Well casuals hate hardcores and hardcores hate casuals, the trick is not to make a game everyone likes but to make a game for smaller demographics.
Make a raiding based game, a crafting game, a casual game, a pro game and so forth.
The problem with this, as Venge says, is COST just making an MMO to suit a particuilar crowd still costs an awful lot of money and when investors commit big money to project they want to minimise risk as much as they can. MMO's are complicated beasts and thats why they have developed along the lines they have rather than the way early MMO players imagined. I'm afraid that pragamatism and practicalities have taken the genre in this direction because of the nature of this complexity. You do not commit large sums of money to projects that have high risk and making certain kinds of MMO's are such a big risk you don't see the big guys trying them, no-one wants to lose money. It is pretty simple stuff when you think objectively and put yourself in the shoes of the developers and investors until someone can reduce costs radically you will only see big risk taking games from the Indie dev's
I absolutely understand this. But the question was about what is ruining MMOs and how no matter what you do you get complaints. Well I explained how to avoid these complaints. If you want to label all these proximate causes as the result of a prior cause, that its too risky to innovate, fine. but they are not at the same step in the causation so telling me about that step is silly.
My point is that if players actually took a bit of time to step back and understand the practicalities in making MMO's they might actually see that what they are asking for is futile and maybe they'll enjoy the genre more or if they are still not happy move onto something that makes them happy, this is what I think Venge is getting at. Constructive criticism is always welcome but expecting all games to have everything in the game at launch and be totally innovative is really not going to happen, it hasn't happened in single player games and it with not happen in MMO's and that's the solution to these people who believe this or that is ruining MMO's because for millions, including me, that is not the case.
Do you even read my posts? I want the opposite of everything, I lobby for specialized games. Hell I don't even need triple A graphics to enjoy a game. Yes, millions of people do love the current mmorpgs, and while in some cases it is because they have minimal exposure to superior games, or because the manipulative and abusive psychological practices used by game companies to essentially simulate gambling addiction is why, some people are just happy with the genre. That's fine. But that player base supports a dozen triple A MMOs, so just one MMO for crafters, one for those super hardcore kids, and one with a different kind of PVP isn't unreasonable. EVE did it, SWG used to do it until they got greedy. Vanguard did it for a while.
The thing is that developers don't give a flying fuck about players. They chase money. Big money. Getting EVE or Old SWG or Vanguard level money isn't enough. They want WoW money, or EQ2 money, or Rift money. So players that aren't part of the mainstream are screwed.
Only idiots are arguing that the majority of gamers are pissed off. No one talks about how the majority is happy because its fucking implicit. Its obvious and it doesn't need to be acknowledged in every thread ever. Sure you have moron niche game players who just say I hate X and demand a game with Y. But some of us are trying to find a way to make Y profitable so developers will make it, or discover what Y is for us and others like us, or make Y ourselves.
We get it, developers aren't going to make a game unless it makes money. So we need to find a way to make making games we like make money, or find someone willing to do it for less money.
Yes I did read your posts and you've missed the point of the thread entirely and that is why I explained it to you. And now you go off into tin hat territory about players not being exposed to "superior MMO's" and how companies really aren't interested in satisfying their customers, well to me thats a funny way to run a business only SOE actively do that and where are they in grand scheme of things these days. Companies make games so people can enjoy them there is no conspiracy theory here its plain business, satisfy your customers and they'll come back for more don't do that and they'll go to a competitor.
Well again you didn't read what I said. Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like. Companies will gravitate towards the largest, mainstream segment of the population that is underserved and therefore has money to burn. If the market for one population segment is so saturated with games that companies can't expect a reasonable return on investment they will try to find a different underserved segment large enough to produce more money than they would recieve by competing in a mostly saturated market. If you are part of a minority too small to provide a sufficient return on investment, or even if you provide a better return on investment but the total population of your minority is too low, ie the company would make the same or better net profit per player including all costs but the total profit would be too small, you don't get the style of game you would prefer to play.
You see I understand both micro and macro economics perfectly well and am not engaging in tin hatting. If you are too unintelligent to understand what I was saying, I will make one attempt to be clearer and dumbed down as I did above, and if you still lack the intellectual capacity to understand my "for dummies" argument, then I will not continue to waste my time. I am not your high school teacher or even your college professor.
In regards to people lacking access to a superior product, that is not tin hat that is a real, recognized, documented phenomenon. There are many products in the world which you have never heard of, but which you would powerfully desire to possess if you were aware of them. Many excellent products fail due to factors like lacking access to the money and/or the platform to display to a wide population of potential consumers. Some of them also fail because of random uncontrollable factors, or having the wrong window dressing. For instance angry birds is a wildly popular mainstream accepted game. There were a thousand games not with similar, but literally identical mechanics on the web years before angry birds came out. However due to a variety of reasons, such as being pre smart phone saturation, or not having advertising capital or knowledge these games did not make their designers rich. Nevertheless as soon as a game with that previously unknown play style, Angry Birds, game out, it was a huge hit. I could list examples from all areas of history all day and fill pages, but if you can't grasp the concept with one example, more are not likely to help.
Well casuals hate hardcores and hardcores hate casuals, the trick is not to make a game everyone likes but to make a game for smaller demographics.
Make a raiding based game, a crafting game, a casual game, a pro game and so forth.
The problem with this, as Venge says, is COST just making an MMO to suit a particuilar crowd still costs an awful lot of money and when investors commit big money to project they want to minimise risk as much as they can. MMO's are complicated beasts and thats why they have developed along the lines they have rather than the way early MMO players imagined. I'm afraid that pragamatism and practicalities have taken the genre in this direction because of the nature of this complexity. You do not commit large sums of money to projects that have high risk and making certain kinds of MMO's are such a big risk you don't see the big guys trying them, no-one wants to lose money. It is pretty simple stuff when you think objectively and put yourself in the shoes of the developers and investors until someone can reduce costs radically you will only see big risk taking games from the Indie dev's
I absolutely understand this. But the question was about what is ruining MMOs and how no matter what you do you get complaints. Well I explained how to avoid these complaints. If you want to label all these proximate causes as the result of a prior cause, that its too risky to innovate, fine. but they are not at the same step in the causation so telling me about that step is silly.
