It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
"Consumers are also protected by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This includes a requirement on businesses not to subject anyone to misleading or aggressive marketing practices, or, for example, direct exhortation to buy products, such as games content, including in-game purchases such as loot boxes. The government is committed to ensuring that consumers are properly protected and that children's vulnerability and inexperience is not exploited by aggressive commercial practices."
I work in IT - I was a programmer and have worked on things as small as apps and websites and as large as military software in aircraft. I currently manage a team of developers working on web technologies.MightyUnclean said:I'm pretty tech-ignorant, so I'm looking for some expert opinions. The Kickstarter for Camelot Unchained states that their goal is to "Maintain an absolute minimum of 30 FPS in battles of up to 500 people." That's why they're building a custom engine: no one else, apparently, has built an available engine that can do this. My question is, is this even feasible with modern technology? For a small team working with a relatively small budget? Have others, especially AAA developers, tried and failed to achieve such a lofty goal? I'm wondering if problems achieving this base programming goal are part of the reason that the game is still in a pre-alpha state after four years. Again, I'm very ignorant of how this all works, so I'm looking for the opinions of programmers or network pros that know a lot about this.
From everything I've seen and read about this game, the fun comes from two main sources:Wizardry said:I noticed a word i used to see a lot and have completely laughed at of late because i know how gamer's play these mmorpg's but i am still very curious.
That word is FUN...so truly curious here because i still yet to understand the attraction to this game,what will be this game's FUN factor that i or anyone else can't get in the already multitude of games out there?
I get this real feeling watching game supporters that it is alot like music,sometimes people support music groups or types just to be different,also just like people dying their hair or wearing earrings where they don't belong,people just need to feel umm what's the term like a rebel or just to be different than the rest of the crowd.
Me i am just that plain ol Joe err Bob looking for a quality and yet yikes "FUN"game to play.To me Fun is in the systems,does a game offer me something unique and different so that i can THINK a bit,manage my resources and perhaps utilize team work in combat.I also at this point MUST have no hand holding markers of any kind,so to make it simple,a fully immersive game,nothing that just looks like computer code tossed into a generated world.
First, I don't know the details about Shroud of the Avatar, I've never played it and their website is short on detail. Garriott's number of 250 refers to the same virtual world, but that world can encompass multiple zones. So, even if a zone has a cap of 100 players, as long as there are multiple zones all belonging to the same persistent virtual world, he's good. Also, his statement of 250 was made this year, on this website, when mmorpg.com asked him directly to define what MMO means. He was also backed up by Raph Koster, the mmorpg.com staff and most of the commenters.Torval said:That is horrible reasoning. I asked for facts not feelings or manufactured numbers which is exactly what you spewed back out at me. I've heard all the fantasy logic before, but people keep throwing out numbers like they're facts that mean something. They're not.cameltosis said:Torval said:By the way where is it written that massively means hundreds or more? I'm only asking since we're being sticklers for facts and not feelings.
Anway, So if Richard Garriott is the person who defines what an MMO is. And Shroud of the Avatar, which is an mmo, has a lower player cap per zone than your manufactured 250 player number then that would mean that almost all multiplayer games are mmos and @TheScavenger is right saying D2 is an mmo. You shot yourself in the foot bringing Garriott as the MMO authority into the argument. He may have said one thing at one time in the distant past, but actions his actions with SotA show differently.
Other than multiplayer means 2+ people and that massively is an adverb you've not made any ground. Those were obvious and didn't need pointed out in the first place. Everything else you said is unsubstantiated conjecture.
KnightFalz said:It has everything to do with multiplayer. That is what multiplayer means, multiple concurrent players, with the exception of hot seat games where it is consecutive.cameltosis said:Your use of the word "concurrently" is where your misunderstanding of what an MMO is stems from.KnightFalz said:The game can be played online concurrently by a massive number of players, so it is an MMO by definition. Nothing about an MMO requires that the massive number of players all be playing in such a way that they are constantly accessible to each other.
Concurrent - at the same time / simultaneously.
That has nothing to do with multiplayer. Being a multiplayer game means the people playing within the same virtual environment. So, Call of Duty, Battlefield, PUBG etc all have 1000s or millions playing concurrently, but the multiplayer part of it is capped at a low number. The same is true for Destiny and Destiny 2 - they may support 1000s concurrently playing the game, but when it comes to the multiplayer bit, the number is capped low.
So, given that "massively" is an adverb and is applied to the word "multiplayer", to be an MMO you have to support a massive amount of people within the same virtual environment. WoW, FFXIV, ESO, LotRO etc all support 1000s within the same virtual environment, Destiny does not.
It doesn't matter if the number is capped low, so long as it is more than one.
Nothing about the definition requires that thousands of players exist in the same environment during play. It simply requires that a massive number of people can play the game concurrently. You are simply trying to make historical examples of MMORPGs defining of MMOs in general, which they are not. The genre has expanded beyond them.
The reality is that the vast majority of actual play in MMORPGs does not take place in areas of high player concentration in any case. Rather, most of the play takes place removed from that, either solo or in comparatively small groups of people when contrasted with the overall population... groups often similar in size to those in Destiny and other similar titles. In many MMORPGs these areas become instanced upon group entry, making them even more similar.
As such, the difference is more a matter of form than function, that form being what surrounds the play. Those MMOs that fit the traditional form of MMORPGs are described as such. MMOs that don't are not, being typically described by whatever sub-genre they are in.
Essentially, MMO is a broad category of games, of which MMORPG is but one type. Other types of games are also included within, and this variety will continue to expand over time as multiplayer games of different genres are released.
1. Gambling is harmful to individuals and society in general. Individual people may be able to handle it fine, but as an overall average it is harmful. There have been countless studies over the years that have shown this to be true. That doesn't mean gambling can't be fun, it can often be very fun, but it is harmful. If you doubt this, take 10 minutes to do some Googling. It is most harmful when it is done on a regular basis as it actually changes your brain chemistry.and why not!laserit said:Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.yes I know that.laserit said:Reading comprehension Seanno I am not, its just not really a very interesting relevant point to the conversation of gambling.Not sure what your issue is.
And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
Ok, I got your 'narrative' kids should not buy video games...and if you dont mind lets get back to the meat of the conversation
"a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games"
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469790/authorities-looking-at-regulating-rng-as-gambling/p7#SiZV52zB4fm9hZSW.99
His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction.
Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.
Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.
$10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds.
that spurs the question.
Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.
1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game
2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything'
and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit