There is no real point in blaming the gamer the fact is games in general have adopted the poor model of an endless grind fest. Aion, GW2, ESO, they all have a grind that is never ending and this causes a couple of issues.
New players will hate the game. Aion has the current issue where the experienced players are on top and the new guy kind of gets the bucket because there is the gear gap that is almost impossible to catch up to.
It takes too much time, this goes with the first point it will take too long for a new player to catch up and thus they will quit with a feeling of hopelessness.
The game will get boring causing the older players to quit and leave because they will be bored.
The issue right now is all these games are using the same tired old method so we have to settle with one that we find either some friends, or one that is the prettiest to us or be bored.
How many times have wee seen representatives from MMO publishers try to place the blame on the player base? Did that make the game succeed? Wildstar, ESO and SWTOR come to mind (Maybe not WS, I thought I recalled a thread but not 100% it was WS) anyway, I do recall statements from other games where developers were blaming their players.
WTF is that?
Developers create soulless, shallow, lackluster games, unfinished and unpolished, rushed out incomplete and lacking and then spin it off on the consumer.
Yeah, keep that up, it's working.
No, it's not really. But what is working is when these same developers put their focus to the task and start fixing the issues, guess what happens? The games get better.
So now SWTOR and ESO have been working hard to recapture what was lost. Other games like WoW and FFXIV:ARR seem to be doing well too.
Imagine what might be possible if MMOs were properly developed (Wait for it.............)BEFORE the game releases.
This is like blaming the customers for a chef that cooked horrible meals. How can you make the leap from the chef being responsible for what they prepared to the customers being responsible?
Actually this is blaming the customers for a chef that cooks horrible meals having a CHAIN of restaurants. It didnt happen because he was a good cook, it happened because despite being a bad cook, he was so busy he had to keep expanding.
Ok, let's play with this analogy a little.
I would say it's more like this: A company opens a restaurant which serves crappy food. Before the grand opening they hype it up claiming it to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is. Somewhat fewer show up the next day and fewer yet the day after that. Soon the restaurant is tanking and the company shuts it down.
A year later the same company opens a new restaurant with the same chefs, the same menu, and the same crappy food. All they did was change the name and decorate it a little differently. Before the grand opening they hype it up to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is and history repeats itself. The new restaurant soon tanks.
Who is at fault here? Is it the customers who fell for the hype and showed up to try it out when it opened? Or maybe it's the people who keep making crappy restaurants?
Of course in this analogy you have to imagine a world in which the only restaurants that exist are these crap restaurants which keep popping up, sputtering along for a while and then failing.
Ok, this is a good analogy, lets make it a bit more realistic.
New Restaurant 1 is promoted heavily before opening. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
90 days after the launch of New Restaurant 1, new Restaurant 2 opens. It also has had heavy promotion. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
Now, there may be a slight break, and New Restaurant 3 may not open for 180 days.... but it follows the same pattern. We may also see some of the previous restaurants close, and/or for their owners to open a new restaurant with the same pattern. We also see a lot more people get into the restaurant business, because even if there is a high investment cost, the risk is low if you just follow the same pattern.
In a balanced market you might see a few bad restaurants, but the majority of them would not make enough money to survive, and no one would want to copy them, because there would be no profit in it. However, if the numbers show that people are willing to spend money (and lots of it) because of marketing (and not the actual product) then someone will always be willing to supply that demand.
In reference to gaming, this is how F2P has become popular. People DID get tired of the marketing hype with nothing to back it up (after you have spent your money). This market reaction means that people have a harder time breaking even with subpar products. You may not like what you are seeing (now), but someone with money likes it enough to pay for it.
This is like blaming the customers for a chef that cooked horrible meals. How can you make the leap from the chef being responsible for what they prepared to the customers being responsible?
Actually this is blaming the customers for a chef that cooks horrible meals having a CHAIN of restaurants. It didnt happen because he was a good cook, it happened because despite being a bad cook, he was so busy he had to keep expanding.
Ok, let's play with this analogy a little.
I would say it's more like this: A company opens a restaurant which serves crappy food. Before the grand opening they hype it up claiming it to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is. Somewhat fewer show up the next day and fewer yet the day after that. Soon the restaurant is tanking and the company shuts it down.