My point is that if players actually took a bit of time to step back and understand the practicalities in making MMO's they might actually see that what they are asking for is futile and maybe they'll enjoy the genre more or if they are still not happy move onto something that makes them happy, this is what I think Venge is getting at. Constructive criticism is always welcome but expecting all games to have everything in the game at launch and be totally innovative is really not going to happen, it hasn't happened in single player games and it with not happen in MMO's and that's the solution to these people who believe this or that is ruining MMO's because for millions, including me, that is not the case.
Do you even read my posts? I want the opposite of everything, I lobby for specialized games. Hell I don't even need triple A graphics to enjoy a game. Yes, millions of people do love the current mmorpgs, and while in some cases it is because they have minimal exposure to superior games, or because the manipulative and abusive psychological practices used by game companies to essentially simulate gambling addiction is why, some people are just happy with the genre. That's fine. But that player base supports a dozen triple A MMOs, so just one MMO for crafters, one for those super hardcore kids, and one with a different kind of PVP isn't unreasonable. EVE did it, SWG used to do it until they got greedy. Vanguard did it for a while.
The thing is that developers don't give a flying fuck about players. They chase money. Big money. Getting EVE or Old SWG or Vanguard level money isn't enough. They want WoW money, or EQ2 money, or Rift money. So players that aren't part of the mainstream are screwed.
Only idiots are arguing that the majority of gamers are pissed off. No one talks about how the majority is happy because its fucking implicit. Its obvious and it doesn't need to be acknowledged in every thread ever. Sure you have moron niche game players who just say I hate X and demand a game with Y. But some of us are trying to find a way to make Y profitable so developers will make it, or discover what Y is for us and others like us, or make Y ourselves.
We get it, developers aren't going to make a game unless it makes money. So we need to find a way to make making games we like make money, or find someone willing to do it for less money.
Yes I did read your posts and you've missed the point of the thread entirely and that is why I explained it to you. And now you go off into tin hat territory about players not being exposed to "superior MMO's" and how companies really aren't interested in satisfying their customers, well to me thats a funny way to run a business only SOE actively do that and where are they in grand scheme of things these days. Companies make games so people can enjoy them there is no conspiracy theory here its plain business, satisfy your customers and they'll come back for more don't do that and they'll go to a competitor.
Well again you didn't read what I said. Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like. Companies will gravitate towards the largest, mainstream segment of the population that is underserved and therefore has money to burn. If the market for one population segment is so saturated with games that companies can't expect a reasonable return on investment they will try to find a different underserved segment large enough to produce more money than they would recieve by competing in a mostly saturated market. If you are part of a minority too small to provide a sufficient return on investment, or even if you provide a better return on investment but the total population of your minority is too low, ie the company would make the same or better net profit per player including all costs but the total profit would be too small, you don't get the style of game you would prefer to play.
You see I understand both micro and macro economics perfectly well and am not engaging in tin hatting. If you are too unintelligent to understand what I was saying, I will make one attempt to be clearer and dumbed down as I did above, and if you still lack the intellectual capacity to understand my "for dummies" argument, then I will not continue to waste my time. I am not your high school teacher or even your college professor.
In regards to people lacking access to a superior product, that is not tin hat that is a real, recognized, documented phenomenon. There are many products in the world which you have never heard of, but which you would powerfully desire to possess if you were aware of them. Many excellent products fail due to factors like lacking access to the money and/or the platform to display to a wide population of potential consumers. Some of them also fail because of random uncontrollable factors, or having the wrong window dressing. For instance angry birds is a wildly popular mainstream accepted game. There were a thousand games not with similar, but literally identical mechanics on the web years before angry birds came out. However due to a variety of reasons, such as being pre smart phone saturation, or not having advertising capital or knowledge these games did not make their designers rich. Nevertheless as soon as a game with that previously unknown play style, Angry Birds, game out, it was a huge hit. I could list examples from all areas of history all day and fill pages, but if you can't grasp the concept with one example, more are not likely to help.
When you result to insulting someones intelligence you've already lost the argument, you also contradict yourself in the first three sentences of your reply by saying..
Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like.
In my world making a game that people like is making them happy, I don't know what that means in your world. Now do I really need to read on or would you like me to pick apart the rest of your argument for shits and giggles?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
1. Developers looking to get an idea of what kind of game people want should not look to forums for any kind of accurate or representative information. Everything here is contradictory to everything else. Converserly people looking to prop up their game or talk down another game or make any kind of discussion at all an use forums as their support are completely deluding themselves.
2. If you want a game with all the bells and whistles than you also have to recognize that that game is going to cost megazillions and therefore must target the widest possible audience in order to recoup those mega costs
or
Realize that what you want or the game you are playing is niche, as such it won't have the funds for all those bells and whistles, may never have the funds because it can't afford it by targeting a smaller demographic and so you the gamer either has to wait for the bells and whistles, accept that your not getting them, or wait for technology to change.
I don't see any other options possible.
Venge
I'd have to say CCP sort of bucks the trend with EVE, and while it did take a while to come together, it does manage to deliver a more complete gaming experience than most other titles out there regardless what they spend to build them.
It is possible to create a good (AA?) MMORPG title for the niche market, but perhaps its a very fine line a developer has to walk in order to be successful.
But I agree, when creating a new title, for every 3 people who enjoy it there will be 2 that dislike it because of the design choices. Developers have to chase the largest demographic to be as profitable as they can so most follow the traditional model that has proven most successful in years past.
But I have faith, someday someone will break the mold and surprise everyone (sort of like Minecraft did) and re-take the MMORPG by storm on a very limited budget.
