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!

About the abundance of choice

QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

I don't remember where I heard this. In a video, podcast or whatever, there was a guy who talked about how the abundance of choice has made picky about what we watch, listen to, or read. He used TV shows as an example and stated how "back in the day" you didn't have as many channels as you have now, so you watched what was on and had a much better chance of learning to appreciate it.

If we apply that thought on all media and entertainment...

  • we've always had the chance to listen to the genre of music we like,
  • we can choose our news channels,
  • what shows we follow,
  • which forums we visit,
  • which users we want to block
  • and the games we want to play.
Think about that the next time someone suggests some sub-genre to break off or proposes a sub-forum or a whole new forum for a specific sub-genre. Also, if you look at some of the voiced reasons why people don't play a particular game seem really petty:
  • "I played GW1 for 15 minutes, couldn't jump, uninstalled"
  • "I don't play F2P"
  • "I don't play games without crafting"
  • "There was no elves" / "The game has elves"
  • "I could not roll a female/male [insert class here]"
Preferences are one thing, but reading stuff like this I can't help but feel that all they are doing is coming up with excuses. If you had only one MMORPG, you'd learn to appreciate it, whether you initially didn't. Either that or you wouldn't be playing MMORPGs at all.
 
Can you call yourself a gamer if the only games you enjoy are MMOs? Or can you call yourself a "MMORPGer" if there is only one MMORPG type you like.
 
Your thoughts?

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

«1

Comments

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    I used to be fine with a computer that had 5K of RAM.  The existance of competition has allowed my standards to rise.

    If I have a choice of entertainment, I choose the option which I expect I will most enjoy.  I'm all for finding the fun, but I'm not in this for a "gamer" title.

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

    I used to be fine with a computer that had 5K of RAM.  The existance of competition has allowed my standards to rise.

    If I have a choice of entertainment, I choose the option which I expect I will most enjoy.  I'm all for finding the fun, but I'm not in this for a "gamer" title.

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

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

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I don't remember where I heard this. In the video, podcast or whatever, there was a guy who talked about how the abundance of choice has made picky about what we watch, listen to, or read. He used TV shows as an example and stated how "back in the day" you didn't have as many channels as you have now, so you watched what was on and had a much better chance of learning to appreciate it.

    So very true, in my town we had 2 channels when the 3rd arrived in 1964, and my parent's loved what these three offered.  Now my TV has literally hundreds of channels yet my wife frequently flips through most of them saying she can't find anything to watch. (I really don't watch TV, I just play it for the background noise and to humor her.)

    If we apply that thought on all media and entertainment...

    • we've always had the chance to listen to the genre of music we like, (yet I only listen to modern alternative rock)
    • we can choose our news channels, (I read the newspaper, I'm "old-school remember?)
    • what shows we follow, (I watch what my wife wants to watch)
    • which forums we visit, (I know there's thousands out there, I only really visit this one, with an occasional visit to my freeshard one)
    • which users we want to block (surprisingly, no one on my block list on this site, I'm pretty thick skinned, in game gold spammers get it for the most part.)
    • and the games we want to play. (MMORPG's only, and normally only 1 at a time, I'm a purist not a tourist)
    Think about that the next time someone suggests some sub-genre to break off or proposes a sub-forum or a whole new forum for a specific sub-genre. Also, if you look at some of the voiced reasons why people don't play a particular game seem really petty:
    • "I played GW1 for 15 minutes, couldn't jump, uninstalled"
    • "I don't play F2P"
    • "I don't play games without crafting"
    • "There was no elves" / "The game has elves"
    • "I could not roll a female/male [insert class here]"
    Preferences are one thing, but reading stuff like this I can't help but feel that all they are doing is coming up with excuses. If you had only one MMORPG, you'd learn to appreciate it, whether you initially didn't. Either that or you wouldn't be playing MMORPGs at all.
    OK, I'll agree with you here, most of those reasons are silly, and none of them would be the entire reason I didn't play a game.  They could be part of it though, I really don't like games where I can't jump (GW1 was annoying in this way), there's never been a F2P from the start game I really liked, though I am currently playing a totally freeshard game, and I do strongly prefer to roll male characters.  But if one of the items is, gear centric, raiding end game a la most standard theme parks today, I'm out from that one alone, I'm just not playing those sort of games anymore, even if they are the last game on earth.
     
    Can you call yourself a gamer if the only games you enjoy are MMOs? Or can you call yourself a "MMORPGer" if there is only one MMORPG type you like.
     
    Your thoughts?

    Of course I'm a gamer, even though I only like MMORPGs.  Is someone a sports fan if they only like to watch one sport?  (My father really only enjoyed watching football and golf, didn't care for anything else, and maybe the Olympics.)

    Since there is little agreement on MMORPG type, it's very easy to cross over in the genre, I've loved games like L1, L2, DAOC, Shadowbane, WOW, and EVE.  OK, those are the only games I've really enjoyed for the longer term, but I did find fun for awhile in most other major titles since (for at least a month or 3 anyways)

    And despite my mostly jaded attitude, I still look towards the horizon at some of the upcoming newer, titles, as I'm sure one day MMOs will change once again and perhaps start focusing more on game play elements that I enjoy.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • NewfrNewfr MoscowPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

    Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.

    The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.

    P.S. Most (like 99%) "MMORPGers" don't role play so it's just "MMO gamers" at best. And since most MMOs now are more like SP games with random dudes in it... it's more like "online" and "offline" gamers.

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

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

    Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.

    The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.

    What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.

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

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

    No MMO has ever delivered the game I've been dreaming to see ... to me, they're all still just shadows of the fantasy world I want (and probably always will be).  

    That said, each new generation of technology will affect my minimum expectations.  For example, I revisited UO briefly after several years of playing 3d games and my imagination had a very hard time adjusting.  I just couldn't see the world with my old eyes.  When I tried Ryzom a few years back, I found it jarring that I couldn't jump over what seemed like tiny changes in elevation.  So yes, even though graphics engines are not what I set out to look for in games, they do affect my minimum standards. 

    One of the reasons I've been nervous about the trend of adding full-speech dialogue is that I'm worried that once I get used it, I woun't be able to comfortably go back to text boxes ... but at the same time, the worlds I want to see cannot be done with pre-scripted diallogue.

    ( I don't want to talk about business models because I'll start twitching and frothing at the mouth )
  • mmo11mmo11 Scranton, PAPosts: 17Member

    Yes and no,

    Sure we have a lot of games with others on line, BUT they are shallow and not community worlds as mmos are to be !

     

    So "  Yes " we have more games to choose from " No " they are not mmo's.

  • NewfrNewfr MoscowPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.

    There are two different matters. One is things you sure you don't like at all. For me that's free PvP with full loot. If there were only MMORPGs with free PvP and full loot that would be a dead genre for me. Like in your example with TV there is a choice not to watch TV at all (and you forgot to mention that). I just don't see a point buying something i'm sure i don't like. That's my money i and i don't have much to just throw em left and right.

    The other thing is things you are not sure about. Like F2P. Usually i avoid this games because of poor quality, p2w and other issues. But if i'll hear from people that F2P game "A" is good i'll try it. I can even stick with it for some time (like i did with WoT). But that's because i lose nothing in trying it.  If that will be a p2p game without any trial period or something i'll think twice about it and still there is a 50% chance i'll buy and try it (depends mostly on who recommend this game to me).

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
     
    Can you call yourself a gamer if the only games you enjoy are MMOs? Or can you call yourself a "MMORPGer" if there is only one MMORPG type you like.
     
    Your thoughts?

    Of course I'm a gamer, even though I only like MMORPGs.  Is someone a sports fan if they only like to watch one sport? 

