all know how well that goes down in the real world, not sure it would go down too well in a MMO either. But does not Eve give you some sort of offline credit?
I suspect the folks whining in this thread about having their xp rates limited are the same ones who quit an MMO two weeks after launch because they maxed out and "there's nothing to do."
But this is just another WoW versus non-wow argument. WoW payers expect max level in very short order. EQ players from 2000 expect to take six months to get max level. Simply a matter of taste.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
i dont mind playing the whole day, but the gaming community has shown examples of how people going to extremes, it goes bad in reputation for a title to have news about people dying because they got playing too long. like certain guy that died in a cyber cafe while playing what was? League of Legends?, there are several examples of people spending days worth of gaming nonstop and dying, mouse with hand and at the keyboard....
the limits have to be put, not because of milking players, that can be made no matter how many time do people play. but i think it is more about caring about the customer*s health dont you think?, would you like to have a bad reputation of having a game that kills people?, making them basically addicts...i dont think so.
yeah raiding and other things in games like these require long times, but the game shouldnt adapt to the community, the community should be the one adapting to the game. and if a game has to take out its time limits because the hardcore community wants to progress at the expense of their own health, then somethings really wrong with the gaming community.
Originally posted by zevian If these and other forums required people to use their real identity would they become a better place? Would you still post?
Nah, I prefer online people to be "them." People I have no moral requirements to care about but I can dabble in chat with if I want to.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming. My Blog
End game means nothing to me. I've actually never gone to max level or skill cap or content or finished... in any video game I've played ever. Some I've played for years. Heck WoW I've played off and on for over 5 years now and have never gotten higher than 64.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Overall, I dislike a cap on hours of playtime since it most definitely rushes people, but I do 'agree' wholeheartedly there is room on the vast landscape of MMOs to target players who like challenges but have very little time.
I would use the King/Zynga energy system for quests and resource harvesting combined with daily skill caps that are easily reached. This would create a Eve like skill system, where overall chronological time is more important than play time.
Of course to allow player interaction, you would have to create new mechanisms that work 'within' this new energy based framework. Ex. Catch up capability for players who come late to the server
Obviously, it would only be a niche game that would exclude a bulk of the unmarried/unemployed player base, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are already hundreds of MMOs that cater to those that are less busy.
I personally know lots of people who can't get into an MMO because of the current/huge time demand to feel remotely competitive.
I won't purchase and play any MMO with a "Time Limit Per Day" "Feature".
(I really hate talking money when I discuss MMOs, but the OP asked for it... for me to throw down on the table my trump card... the Ace of every Customer)
Oh and one more thing.... it is not nice to even consider the removal of freedoms, even if it's just about a game. It gets People like me very upset.
Comments
It's not exactly like that. MMORPG's are very unique from other genres in the fact that players can grind their characters to some sort of level/power cap because, after all its an RPG. Furthermore players are ENCOURAGED to grind even more than single player rpgs because of the competitive nature of online multiplayer. RPG progression is based on learning the mechanics and some amount of twitch gameplay but overall most of your character's power comes from grinding either levels or gear.
However, the content of these games is designed to be played in that 6-10 hour semi-hardcore window because if you made it less hardcore players would not be satisfied, if you made it more they'd burn out, and if you keep it like it is they play it as much as they physically can for a few weeks/months and then burn out anyway because they want to compete. Yes I agree the negative presentation makes it highly unpalatable, making it a stronger positive feedback than we've already seen in games does lower the power gap between players and encourages more responsible play. However a positive feedback does nothing to alleviate the economic imbalances imposed by gold farmers and botters.
It doesn't curb botting, it just creates the need for more bot accounts. The best way to handle this is to have the SSID restrictions. The current standard in Korea is that you're only allowed to create on average 3 accounts per SSID for a specific game. Allowing for bans in a F2P game to have some permanence. The # of accounts per ID is up to the hosts.
Exactly. You curb the effectiveness of bots in general by limiting how long they can farm, and you limit the number of bots by SSID restrictions.
OP then design and publish this game and lets see how many players stick with it. My guess not many.
Too many restrictions in life already, dont want it to spill over into my gaming life as well.
NO limits!
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
This. I dont need "Big brother " to tell me I am "gaming too much"-
How does your system make it "fair" and slow progression down for someone in MY situation (which is many of us-) where I dont game at all (other than possibly log in and check auctions and such) during the week, but might crank our 20- 30 hours during some weekends or when on vacation?
-Anyhow, my mom and dad used to limit my time playing video games- I moved out.
As an adult I am fully capable of setting my own rules and the only one who has any say on what I do (or how much time I spend doing it) is my wife. I sometimes go a week or two without logging in due to a hectic schedule , but when I have a few days off or a vacation, I pop open a few beers , make frozen food and try not to leave my couch (I game on my couch BTW-) and I have spent nights playing until I was so tired I just rolled over and slept here.
Anyhow, your game fails. But would probably be some Pay to win garbage anyhow so I wouldnt be playing to begin with- I imagine your "cash shop" would sell items for those about to get disconnected mid-raid, lol.
Progression is the root of all problems. Who cares if you play 80 hours a week if the game doesn't provide you with artificial power for it. Go play eve for 150 hours this week and ill play for 10 hours. See if anyone cares or better yet try to come an own me with your ability to spend time in game. And if you do, at least you have to fund your playstyle , so you have to play the game in order to make others your content. And there is no dev protecting your hardcore bottom from retaliation via the rules.