A year later the same company opens a new restaurant with the same chefs, the same menu, and the same crappy food. All they did was change the name and decorate it a little differently. Before the grand opening they hype it up to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is and history repeats itself. The new restaurant soon tanks.
Who is at fault here? Is it the customers who fell for the hype and showed up to try it out when it opened? Or maybe it's the people who keep making crappy restaurants?
Of course in this analogy you have to imagine a world in which the only restaurants that exist are these crap restaurants which keep popping up, sputtering along for a while and then failing.
Ok, this is a good analogy, lets make it a bit more realistic.
New Restaurant 1 is promoted heavily before opening. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
90 days after the launch of New Restaurant 1, new Restaurant 2 opens. It also has had heavy promotion. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
Now, there may be a slight break, and New Restaurant 3 may not open for 180 days.... but it follows the same pattern. We may also see some of the previous restaurants close, and/or for their owners to open a new restaurant with the same pattern. We also see a lot more people get into the restaurant business, because even if there is a high investment cost, the risk is low if you just follow the same pattern.
In a balanced market you might see a few bad restaurants, but the majority of them would not make enough money to survive, and no one would want to copy them, because there would be no profit in it. However, if the numbers show that people are willing to spend money (and lots of it) because of marketing (and not the actual product) then someone will always be willing to supply that demand.
In reference to gaming, this is how F2P has become popular. People DID get tired of the marketing hype with nothing to back it up (after you have spent your money). This market reaction means that people have a harder time breaking even with subpar products. You may not like what you are seeing (now), but someone with money likes it enough to pay for it.
Ok, so there is money to be made from crappy, half-assed games. But if that is true then surely it stands to reason that a quality game which is not only technically sound but also recaptures the magic of MMO gaming would stand to make substantially greater profit. Now I know that's easier said then done but it surely could be done.
And here's the depressing truth: if the fault does lie with the gamers themselves then there is no hope. The behavior of the masses can not be changed by a few people griping on forums. The people who make the games could change what they are doing but we will never change the behavior of millions of consumers.
OMG you finally got through to me , I am so awful. I am a stupid bad customer, shame on ME!!!
Come on guy, blaming the playerbase again for the state of MMORPGs? Feel free to add "unpaid corporate shill" to your resume. If people won't pay for a product then it is the fault of the producer of that product not the intended consumer. The industry has no one to blame but themselves for their flops.
This is like blaming the customers for a chef that cooked horrible meals. How can you make the leap from the chef being responsible for what they prepared to the customers being responsible?
Actually this is blaming the customers for a chef that cooks horrible meals having a CHAIN of restaurants. It didnt happen because he was a good cook, it happened because despite being a bad cook, he was so busy he had to keep expanding.
Ok, let's play with this analogy a little.
I would say it's more like this: A company opens a restaurant which serves crappy food. Before the grand opening they hype it up claiming it to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is. Somewhat fewer show up the next day and fewer yet the day after that. Soon the restaurant is tanking and the company shuts it down.
A year later the same company opens a new restaurant with the same chefs, the same menu, and the same crappy food. All they did was change the name and decorate it a little differently. Before the grand opening they hype it up to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is and history repeats itself. The new restaurant soon tanks.
Who is at fault here? Is it the customers who fell for the hype and showed up to try it out when it opened? Or maybe it's the people who keep making crappy restaurants?
Of course in this analogy you have to imagine a world in which the only restaurants that exist are these crap restaurants which keep popping up, sputtering along for a while and then failing.
Ok, this is a good analogy, lets make it a bit more realistic.
New Restaurant 1 is promoted heavily before opening. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
90 days after the launch of New Restaurant 1, new Restaurant 2 opens. It also has had heavy promotion. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
Now, there may be a slight break, and New Restaurant 3 may not open for 180 days.... but it follows the same pattern. We may also see some of the previous restaurants close, and/or for their owners to open a new restaurant with the same pattern. We also see a lot more people get into the restaurant business, because even if there is a high investment cost, the risk is low if you just follow the same pattern.
In a balanced market you might see a few bad restaurants, but the majority of them would not make enough money to survive, and no one would want to copy them, because there would be no profit in it. However, if the numbers show that people are willing to spend money (and lots of it) because of marketing (and not the actual product) then someone will always be willing to supply that demand.
In reference to gaming, this is how F2P has become popular. People DID get tired of the marketing hype with nothing to back it up (after you have spent your money). This market reaction means that people have a harder time breaking even with subpar products. You may not like what you are seeing (now), but someone with money likes it enough to pay for it.
