Certain civil/constitutional rights should stand against it. At least in germany it's forbidden to reprimand humans in their freedom of choice like that. Choosing a certain lifestyle, and may it be unhealthy or undesireable by majorities perception, is still a highly private matter nobody has a right to interfere with.
What sense would that make? If an actual person is staying awake 20 hours a day to play... yet their super duper virtual self that can cast fireballs, slay dragons or fly starships around etc... can only manage to stay away 8 to 10?
If anything my toon should play its self for another 12 hours after I log off.. because its so powerful... <- not serious.
Really made me laugh.
I gotta say what world of reality is the OP living in that his active day is only 8-10 hours. I'm retired and my average active day is 18-20 hours.
Get a little older and you will realize you want to sleep less, and do more.
Originally posted by Ozivois This is not a good idea but an interesting idea would be for servers (or only certain servers) to only be active for a few certain hours each day. Or, perhaps only certain content is active on certain parts of the day. This would be a much fair method to provide contested content than currently when certain players have the availability to farm contested content while most of the world is asleep or at work.
OK good plan I say the servers are only online when you are at work or asleep, because obviously you think the world revolves around you.
No sorry don't want that in a MMORPG, a person is either responsible for him/herself or irresponsible.
I have very limited time to play MMORPG, but I still like them and take my time, but the time I am not playing I want that world to continue. I really don't care about player A reaching cap lvl in 2 day's ith no sleep, that's his or her responsibility.
I care if a game can substain me for months or even years when it comes to MMORPG's, regardless that I might only be able to spend 2 to 5 hours a week playing. Sometimes I don't mind the rushers to cap lvl, they might encounter issue's/bugs and by the time I might reach those higher levels where they experianced those issue's they might already be fixed.
I also feel the people that take their time actually enjoy allot more of the game which again might be thanks to those rushers running into issue's long before we do.
So please no time limit on MMORPG's.
But....I don't mind if some new to developed game would try this for those who might think it's fun, but it would take away the essence of a MMORPG to me.
Originally posted by c0exist I am very surprised at all the no's here because my clear answer is yes to this notion. But again as humans we hate being told what to do. I see alot of people saying they dont play much and are extremely opposed to the idea. So we have people bashing the idea just because they dont want to be told what to do when in reality they will never get close to the cap. 8-10 hours is hardly limiting. Thats 56-70 hours a week on one game. I play games more than most and I think this would be a healthy idea. Even on my longest gaming week which happened in my younger days which included a 24 hr straight gaming session i didnt reach 70 hours playing for that week. Its like restricting a buffet to no more than 7 lbs of food can be consumed in one dining session. No one will ever eat that much but you will have plenty of skinny people complaining about baing limited. same issue here.
That's an excellent example. From a marketing standpoint, there is absolutely no value to such a limitation. The only thing it does is label your buffet as offering less than everyone else's.
This is the entertainment industry. If you want to show you care, put in an unintrusive notice that pops up every few hours suggesting the person takes a break. Put in a system that diminishes gains after X amount of hours or, even better, reduces the bonus to gains over time until they are down to 'normal' gains. There are plenty of ways to "do the noble thing" without the arrogance of telling people you want to manage their personal life. No one wants their entertainment service saying "We're limiting you for your benefit" - whether the limitation affects them at all or not - and THAT is why I'm opposed to the idea.
EDIT: Another thing worth thinking about is if such an MMO would e able to get the same monthly fee as others, considering that it only allows you to play for about a third of the time that others do.
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
Originally posted by c0exist I am very surprised at all the no's here because my clear answer is yes to this notion. But again as humans we hate being told what to do. I see alot of people saying they dont play much and are extremely opposed to the idea. So we have people bashing the idea just because they dont want to be told what to do when in reality they will never get close to the cap. 8-10 hours is hardly limiting. Thats 56-70 hours a week on one game. I play games more than most and I think this would be a healthy idea. Even on my longest gaming week which happened in my younger days which included a 24 hr straight gaming session i didnt reach 70 hours playing for that week. Its like restricting a buffet to no more than 7 lbs of food can be consumed in one dining session. No one will ever eat that much but you will have plenty of skinny people complaining about baing limited. same issue here.
That's an excellent example. From a marketing standpoint, there is absolutely no value to such a limitation. The only thing it does is label your buffet as offering less than everyone else's.
This is the entertainment industry. If you want to show you care, put in an unintrusive notice that pops up every few hours suggesting the person takes a break. Put in a system that diminishes gains after X amount of hours or, even better, reduces the bonus to gains over time until they are down to 'normal' gains. There are plenty of ways to "do the noble thing" without the arrogance of telling people you want to manage their personal life. No one wants their entertainment service saying "We're limiting you for your benefit" - whether the limitation affects them at all or not - and THAT is why I'm opposed to the idea.
EDIT: Another thing worth thinking about is if such an MMO would e able to get the same monthly fee as others, considering that it only allows you to play for about a third of the time that others do.
Again, you're focusing exclusively on the health benefits. Yes those are good but like I said if gamers really don't care about their health or would play way more than they should anyway then limiting their play would just get them to switch to some other game. This is not just about that, it's also about creating a better gameworld for the players. Yes hardly anyone would ever go over the limit, but some would and do. And whether you like to think so or not these players do have a profound effect on the shape of the gameworlds we play in and how not only we play the game but also how they play the game themselves (hardcore players pushing other hardcore players to push the limit). Hardcore players would in the first month after release and gold farmers and powerlevellers would do it constantly. These things do affect the gameworld and putting any form of cap would limit the negative effects that these players have on the gameworld. You have to think out of the box here. This is not about making a gameworld where the only goal is to get to the endgame. It's about making it so that the journey itself is seen as enjoyable and valuable.....and yes pacing certainly contributes to achieving that feeling.
And your arguments about value and price in an MMO are completely based on market conditioning. Where do these prices come from? Where do these concepts come from? I certainly never bought or subscribed to an MMO my first time thinking "oh for this value I can play all day every day". That wasn't the MMO's selling point for me. The value was in the experience. Even in my most hardcore days 70 hours a week was like the MOST I could ever play and even that required gratuitous consumption of energy drinks. Limiting the gameplay to a still somewhat large playtime does nothing to diminish the value of the product; it's still way more cost-effective for the hours of entertainment it provides for the price vs other genres/media. This notion of $50 +$15 per month means you have to have 24/7 levelling/farming access comes from a market of games that are offered like that. But that's not the reason people pay that, they pay it for the MMO experience. In the end what's most important is delivering a good product, and if a daily or weekly or experience or whatever cap helps contribute to a more enjoyable game than what's available out there then people would pay it.
Unfortunately, the concept in of itself sounds very negative. So regardless of what benefits it may provide to not only the players health but to the gameplay itself, it still would be unpopular cause freedom is a touchy subject. If this could be presented in a more positive package it would be much more popular. I've played plenty of games over the years with various energy-systems or time-based progression etc. and none of them felt like I was having my freedom stolen from me. Yet these are either in reality playtime caps or greedy moneygrabs (obviously i prefer the first over the latter). If they contribute to a pleasurable experience of the game I never even minded them. I certainly never minded EVE's system, even though it could be seen as limiting my freedom. But the reason I didn't is because it contributed to a good game pacing and gameworld. Playtime caps are not inherently bad; it's all about the presentation.
I don't think it would provide any benefits at all. Not 1.
I don't believe it would decrease the devs desire or pressure for content.
I dont' believe it would reduce farming/bott/presssure to play. I think it would increase these ones.
I don't think it would help people's health as it doesn't stop them from playing another game.
IMO the only thing it would accomplish is to give the developers a bad reputation among gamers.
Well sorry but i disagree. I have yet to see a single logical argument from anyone here as to why it wouldn't provide the proposed benefits. The only thing I CAN agree with you on is that people hate the concept (or at least this packaging of it); as the overwhelming response in this thread has proven.
The arguments are just as logical as yours, moreso because you ignored games that did versions of this as lokto pointed out with uo or games that offered solutions such as cioh
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Does that mean we will never be charged again for a game? ever? if they charge me for a game and then limit my daily game time ill call the voodoos upon them!!!!!!
joke aside, like another poster said, worry about yourself and let everyone else be. I dont need game time limitations. I know my limits. For my own health, i dont do crazy gaming marathons. If someone wants to do them, they have the right to risk their own life and lose it. We have seen already few people dying while gaming too long. That is no reason for companies to limit our game time while happily taking our money. If we cant stop on our own, we deserve the outcome.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar The arguments are just as logical as yours, moreso because you ignored games that did versions of this as lokto pointed out with uo or games that offered solutions such as cioh
I didn't ignore them, I just don't think those games did enough. I've heard arguments about the original FFXIV too which did it completely wrong and WoW-like games which give rested exp but which do very little to bridge the gap between powerlevellers and regular/semi-hardcore players and do nothing to quell the farming potential of bots and gold farmers. The reason I'm not talking about these things is these games didn't achieve the desired effect. If you wanna talk about games that did....well the best example I can think of is EVE. And you may not think of it as a playtime cap system but believe me it is, it's very cleverly disguised. Unfortunately it only works well in "sandbox" games. I'm trying to think of a system that works in a themepark....And that has NOT been successfully done yet.
Does that mean we will never be charged again for a game? ever? if they charge me for a game and then limit my daily game time ill call the voodoos upon them!!!!!!
joke aside, like another poster said, worry about yourself and let everyone else be. I dont need game time limitations. I know my limits. For my own health, i dont do crazy gaming marathons. If someone wants to do them, they have the right to risk their own life and lose it. We have seen already few people dying while gaming too long. That is no reason for companies to limit our game time while happily taking our money. If we cant stop on our own, we deserve the outcome.
I wear my helmet while playing long sessions it keeps me safe. ; )
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Does that mean we will never be charged again for a game? ever? if they charge me for a game and then limit my daily game time ill call the voodoos upon them!!!!!!
joke aside, like another poster said, worry about yourself and let everyone else be. I dont need game time limitations. I know my limits. For my own health, i dont do crazy gaming marathons. If someone wants to do them, they have the right to risk their own life and lose it. We have seen already few people dying while gaming too long. That is no reason for companies to limit our game time while happily taking our money. If we cant stop on our own, we deserve the outcome.
If just focusing on oneself eliminated the problems associated with allowing 24/7 full-level access I wouldn't be bringing this up. It doesn't hurt me, I've learned over the years how to properly play an MMO. I bring it up because this design does have effects on the gameworld. What other players/bots/goldfarmers/powerlevellers/hardcore/casual etc etc all affect the gameworld you play in and the way you and others feel when playing it.
Originally posted by Arkade99 I don't believe in creating reasons for the players not to play the game. There are better ways to deal with power disparity.
Not just about power disparity. It's also about pacing.
Again, you're focusing exclusively on the health benefits. Yes those are good but like I said if gamers really don't care about their health or would play way more than they should anyway then limiting their play would just get them to switch to some other game. This is not just about that, it's also about creating a better gameworld for the players. Yes hardly anyone would ever go over the limit, but some would and do. And whether you like to think so or not these players do have a profound effect on the shape of the gameworlds we play in and how not only we play the game but also how they play the game themselves (hardcore players pushing other hardcore players to push the limit). Hardcore players would in the first month after release and gold farmers and powerlevellers would do it constantly. These things do affect the gameworld and putting any form of cap would limit the negative effects that these players have on the gameworld.
The problem you present is that of powergaming and content locusts, and your time cap doesn't do anything to stop them, as they will always not only play more often but maximize their returns more efficiently than a regular player given the same amount of time played. Your solution does not fix the problem you present.
You have to think out of the box here. This is not about making a gameworld where the only goal is to get to the endgame. It's about making it so that the journey itself is seen as enjoyable and valuable.....and yes pacing certainly contributes to achieving that feeling.
See above. Time caps don't change pace.
And your arguments about value and price in an MMO are completely based on market conditioning. Where do these prices come from? Where do these concepts come from? I certainly never bought or subscribed to an MMO my first time thinking "oh for this value I can play all day every day".
No one says that when they buy the MMO. However, I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to an extended downtime or prolonged maintenance, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is an expectation that an MMO is available when a person wants to play for as long as they want to play. If that wasn't a concern at all with players, developers wouldn't be apologizing profusely and handing out compensation after such incidents.
Unfortunately, the concept in of itself sounds very negative. So regardless of what benefits it may provide to not only the players health but to the gameplay itself, it still would be unpopular cause freedom is a touchy subject.
So far there has been no gameplay benefit presented. The only benefit may be health and, as many have said, that's really none of your business to regulate.
If this could be presented in a more positive package it would be much more popular. I've played plenty of games over the years with various energy-systems or time-based progression etc. and none of them felt like I was having my freedom stolen from me. Yet these are either in reality playtime caps or greedy moneygrabs (obviously i prefer the first over the latter).
Those are two different things entirely. In the systems that work, the player receives diminishing returns over time but can still play. In your proposal, the player gains zero returns because he cannot even log in.
"I have yet to see a single logical argument from anyone here as to why it wouldn't provide the proposed benefits." -seacow1g
See above.
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
If just focusing on oneself eliminated the problems associated with allowing 24/7 full-level access I wouldn't be bringing this up. It doesn't hurt me, I've learned over the years how to properly play an MMO. I bring it up because this design does have effects on the gameworld. What other players/bots/goldfarmers/powerlevellers/hardcore/casual etc etc all affect the gameworld you play in and the way you and others feel when playing it.
i dont think we should pay the price of having our game time cut off just to have more control against bots and farmers. Gaming companies can do better than that.
Hey guys, here's a concept I've been thinking about for awhile now when I think about "better MMO design" :
Putting a cap on daily playtime
So the correct way to do this is pooling of time. So you get 2 and half hours a day ration of play time. You can use every bit every day or use maybe an hour or so and bank the rest for days off work or for whatever reason you want to play more. This is a thing I could support, but only in free to play games.
Hey guys, here's a concept I've been thinking about for awhile now when I think about "better MMO design" :
Putting a cap on daily playtime
So the correct way to do this is pooling of time. So you get 2 and half hours a day ration of play time. You can use every bit every day or use maybe an hour or so and bank the rest for days off work or for whatever reason you want to play more. This is a thing I could support, but only in free to play games.
That's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure how well it would work in a F2P game without a lot of odd rules to both prevent abuse and to avoid giving the short end of the stick to people at the front end of the cycle.
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
Again, you're focusing exclusively on the health benefits. Yes those are good but like I said if gamers really don't care about their health or would play way more than they should anyway then limiting their play would just get them to switch to some other game. This is not just about that, it's also about creating a better gameworld for the players. Yes hardly anyone would ever go over the limit, but some would and do. And whether you like to think so or not these players do have a profound effect on the shape of the gameworlds we play in and how not only we play the game but also how they play the game themselves (hardcore players pushing other hardcore players to push the limit). Hardcore players would in the first month after release and gold farmers and powerlevellers would do it constantly. These things do affect the gameworld and putting any form of cap would limit the negative effects that these players have on the gameworld.
The problem you present is that of powergaming and content locusts, and your time cap doesn't do anything to stop them, as they will always not only play more often but maximize their returns more efficiently than a regular player given the same amount of time played. Your solution does not fix the problem you present.
Ugh....how do I make you understand this from a design perspective. Developers have two ways to pace your progress: Difficulty barriers and XP returns per units of time invested. These games are not designed to be played 24 hours per day on the XP returns per units of time scale because if they were no one would ever hit the power cap so they don't. Yes being more efficient yields you more XP per unit time but the main way to create a huge gap between players is to simply invest more time. Bringing the high and low ends of the bell curve closer together does have a profound effect on the game and how it is played. The alternate method to control pacing is difficulty barriers....and to be honest I'm all for MMO's implementing those too. I do feel like the leveling process has become too easy but that's not the topic we're discussing. A well designed game should be making use of both of these things.
You have to think out of the box here. This is not about making a gameworld where the only goal is to get to the endgame. It's about making it so that the journey itself is seen as enjoyable and valuable.....and yes pacing certainly contributes to achieving that feeling.
See above. Time caps don't change pace.
See above. It certainly does change the pace.
And your arguments about value and price in an MMO are completely based on market conditioning. Where do these prices come from? Where do these concepts come from? I certainly never bought or subscribed to an MMO my first time thinking "oh for this value I can play all day every day".
No one says that when they buy the MMO. However, I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to an extended downtime or prolonged maintenance, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is an expectation that an MMO is available when a person wants to play for as long as they want to play. If that wasn't a concern at all with players, developers wouldn't be apologizing profusely and handing out compensation after such incidents.
These expectations come from an MMO market that is being sold that way. Expectations can change if your product is vastly better than everyone else's (especially if stomping on those expectations helped you achieve such a good product). The MMO companies apologizing are apologizing for selling a product and people being stopped from playing even a moderate amount or even at all. If a companies' product were limiting the average players' weekly playtime to 70 hours per week due to errors of some kind you wouldn't even be hearing about it cause hardly anyone plays that much...And those that do don't do it for very long.
Unfortunately, the concept in of itself sounds very negative. So regardless of what benefits it may provide to not only the players health but to the gameplay itself, it still would be unpopular cause freedom is a touchy subject.
So far there has been no gameplay benefit presented. The only benefit may be health and, as many have said, that's really none of your business to regulate.
The gameplay benefits have been presented. We're arguing if they are actually achievable with this method or not.
If this could be presented in a more positive package it would be much more popular. I've played plenty of games over the years with various energy-systems or time-based progression etc. and none of them felt like I was having my freedom stolen from me. Yet these are either in reality playtime caps or greedy moneygrabs (obviously i prefer the first over the latter).
Those are two different things entirely. In the systems that work, the player receives diminishing returns over time but can still play. In your proposal, the player gains zero returns because he cannot even log in.
I think this comment bothers me more than all the rest combined. You have shown here a severe misunderstanding. I even stated in my original post that It shouldn't limit people from logging in. I said that they can continue to stay logged in, chat with the people, play minigames that have no bearing on their power level, maybe even have access to markets and such or crafting (though these may require some tinkering). I think the system should just limit their ability to level/farm and basically do things that can hurt the rest of the gameworld.
"I have yet to see a single logical argument from anyone here as to why it wouldn't provide the proposed benefits." -seacow1g
Originally posted by seacow1g Ugh....how do I make you understand this from a design perspective.
I've presented it from a design perspective. I have also presented instances of use and what the effects were in existing MMOs. Now, if you have any actual examples or historical examples that you can point to, that would help. What you present as a 'developer' point of view is simply your personal theory which you are trying to present as fact, despite actual fact and history indicating otherwise.
For example:
"These games are not designed to be played 24 hours per day on the XP returns per units of time scale because if they were no one would ever hit the power cap so they don't."
Only a crappy developer would design a 24/7 entertainment service that could be broken by 12/7 usage. Developers do figure in these things and the games are designed accordingly. Again, if you have particular examples of how these players are breaking the games, please present them, and we can look at how the game was broken, how it was fixed and how your particular remedy would work. There are hundreds of MMOs and over fifteen years of history to draw from, so definitely share what you are drawing on.
NOTE: "In game x the powergamers played forever and made the economy bad" isn't an example. It's a shame I have to post that, but I can easily see that coming.
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
Hey guys, here's a concept I've been thinking about for awhile now when I think about "better MMO design" :
Putting a cap on daily playtime
So the correct way to do this is pooling of time. So you get 2 and half hours a day ration of play time. You can use every bit every day or use maybe an hour or so and bank the rest for days off work or for whatever reason you want to play more. This is a thing I could support, but only in free to play games.
I like you, i like that you're actually thinking about this. Unfortunately there's some big problems with this system too: First of all 2 and a half hours per day is too little; you won't get much of a hardcore following behind this. And never forget MMO's are social too, people can spending hours in the game just talking. Secondly.....what about release or expansions or patches? People are gonna wanna play way more than just 2 and a half hours come release. Ya maybe later they can make more use of the pool post release but for the first few weeks that'll be aggravating, and you don't want that.
Also, don't see the reason to limit it to free to play games. In fact I think these models CAN'T work in free to play games. F2P usually gains more money the MORE time people spend in game and/or the more they feel the need to buy stuff to gain advantages (P2W fail).
no one has the right to tell anyone how long they can play...it's up to the player..not anyone else...hell if they die at there keyboard...at least they had fun...but until its a personal choice as to how they play and how long they play...
Originally posted by seacow1g Ugh....how do I make you understand this from a design perspective.
I've presented it from a design perspective. I have also presented instances of use and what the effects were in existing MMOs. Now, if you have any actual examples or historical examples that you can point to, that would help. What you present as a 'developer' point of view is simply your personal theory which you are trying to present as fact, despite actual fact and history indicating otherwise.
For example:
"These games are not designed to be played 24 hours per day on the XP returns per units of time scale because if they were no one would ever hit the power cap so they don't."
Only a crappy developer would design a 24/7 entertainment service that could be broken by 12/7 usage. Developers do figure in these things and the games are designed accordingly. Again, if you have particular examples of how these players are breaking the games, please present them, and we can look at how the game was broken, how it was fixed and how your particular remedy would work. There are hundreds of MMOs and over fifteen years of history to draw from, so definitely share what you are drawing on.
NOTE: "In game x the powergamers played forever and made the economy bad isn't an example. It's a shame I have to post that, but I can easily see that coming.
You are trolling and I'm not satisfying you with a response. If you don't understand design principles no amount of explaining it to you will make any difference (I just did give you some principles and your argument is that they are simply not valid). If you wanna argue about the validity of things then present some valid principles of your own that you know of that counteract what I've said. I'm not gonna let this discussion get reduced to a citation war. No fresh thinking will ever come of that.
Comments
Really made me laugh.
I gotta say what world of reality is the OP living in that his active day is only 8-10 hours. I'm retired and my average active day is 18-20 hours.
Get a little older and you will realize you want to sleep less, and do more.
OK good plan I say the servers are only online when you are at work or asleep, because obviously you think the world revolves around you.
No sorry don't want that in a MMORPG, a person is either responsible for him/herself or irresponsible.
I have very limited time to play MMORPG, but I still like them and take my time, but the time I am not playing I want that world to continue. I really don't care about player A reaching cap lvl in 2 day's ith no sleep, that's his or her responsibility.
I care if a game can substain me for months or even years when it comes to MMORPG's, regardless that I might only be able to spend 2 to 5 hours a week playing. Sometimes I don't mind the rushers to cap lvl, they might encounter issue's/bugs and by the time I might reach those higher levels where they experianced those issue's they might already be fixed.
I also feel the people that take their time actually enjoy allot more of the game which again might be thanks to those rushers running into issue's long before we do.
So please no time limit on MMORPG's.
But....I don't mind if some new to developed game would try this for those who might think it's fun, but it would take away the essence of a MMORPG to me.
That's an excellent example. From a marketing standpoint, there is absolutely no value to such a limitation. The only thing it does is label your buffet as offering less than everyone else's.
This is the entertainment industry. If you want to show you care, put in an unintrusive notice that pops up every few hours suggesting the person takes a break. Put in a system that diminishes gains after X amount of hours or, even better, reduces the bonus to gains over time until they are down to 'normal' gains. There are plenty of ways to "do the noble thing" without the arrogance of telling people you want to manage their personal life. No one wants their entertainment service saying "We're limiting you for your benefit" - whether the limitation affects them at all or not - and THAT is why I'm opposed to the idea.
EDIT: Another thing worth thinking about is if such an MMO would e able to get the same monthly fee as others, considering that it only allows you to play for about a third of the time that others do.
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
Again, you're focusing exclusively on the health benefits. Yes those are good but like I said if gamers really don't care about their health or would play way more than they should anyway then limiting their play would just get them to switch to some other game. This is not just about that, it's also about creating a better gameworld for the players. Yes hardly anyone would ever go over the limit, but some would and do. And whether you like to think so or not these players do have a profound effect on the shape of the gameworlds we play in and how not only we play the game but also how they play the game themselves (hardcore players pushing other hardcore players to push the limit). Hardcore players would in the first month after release and gold farmers and powerlevellers would do it constantly. These things do affect the gameworld and putting any form of cap would limit the negative effects that these players have on the gameworld. You have to think out of the box here. This is not about making a gameworld where the only goal is to get to the endgame. It's about making it so that the journey itself is seen as enjoyable and valuable.....and yes pacing certainly contributes to achieving that feeling.
And your arguments about value and price in an MMO are completely based on market conditioning. Where do these prices come from? Where do these concepts come from? I certainly never bought or subscribed to an MMO my first time thinking "oh for this value I can play all day every day". That wasn't the MMO's selling point for me. The value was in the experience. Even in my most hardcore days 70 hours a week was like the MOST I could ever play and even that required gratuitous consumption of energy drinks. Limiting the gameplay to a still somewhat large playtime does nothing to diminish the value of the product; it's still way more cost-effective for the hours of entertainment it provides for the price vs other genres/media. This notion of $50 +$15 per month means you have to have 24/7 levelling/farming access comes from a market of games that are offered like that. But that's not the reason people pay that, they pay it for the MMO experience. In the end what's most important is delivering a good product, and if a daily or weekly or experience or whatever cap helps contribute to a more enjoyable game than what's available out there then people would pay it.
Unfortunately, the concept in of itself sounds very negative. So regardless of what benefits it may provide to not only the players health but to the gameplay itself, it still would be unpopular cause freedom is a touchy subject. If this could be presented in a more positive package it would be much more popular. I've played plenty of games over the years with various energy-systems or time-based progression etc. and none of them felt like I was having my freedom stolen from me. Yet these are either in reality playtime caps or greedy moneygrabs (obviously i prefer the first over the latter). If they contribute to a pleasurable experience of the game I never even minded them. I certainly never minded EVE's system, even though it could be seen as limiting my freedom. But the reason I didn't is because it contributed to a good game pacing and gameworld. Playtime caps are not inherently bad; it's all about the presentation.
I don't think it would provide any benefits at all. Not 1.
I don't believe it would decrease the devs desire or pressure for content.
I dont' believe it would reduce farming/bott/presssure to play. I think it would increase these ones.
I don't think it would help people's health as it doesn't stop them from playing another game.
IMO the only thing it would accomplish is to give the developers a bad reputation among gamers.
Well sorry but i disagree. I have yet to see a single logical argument from anyone here as to why it wouldn't provide the proposed benefits. The only thing I CAN agree with you on is that people hate the concept (or at least this packaging of it); as the overwhelming response in this thread has proven.
limit daily playtime?
Does that mean we will never be charged again for a game? ever? if they charge me for a game and then limit my daily game time ill call the voodoos upon them!!!!!!
joke aside, like another poster said, worry about yourself and let everyone else be. I dont need game time limitations. I know my limits. For my own health, i dont do crazy gaming marathons. If someone wants to do them, they have the right to risk their own life and lose it. We have seen already few people dying while gaming too long. That is no reason for companies to limit our game time while happily taking our money. If we cant stop on our own, we deserve the outcome.
I didn't ignore them, I just don't think those games did enough. I've heard arguments about the original FFXIV too which did it completely wrong and WoW-like games which give rested exp but which do very little to bridge the gap between powerlevellers and regular/semi-hardcore players and do nothing to quell the farming potential of bots and gold farmers. The reason I'm not talking about these things is these games didn't achieve the desired effect. If you wanna talk about games that did....well the best example I can think of is EVE. And you may not think of it as a playtime cap system but believe me it is, it's very cleverly disguised. Unfortunately it only works well in "sandbox" games. I'm trying to think of a system that works in a themepark....And that has NOT been successfully done yet.
I wear my helmet while playing long sessions it keeps me safe. ; )
If just focusing on oneself eliminated the problems associated with allowing 24/7 full-level access I wouldn't be bringing this up. It doesn't hurt me, I've learned over the years how to properly play an MMO. I bring it up because this design does have effects on the gameworld. What other players/bots/goldfarmers/powerlevellers/hardcore/casual etc etc all affect the gameworld you play in and the way you and others feel when playing it.
Not just about power disparity. It's also about pacing.
"I have yet to see a single logical argument from anyone here as to why it wouldn't provide the proposed benefits." -seacow1g
See above.
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
i dont think we should pay the price of having our game time cut off just to have more control against bots and farmers. Gaming companies can do better than that.
That's an interesting approach, but I'm not sure how well it would work in a F2P game without a lot of odd rules to both prevent abuse and to avoid giving the short end of the stick to people at the front end of the cycle.
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
I've presented it from a design perspective. I have also presented instances of use and what the effects were in existing MMOs. Now, if you have any actual examples or historical examples that you can point to, that would help. What you present as a 'developer' point of view is simply your personal theory which you are trying to present as fact, despite actual fact and history indicating otherwise.
For example:
"These games are not designed to be played 24 hours per day on the XP returns per units of time scale because if they were no one would ever hit the power cap so they don't."
Only a crappy developer would design a 24/7 entertainment service that could be broken by 12/7 usage. Developers do figure in these things and the games are designed accordingly. Again, if you have particular examples of how these players are breaking the games, please present them, and we can look at how the game was broken, how it was fixed and how your particular remedy would work. There are hundreds of MMOs and over fifteen years of history to draw from, so definitely share what you are drawing on.
NOTE: "In game x the powergamers played forever and made the economy bad" isn't an example. It's a shame I have to post that, but I can easily see that coming.
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
I like you, i like that you're actually thinking about this. Unfortunately there's some big problems with this system too: First of all 2 and a half hours per day is too little; you won't get much of a hardcore following behind this. And never forget MMO's are social too, people can spending hours in the game just talking. Secondly.....what about release or expansions or patches? People are gonna wanna play way more than just 2 and a half hours come release. Ya maybe later they can make more use of the pool post release but for the first few weeks that'll be aggravating, and you don't want that.
Also, don't see the reason to limit it to free to play games. In fact I think these models CAN'T work in free to play games. F2P usually gains more money the MORE time people spend in game and/or the more they feel the need to buy stuff to gain advantages (P2W fail).
You are trolling and I'm not satisfying you with a response. If you don't understand design principles no amount of explaining it to you will make any difference (I just did give you some principles and your argument is that they are simply not valid). If you wanna argue about the validity of things then present some valid principles of your own that you know of that counteract what I've said. I'm not gonna let this discussion get reduced to a citation war. No fresh thinking will ever come of that.