That's why problems in themeparks are emergent gameplay in v.worlds. Themepark player complain about these tings and for good reason and you wonder what kind of game they are playing that is so ridiculous. Eve players talking about the same things and it sounds like an epic experience
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
The only thing going through my head while reading all this is:
1. Why do you care about other people's levels? If they want to ruin the game for themselves by rushing it, let them. How does them being max level in a day hurt you? In anything they have to wait for people to catch up to them to do any end game content. This has absolutely no effect on anyone except that person.
2. Age of wushu - that game was so packed with restrictions it turned off a LOT of people. Every action in the game had a restriction on how many times you could do it. It pretty much made the game pointless to play after 1-2 hours a day. Even the dungeons had a GLOBAL restriction to 7 dungeons a week. Restriction is just a horribly bad idea.
No need for a system like this. It would only affect a tiny fraction of a fraction of the playerbase. Most people have real life restrictions that prevent them from playing nonstop.
Yes, some people will take time off work at launch for a day or two (though I've heard a couple cases where people took a week off) and they will play 10-14 hours on those days, but that's short lived as they have to go back to real life soon after.
Once that initial wave wears off, people self regulate (well, healthy, sane people do anyway) and if I knew where to find data regarding this I'd be willing to bet we're looking at less than 1% of the population. So it would a completely arbitrary system that only blocks a small group of people.
As for botters/gold farmers, they'll just have multiple accounts.
I wasn't talking about the FB game-playing demographic, but the MMORPG-playing demographic.
There's certainly more support for it being appropriate to a FB game-playing demographic, but I'm not sure I buy into it overall. We can't judge this by how players currently play FB Games, because that doesn't tell us what players want (only what they're forced to play -- short sessions -- due to the Energy mechanic forcing it upon them.)
As for MMORPGs, they aren't "designed" to be played 6-10 hours. You can play that long if you'd like.
Really if a MMORPGs minimum time requirement is over 1 hour (maybe 1.5 hours tops) it's poorly designed. Because a player is always going to be able to choose to play multiple hours in that situation, but they're not forced into an abnormally long session just to do something.
The upper end of how long you could choose to play is basically unbounded. It's best if the game tries to remain as interesting and worthwhile as possible for as long as possible.
But the game itself shouldn't attempt to limit how long you can choose to spend playing, it's just up to players to know how much is healthy for them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only way I could see the OP's ideas working is if players were given something for not being online. The idea that you are gaining while not there could appeal. But that would lead to players who were in game feeling that players who were not playing as much were getting something for free.
We all know how well that goes down in the real world, not sure it would go down too well in a MMO either. But does not Eve give you some sort of offline credit?
I suspect the folks whining in this thread about having their xp rates limited are the same ones who quit an MMO two weeks after launch because they maxed out and "there's nothing to do."
But this is just another WoW versus non-wow argument. WoW payers expect max level in very short order. EQ players from 2000 expect to take six months to get max level. Simply a matter of taste.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
i dont mind playing the whole day, but the gaming community has shown examples of how people going to extremes, it goes bad in reputation for a title to have news about people dying because they got playing too long. like certain guy that died in a cyber cafe while playing what was? League of Legends?, there are several examples of people spending days worth of gaming nonstop and dying, mouse with hand and at the keyboard....
the limits have to be put, not because of milking players, that can be made no matter how many time do people play. but i think it is more about caring about the customer*s health dont you think?, would you like to have a bad reputation of having a game that kills people?, making them basically addicts...i dont think so.
yeah raiding and other things in games like these require long times, but the game shouldnt adapt to the community, the community should be the one adapting to the game. and if a game has to take out its time limits because the hardcore community wants to progress at the expense of their own health, then somethings really wrong with the gaming community.
That is one hell of an idea and very promising.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
Nah, I prefer online people to be "them." People I have no moral requirements to care about but I can dabble in chat with if I want to.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
Doesn't China already have some limit on how long someone can play an online game? They are trying to combat online addiction.
I'm glad someone brought this up.
Overall, I dislike a cap on hours of playtime since it most definitely rushes people, but I do 'agree' wholeheartedly there is room on the vast landscape of MMOs to target players who like challenges but have very little time.
I would use the King/Zynga energy system for quests and resource harvesting combined with daily skill caps that are easily reached. This would create a Eve like skill system, where overall chronological time is more important than play time.
Of course to allow player interaction, you would have to create new mechanisms that work 'within' this new energy based framework. Ex. Catch up capability for players who come late to the server
Obviously, it would only be a niche game that would exclude a bulk of the unmarried/unemployed player base, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. There are already hundreds of MMOs that cater to those that are less busy.
I personally know lots of people who can't get into an MMO because of the current/huge time demand to feel remotely competitive.
If theres a demand, theres room for the game.
-WL
Werewolf Online(R) - Lead Developer
I won't purchase and play any MMO with a "Time Limit Per Day" "Feature".
(I really hate talking money when I discuss MMOs, but the OP asked for it... for me to throw down on the table my trump card... the Ace of every Customer)
Oh and one more thing.... it is not nice to even consider the removal of freedoms, even if it's just about a game. It gets People like me very upset.