I don't think Eve did buck the trend, rather I think it is evidence of what I am saying. They did not have the money for all the bells and whistles, so they started out small and it was a relatively horrible launch/game so I'm told. But they improved it, and gained subscribers, and added new things and gained more... Now with the release of Dust 14 (is that what it's called?) you can say that they have added all/more bells and whistles. This has to be what the gamers accept, a slow gradual build of things they like, or a mass market targeted game.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Reiterating what the OP said, this is exactly what SWTOR is going through now. At least if you read the forums and see the vocal minority complaining about what the game isnt and what it is lacking. There are self proclaimed MMO master designers that present a laundry list of features that they think should or even need to be in the game, or otherwise it will fail (or has already failed in somes eyes).
While saying that game developers can make an MMO exactly how we want is fine and dandy, the fact of the matter is, has that game been released before? would we even know it if it was to be released? If that game has been released, would'nt one think that it would have taken it's place as the king of MMO's by now, and dethroning the current king.
How do you know that (using SWTOR as an example) this isn't the best we can get given the circumstances? Yes in theory the powers that be are in a position to give us the second coming of Jesus in terms of MMOs, but thats only on paper, in reality, we havent seen this game yet, so I fail to understand how people keep making comparisons and say "it should have this" Thats the lamest thing ever. No one knows what can realistically be done. Except for (gasp) the people actually making the game.
If you think you can make a better game than 3 of the biggest game developers in the world, that have partnered up and have what seems to be almost limitless resouces at their disposal, please by all means, do so. Take the long road of getting a game design education and background, amassing wealth and fame to start a multi-billion dollar game design studio, and release a MMO that is accessible to millions of people worldwide. It shouldn't take you no less than, oh say.......30 years. Don't worry, we will wait.
1. Developers looking to get an idea of what kind of game people want should not look to forums for any kind of accurate or representative information. Everything here is contradictory to everything else. Converserly people looking to prop up their game or talk down another game or make any kind of discussion at all an use forums as their support are completely deluding themselves.
2. If you want a game with all the bells and whistles than you also have to recognize that that game is going to cost megazillions and therefore must target the widest possible audience in order to recoup those mega costs
or
Realize that what you want or the game you are playing is niche, as such it won't have the funds for all those bells and whistles, may never have the funds because it can't afford it by targeting a smaller demographic and so you the gamer either has to wait for the bells and whistles, accept that your not getting them, or wait for technology to change.
I don't see any other options possible.
Venge
I'd have to say CCP sort of bucks the trend with EVE, and while it did take a while to come together, it does manage to deliver a more complete gaming experience than most other titles out there regardless what they spend to build them.
It is possible to create a good (AA?) MMORPG title for the niche market, but perhaps its a very fine line a developer has to walk in order to be successful.
But I agree, when creating a new title, for every 3 people who enjoy it there will be 2 that dislike it because of the design choices. Developers have to chase the largest demographic to be as profitable as they can so most follow the traditional model that has proven most successful in years past.
But I have faith, someday someone will break the mold and surprise everyone (sort of like Minecraft did) and re-take the MMORPG by storm on a very limited budget.
I don't think Eve did buck the trend, rather I think it is evidence of what I am saying. They did not have the money for all the bells and whistles, so they started out small and it was a relatively horrible launch/game so I'm told. But they improved it, and gained subscribers, and added new things and gained more... Now with the release of Dust 14 (is that what it's called?) you can say that they have added all/more bells and whistles. This has to be what the gamers accept, a slow gradual build of things they like, or a mass market targeted game.
Venge
I agree totally Venge, EVE is a special case as its not the usual 3D ground based game it is as many people call it is spreadsheets in space and thats not to denegrate it because it really does work, but not having to design a fully 3D graphical enviroment must of saved them lots of money and time also they'd need a lot less dev's as well so smaller company smaller overheads enabled CCP to keep the game running and improving over time, companies that try to produced full 3d graphical MMO's don't have those luxuries and thus need a greater financial imput to survive and grow.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I agree totally Venge, EVE is a special case as its not the usual 3D ground based game it is as many people call it is spreadsheets in space and thats not to denegrate it because it really does work, but not having to design a fully 3D graphical enviroment must of saved them lots of money and time also they'd need a lot less dev's as well so smaller company smaller overheads enabled CCP to keep the game running and improving over time, companies that try to produced full 3d graphical MMO's don't have those luxuries and thus need a greater financial imput to survive and grow.
The only drawback is that there are not many companies honestly willing to wait long as EVE did to "make it".
Believe me, I love startups, and the very idea of startups. Watching Dominus very closely.
But with a corporate profit motive, your shares are not going to do too well if you have to wait years before you can pay dividends. And yep, that's kind of an unspoken issue throughout the entire genre.
Maybe it's time to invest cash in small companies and give up on "Massive". But to do that, the players have to show a lot more patience than they typically do.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well casuals hate hardcores and hardcores hate casuals, the trick is not to make a game everyone likes but to make a game for smaller demographics.
Make a raiding based game, a crafting game, a casual game, a pro game and so forth.
The problem with this, as Venge says, is COST just making an MMO to suit a particuilar crowd still costs an awful lot of money and when investors commit big money to project they want to minimise risk as much as they can. MMO's are complicated beasts and thats why they have developed along the lines they have rather than the way early MMO players imagined. I'm afraid that pragamatism and practicalities have taken the genre in this direction because of the nature of this complexity. You do not commit large sums of money to projects that have high risk and making certain kinds of MMO's are such a big risk you don't see the big guys trying them, no-one wants to lose money. It is pretty simple stuff when you think objectively and put yourself in the shoes of the developers and investors until someone can reduce costs radically you will only see big risk taking games from the Indie dev's
I absolutely understand this. But the question was about what is ruining MMOs and how no matter what you do you get complaints. Well I explained how to avoid these complaints. If you want to label all these proximate causes as the result of a prior cause, that its too risky to innovate, fine. but they are not at the same step in the causation so telling me about that step is silly.
