I think part of the problem with discussing this is that, as usual, everyone is carrying around a different definition of what complaining is and what it means. To me, it is pejorative. It is the rotten side of criticism. But I think to many, criticism and complaining are equivalent.
It's all criticism. What we choose to call it is all about how we feel about the critic's point and his/her style.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think part of the problem with discussing this is that, as usual, everyone is carrying around a different definition of what complaining is and what it means. To me, it is pejorative. It is the rotten side of criticism. But I think to many, criticism and complaining are equivalent.
It's all criticism. What we choose to call it is all about how we feel about the critic's point and his/her style.
Honestly, I need to think about whether or not that is true. Like I said, I view them as different, but I need to consider that they might be the same. I think there is a big difference between, "I think this is a piece of trash and I got ripped off," and, "I don't like the UI because it is difficult for me to use."
I honestly hate language sometimes. Sometimes it feels like it was devised to cause disagreements instead of facilitating understanding.
I think part of the problem with discussing this is that, as usual, everyone is carrying around a different definition of what complaining is and what it means. To me, it is pejorative. It is the rotten side of criticism. But I think to many, criticism and complaining are equivalent.
It's all criticism. What we choose to call it is all about how we feel about the critic's point and his/her style.
Honestly, I need to think about whether or not that is true. Like I said, I view them as different, but I need to consider that they might be the same. I think there is a big difference between, "I think this is a piece of trash and I got ripped off," and, "I don't like the UI because it is difficult for me to use."
I honestly hate language sometimes. Sometimes it feels like it was devised to cause disagreements instead of facilitating understanding.
In your example the styles are very different. Most of us wouldn't like the first one and might call it a "useless rant from a raving lunatic." I try not to hold that against the communications-challenged but I often do and will tune it out.
There are many other examples not quite as extreme that I'll also tune out "developers need to make a living too, ya know" and "you can always not buy it and stop yer whining" are a couple of others we see here a lot... although those equally useless one liners seem to get a lot of likes around here for some strange reason
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I think one of the issues Torval may have had was the fact that a 'reporter' on another MMO site felt the need to post a rebuttal to an opinion piece from another MMO site. I don't believe I have ever seen the staff here do a rebuttal piece about an Op-Ed from another site. It just comes across a bit pompous in my opinion for someone to do that to a peer. If the guy had an opinion he could have brought it back to the source and posted it here. Instead he took it to his blog. To me anyway, that was bad form.
This is quite typical in journalism, commenting on another publication's or news site's content. Nothing untoward and actually entirely ethical especially where an egregiously wrong view has been published, an egregiously wrong behaviour has been observed.
Respectfully, blueturtle, the desire for suppression of critical opinion is a huge part of the problem with Bill's article, and with many of the sympathies and opinions of posters in this thread. I took Torval's post to be emblematic of that desire.
The BDO controversy is a horrible example of not understanding P2W. First, it is an open world PvP game where the economy and PVE activities directly effect your income, thus your gear you can buy/achieve, thus your power level. It is logically P2W then, since one gamemode directly influences the other.
Also, you misunderstood the main reason of criticism/complaining: Daum/Kakao went back on their word (well documented in multiple media interviews) on not offering these boosting type services that were present in the Korean version of the game, BECAUSE THEY MADE IT BUY TO PLAY. That was the main firestorm. So don't just write off a companies bait and switch deceptive marketing and anti-consumer business practices as "entitled gamers complaining". Sorry not sorry we don't have the privilege you have to get free review copies of games.
Lost all respect for this guy. I have no idea if TESO buys that much advertising over here, or not. The last AAA MMORPG goes to "gambling" boxes and you actually believe there wouldn't be a storm? Thought you were a veteran of MMORPGs.
Yep, it's an opinion piece and I have a complete picture that differs. You are entitled to yours but I'm not going to create an "article" to tell you your most probably, or completely wrong, your a "whiner", or just "shut up about it".
I believe I'll just take my wallet and go home. After all, that's what this (TESO lockboxes and your opinion piece) is all about anyway, my wallet.
In hindsight I think Bill could probably have framed the concept of opinions better. It's always to say that in hindsight though.
DMKano got me thinking when he responded in another thread that it doesn't matter if someone has an opinion if it's totally irrelevant. What I see Bill saying is that irrelevant opinions don't further the discourse on most any topic.
Maybe a better way to phrase this would have been to say, keep your opinions relevant or reconsider saying anything at all. There is a proverb that says, "It's better to keep quiet and have people wonder whether you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."
About Justin and the article: @Iselin@Kickaxe@Xodic : It's not his opinion I actually take issue with. It could be a relevant counter-opinion to Bills argument, but he didn't argue points. He tried to undermine Bill's character, integrity, and the integrity of the site. It really read like, "Hey readership. MMORPG doesn't have the integrity like Massively does. We're on your side. We've got your back. Read us!"
I take issue with him posturing from the soapbox, knowing he's emotionally appealing to a disenfranchised audience that he gets ad clicks from. I take issue with him attacking Bill from some self appointed moral high ground and not actually countering any point or expanding on the issues. His position is that Bill shouldn't have even said what he did and that Bill and Justin have some moral high code to think for gamers. They supposed to protect us as we obviously can't think and make decisions for ourselves.
In all it was a poorly thought out, poorly worded, kneejerk response that looks to me as a way to bolster his popularity and the popularity of his publication.
It was neither posted nor linked at Massively. That's his personal blog.
And he addressed the essential point quite well: you don't tell the gaming public to STFU about things that annoy them.
Yes there are opinions and comments that are poorly made - some can be found in this thread. They're the "low hanging fruit" of internet discussions and very easy to counter, ridicule and dismiss. But in this thread and the several other threads about lockboxes spawned by ESOs announcement in various forums there are well stated, rational and polite points of view about why this is something we should continue speaking out against.
Same with the P2W argument: often used inappropriately by many but still a relevant issue in gaming nevertheless.
Whatever Justin did or didn't do and whatever respect he showed or didn't show, it pales in comparison to the purpose of the article that lead to this thread. You just don't go around cherry picking low hanging fruit arguments to tell your audience in general to STFU about something you personally don't care about or have given up on.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
This all comes down to quite a simple example in my opinion. During Gamer Gate, the gaming population made it quite clear that we the paying gamer does not wish to be told what our views SHOULD be. We know what our views are, and gaming "journalists" should not seek to tell us what our opinions ought to be. A journalists job is to put forth facts about a situation so the reader can come to their own conclusion, because that conclusion may be different from the next reader based on personal preference. Especially when the sum of the argument boils down to these complaints just hurt peoples feelings.
I don't care if a complaint or criticism hurts someones feelings. This whole article comes down to accepting Political Correctness for the sake of avoiding criticism to amass greater profit. Which is something I don't agree with in principal. Of course it's a company's right to forfeit their freedom of expression, or to monetize in a way that makes players feel like they are playing a slot machine. It's also my right to find issue with said practices.
In conclusion, yes I understand the visible point of the article is that it's "all about the Benjamins," and that's part of the problem. Would you be okay with a game removing all Females from said game, in order to cater to a Country where women aren't allowed to be visible in public? Or would you have some negative things to say about that? Because it all boils down to the same argument. So in the end how about, you let us have our opinions, and you can have yours. You don't need to project your opinion as the end all be all.
This "column" is pretty disappointing but not that surprising. The MMO genre is in a terrible state to many people. Telling them to stop complaining about it is sort of moronic and something I would expect from MMO forum posters not MMO column writers but I guess the entire MMO community is in a terrible state..not just the games.
You may like what MMOs have become or maybe you just don't care what direction they are going but those of us who actually love this genre are passionate about it and we want to voice our opinions and concerns so it's at least known. Maybe that will improve them or maybe it won't.
DMKano said early in this thread that people shouldn't gripe about things they had no control over..well he's right in that we have no control over whether game companies listen to our opinions (also known as feedback) but we certainly have control over whether we voice them.
However, the most disappointing part was that Bill Murphy apparently thinks RNG boxes in games are completely normal and above board and don't prey on the compulsive and sometimes addictive behaviors of gamers (in many cases kids). These RNG boxes are easily the worst thing being done in modern MMOs and shouldn't just be accepted as "the way it is".
Not to mention that this entire column is basically Bill Murphy complaining about people complaining (the worst kind of complaining as it serves no purpose). I would think a column writer would have a firm grasp of irony.
Ugh, this is the Internet, complaining is basically our national sport. I'll just pick on two points, but I found pretty much the whole thing to be bad. Makes me wonder if this was one of those purposely click-bait type articles.
1. Pay to win is subjective. It basically boils down to being able to pay for a significant advantage, although what is regraded as significant to one person, may not be significant to another. While some trying very hard to bash a game will stretch things to the point that their indicated definition of P2W could apply to pretty much every online game, and lose all meaning. What was written here just reminds me more of the talk of a white knight trying to defend their game of choice with equally absurd "logic."
2. The "CAREBEARS AND NOOBS" one (as well as parts of others, like the P2W one) just makes you sound like one of those elitist hardcore PvP pricks you're referring to that think their way of playing a game, is the only way people should play the game. It's common enough that the whole of the game, including the PvP, could completely revolve around PvE, with PvP having little, to no impact outside of PvP rankings, so can be COMPLETELY ignored quite easily. Yet these sorts of people still try to class such, or any other game with ANY amount of PvP in it, a PvP game. Then proceed to talk down to those that play them for the PvE, while at the same time complaining about how much PvE they absolutely must do, to even get to the PvP, which they regard as so unrewarding, in what they try to call a PvP focused game.
About Justin and the article: @Iselin@Kickaxe@Xodic : It's not his opinion I actually take issue with. It could be a relevant counter-opinion to Bills argument, but he didn't argue points. He tried to undermine Bill's character, integrity, and the integrity of the site. It really read like, "Hey readership. MMORPG doesn't have the integrity like Massively does. We're on your side. We've got your back. Read us!"
I take issue with him posturing from the soapbox, knowing he's emotionally appealing to a disenfranchised audience that he gets ad clicks from. I take issue with him attacking Bill from some self appointed moral high ground and not actually countering any point or expanding on the issues. His position is that Bill shouldn't have even said what he did and that Bill and Justin have some moral high code to think for gamers. They supposed to protect us as we obviously can't think and make decisions for ourselves.
In all it was a poorly thought out, poorly worded, kneejerk response that looks to me as a way to bolster his popularity and the popularity of his publication.
Hopefully you forgive me for being patronizing, it's meant to be in the context of my previous reply to you, but I find this post just so much more thoughtful and honestly just more intellectually sound, Torval.
Not that I agree with you on your criticism of Justin Olivetti's blog post, which I found entirely reasonable and simply straightforward in its severity. But we can obviously disagree on these subjects without resorting to attempts at delegitimizing each other's perspectives by declaring an arbitrary delineation of acceptable and unacceptable opinions on the matter. And I understand that you don't believe Bill was doing that in his article, but it's another point on which we disagree.
I do, however, strongly agree with what you said here:
DMKano got me thinking when he responded in another thread that it doesn't matter if someone has an opinion if it's totally irrelevant. What I see Bill saying is that irrelevant opinions don't further the discourse on most any topic.
Maybe a better way to phrase this would have been to say, keep your opinions relevant or reconsider saying anything at all. There is a proverb that says, "It's better to keep quiet and have people wonder whether you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."
Yes a thousand times. This age of everybody needs to let their opinion be known on even matters of which they have no knowledge or experience is wearing so very very thin. But of course it's exceedingly difficult if not impossible to draw a satisfying and equitable line between good, timely opinion and bad, untimely opinion. So we can only act (or avoid action, as may be preferable) as our principles indicate; and we can avoid legitimizing bad behaviour and opinion through persistent engagement.
Bill, at least in his article and his and other staff's interactions in this thread--as well as the companion article by Rob--would seem to suggest that establishing an arbitrary and subjective bar nearer to the money maker's interests and much further from the approximate mean of the potential money spender's (I do hate the word consumer) interests is ideal. That's the beginning of the problem. The next and bigger problem is he couples that strangely disconnected view to an argument meant to push away dissent by mockingly suggesting all opinion beneath his subjective threshold be relegated to an intellectual space deemed fundamentally absurd and unworthy of further consideration. This suggestion would remain only somewhat repugnant and yet mostly benign had it not been delivered by the site's managing editor, with all the legitimizing and tone-setting authority that position brings.
I know that you, Torval, and many others will believe that I'm going too far and exaggerating my position. I can only reply that I am trying to be fair, that I'm obviously not alone in my beliefs, and that some of you supporting the opposite belief do tend to prefer views palatable to the publishers and developers--and consequently you may not be quite so sensitive to the subtle messages being sent out by the article and those other reinforcing engagements I've mentioned.
Some people suck at making reasonable and respectful arguments. So let's fucking ignore those people and move on to the good and smart critics and commentators like Iselin, Sovrath, and many others including usually you too, Torval.
Guess you didn't mean to include yourself on that shortlist.
Yet the desire is there for one to suppress Bill's opinion? How is Bill's opinion egregiously wrong? It is his opinion therefore it can't be wrong. It can just be disagreed with. Big difference.
Yes, it is an opinion that I and obviously Justin strongly disagree with, in our opinions. I didn't suggest otherwise.
Justin can have an opinion all he wants but rarely do you see Time magazine write a counter argument for Newsweek. No it is not typical.
But it is typical in a situation where another publication as I said--and I acknowledge this may be fueled by opinion--an egregiously wrong opinion has been expressed or an egregiously wrong behaviour has been observed. I'll agree that I have not seen this happen often in games journalism. Remember this doesn't always take place in the form of a full formal reply.
This is a peer. Bad form indeed.
I know you're nice guy, blueturtle, because I read many of your very informative and thoughtful posts. You do add a good amount of content to this site, which is great. But this peer thing you're on is just missing the point--sometimes being nice just costs too much. It's even more incumbent on a peer, especially in journalism, to point out something that is unethical (and again I acknowledge that that is based on opinion but we can only be guided by our own conscience).
Look, it is fine Justin has an opinion. Yet do not for a second try and convince anyone that Bill does not have that same right. Or Torval, or you or anyone else for that matter. There is no 'problem' with Bill's article. You and Justin just don't agree with it.
There is a problem. I've already spelled out what I think is the problem. I understand that you're seeing some inherent contradiction, but at the heart of it is an ethical issue and if you don't see it that way then I'm fine with that though I wish you felt the same way.
Mr.Murphy you are a terrible salesman !!!
No one is biting this.
Korean model MMOs are doomed to Fail and there's nothing u can do to stop this.
BTW your carebear and noobs section sounded like "PLS DONT SHOOT THE CUSTOMERS"
U can't save BDO and all these P2W shit MMOs.
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom. (Death)” ― Terry Pratchett,
I agree with you Bill. So often I see various gamers complain about things that I feel are insignificant. This list nailed some of the major ones. I wonder if any of these complaints would exist if Meridian 59,
Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, and Everquest had released with F2P, cash shops, etc. Or would everyone just be playing MMOs and enjoying them for what they are?
What complete garbage, flamebait artifcle tbh. When a character is dripping with gore and showing skeleton, if a company covers that up and replaces it with a bland version of the original, that is censorship.
Except it's not.
If a game was just a "work of art" I would agree with you. But it's a product and one designed to make money.
The companies that create these games have an idea of how much money they want to make. If changing their product allows them into other markets they are going to do it.
If I was to write a series of short stories that had questionable material and some publisher approached me and asked me if I wanted to bring it to another country BUT I would have to take out some of that questionable material it would depend on whether those stories were completely written with artistic integrity in mind or if they were written to make me money. If they were just for the money, of course I'd change them for another market.
You are completely dismissing that these games are "products to make money". Of course the developers would like to have some artistic integrity in their work but at the end of the day, if bringing these products to different markets, markets with people/laws that have different sensibilities, means changing them a bit, then they are going to be changed.
I can't recall a consumer, end user of games, EVER desiring for a game to be created so that it is a successful business endeavor. I have so many priorities about the product that take precedent. Do I desire it? Can I afford it? Will I enjoy it?
Never once do I think, "if I buy this product from them, will their profit margin please their desires?"
Then you are a very short-sighted individual. Games that are not successful business endeavors go out of business and take the development teams that made them down along with them. And then you don't get more of those games.
The more a product costs to make, the more money it has to bring in to recover that investment. If you want it to have all the bells and whistles, but you don't want to actually pay for them enough to keep the game company afloat, then you have unsustainable expectations that no game company can afford to listen to.
People who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this reality and incorporate it into their thinking amaze me.
Right, so the past 10 years I must've been imagining all these games that have come out rehashing the same bullshit greed tactics.
Seriously, are you new to this genre?
If you like to be urinated on by devs and pubs, that's your choice... but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"Then you are a very short-sighted individual." NO, I AM THE CONSUMER. I have 0 obligation to the game developer's need to createa sustainable business model WHILE PRODUCING A PRODUCT THAT CONSUMERS WANT. NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY AS THE CONSUMER.
I can only imagine going to the cinema, buying a ticket for the movie, then being asked (without prior notice or warning) to buy popcorn, ticket for the WC, ticket for the seat, an extra pillow for the seat, refreshments and glasses. Hey, everyone else bought them, don't sit on the bench like a leper , alone and miserable. 'All that amounts to 100 $ my good sir. Have fun! "
That's what i think about this generation of gaming. So yes, i am complaining, i apologize.
We are so spoiled with so many games now a days we get bored with games quick and move on and are never going to find the one game that gives us the feeling like we once felt when we first discovered the genre.
We are so spoiled in fact that we have people who's job it is to complain about people who complain about games haha
I believe I know where all the whiners come from. It is the simple fact that they are the percentage that suck at mmorpgs, jealous of others, lack patience, simply aren't mmorpg people at heart.... etc. and make it up in their mind that the reason things aren't going the way they want them to and should be changed is because they think the games should be tailor made for their individual selves (they won't admit it, they won't believe it but it's true). They believe the game is going against them and that is why they suck. It's like playing tag and whining about the game having to do with running and how it's not fair that some kids run faster than others and other kids having better shoes on and because of that, there is something wrong with the game of tag.
People have been whining for years about these mmorpgs, they just keep whining and whining, and whining and yet what has changed besides them continuing to whine? No matter what little differences are made in on e mmorpg over the next the whining persists. It is not the games that are the problem. It is the people playing the games that is the problem. The people that should probably leave the mmorpg community and go play something else because they themselves should already know they are just going to whine no matter how great the game is.
If it's not pay to win, then they whine about class to win, if it's not class to win, it'll be race to win, gear to win, skills to win, faction to win it will always be SOMETHING to b1tch about....as long as people who aren't suited for the games force themselves to play because they want to be suited for the game. They believe so wholeheartedly that because they used to play some great mmorpg(s) in the past things should still be the same and that they are still mmorpg gamers at heart but the truth just isn't so. People change and they should realize and accept that truth. They are no longer mmorpg people, that flame died out. It's time to move on, it's OK...there are plenty of other games to play in this world. Slow fat asses who don't want to get tagged or have to tag someone in a game of tag shouldn't be playing in the first place. Go bowling, play some pool, perhaps checkers. Don't play a game expecting and demanding it to suit you, play a game that you suit.
I can only imagine going to the cinema, buying a ticket for the movie, then being asked (without prior notice or warning) to buy popcorn, ticket for the WC, ticket for the seat, an extra pillow for the seat, refreshments and glasses. Hey, everyone else bought them, don't sit on the bench like a leper , alone and miserable. 'All that amounts to 100 $ my good sir. Have fun! "
That's what i think about this generation of gaming. So yes, i am complaining, i apologize.
Oh and don't forget that 20% into the movie they move you into a
different theater showing a different movie that you didn't want to see
(looking at you ESO).
"But so long as the rewards contained within these loot boxes are obtainable by players via other means or just plain cosmetic, we need to get over it when we see item stores stocking their shelves with these things. They’re not hurting anyone..."
False. It has been observed in many games that have implemented such items that, cosmetic or not, when the company behind the game finds that it is easier/cheaper to fund the game through the sale of such items than it is to produce real content/fix bugs/etc., that the quality of the game overall suffers and decays. So yes, this does hurt customers by giving them an inferior product than they would potentially have if there had been motivation for the developers to actually maintain or improve the game itself.
"Side note? You can’t “win” in PVE, because you’re not competing against anyone."
False. By this logic, you can't "win" a single-player game, which is ridiculous. You may not be competing against another live individual, but you are competing. You compete against the game itself, or the "environment" (just in case you didn't know what the "E" in "PvE" was for). As in a single-player game, "winning" in this case is reaching the highest objective achievable. In an MMO, the concept of "winning" against the game can be a little more ambiguous than in a single-player game, as there can be multiple objectives that can be considered the "highest", often depending on the player's focus in the game, and new objectives can be added which move the goal posts (and creating new opportunities to "win"), but the fact is that the concept and possibility exists. To claim that "winning" is not possible in PvE (and thereby imply that it is only the privilege of PvP) is asinine.
Overall your article makes some good points, but unfortunately it is marred by these glaring errors that demonstrate a bit of short-sightedness and a rather narrow field of view.
I believe I know where all the whiners come from. It is the simple fact that they are the percentage that suck at mmorpgs, jealous of others, lack patience, simply aren't mmorpg people at heart.... etc.
Wrong, every segment has its share of whiners. If you dont believe me, you might be the whiner in your segment.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I honestly hate language sometimes. Sometimes it feels like it was devised to cause disagreements instead of facilitating understanding.
There are many other examples not quite as extreme that I'll also tune out "developers need to make a living too, ya know" and "you can always not buy it and stop yer whining" are a couple of others we see here a lot... although those equally useless one liners seem to get a lot of likes around here for some strange reason
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What might make a good article are how there are other differences in MMORPGs in other countries.
Here's another: http://www.healingthemasses.net/free-play-fuckery-call-complain/
Respectfully, blueturtle, the desire for suppression of critical opinion is a huge part of the problem with Bill's article, and with many of the sympathies and opinions of posters in this thread. I took Torval's post to be emblematic of that desire.
Also, you misunderstood the main reason of criticism/complaining: Daum/Kakao went back on their word (well documented in multiple media interviews) on not offering these boosting type services that were present in the Korean version of the game, BECAUSE THEY MADE IT BUY TO PLAY. That was the main firestorm. So don't just write off a companies bait and switch deceptive marketing and anti-consumer business practices as "entitled gamers complaining". Sorry not sorry we don't have the privilege you have to get free review copies of games.
Yep, it's an opinion piece and I have a complete picture that differs. You are entitled to yours but I'm not going to create an "article" to tell you your most probably, or completely wrong, your a "whiner", or just "shut up about it".
I believe I'll just take my wallet and go home. After all, that's what this (TESO lockboxes and your opinion piece) is all about anyway, my wallet.
And he addressed the essential point quite well: you don't tell the gaming public to STFU about things that annoy them.
Yes there are opinions and comments that are poorly made - some can be found in this thread. They're the "low hanging fruit" of internet discussions and very easy to counter, ridicule and dismiss. But in this thread and the several other threads about lockboxes spawned by ESOs announcement in various forums there are well stated, rational and polite points of view about why this is something we should continue speaking out against.
Same with the P2W argument: often used inappropriately by many but still a relevant issue in gaming nevertheless.
Whatever Justin did or didn't do and whatever respect he showed or didn't show, it pales in comparison to the purpose of the article that lead to this thread. You just don't go around cherry picking low hanging fruit arguments to tell your audience in general to STFU about something you personally don't care about or have given up on.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't care if a complaint or criticism hurts someones feelings. This whole article comes down to accepting Political Correctness for the sake of avoiding criticism to amass greater profit. Which is something I don't agree with in principal. Of course it's a company's right to forfeit their freedom of expression, or to monetize in a way that makes players feel like they are playing a slot machine. It's also my right to find issue with said practices.
In conclusion, yes I understand the visible point of the article is that it's "all about the Benjamins," and that's part of the problem. Would you be okay with a game removing all Females from said game, in order to cater to a Country where women aren't allowed to be visible in public? Or would you have some negative things to say about that? Because it all boils down to the same argument. So in the end how about, you let us have our opinions, and you can have yours. You don't need to project your opinion as the end all be all.
You may like what MMOs have become or maybe you just don't care what direction they are going but those of us who actually love this genre are passionate about it and we want to voice our opinions and concerns so it's at least known. Maybe that will improve them or maybe it won't.
DMKano said early in this thread that people shouldn't gripe about things they had no control over..well he's right in that we have no control over whether game companies listen to our opinions (also known as feedback) but we certainly have control over whether we voice them.
However, the most disappointing part was that Bill Murphy apparently thinks RNG boxes in games are completely normal and above board and don't prey on the compulsive and sometimes addictive behaviors of gamers (in many cases kids). These RNG boxes are easily the worst thing being done in modern MMOs and shouldn't just be accepted as "the way it is".
Not to mention that this entire column is basically Bill Murphy complaining about people complaining (the worst kind of complaining as it serves no purpose). I would think a column writer would have a firm grasp of irony.
1. Pay to win is subjective. It basically boils down to being able to pay for a significant advantage, although what is regraded as significant to one person, may not be significant to another. While some trying very hard to bash a game will stretch things to the point that their indicated definition of P2W could apply to pretty much every online game, and lose all meaning. What was written here just reminds me more of the talk of a white knight trying to defend their game of choice with equally absurd "logic."
2. The "CAREBEARS AND NOOBS" one (as well as parts of others, like the P2W one) just makes you sound like one of those elitist hardcore PvP pricks you're referring to that think their way of playing a game, is the only way people should play the game. It's common enough that the whole of the game, including the PvP, could completely revolve around PvE, with PvP having little, to no impact outside of PvP rankings, so can be COMPLETELY ignored quite easily. Yet these sorts of people still try to class such, or any other game with ANY amount of PvP in it, a PvP game. Then proceed to talk down to those that play them for the PvE, while at the same time complaining about how much PvE they absolutely must do, to even get to the PvP, which they regard as so unrewarding, in what they try to call a PvP focused game.
Not that I agree with you on your criticism of Justin Olivetti's blog post, which I found entirely reasonable and simply straightforward in its severity. But we can obviously disagree on these subjects without resorting to attempts at delegitimizing each other's perspectives by declaring an arbitrary delineation of acceptable and unacceptable opinions on the matter. And I understand that you don't believe Bill was doing that in his article, but it's another point on which we disagree.
I do, however, strongly agree with what you said here: Yes a thousand times. This age of everybody needs to let their opinion be known on even matters of which they have no knowledge or experience is wearing so very very thin. But of course it's exceedingly difficult if not impossible to draw a satisfying and equitable line between good, timely opinion and bad, untimely opinion. So we can only act (or avoid action, as may be preferable) as our principles indicate; and we can avoid legitimizing bad behaviour and opinion through persistent engagement.
Bill, at least in his article and his and other staff's interactions in this thread--as well as the companion article by Rob--would seem to suggest that establishing an arbitrary and subjective bar nearer to the money maker's interests and much further from the approximate mean of the potential money spender's (I do hate the word consumer) interests is ideal. That's the beginning of the problem. The next and bigger problem is he couples that strangely disconnected view to an argument meant to push away dissent by mockingly suggesting all opinion beneath his subjective threshold be relegated to an intellectual space deemed fundamentally absurd and unworthy of further consideration. This suggestion would remain only somewhat repugnant and yet mostly benign had it not been delivered by the site's managing editor, with all the legitimizing and tone-setting authority that position brings.
I know that you, Torval, and many others will believe that I'm going too far and exaggerating my position. I can only reply that I am trying to be fair, that I'm obviously not alone in my beliefs, and that some of you supporting the opposite belief do tend to prefer views palatable to the publishers and developers--and consequently you may not be quite so sensitive to the subtle messages being sent out by the article and those other reinforcing engagements I've mentioned.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I know you're nice guy, blueturtle, because I read many of your very informative and thoughtful posts. You do add a good amount of content to this site, which is great. But this peer thing you're on is just missing the point--sometimes being nice just costs too much. It's even more incumbent on a peer, especially in journalism, to point out something that is unethical (and again I acknowledge that that is based on opinion but we can only be guided by our own conscience). There is a problem. I've already spelled out what I think is the problem. I understand that you're seeing some inherent contradiction, but at the heart of it is an ethical issue and if you don't see it that way then I'm fine with that though I wish you felt the same way.
No one is biting this.
Korean model MMOs are doomed to Fail and there's nothing u can do to stop this.
BTW your carebear and noobs section sounded like "PLS DONT SHOOT THE CUSTOMERS"
U can't save BDO and all these P2W shit MMOs.
― Terry Pratchett,
Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, and Everquest had released with F2P, cash shops, etc. Or would everyone just be playing MMOs and enjoying them for what they are?
Seriously, are you new to this genre?
If you like to be urinated on by devs and pubs, that's your choice... but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"Then you are a very short-sighted individual." NO, I AM THE CONSUMER. I have 0 obligation to the game developer's need to createa sustainable business model WHILE PRODUCING A PRODUCT THAT CONSUMERS WANT. NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY AS THE CONSUMER.
I can only imagine going to the cinema, buying a ticket for the movie, then being asked (without prior notice or warning) to buy popcorn, ticket for the WC, ticket for the seat, an extra pillow for the seat, refreshments and glasses. Hey, everyone else bought them, don't sit on the bench like a leper , alone and miserable. 'All that amounts to 100 $ my good sir. Have fun! "
That's what i think about this generation of gaming. So yes, i am complaining, i apologize.
This article was made for Whiners by a Whiner.
We are so spoiled with so many games now a days we get bored with games quick and move on and are never going to find the one game that gives us the feeling like we once felt when we first discovered the genre.
We are so spoiled in fact that we have people who's job it is to complain about people who complain about games haha
People have been whining for years about these mmorpgs, they just keep whining and whining, and whining and yet what has changed besides them continuing to whine? No matter what little differences are made in on e mmorpg over the next the whining persists. It is not the games that are the problem. It is the people playing the games that is the problem. The people that should probably leave the mmorpg community and go play something else because they themselves should already know they are just going to whine no matter how great the game is.
If it's not pay to win, then they whine about class to win, if it's not class to win, it'll be race to win, gear to win, skills to win, faction to win it will always be SOMETHING to b1tch about....as long as people who aren't suited for the games force themselves to play because they want to be suited for the game. They believe so wholeheartedly that because they used to play some great mmorpg(s) in the past things should still be the same and that they are still mmorpg gamers at heart but the truth just isn't so. People change and they should realize and accept that truth. They are no longer mmorpg people, that flame died out. It's time to move on, it's OK...there are plenty of other games to play in this world. Slow fat asses who don't want to get tagged or have to tag someone in a game of tag shouldn't be playing in the first place. Go bowling, play some pool, perhaps checkers. Don't play a game expecting and demanding it to suit you, play a game that you suit.
False. It has been observed in many games that have implemented such items that, cosmetic or not, when the company behind the game finds that it is easier/cheaper to fund the game through the sale of such items than it is to produce real content/fix bugs/etc., that the quality of the game overall suffers and decays. So yes, this does hurt customers by giving them an inferior product than they would potentially have if there had been motivation for the developers to actually maintain or improve the game itself.
"Side note? You can’t “win” in PVE, because you’re not competing against anyone."
False. By this logic, you can't "win" a single-player game, which is ridiculous. You may not be competing against another live individual, but you are competing. You compete against the game itself, or the "environment" (just in case you didn't know what the "E" in "PvE" was for). As in a single-player game, "winning" in this case is reaching the highest objective achievable. In an MMO, the concept of "winning" against the game can be a little more ambiguous than in a single-player game, as there can be multiple objectives that can be considered the "highest", often depending on the player's focus in the game, and new objectives can be added which move the goal posts (and creating new opportunities to "win"), but the fact is that the concept and possibility exists. To claim that "winning" is not possible in PvE (and thereby imply that it is only the privilege of PvP) is asinine.
Overall your article makes some good points, but unfortunately it is marred by these glaring errors that demonstrate a bit of short-sightedness and a rather narrow field of view.
YA GOT MEH!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