    No, they are a  [that sport] fan.

     

    "Ah, you're a sports fan, too?"

    "Yeah!"

    "See the Lakers' game last night?"

    "I don't follow basketball."

    "So you're more of a baseball kind of guy?"

    "Nope. Don't really care for baseball."

    "Hockey?"

    "Nah."

    "Soccer? Football?"

    "Football! Yes, I do watch football! And golf, too. Love golf."

     

     

     

     

    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

  • goboygogoboygo Posts: 792Member Uncommon

    How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes.  Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing.  Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.

    You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation.  If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going  to be pissed off and not buy the product.  Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.

    Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design.  Not math 101.

  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
     

    No, they are a  [that sport] fan.

     

    "Ah, you're a sports fan, too?"

    "Yeah!"

    "See the Lakers' game last night?"

    "I don't follow basketball."

    "So you're more of a baseball kind of guy?"

    "Nope. Don't really care for baseball."

    "Hockey?"

    "Nah."

    "Soccer? Football?"

    "Football! Yes, I do watch football! And golf, too. Love golf."

     

    Nah... they are till a sports fan.  If someone is a huge baseball fan and watches or listens to all 162+ games their team of choice plays and goes to a few games every year, they are pretty fanatic about a sport (literal definition of fan).  It doesn't matter that they don't also follow basketball/football/hockey.

     

    Same as person who plays EVE 6 hours a day for years and doesn't touch any other game is still both an "MMO fan and a "gamer" since EVE is in the genre of both "game" and "MMO"

     

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by goboygo

    How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes.  Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing.  Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.

    You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation.  If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going  to be pissed off and not buy the product.  Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.

    Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design.  Not math 101.

    Why do some people never tip?

    Why do some people stay on welfare for as long as possible or look for government handouts?

    Why does some people equate to 37%+43% of general players.

    http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/EEDAR+news/feature.asp?c=44804

    From that graphic, you can see that the sweet spot people want to pay for is between 0.00 to 0.94 a month when they have the choice of choosing the payment amount made.

    They brought that into the topic because they think that with 80% of players ingrained in the payment model they won't have resistance and what they do get as resistance will be over talked by everyone who has a great time in the games and is spending less without any concern of if it's sustainable over time. The vocal people who don't spend money in those games outweigh those who do so the input is going to favor them. It's also mildly humiliating to admit that you pay more than others because of your vanity so you won't hear from big spenders either to support you. Their bet is hedged you might say. Plus the more you comment against it with truths people will accuse you of talking about it all the time since they won't weigh the facts at all and keep talking. They won't admit that it's subsidized gaming. They won't admit that it's volatile because it relies on less than 5% of the gaming population to sustain it and they won't call it bad business even when the market is over-saturated with titles. If the right 5% leave free to play games, the entire model crumbles. Those games will fall off the face of the planet because they are a stack of blocks with pieces removed.

     

     

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo

    How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes.  Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing.  Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.

    You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation.  If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going  to be pissed off and not buy the product.  Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.

    Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design.  Not math 101.

    Why do some people never tip?

    Why do some people stay on welfare for as long as possible or look for government handouts?

    Why does some people equate to 37%+43% of general players.

    http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/EEDAR+news/feature.asp?c=44804

    From that graphic, you can see that the sweet spot people want to pay for is between 0.00 to 0.94 a month when they have the choice of choosing the payment amount made.

    They brought that into the topic because they think that with 80% of players ingrained in the payment model they won't have resistance and what they do get as resistance will be over talked by everyone who has a great time in the games and is spending less without any concern of if it's sustainable over time. The vocal people who don't spend money in those games outweigh those who do so the input is going to favor them. It's also mildly humiliating to admit that you pay more than others because of your vanity so you won't hear from big spenders either to support you. Their bet is hedged you might say. Plus the more you comment against it with truths people will accuse you of talking about it all the time since they won't weigh the facts at all and keep talking. They won't admit that it's subsidized gaming. They won't admit that it's volatile because it relies on less than 5% of the gaming population to sustain it and they won't call it bad business even when the market is over-saturated with titles. If the right 5% leave free to play games, the entire model crumbles. Those games will fall off the face of the planet because they are a stack of blocks with pieces removed.