My point is that if players actually took a bit of time to step back and understand the practicalities in making MMO's they might actually see that what they are asking for is futile and maybe they'll enjoy the genre more or if they are still not happy move onto something that makes them happy, this is what I think Venge is getting at. Constructive criticism is always welcome but expecting all games to have everything in the game at launch and be totally innovative is really not going to happen, it hasn't happened in single player games and it with not happen in MMO's and that's the solution to these people who believe this or that is ruining MMO's because for millions, including me, that is not the case.
Do you even read my posts? I want the opposite of everything, I lobby for specialized games. Hell I don't even need triple A graphics to enjoy a game. Yes, millions of people do love the current mmorpgs, and while in some cases it is because they have minimal exposure to superior games, or because the manipulative and abusive psychological practices used by game companies to essentially simulate gambling addiction is why, some people are just happy with the genre. That's fine. But that player base supports a dozen triple A MMOs, so just one MMO for crafters, one for those super hardcore kids, and one with a different kind of PVP isn't unreasonable. EVE did it, SWG used to do it until they got greedy. Vanguard did it for a while.
The thing is that developers don't give a flying fuck about players. They chase money. Big money. Getting EVE or Old SWG or Vanguard level money isn't enough. They want WoW money, or EQ2 money, or Rift money. So players that aren't part of the mainstream are screwed.
Only idiots are arguing that the majority of gamers are pissed off. No one talks about how the majority is happy because its fucking implicit. Its obvious and it doesn't need to be acknowledged in every thread ever. Sure you have moron niche game players who just say I hate X and demand a game with Y. But some of us are trying to find a way to make Y profitable so developers will make it, or discover what Y is for us and others like us, or make Y ourselves.
We get it, developers aren't going to make a game unless it makes money. So we need to find a way to make making games we like make money, or find someone willing to do it for less money.
Yes I did read your posts and you've missed the point of the thread entirely and that is why I explained it to you. And now you go off into tin hat territory about players not being exposed to "superior MMO's" and how companies really aren't interested in satisfying their customers, well to me thats a funny way to run a business only SOE actively do that and where are they in grand scheme of things these days. Companies make games so people can enjoy them there is no conspiracy theory here its plain business, satisfy your customers and they'll come back for more don't do that and they'll go to a competitor.
Well again you didn't read what I said. Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like. Companies will gravitate towards the largest, mainstream segment of the population that is underserved and therefore has money to burn. If the market for one population segment is so saturated with games that companies can't expect a reasonable return on investment they will try to find a different underserved segment large enough to produce more money than they would recieve by competing in a mostly saturated market. If you are part of a minority too small to provide a sufficient return on investment, or even if you provide a better return on investment but the total population of your minority is too low, ie the company would make the same or better net profit per player including all costs but the total profit would be too small, you don't get the style of game you would prefer to play.
You see I understand both micro and macro economics perfectly well and am not engaging in tin hatting. If you are too unintelligent to understand what I was saying, I will make one attempt to be clearer and dumbed down as I did above, and if you still lack the intellectual capacity to understand my "for dummies" argument, then I will not continue to waste my time. I am not your high school teacher or even your college professor.
In regards to people lacking access to a superior product, that is not tin hat that is a real, recognized, documented phenomenon. There are many products in the world which you have never heard of, but which you would powerfully desire to possess if you were aware of them. Many excellent products fail due to factors like lacking access to the money and/or the platform to display to a wide population of potential consumers. Some of them also fail because of random uncontrollable factors, or having the wrong window dressing. For instance angry birds is a wildly popular mainstream accepted game. There were a thousand games not with similar, but literally identical mechanics on the web years before angry birds came out. However due to a variety of reasons, such as being pre smart phone saturation, or not having advertising capital or knowledge these games did not make their designers rich. Nevertheless as soon as a game with that previously unknown play style, Angry Birds, game out, it was a huge hit. I could list examples from all areas of history all day and fill pages, but if you can't grasp the concept with one example, more are not likely to help.
When you result to insulting someones intelligence you've already lost the argument, you also contradict yourself in the first three sentences of your reply by saying..
Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like.
In my world making a game that people like is making them happy, I don't know what that means in your world. Now do I really need to read on or would you like me to pick apart the rest of your argument for shits and giggles?
I am not insulting your intelligence. I am making a statement about it, or perhaps more accurately your knowledge base, but people still get mad if you call them ignorant instead of dumb.
Attacking someones ignorance relates to their experience in a given discipline. It is a proven fact that someone who does not have much experience arguing over actual research and disciplinary concepts often makes and asserts arguments which research has made a clear statement on, or in layman's terms they advance already debunked arguments. It takes years to get deep into a discipline and absorb previous knowledge. A forum discussion isn't going to have an effect on someone who is ignorant, because even if they WANTED to understand or knew that they were missing someone it would take years to get them to a part where you can actually argue something interesting as opposed to the same tired crap amateurs bring up over and over.
Companies do not make games to make everyone happy, they make them to make money. As I explained further, companies only have to make a game which appeals to a suffciently large amount of the gaming population to meet their profit goals. Further a significant number of the ways that companies insure subs is to use psychology to addict the player to the game mechanics. This addiction is just as strong and as real as a drug addiction, or a sex addiction, or a gambling addiction and in fact these game mechanics are modeled off the abstract processes of gambling that addict people. Making people happy is the method, or one of them, by which companies get sales, but it is neither their end goal nor their only method. In any case the post is about how anyone outside the mainstream gets screwed over content wise.
To pick apart my argument you would have to be capable of comprehending it. I will say it again, making people happy is not why companies produce games.
Lets not get into the topic of addiction, that is what my background is and current research does not support gaming or gambling as actual addictions but instead are factors of abuse.
Current medical definitions of addiction are concerned with disregulated receptors and locus of control and so the issue has been split into receptor regulation and abuse. However this is a red herring topic.
Venge
edit - admittedly there is a grey area between severe abuse and mild addiction, as well as tendancies for activities in which receptors at first seem to regulate properly becoming hmm less stable shall we say.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Lets not get into the topic of addiction, that is what my background is and current research does not support gaming or gambling as actual addictions but instead are factors of abuse.
Current medical definitions of addiction are concerned with disregulated receptors and locus of control and so the issue has been split into receptor regulation and abuse. However this is a red herring topic.
Venge
edit - admittedly there is a grey area between severe abuse and mild addiction, as well as tendancies for activities in which receptors at first seem to regulate properly becoming hmm less stable shall we say.
Well iirc certain activities are more commonly abused by people with addictive personalities.
For psychology, we can train people to behave in certain ways based on certain systems. Perhaps I should have said operant conditioning instead of addiction because addiction is trickier. I was rushed and not too focused.
Games use conditioning methods to train gamers in behavior. If your game uses the less effective method your retention is lower. This is stuff like intermittant reward schedules as opposed to consistent reward schedules. This kind of mechanic was probably used most famously in the Diablo loot drop system.
I am not insulting your intelligence. I am making a statement about it, or perhaps more accurately your knowledge base, but people still get mad if you call them ignorant instead of dumb.
Attacking someones ignorance relates to their experience in a given discipline. It is a proven fact that someone who does not have much experience arguing over actual research and disciplinary concepts often makes and asserts arguments which research has made a clear statement on, or in layman's terms they advance already debunked arguments. It takes years to get deep into a discipline and absorb previous knowledge. A forum discussion isn't going to have an effect on someone who is ignorant, because even if they WANTED to understand or knew that they were missing someone it would take years to get them to a part where you can actually argue something interesting as opposed to the same tired crap amateurs bring up over and over.
Companies do not make games to make everyone happy, they make them to make money. As I explained further, companies only have to make a game which appeals to a suffciently large amount of the gaming population to meet their profit goals. Further a significant number of the ways that companies insure subs is to use psychology to addict the player to the game mechanics. This addiction is just as strong and as real as a drug addiction, or a sex addiction, or a gambling addiction and in fact these game mechanics are modeled off the abstract processes of gambling that addict people. Making people happy is the method, or one of them, by which companies get sales, but it is neither their end goal nor their only method. In any case the post is about how anyone outside the mainstream gets screwed over content wise.
To pick apart my argument you would have to be capable of comprehending it. I will say it again, making people happy is not why companies produce games.
I understand your argument perfectly you are saying that game developers make games to make money by using nefarious methods ie conditioning, skinner box techniques, having gambling in games to addict people because ya know gambling is addictive. I have very personal experiences of addiction and talk about way off the mark with that one is quite beyond comprehension, read a few books did we and thought we know it all now? explain to me why I don't sub to games for very long or why I don't have any maxed out toons in any MMO's or the actual fact that many gamers in todays market are known for, and there is a term for this, game hopping if these techniques you described where so powerful like say Heroin addiction we'd all be playing the first MMO we ever tried. Gamers on the whole play games that they enjoy until they don't enjoy them and then move on to the next game its as simple as that and your machinations that try to contradict this simple fact come across as conspiracy theories so hold onto that hat my friend because those fuckers might get ya! one day.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I am not insulting your intelligence. I am making a statement about it, or perhaps more accurately your knowledge base, but people still get mad if you call them ignorant instead of dumb.
Attacking someones ignorance relates to their experience in a given discipline. It is a proven fact that someone who does not have much experience arguing over actual research and disciplinary concepts often makes and asserts arguments which research has made a clear statement on, or in layman's terms they advance already debunked arguments. It takes years to get deep into a discipline and absorb previous knowledge. A forum discussion isn't going to have an effect on someone who is ignorant, because even if they WANTED to understand or knew that they were missing someone it would take years to get them to a part where you can actually argue something interesting as opposed to the same tired crap amateurs bring up over and over.
Companies do not make games to make everyone happy, they make them to make money. As I explained further, companies only have to make a game which appeals to a suffciently large amount of the gaming population to meet their profit goals. Further a significant number of the ways that companies insure subs is to use psychology to addict the player to the game mechanics. This addiction is just as strong and as real as a drug addiction, or a sex addiction, or a gambling addiction and in fact these game mechanics are modeled off the abstract processes of gambling that addict people. Making people happy is the method, or one of them, by which companies get sales, but it is neither their end goal nor their only method. In any case the post is about how anyone outside the mainstream gets screwed over content wise.
To pick apart my argument you would have to be capable of comprehending it. I will say it again, making people happy is not why companies produce games.
I understand your argument perfectly you are saying that game developers make games to make money by using nefarious methods ie conditioning, skinner box techniques, having gambling in games to addict people because ya know gambling is addictive. I have very personal experiences of addiction and talk about way off the mark with that one is quite beyond comprehension, read a few books did we and thought we know it all now? explain to me why I don't sub to games for very long or why I don't have any maxed out toons in any MMO's or the actual fact that many gamers in todays market are known for, and there is a term for this, game hopping if these techniques you described where so powerful like say Heroin addiction we'd all be playing the first MMO we ever tried. Gamers on the whole play games that they enjoy until they don't enjoy them and then move on to the next game its as simple as that and your machinations that try to contradict this simple fact come across as conspiracy theories so hold onto that hat my friend because those fuckers might get ya! one day.
You have to invest in the game before conditioning can affect you, for rats getting food they are "invested" because they need food. So playing a game for a few hours or even days isn't like shooting up some heroin. For instance if rats pushed a level to change a color then what is their motivation unless they have a desire to see color changes? Once you start playing a game it is much harder to give that up and start a new game even if you would like that new game better if you tried it. Heck in some cases its unlikely you would even be looking for a new game.
I can't account for every single variable in the world that could affect a person and neither can any other person or system. That is why individual anecdotes don't hold water as evidence. Personal experience of addiction for you is irrelevant.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
Well in America there is massive anti corporate sentiment. And pretty much no one subscribes to free market theory anymore. So yes some profit is obtained sinfully. FYI classical capitalism actually involves theoretically perfect user information. Since game companies refuse to let people test out their game before buying it and prevent reviewers from releasing pre release day reviews, that is actually incredibly anti capitalist of them. I am sorry but so many defenders of big business refuse to acknowledge that they violate capitalist theory all day every day.
I am not insulting your intelligence. I am making a statement about it, or perhaps more accurately your knowledge base, but people still get mad if you call them ignorant instead of dumb.
Attacking someones ignorance relates to their experience in a given discipline. It is a proven fact that someone who does not have much experience arguing over actual research and disciplinary concepts often makes and asserts arguments which research has made a clear statement on, or in layman's terms they advance already debunked arguments. It takes years to get deep into a discipline and absorb previous knowledge. A forum discussion isn't going to have an effect on someone who is ignorant, because even if they WANTED to understand or knew that they were missing someone it would take years to get them to a part where you can actually argue something interesting as opposed to the same tired crap amateurs bring up over and over.
Companies do not make games to make everyone happy, they make them to make money. As I explained further, companies only have to make a game which appeals to a suffciently large amount of the gaming population to meet their profit goals. Further a significant number of the ways that companies insure subs is to use psychology to addict the player to the game mechanics. This addiction is just as strong and as real as a drug addiction, or a sex addiction, or a gambling addiction and in fact these game mechanics are modeled off the abstract processes of gambling that addict people. Making people happy is the method, or one of them, by which companies get sales, but it is neither their end goal nor their only method. In any case the post is about how anyone outside the mainstream gets screwed over content wise.
To pick apart my argument you would have to be capable of comprehending it. I will say it again, making people happy is not why companies produce games.
I understand your argument perfectly you are saying that game developers make games to make money by using nefarious methods ie conditioning, skinner box techniques, having gambling in games to addict people because ya know gambling is addictive. I have very personal experiences of addiction and talk about way off the mark with that one is quite beyond comprehension, read a few books did we and thought we know it all now? explain to me why I don't sub to games for very long or why I don't have any maxed out toons in any MMO's or the actual fact that many gamers in todays market are known for, and there is a term for this, game hopping if these techniques you described where so powerful like say Heroin addiction we'd all be playing the first MMO we ever tried. Gamers on the whole play games that they enjoy until they don't enjoy them and then move on to the next game its as simple as that and your machinations that try to contradict this simple fact come across as conspiracy theories so hold onto that hat my friend because those fuckers might get ya! one day.
You have to invest in the game before conditioning can affect you, for rats getting food they are "invested" because they need food. So playing a game for a few hours or even days isn't like shooting up some heroin. For instance if rats pushed a level to change a color then what is their motivation unless they have a desire to see color changes? Once you start playing a game it is much harder to give that up and start a new game even if you would like that new game better if you tried it. Heck in some cases its unlikely you would even be looking for a new game.
I can't account for every single variable in the world that could affect a person and neither can any other person or system. That is why individual anecdotes don't hold water as evidence. Personal experience of addiction for you is irrelevant.
So you really don't understand the nature of addiction? experience trumps any academic knowledge I'm afraid to let you know so when you have personal experience of being an addict and recovering from addiction come to me and we can share experiences., until then keep with the conspiracy theories because I know it makes you world seem comfortable knowing that the world is being controlled by evil corporations trying to get us all addicted to their products.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
Well in America there is massive anti corporate sentiment. And pretty much no one subscribes to free market theory anymore. So yes some profit is obtained sinfully. FYI classical capitalism actually involves theoretically perfect user information. Since game companies refuse to let people test out their game before buying it and prevent reviewers from releasing pre release day reviews, that is actually incredibly anti capitalist of them. I am sorry but so many defenders of big business refuse to acknowledge that they violate capitalist theory all day every day.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel, so the mass participant SW:TOR beta weekends that have been ongoing theses past few months and the multiple Rift beta weekends and Beta's in genral are not being used as try before you buy? do you even read this message board? I used to subscribe to a magazine and on that magazine was a free CD of many new game trials and thats been going on for years. Your arguments are hilarious.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
See if I'm making a product and that gives me 1 milion dollars, and I change it and make it easier and simple to sell to more people and have 10 milions, that's greed and lack of love for what I do. And I will see my costumers just as containers of money, which is what we are right now for MMO developers.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
Well in America there is massive anti corporate sentiment. And pretty much no one subscribes to free market theory anymore. So yes some profit is obtained sinfully. FYI classical capitalism actually involves theoretically perfect user information. Since game companies refuse to let people test out their game before buying it and prevent reviewers from releasing pre release day reviews, that is actually incredibly anti capitalist of them. I am sorry but so many defenders of big business refuse to acknowledge that they violate capitalist theory all day every day.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel, so the mass participant SW:TOR beta weekends that have been ongoing theses past few months and the multiple Rift beta weekends and Beta's in genral are not being used as try before you buy? do you even read this message board? I used to subscribe to a magazine and on that magazine was a free CD of many new game trials and thats been going on for years. Your arguments are hilarious.
So you really don't understand the nature of addiction? experience trumps any academic knowledge I'm afraid to let you know so when you have personal experience of being an addict and recovering from addiction come to me and we can share experiences., until then keep with the conspiracy theories because I know it makes you world seem comfortable knowing that the world is being controlled by evil corporations trying to get us all addicted to their products.
That outmoded idea has been rejected for years by the vast majority of people working in addictions counseling, including those who are themselves in recovery. The primary reason for this is simple: I'm not trying to help you be a better addict, I'm trying to help you learn to live clean. Now whether I'm in recovery, or have never been addicted, I can use that "personal experience" to bear. My heart surgeon doesn't need to have had a triple bypass in order for him/her to be good. Also, trynot to be suprised bugt the entire field of addictions treatment isn't all about YOU. If you want the focus to be on all the particular aspects of your life that you think mkae your addiction different then everyone else's, fine. I hope you have the time and money for years of in depth psycho-analysis.
Research into addiction is no different then any other medical field: find the physical and psychological features that the majority of folks suffering from addiction share, find out which ones need to be altered in order for the patient to live clean, and the best ways to effect those changes. This idea of "but MY problem is special and you can't possibly understand" is usually used as an excuse for simply not trying to get better. Every medical and psychological disorder has people who have atypical presentations, but to say your that way up front is just bs.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Comments
Well again you didn't read what I said. Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like. Companies will gravitate towards the largest, mainstream segment of the population that is underserved and therefore has money to burn. If the market for one population segment is so saturated with games that companies can't expect a reasonable return on investment they will try to find a different underserved segment large enough to produce more money than they would recieve by competing in a mostly saturated market. If you are part of a minority too small to provide a sufficient return on investment, or even if you provide a better return on investment but the total population of your minority is too low, ie the company would make the same or better net profit per player including all costs but the total profit would be too small, you don't get the style of game you would prefer to play.
You see I understand both micro and macro economics perfectly well and am not engaging in tin hatting. If you are too unintelligent to understand what I was saying, I will make one attempt to be clearer and dumbed down as I did above, and if you still lack the intellectual capacity to understand my "for dummies" argument, then I will not continue to waste my time. I am not your high school teacher or even your college professor.
In regards to people lacking access to a superior product, that is not tin hat that is a real, recognized, documented phenomenon. There are many products in the world which you have never heard of, but which you would powerfully desire to possess if you were aware of them. Many excellent products fail due to factors like lacking access to the money and/or the platform to display to a wide population of potential consumers. Some of them also fail because of random uncontrollable factors, or having the wrong window dressing. For instance angry birds is a wildly popular mainstream accepted game. There were a thousand games not with similar, but literally identical mechanics on the web years before angry birds came out. However due to a variety of reasons, such as being pre smart phone saturation, or not having advertising capital or knowledge these games did not make their designers rich. Nevertheless as soon as a game with that previously unknown play style, Angry Birds, game out, it was a huge hit. I could list examples from all areas of history all day and fill pages, but if you can't grasp the concept with one example, more are not likely to help.
When you result to insulting someones intelligence you've already lost the argument, you also contradict yourself in the first three sentences of your reply by saying..
Companies don't make games to make people happy. They make them to get money. Because no one will buy a game that totally no one likes companies have to pick a segment of the population and make a game they like.
In my world making a game that people like is making them happy, I don't know what that means in your world. Now do I really need to read on or would you like me to pick apart the rest of your argument for shits and giggles?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I don't think Eve did buck the trend, rather I think it is evidence of what I am saying. They did not have the money for all the bells and whistles, so they started out small and it was a relatively horrible launch/game so I'm told. But they improved it, and gained subscribers, and added new things and gained more... Now with the release of Dust 14 (is that what it's called?) you can say that they have added all/more bells and whistles. This has to be what the gamers accept, a slow gradual build of things they like, or a mass market targeted game.
Venge
Reiterating what the OP said, this is exactly what SWTOR is going through now. At least if you read the forums and see the vocal minority complaining about what the game isnt and what it is lacking. There are self proclaimed MMO master designers that present a laundry list of features that they think should or even need to be in the game, or otherwise it will fail (or has already failed in somes eyes).
While saying that game developers can make an MMO exactly how we want is fine and dandy, the fact of the matter is, has that game been released before? would we even know it if it was to be released? If that game has been released, would'nt one think that it would have taken it's place as the king of MMO's by now, and dethroning the current king.
How do you know that (using SWTOR as an example) this isn't the best we can get given the circumstances? Yes in theory the powers that be are in a position to give us the second coming of Jesus in terms of MMOs, but thats only on paper, in reality, we havent seen this game yet, so I fail to understand how people keep making comparisons and say "it should have this" Thats the lamest thing ever. No one knows what can realistically be done. Except for (gasp) the people actually making the game.
If you think you can make a better game than 3 of the biggest game developers in the world, that have partnered up and have what seems to be almost limitless resouces at their disposal, please by all means, do so. Take the long road of getting a game design education and background, amassing wealth and fame to start a multi-billion dollar game design studio, and release a MMO that is accessible to millions of people worldwide. It shouldn't take you no less than, oh say.......30 years. Don't worry, we will wait.
In the meantime I will play the next best thing.
I agree totally Venge, EVE is a special case as its not the usual 3D ground based game it is as many people call it is spreadsheets in space and thats not to denegrate it because it really does work, but not having to design a fully 3D graphical enviroment must of saved them lots of money and time also they'd need a lot less dev's as well so smaller company smaller overheads enabled CCP to keep the game running and improving over time, companies that try to produced full 3d graphical MMO's don't have those luxuries and thus need a greater financial imput to survive and grow.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
The only drawback is that there are not many companies honestly willing to wait long as EVE did to "make it".
Believe me, I love startups, and the very idea of startups. Watching Dominus very closely.
But with a corporate profit motive, your shares are not going to do too well if you have to wait years before you can pay dividends. And yep, that's kind of an unspoken issue throughout the entire genre.
Maybe it's time to invest cash in small companies and give up on "Massive". But to do that, the players have to show a lot more patience than they typically do.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I am not insulting your intelligence. I am making a statement about it, or perhaps more accurately your knowledge base, but people still get mad if you call them ignorant instead of dumb.
Attacking someones ignorance relates to their experience in a given discipline. It is a proven fact that someone who does not have much experience arguing over actual research and disciplinary concepts often makes and asserts arguments which research has made a clear statement on, or in layman's terms they advance already debunked arguments. It takes years to get deep into a discipline and absorb previous knowledge. A forum discussion isn't going to have an effect on someone who is ignorant, because even if they WANTED to understand or knew that they were missing someone it would take years to get them to a part where you can actually argue something interesting as opposed to the same tired crap amateurs bring up over and over.
Companies do not make games to make everyone happy, they make them to make money. As I explained further, companies only have to make a game which appeals to a suffciently large amount of the gaming population to meet their profit goals. Further a significant number of the ways that companies insure subs is to use psychology to addict the player to the game mechanics. This addiction is just as strong and as real as a drug addiction, or a sex addiction, or a gambling addiction and in fact these game mechanics are modeled off the abstract processes of gambling that addict people. Making people happy is the method, or one of them, by which companies get sales, but it is neither their end goal nor their only method. In any case the post is about how anyone outside the mainstream gets screwed over content wise.
To pick apart my argument you would have to be capable of comprehending it. I will say it again, making people happy is not why companies produce games.
Lets not get into the topic of addiction, that is what my background is and current research does not support gaming or gambling as actual addictions but instead are factors of abuse.
Current medical definitions of addiction are concerned with disregulated receptors and locus of control and so the issue has been split into receptor regulation and abuse. However this is a red herring topic.
Venge
edit - admittedly there is a grey area between severe abuse and mild addiction, as well as tendancies for activities in which receptors at first seem to regulate properly becoming hmm less stable shall we say.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well iirc certain activities are more commonly abused by people with addictive personalities.
For psychology, we can train people to behave in certain ways based on certain systems. Perhaps I should have said operant conditioning instead of addiction because addiction is trickier. I was rushed and not too focused.
Games use conditioning methods to train gamers in behavior. If your game uses the less effective method your retention is lower. This is stuff like intermittant reward schedules as opposed to consistent reward schedules. This kind of mechanic was probably used most famously in the Diablo loot drop system.
I understand your argument perfectly you are saying that game developers make games to make money by using nefarious methods ie conditioning, skinner box techniques, having gambling in games to addict people because ya know gambling is addictive. I have very personal experiences of addiction and talk about way off the mark with that one is quite beyond comprehension, read a few books did we and thought we know it all now? explain to me why I don't sub to games for very long or why I don't have any maxed out toons in any MMO's or the actual fact that many gamers in todays market are known for, and there is a term for this, game hopping if these techniques you described where so powerful like say Heroin addiction we'd all be playing the first MMO we ever tried. Gamers on the whole play games that they enjoy until they don't enjoy them and then move on to the next game its as simple as that and your machinations that try to contradict this simple fact come across as conspiracy theories so hold onto that hat my friend because those fuckers might get ya! one day.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
There is only one thing that ruined MMOs: GREED.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
One man's greed is another man's dividend.
Unless you buy into the anticorporate mindset that says profit is inherently sinful, to me it's fine if a company makes a buck. Making a buck means that they get to hire more people and make more games.
You get what you pay for--seems to be a concept that a lot of people are having trouble with, here in the strange sub-universe where AAA is expected to be donated to players free of charge.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You have to invest in the game before conditioning can affect you, for rats getting food they are "invested" because they need food. So playing a game for a few hours or even days isn't like shooting up some heroin. For instance if rats pushed a level to change a color then what is their motivation unless they have a desire to see color changes? Once you start playing a game it is much harder to give that up and start a new game even if you would like that new game better if you tried it. Heck in some cases its unlikely you would even be looking for a new game.
I can't account for every single variable in the world that could affect a person and neither can any other person or system. That is why individual anecdotes don't hold water as evidence. Personal experience of addiction for you is irrelevant.
Well in America there is massive anti corporate sentiment. And pretty much no one subscribes to free market theory anymore. So yes some profit is obtained sinfully. FYI classical capitalism actually involves theoretically perfect user information. Since game companies refuse to let people test out their game before buying it and prevent reviewers from releasing pre release day reviews, that is actually incredibly anti capitalist of them. I am sorry but so many defenders of big business refuse to acknowledge that they violate capitalist theory all day every day.
So you really don't understand the nature of addiction? experience trumps any academic knowledge I'm afraid to let you know so when you have personal experience of being an addict and recovering from addiction come to me and we can share experiences., until then keep with the conspiracy theories because I know it makes you world seem comfortable knowing that the world is being controlled by evil corporations trying to get us all addicted to their products.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel, so the mass participant SW:TOR beta weekends that have been ongoing theses past few months and the multiple Rift beta weekends and Beta's in genral are not being used as try before you buy? do you even read this message board? I used to subscribe to a magazine and on that magazine was a free CD of many new game trials and thats been going on for years. Your arguments are hilarious.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
See if I'm making a product and that gives me 1 milion dollars, and I change it and make it easier and simple to sell to more people and have 10 milions, that's greed and lack of love for what I do. And I will see my costumers just as containers of money, which is what we are right now for MMO developers.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
you forgot to add (gear, levels, wow clones, WoW, balance, story,large numbers, art style, ) I think of more later
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The perfect MMO that exists only and only in my head is ruining MMOS......
Guild wars 2 and Archage will save the genrePhilosophy of MMO Game Design
That, or is it just the first kiss. You guys have all the excuses to keep playing the souless MMOs we have now. Good work!.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
The internet is ruining MMOs
http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/11/25/the-strange-world-of-the-nda/
I can give you a dozen more links about NDAs if you want. I had a better one somewhere, probably on gamasutra but im lazy.
That outmoded idea has been rejected for years by the vast majority of people working in addictions counseling, including those who are themselves in recovery. The primary reason for this is simple: I'm not trying to help you be a better addict, I'm trying to help you learn to live clean. Now whether I'm in recovery, or have never been addicted, I can use that "personal experience" to bear. My heart surgeon doesn't need to have had a triple bypass in order for him/her to be good. Also, trynot to be suprised bugt the entire field of addictions treatment isn't all about YOU. If you want the focus to be on all the particular aspects of your life that you think mkae your addiction different then everyone else's, fine. I hope you have the time and money for years of in depth psycho-analysis.
Research into addiction is no different then any other medical field: find the physical and psychological features that the majority of folks suffering from addiction share, find out which ones need to be altered in order for the patient to live clean, and the best ways to effect those changes. This idea of "but MY problem is special and you can't possibly understand" is usually used as an excuse for simply not trying to get better. Every medical and psychological disorder has people who have atypical presentations, but to say your that way up front is just bs.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
~Omar Khayyam