Most mmos this days are microtransaction hell that are made to nickel and dime you,add to the fact that most are holding on hype trains and ideas that didn't work at all when they were new.
dying light, borderlands, diablo 3 with it's seasons, just sayin' how do they have no longevity?
spend ages on all d3 chars by now, hours in borderlands and right now dying light is taking alot of my time ^^ soooooo.... more games, more bad games, it's a percentage thingie, but it doesn't mean all new games are bad, or short.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
In fact the importance of cash shops is specifically mentioned and this is the major source of cash flow in many modern mmos.
just like with any other form of entertainment. You certainly don't see the Rolling Stones or any other high end production offering free concerts/shows hoping that people will buy enough swag to pay the bills let alone make a profit.
Movie theather use this concept. You pay a small amount of money and they earn a lot of money on sales of food and swag. My local movie theather even aired the soccer cup finales for free when the local team played in the finals. I am sure they made a lot of profits from sales from food and such. They are actually the same as a subscription MMO with a cash shop. Sometimes you even NEED to buy something from there cash shop (glasses for 3d movies).
This concept is being used a lot. Themepark/zoo's could most likely never be profitable from ticket sales alone. There are btw also events that are free where big artist perform. Money is usually earned back in sales of other stuff (again food and drinks).
Once went to an all-you-can-eat restaurant. We went with a coupon we got online (payed a small amount for it). Once we where eating our food the waitres came. Claiming, because we use the coupon, we HAVE to buy drinks at least once. This was not on the coupon, so clearly we did not, but same concept.
This form of generating income is really nothing new. I wish it was...then at least something innovating came out of MMO companies in the last 10 years.
This form of generating income is really nothing new. I wish it was...then at least something innovating came out of MMO companies in the last 10 years.
Oh, there were innovations, the games no one played because they departed from standard sword-and-board format, or had a bizarre UIs, or bizarre rulesets like FULLLOOTFFAPVP.
All experiments in this industry ultimately fail, because players are looking for reskins of a game made in the last century. And if they don't read, in the game description and hype buildup, a satisfying amount of Them Wuz the Days Past Worship, they won't even give a new title a glance.
Doesn't meet my checklist of rigid criteria? Nope, I can't play this one.
Sure pays to innovate, yup yup yup. It pays negative dollars.
Players want the Formula, still. And players hate the Formula (they say). But their dollar votes said otherwise.
Paragraph 5... By the general calibre of your posts I can assure you that I am unlikely to learn anything from you.
So now you take us down the route of evidence and logic. Let us return to the beginning of this issue where I said: -
Unless the theory they refer to is widely established.
You seem to enjoy wikipedia so: -
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
So on the basis of evidence and logic, my assertion that pre-order packs make money is a theory. You trying to counter this with your "flat-earth" comparison is not a theory, it is a nonsense and incorrect sound bite you typed without thought or consideration... and then went on to waste everybody's time trying to defend.
It's been pointed out several times that your theory isn't widely established. It also doesn't make prediction, is supported only by independent opinions (which are not evidence), and it fails to be consistent with any observable data (experiments.)
You can't simply argue from a baseless position. It's untenable. You need a basis for your claim, and/or basis for your claim being "widely established". You have provided neither. You need evidence. Without evidence your position is based solely on your opinion. And in a rational discussion, that's worth nothing at all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
dying light, borderlands, diablo 3 with it's seasons, just sayin' how do they have no longevity?
spend ages on all d3 chars by now, hours in borderlands and right now dying light is taking alot of my time ^^ soooooo.... more games, more bad games, it's a percentage thingie, but it doesn't mean all new games are bad, or short.
In this case , how about DOTA and LOL ? they also have longevity .
dying light, borderlands, diablo 3 with it's seasons, just sayin' how do they have no longevity?
spend ages on all d3 chars by now, hours in borderlands and right now dying light is taking alot of my time ^^ soooooo.... more games, more bad games, it's a percentage thingie, but it doesn't mean all new games are bad, or short.
In this case , how about DOTA and LOL ? they also have longevity .
First, none of those are MMORPG's, and how are are you defining longevity? In my case, I've played EVE for over 6 years, DAOC for over 4 and when I play them, I only play them, one game, every day, almost no exception.
While my view is extreme, the OP is referring to the long term (6 months at least) retention of players in a MMORPG, which most titles can't do with any great numbers except WOW and perhaps ESO and FFXIV.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Simply put they're all meant to be "beaten" inside of a month. I know people don't want to go back to camp grinding, etc. but the fact of the matter is people played longer because there was more hours worth of work to be done. Hell, there wasn't even what we would consider today as "content" a while go, just grinding and then raids. Somehow though, people stuck with those games for ages. I dunno, I feel like im slinking into the crowd that wants to see something more old-school.
Another thread that presents an opinion as a fact...
The OP is introduced as follows: -
Many years ago when I picked up an mmo I expected to stay there for several months at least. These days I barely expect to stay more than one. Why is this?
I have a few incomplete thoughts on the subject:
Hardly presented as a fact when actually bother to read it, is it?
Today some people stick around. Others don't. The numbers that stick are about the same.
Reputation only mattered to a few. Most didn't care or know or listen to the chat because it was always the same or read the forums or even know about blacklists
The people that like to work together still do.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Axe skipped that the link for the article form mentioned was posted...for a third time. This no evidence argument is like its own reality.
Have to agree here.. I've seen the video. Industry insider speaking specifically about strategies to maximize player expenditure in the short-term instead of focusing energy on retaining customers for the long-term. That's a pretty solid basis for the claim.
Does it satisfy the widely established test Axehilt has laid out? Not definitively (though it's probably a more arguable claim than simply stating one has been in the industry for 15 years without really delving into the parts and types of games they have worked on/with), but it really doesn't need to be a universally accepted business practice. The fact that it received wide enough legitimacy to be a topic at a developers conference (I believe that's where the presentation was given, correct me if I'm wrong) is really the only "establishment" the strategy needs to become a legitimate basis for the OPs argument.
Axe skipped that the link for the article form mentioned was posted...for a third time. This no evidence argument is like its own reality.
Have to agree here.. I've seen the video. Industry insider speaking specifically about strategies to maximize player expenditure in the short-term instead of focusing energy on retaining customers for the long-term. That's a pretty solid basis for the claim.
Does it satisfy the widely established test Axehilt has laid out? Not definitively (though it's probably a more arguable claim than simply stating one has been in the industry for 15 years without really delving into the parts and types of games they have worked on/with), but it really doesn't need to be a universally accepted business practice. The fact that it received wide enough legitimacy to be a topic at a developers conference (I believe that's where the presentation was given, correct me if I'm wrong) is really the only "establishment" the strategy needs to become a legitimate basis for the OPs argument.
Alas it is not even this verifiable assertion that Axe is arguing over. The rather vague statement that resulted in pages of crap was this : -
F2P titles make huge sums off pre-orders, just look at the PWE technique.
It makes no reference to proportions made off pre-orders as opposed to ongoing cash flow, it does not define the sums involved in any solid way. Yet Axe felt the need to derail an entire thread over it because... only he can answer that.
Have to agree here.. I've seen the video. Industry insider speaking specifically about strategies to maximize player expenditure in the short-term instead of focusing energy on retaining customers for the long-term. That's a pretty solid basis for the claim.
Does it satisfy the widely established test Axehilt has laid out? Not definitively (though it's probably a more arguable claim than simply stating one has been in the industry for 15 years without really delving into the parts and types of games they have worked on/with), but it really doesn't need to be a universally accepted business practice. The fact that it received wide enough legitimacy to be a topic at a developers conference (I believe that's where the presentation was given, correct me if I'm wrong) is really the only "establishment" the strategy needs to become a legitimate basis for the OPs argument.
I drew the line at "majority of revenue from pre-orders" (based on his claim that these games make "huge sums" off pre-orders.) So if the video (which still hasn't been linked) claimed they made over half from pre-orders then that's solid evidence of the claim.
It seems likely that pre-orders make up less than 10% of overall revenue for their games. A decent additive source of revenue, to be sure, but certainly not "huge sums".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Alas it is not even this verifiable assertion that Axe is arguing over. The rather vague statement that resulted in pages of crap was this : -
F2P titles make huge sums off pre-orders, just look at the PWE technique.
It makes no reference to proportions made off pre-orders as opposed to ongoing cash flow, it does not define the sums involved in any solid way. Yet Axe felt the need to derail an entire thread over it because... only he can answer that.
Right, you claimed it was huge sums of money. I pointed out that it wasn't, and you deliberately avoided linking evidence because you knew it wouldn't prove your point.
As I mentioned above, it's realistically less than 10% of their overall revenue, and not "huge sums" except by a huge stretch of the imagination.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Alas it is not even this verifiable assertion that Axe is arguing over. The rather vague statement that resulted in pages of crap was this : -
F2P titles make huge sums off pre-orders, just look at the PWE technique.
It makes no reference to proportions made off pre-orders as opposed to ongoing cash flow, it does not define the sums involved in any solid way. Yet Axe felt the need to derail an entire thread over it because... only he can answer that.
Right, you claimed it was huge sums of money. I pointed out that it wasn't, and you deliberately avoided linking evidence because you knew it wouldn't prove your point.
As I mentioned above, it's realistically less than 10% of their overall revenue, and not "huge sums" except by a huge stretch of the imagination.
I drew the line at "majority of revenue from pre-orders" (based on his claim that these games make "huge sums" off pre-orders.) So if the video (which still hasn't been linked) claimed they made over half from pre-orders then that's solid evidence of the claim.
It seems likely that pre-orders make up less than 10% of overall revenue for their games. A decent additive source of revenue, to be sure, but certainly not "huge sums".
Check your eyesight, it was linked a while ago.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Wow guys...thanks for an interesting thread. I think everyone's observations here are appropriate from, as Obi-Wan would say, "a certain point of view."
Still, I find it interesting how so many here on the boards equate "old school" with things like marathon raids and using guilds to power through content. That kind of game is old school by today's standards, but I remember a time when there weren't even raids. There were spawns, for sure (and spawn campers) but not anything like the chained quests that became de rigueur today.
1) The Ancient Days
I remember the days when you would actually have people who would pay $15 a month to hang out at the tavern to roleplay for an hour, log off, and think their money was well spent.
I also remember some of the most respected and highly sought after guilds didn't go on raids or promised überloot, but roleplayed a knightly order, or had a master GM at the helm., or had a real nasty reputation in forum smack and PKing (your "heels" in pro-wrestling terms). Guilds were important back then because they were producers of content, not consumers of quest chains or getting überloot in the most efficient way possible. Frankly, if all you wanted was to consume combat thrills, we would oblige you, but we really didn't need you as much as we needed a good architect or GM.
But that was a different time; a time when action/adventure and PvP thrills were easy to come by via LAN and console. But if you wanted to build a society and be a functioning part of a fictional community of your own imagination, you went to MMOs. I guess that makes me and the games I used to play "ancient school" or something.
I agree with the guy who said on the first or second page that today's game is written for the "insta-gratification" generation. But that doesn't get to the heart of the matter for me.
2) Today's MMO Player: Unsatisfied? Or Uninspired?
The thing that really strikes me about today's player--a player type I observed as early as 2002 or 2003--is how uninspired and non-creative he seems to be. It isn't that he is "ADD" or "wants everything now." He might be, but that's not the real difference I see.
The real difference I see is how this new player we have is incapable of producing anything interesting for anyone else to enjoy. He is a consumer of content by default, because he either can't or won't produce anything of meaning.
And this new player won't, because he cannot even conceive--cannot even comprehend--how doing something like logging in for an hour to roleplay at the bar would be enjoyable to do. He cannot even imagine it is fun, and so he concludes it isn't fun for anyone, and so sheds no tear when games don't facilitate it.
This is an attitude that goes all the way to the top. "You sat in camps and it was fun for you?" said Chris Cao (I believe) of SWG back when he took the ability to set down a tent and a fire away from characters. Of course he took away camps because he simply couldn't conceive why anyone would want to do it.
Perhaps it was because he never played a MUSH, or he simply couldn't conceive of wanting to live out a life online. Perhaps it was because he didn't even conceive of the possibility that the strength of this genre--the MMORPG--was that it was the only genre that gave people the tools to fabricate a world of the imagination. That was the "hook" for us early players but, of course, other people had other things in mind.
3) There can be no Social Without a Society Better Than Our Own
A lot of people here miss the sociability aspect of MMOs. But what do we really miss? Do we really miss having to force people into groups with idle filler about boring IRL small talk just to get through an encounter? I don't. Quite frankly, if we are honest with ourselves, such social play was neither social, nor playful. It was about as sociable as a quarterback's pregame bark, and about as memorable as the guy who asked directions to the theatre on the street the other day.
Frankly, there was nothing special about those encounters, from my perspective, and nothing that made any one of us any more "special" than anyone else. Say you were a raid leader and a good tank, but if that's all you were (and frankly, it was all the latest games really allow you to be), you are no more special than any other good tank and raid leader. You and a thousand others. We really aren't "special snowflakes" these days, because we lack anything unique that we can do to differentiate ourselves.
This wasn't the case so much back when we still followed a lot of the old MUSH protocols like "IC" and "OOC" speech. Nor was it the case back when we had better customization options and better tools for expression. We also had housing and design options back then...we could create something unique that others could enjoy. It wasn't a bunch of consumers making small talk with each other while the instance loaded, like we call "social" now. It was a bunch of dreamers who wanted to make a society of our own, collective imaginations...a society more dramatic, more interesting and more visceral than real life. That's the sociability that I miss and I think, deep down, a lot of us miss it.
For as much as people think that roleplay is optional, a niche interest, not economically viable and not necessary, consider that roleplay--done well--helps even those who don't interact with the roleplayers get into the game, and feel a part of something more compelling than a mundane grind.
And frankly, if you don't have roleplay going on, whatever society you create via forced grouping won't even be very social...it'll be no more interesting than Destiny (rather shallow and utilitarian, easily forgettable and easily replaceable). Is that what we really want? Because if it was so good, why does today's player have no use for forced grouping andf guild membership?
So those are just my thoughts...but this is a good thread.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
In the same way that google.com can't be used as "evidence" for a claim, gdcvault.com also isn't specific enough to count as evidence.
If the video proves the claim I would think you'd all be waving the specific link in my face every post. That you both are so hesitant to post it makes it seem rather likely that it doesn't prove the claim.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Disputing your claim, exactly as you said it, isn't a straw man. It's a dispute on an unsubstantiated claim.
What you are doing is twisting in the wind, misrepresenting one argument after another in an attempt to score a point. Most of your posts are disingenuous. You demand other people hold themselves to standards, which you just ignore. You are a waste of time.
Comments
how do they have no longevity?
spend ages on all d3 chars by now, hours in borderlands and right now dying light is taking alot of my time ^^ soooooo.... more games, more bad games, it's a percentage thingie, but it doesn't mean all new games are bad, or short.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
This concept is being used a lot. Themepark/zoo's could most likely never be profitable from ticket sales alone. There are btw also events that are free where big artist perform. Money is usually earned back in sales of other stuff (again food and drinks).
Once went to an all-you-can-eat restaurant. We went with a coupon we got online (payed a small amount for it). Once we where eating our food the waitres came. Claiming, because we use the coupon, we HAVE to buy drinks at least once. This was not on the coupon, so clearly we did not, but same concept.
This form of generating income is really nothing new. I wish it was...then at least something innovating came out of MMO companies in the last 10 years.
All experiments in this industry ultimately fail, because players are looking for reskins of a game made in the last century. And if they don't read, in the game description and hype buildup, a satisfying amount of Them Wuz the Days Past Worship, they won't even give a new title a glance.
Doesn't meet my checklist of rigid criteria? Nope, I can't play this one.
Sure pays to innovate, yup yup yup. It pays negative dollars.
Players want the Formula, still. And players hate the Formula (they say). But their dollar votes said otherwise.
You can't simply argue from a baseless position. It's untenable. You need a basis for your claim, and/or basis for your claim being "widely established". You have provided neither. You need evidence. Without evidence your position is based solely on your opinion. And in a rational discussion, that's worth nothing at all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In this case , how about DOTA and LOL ? they also have longevity .
While my view is extreme, the OP is referring to the long term (6 months at least) retention of players in a MMORPG, which most titles can't do with any great numbers except WOW and perhaps ESO and FFXIV.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Many years ago when I picked up an mmo I expected to stay there for several months at least. These days I barely expect to stay more than one. Why is this?
I have a few incomplete thoughts on the subject:
Hardly presented as a fact when actually bother to read it, is it?
Today some people stick around. Others don't. The numbers that stick are about the same.
Reputation only mattered to a few. Most didn't care or know or listen to the chat because it was always the same or read the forums or even know about blacklists
The people that like to work together still do.
Does it satisfy the widely established test Axehilt has laid out? Not definitively (though it's probably a more arguable claim than simply stating one has been in the industry for 15 years without really delving into the parts and types of games they have worked on/with), but it really doesn't need to be a universally accepted business practice. The fact that it received wide enough legitimacy to be a topic at a developers conference (I believe that's where the presentation was given, correct me if I'm wrong) is really the only "establishment" the strategy needs to become a legitimate basis for the OPs argument.
F2P titles make huge sums off pre-orders, just look at the PWE technique.
It makes no reference to proportions made off pre-orders as opposed to ongoing cash flow, it does not define the sums involved in any solid way. Yet Axe felt the need to derail an entire thread over it because... only he can answer that.
It seems likely that pre-orders make up less than 10% of overall revenue for their games. A decent additive source of revenue, to be sure, but certainly not "huge sums".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As I mentioned above, it's realistically less than 10% of their overall revenue, and not "huge sums" except by a huge stretch of the imagination.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think MMos that it is different according of how to make games.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Still, I find it interesting how so many here on the boards equate "old school" with things like marathon raids and using guilds to power through content. That kind of game is old school by today's standards, but I remember a time when there weren't even raids. There were spawns, for sure (and spawn campers) but not anything like the chained quests that became de rigueur today.
1) The Ancient Days
I remember the days when you would actually have people who would pay $15 a month to hang out at the tavern to roleplay for an hour, log off, and think their money was well spent.I also remember some of the most respected and highly sought after guilds didn't go on raids or promised überloot, but roleplayed a knightly order, or had a master GM at the helm., or had a real nasty reputation in forum smack and PKing (your "heels" in pro-wrestling terms). Guilds were important back then because they were producers of content, not consumers of quest chains or getting überloot in the most efficient way possible. Frankly, if all you wanted was to consume combat thrills, we would oblige you, but we really didn't need you as much as we needed a good architect or GM.
But that was a different time; a time when action/adventure and PvP thrills were easy to come by via LAN and console. But if you wanted to build a society and be a functioning part of a fictional community of your own imagination, you went to MMOs. I guess that makes me and the games I used to play "ancient school" or something.
I agree with the guy who said on the first or second page that today's game is written for the "insta-gratification" generation. But that doesn't get to the heart of the matter for me.
2) Today's MMO Player: Unsatisfied? Or Uninspired?
The thing that really strikes me about today's player--a player type I observed as early as 2002 or 2003--is how uninspired and non-creative he seems to be. It isn't that he is "ADD" or "wants everything now." He might be, but that's not the real difference I see.
The real difference I see is how this new player we have is incapable of producing anything interesting for anyone else to enjoy. He is a consumer of content by default, because he either can't or won't produce anything of meaning.
And this new player won't, because he cannot even conceive--cannot even comprehend--how doing something like logging in for an hour to roleplay at the bar would be enjoyable to do. He cannot even imagine it is fun, and so he concludes it isn't fun for anyone, and so sheds no tear when games don't facilitate it.
This is an attitude that goes all the way to the top. "You sat in camps and it was fun for you?" said Chris Cao (I believe) of SWG back when he took the ability to set down a tent and a fire away from characters. Of course he took away camps because he simply couldn't conceive why anyone would want to do it.
Perhaps it was because he never played a MUSH, or he simply couldn't conceive of wanting to live out a life online. Perhaps it was because he didn't even conceive of the possibility that the strength of this genre--the MMORPG--was that it was the only genre that gave people the tools to fabricate a world of the imagination. That was the "hook" for us early players but, of course, other people had other things in mind.
3) There can be no Social Without a Society Better Than Our Own
A lot of people here miss the sociability aspect of MMOs. But what do we really miss? Do we really miss having to force people into groups with idle filler about boring IRL small talk just to get through an encounter? I don't. Quite frankly, if we are honest with ourselves, such social play was neither social, nor playful. It was about as sociable as a quarterback's pregame bark, and about as memorable as the guy who asked directions to the theatre on the street the other day.
Frankly, there was nothing special about those encounters, from my perspective, and nothing that made any one of us any more "special" than anyone else. Say you were a raid leader and a good tank, but if that's all you were (and frankly, it was all the latest games really allow you to be), you are no more special than any other good tank and raid leader. You and a thousand others. We really aren't "special snowflakes" these days, because we lack anything unique that we can do to differentiate ourselves.
This wasn't the case so much back when we still followed a lot of the old MUSH protocols like "IC" and "OOC" speech. Nor was it the case back when we had better customization options and better tools for expression. We also had housing and design options back then...we could create something unique that others could enjoy. It wasn't a bunch of consumers making small talk with each other while the instance loaded, like we call "social" now. It was a bunch of dreamers who wanted to make a society of our own, collective imaginations...a society more dramatic, more interesting and more visceral than real life. That's the sociability that I miss and I think, deep down, a lot of us miss it.
For as much as people think that roleplay is optional, a niche interest, not economically viable and not necessary, consider that roleplay--done well--helps even those who don't interact with the roleplayers get into the game, and feel a part of something more compelling than a mundane grind.
And frankly, if you don't have roleplay going on, whatever society you create via forced grouping won't even be very social...it'll be no more interesting than Destiny (rather shallow and utilitarian, easily forgettable and easily replaceable). Is that what we really want? Because if it was so good, why does today's player have no use for forced grouping andf guild membership?
So those are just my thoughts...but this is a good thread.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If the video proves the claim I would think you'd all be waving the specific link in my face every post. That you both are so hesitant to post it makes it seem rather likely that it doesn't prove the claim.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I fear even more that this has already occurred and is MOBA.