     

    That graph could be used to represent spending on any entertainment product or service. If anything, it means mobile games are simply business as usual.

    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

  • VutarVutar BaghdadPosts: 773Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I don't remember where I heard this. In a video, podcast or whatever, there was a guy who talked about how the abundance of choice has made picky about what we watch, listen to, or read. He used TV shows as an example and stated how "back in the day" you didn't have as many channels as you have now, so you watched what was on and had a much better chance of learning to appreciate it.

    If we apply that thought on all media and entertainment...

    • we've always had the chance to listen to the genre of music we like,
    • we can choose our news channels,
    • what shows we follow,
    • which forums we visit,
    • which users we want to block
    • and the games we want to play.
    Think about that the next time someone suggests some sub-genre to break off or proposes a sub-forum or a whole new forum for a specific sub-genre. Also, if you look at some of the voiced reasons why people don't play a particular game seem really petty:
    • "I played GW1 for 15 minutes, couldn't jump, uninstalled"
    • "I don't play F2P"
    • "I don't play games without crafting"
    • "There was no elves" / "The game has elves"
    • "I could not roll a female/male [insert class here]"
    Preferences are one thing, but reading stuff like this I can't help but feel that all they are doing is coming up with excuses. If you had only one MMORPG, you'd learn to appreciate it, whether you initially didn't. Either that or you wouldn't be playing MMORPGs at all.
     
    Can you call yourself a gamer if the only games you enjoy are MMOs? Or can you call yourself a "MMORPGer" if there is only one MMORPG type you like.
     
    Your thoughts?

     

    My thoughts? Just another F2P player complaining about the direction F2P has taken the genre. Welcome to the world you created. Comical that you put "I don't play F2P" as a negative yet you didn't include "I don't play sub games." Obvious bias is obvious.

  • winterwinter El Paso, TXPosts: 2,276Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Newfr
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

    Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.

    The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.

    What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.

     Sure if one is FORCED to endure, put up with, and stomach something long enough one might actually find it not to be so bad but what is your point? Are you saying choice should be removed and people should have less options so they are forced to appreciate something that's a lot less then they might normally like?

      With enough conditioning and reinforcement (brainwashing?) almost anyone can be made to see things in a different light and made to like things they never would have previously. 

     Kids might normally enjoy playing games on their xbox, but take all that away and lock them in a empty room long enough with nothing but a rock and they will learn to play with and appreciate the rock :P

  • shirlntshirlnt Houston, TXPosts: 355Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Newfr
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Do you think the freedom to choose exactly what you want hasn't affected the way you perceive and perhaps appreciate other games?

    Basically you saying this: Imagine you like cola but dislike cherry. And possibly if there were only cola with cherry flavour you may get used to it and drink.

    The answer is NO. Chances are that people don't buy at all something that doesn't suit their needs well. So that's why we have all this cherry, lemon, whatever flavoured cola - to please everyone and get maximum profit by doing so.

    What I am saying is that if you have only cherry flavored cola to drink, you are more likely to learn to appreciate it. Because you have choices, it is easy to dismiss cherry flavored cola, even if you could learn to like it eventually.

    Don't like cherries, or anything cherry flavored so unless cherry cola were the only thing to drink, becoming a choice of it versus dehydration/death, chances are I'm not going to drink it.  Since games are not a matter of life or death, if there is a feature in it that I strongly dislike, chances are I'm not going to play it even if it is the only game available.  If a game is good but doesn't meet all my preferences, I might play it.  While people might adjust to certain features if that was all they knew in gaming, people have varying reasons for their deal-breakers when it comes to gaming, although those deal-breakers may seem silly to you.  Also, MMOs are not the only genre of games out there.  Even if there were only one MMO to play, while people might be less picky about certain features, if that MMO had features that people did not enjoy or didn't have features they wanted, they might simply choose not to play an MMO.  If that MMO was the only video game in existence, if there were features that people did not like or a lack of features they did like, they might choose not to play video games.

    As far as what defines a gamer, if how many games and what types of game determine whether or not a person can be considered a gamer, what else is going to go into what defines a gamer? how many hours they spend playing? how many different gaming systems they own? how much they read about or study games? What percentage of each is needed to be considered a gamer? Who deserves the title of gamer: the person who loves every genre but only plays one hour a week on the computer or the person who will only play one genre but owns every gaming system available and plays 3 or 4 hours every day?  Isn't a [video] gamer someone who plays video games?  Beyond that is there a definition of how many or what types of games the person must play/enjoy in order to be considered a gamer?

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo

    How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes.  Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing.  Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.

    You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation.  If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going  to be pissed off and not buy the product.  Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.

    Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design.  Not math 101.

    Why do some people never tip?

    Why do some people stay on welfare for as long as possible or look for government handouts?

    Why does some people equate to 37%+43% of general players.

    http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/EEDAR+news/feature.asp?c=44804

    From that graphic, you can see that the sweet spot people want to pay for is between 0.00 to 0.94 a month when they have the choice of choosing the payment amount made.

    They brought that into the topic because they think that with 80% of players ingrained in the payment model they won't have resistance and what they do get as resistance will be over talked by everyone who has a great time in the games and is spending less without any concern of if it's sustainable over time. The vocal people who don't spend money in those games outweigh those who do so the input is going to favor them. It's also mildly humiliating to admit that you pay more than others because of your vanity so you won't hear from big spenders either to support you. Their bet is hedged you might say. Plus the more you comment against it with truths people will accuse you of talking about it all the time since they won't weigh the facts at all and keep talking. They won't admit that it's subsidized gaming. They won't admit that it's volatile because it relies on less than 5% of the gaming population to sustain it and they won't call it bad business even when the market is over-saturated with titles. If the right 5% leave free to play games, the entire model crumbles. Those games will fall off the face of the planet because they are a stack of blocks with pieces removed.

     

    That graph could be used to represent spending on any entertainment product or service. If anything, it means mobile games are simply business as usual.

    Mobile and PC. The two are not separate because players spill over into both.

    Here's the stat for PC included. It also dissolves the other myth - people pay for free games because they want to pay to get ahead and don't have time for the game. Also not true, they pay because they choose to and when they choose to stop paying, it will affect everyone who doesn't pay. Talk about shouldering the load, putting in more time and paying more, those are true martyrs right there. It's also not all old people paying. I keep saying this and people keep acting like the researchers aren't backing it up.

    http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18y4m0v4a9gpnpng/ku-xlarge.png

    The reason mobile stats are good is because many of them are players new to this genre. To know what they like gives you insight on how they work into our games that existed before mobile.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo

    How could you lump F2P into an argument about people being accepting of gameplay changes.  Learning to enjoy or like things in life that offer a different experience than we expect is one thing.  Asking people to spend more money than they used to on the same experience and questioning why they don't learn to adapt is idiotic.

    You can't mix math with personal growth in this situation.  If the same thing I used to get suddenly costs twice as much to be enjoyable I'm going  to be pissed off and not buy the product.  Its not a matter of me having too many choices and being picky.

    Save that analogy for the intangible things like color, and game play design.  Not math 101.

    Why do some people never tip?

    Why do some people stay on welfare for as long as possible or look for government handouts?

    Why does some people equate to 37%+43% of general players.

    http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/EEDAR+news/feature.asp?c=44804

    From that graphic, you can see that the sweet spot people want to pay for is between 0.00 to 0.94 a month when they have the choice of choosing the payment amount made.

    They brought that into the topic because they think that with 80% of players ingrained in the payment model they won't have resistance and what they do get as resistance will be over talked by everyone who has a great time in the games and is spending less without any concern of if it's sustainable over time. The vocal people who don't spend money in those games outweigh those who do so the input is going to favor them. It's also mildly humiliating to admit that you pay more than others because of your vanity so you won't hear from big spenders either to support you. Their bet is hedged you might say. Plus the more you comment against it with truths people will accuse you of talking about it all the time since they won't weigh the facts at all and keep talking. They won't admit that it's subsidized gaming. They won't admit that it's volatile because it relies on less than 5% of the gaming population to sustain it and they won't call it bad business even when the market is over-saturated with titles. If the right 5% leave free to play games, the entire model crumbles. Those games will fall off the face of the planet because they are a stack of blocks with pieces removed.

     

    That graph could be used to represent spending on any entertainment product or service. If anything, it means mobile games are simply business as usual.

    Mobile and PC. 

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    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

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo
    ...snip
    ...snip

     

    ...snip

    ...snip

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money or simply run out of it.

    Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker and profiting from a gambling addiction is the cool way to do business.  I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them to woo them from that other free game that is shinier than you and came out yesterday. You are so old news, you are 4 weeks old.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo
    ...snip
    ...snip

     

    ...snip

    ...snip

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money.

    Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker.  I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them.

    Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of taking advantage of people. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.

    Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.

    They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.

     

     

    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

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo
    ...snip
    ...snip

     

    ...snip

    ...snip

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money.

    Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker.  I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them.

    Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of such behavior. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.

    Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.

    They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.

     

     

    When those people buy 95% of the baseball gloves and the company they bought them from give away 80% of their purchased baseball gloves at 0.00 to 0.94 then we have equal comparisons.

    The core issue is still that 5% of players support 95% of players and if those 5% of players change their thought pattern, they have complete control to wreck the model and there is no bargaining chip left to bring them back with any longer. You can romanticize it and say they like the situation and won't ever change their mind but that's not guaranteed.

    What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally is that one leaving is always one leaving instead of one leaving representing a larger percentage of income. If you gain one in return you get exactly what you lost, if you lose one big spender you can't guarantee another spender will take their place. The one to one ratio is fiscally sound.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,673Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo
    ...snip
    ...snip

     

    ...snip

    ...snip

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money.

    Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker.  I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them.

    Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of such behavior. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.

    Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.

    They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.

    When those people buy 95% of the baseball gloves and the company they bought them from give away 90% of their baseball gloves at 0.00 to 0.94 then we have equal comparisons.

    The core issue is still that 5% of players support 95% of players and if those 5% of players change their thought pattern, they have complete control to wreck the model and there is no bargaining chip left to bring them back with any longer. You can romanticize it and say they like the situation and won't ever change their mind but that's not guaranteed.

    What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally is that one leaving is always one leaving instead of one leaving representing a larger percentage of income. If you gain one in return you get exactly what you lost, if you lose one big spender you can't guarantee another spender will take their place. The one to one ratio is fiscally sound.

    The equal comparison - that 90% - is the crowd that watches the game for free on TV.

    "What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally..."

    What entertainment service or product are you comparing this to where everyone pays the same exact thing and there isn't that 10% spending a ton and 1% going crazy with it? I'm trying to figure out what you are basing any of this on.

    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

  • greenreengreenreen Punchoo, AKPosts: 2,101Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by greenreen
    Originally posted by goboygo
    ...snip
    ...snip

     

    ...snip

    ...snip

    Mobile, PC, sports, Trekkies, model ship builders... the graph will be the same. PC falls into the same category as "any." ;) 

    Most people are passive enthusiasts when it comes to their preferred entertainment. As it moves up the scale you go through a slow rise and then the massive fanatic upswing, swooping into that 1% that plaster their house, body and surroundings with it. Business as usual. 

    So, your thought is, take advantage of the fans and let all the other people ride for free. You think that they won't ever become exhausted or deplete their funds. They are a piggy bank that is constantly full and they can't ever die and/or take away that money.

    Or is it more like, let a sucker be a sucker.  I say the model is broken, it may not show today but it has to falter because the people who don't have a history of paying aren't going to produce children who suddenly want to pay unless there is a huge shift somewhere. Who will replace the suckers or if they notice their yummy tasty center and the stick up their butt, who is going to stop them from leaving, are the games going to say "It's double free this week, oh do come back!". You can't get cheaper than free, it's bottom of the barrel so what carrot can be put in front of them.

    Whoa there. You act as if the people that spend a ton on their passion are suckers for doing so. Worse, you're suggesting I am in favor of such behavior. Let's dial it back a bit, green. Drop the ridiculous (and vulgar) comparisons, and don't assign motivations to people that aren't there.

    Some people really get into their hobbies. They'll buy 50" and bigger TVs for their living room just to watch their favorite sport. There's even people that will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to own a used baseball glove.

    They aren't being suckered into doing these things. They enjoy these things. That graph doesn't show anything shocking or new. It's the normal spread of how people consume entertainment products and services. TONS of passive folks and then a big soar at the end to the HOLYCOW super-fanatics.

    When those people buy 95% of the baseball gloves and the company they bought them from give away 90% of their baseball gloves at 0.00 to 0.94 then we have equal comparisons.

    The core issue is still that 5% of players support 95% of players and if those 5% of players change their thought pattern, they have complete control to wreck the model and there is no bargaining chip left to bring them back with any longer. You can romanticize it and say they like the situation and won't ever change their mind but that's not guaranteed.

    What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally is that one leaving is always one leaving instead of one leaving representing a larger percentage of income. If you gain one in return you get exactly what you lost, if you lose one big spender you can't guarantee another spender will take their place. The one to one ratio is fiscally sound.

    The equal comparison - that 90% - is the crowd that watches the game for free on TV. You're really having a lot of trouble with this I see. :/

    "What is guaranteed in a model where everyone pays equally..."

    What entertainment service or product are you comparing this to where everyone pays the same exact thing and there isn't that 10% spending a ton and 1% going crazy with it? I'm trying to figure out what you are basing any of this on.

    I'm not having trouble with anything, a free TV show is free for everyone. If you want to claim that 5% of the people paid for seats in an auditorium and 100% were seated just because they showed up and that being in that stadium is the same experience as sitting on your couch then I wonder how they ever sell tickets to live events at all.

    We are talking about a product that only exists because 5% of the people pay for it while 100% enjoy it.

    The charts are the basis. Now we've come to a circle. Address the points.

    Can a person who is paying for the majority of the game leave.

    If that person leaves, does it change the income of the game significantly or only slightly. If two of those people leave etc.

    How do you gain the people to begin with, kiss a lot of frogs and hope for a prince or have a strong IP which is the basis for fandom.

    I claim that people are spending, you are caught up in justifying their spending. I'm concerned with the effect they produce when they stop spending. That's where it all short circuits.

    If you think that someone can never stop spending once they start then that's not the same in my mind. If you think their passion will outweigh everything else that can come in the future - graphic wise or gameplay wise that would keep them a wandering soul trying any game they like and funding any game they like then that's our impasse.

    If you do agree that they can leave (by will or circumstance) then what I predict can surely come true.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,418Member Uncommon

    In relation to the Free Play argument, you often see complaints about games 'no one's playing it, it's empty'.   That's what the non paying players bring.  Free players are actually a sort of game asset.   

     

    Though sometimes, some of them are a game detriment as well.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,418Member Uncommon
    If 100 new free players lead to five who will pay, statistically, you just have to keep getting 100 new players.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.