Ok, so there is money to be made from crappy, half-assed games. But if that is true then surely it stands to reason that a quality game which is not only technically sound but also recaptures the magic of MMO gaming would stand to make substantially greater profit. Now I know that's easier said then done but it surely could be done.
And here's the depressing truth: if the fault does lie with the gamers themselves then there is no hope. The behavior of the masses can not be changed by a few people griping on forums. The people who make the games could change what they are doing but we will never change the behavior of millions of consumers.
See, here is where you are catching on. Games cost money to make (the more technical/visual the game the more money) and most people can not afford to make them without outside investors (which is why Kickstarter is now popular). When people ask for money from investors, they ask for projections, based on comparable products.
Games that have been innovative, or tried to change the pattern have proven to be expensive... and their returns have not shown to be any better. This means that it is harder to get money for them, and each time that they dont do well, it gets harder.
There is also the issue of defining what a 'better' game is. Developers try to get funds for a variation of an existing game, but make improvements... look at Wildstar. They tried to make a better raiding game, and it hasnt worked out well for them. They are going to have to backtrack, and re-design the game to be more generic, in the hopes of eventually getting a return on the investment. This isnt going to incentize others to make similar investments.
This all leads back to gamers... who dont understand how to vote with their wallets. They think that by NOT spending on what they perceive as a bad game, they will eventually get a good game. However the way it works is that whomever spends is voting. Not spending is just not having any input. People still spend on bad games due to marketing, regardless of the actual game. People who are not spending (because there are no good games) are just making the dollars spent by the clueless masses that much more powerful.
The only way to change the market, is to outspend the people throwing money at bad games. If consumers were to throw lots of money at good CONCEPTS (regardless of actual results) we would see others trying a similar approach, and eventually we would have better games (i.e. if enough people try to make a good game, someone will succeed).
This is like blaming the customers for a chef that cooked horrible meals. How can you make the leap from the chef being responsible for what they prepared to the customers being responsible?
No, this is more like a sailor blaming the cooks for a horrible meal, when in reality its the cookware and grade F food stocks he was given to make the meal from.
Devs are great but they do what they can with what they're given (by publishers and kickstarters etc) to pander to people whose diet varies from mcdonalds (COD) to dry aged waygu (sp?) beef (EQ/Early predecessors)
The problem is the middlemen involved in getting the games to us and the greed and budget involved.
I also saw endgame mentioned in the article. I challenge this: since EQ, when has a game's endgame (or lack thereof) NOT been complained about? I don't recall a single case. Its the biggest challenge in game development.
The only way to change the market, is to outspend the people throwing money at bad games. If consumers were to throw lots of money at good CONCEPTS (regardless of actual results) we would see others trying a similar approach, and eventually we would have better games (i.e. if enough people try to make a good game, someone will succeed).
Well, good luck with that. How do you propose to convince the unwashed masses to throw lots of money in the direction you want them to throw it? If I knew how to do that I would be sitting on my own private island somewhere right about now.
Your solution is unworkable which leaves us back where we started. Sitting around waiting for someone who actually has the power to do something (the people who make these games) to, you know, actually do something.
This is like blaming the customers for a chef that cooked horrible meals. How can you make the leap from the chef being responsible for what they prepared to the customers being responsible?
Actually this is blaming the customers for a chef that cooks horrible meals having a CHAIN of restaurants. It didnt happen because he was a good cook, it happened because despite being a bad cook, he was so busy he had to keep expanding.
Ok, let's play with this analogy a little.
I would say it's more like this: A company opens a restaurant which serves crappy food. Before the grand opening they hype it up claiming it to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is. Somewhat fewer show up the next day and fewer yet the day after that. Soon the restaurant is tanking and the company shuts it down.
A year later the same company opens a new restaurant with the same chefs, the same menu, and the same crappy food. All they did was change the name and decorate it a little differently. Before the grand opening they hype it up to be the most awesome thing ever. A flood of people show up the first day to check it out only to discover how crappy it is and history repeats itself. The new restaurant soon tanks.
Who is at fault here? Is it the customers who fell for the hype and showed up to try it out when it opened? Or maybe it's the people who keep making crappy restaurants?
Of course in this analogy you have to imagine a world in which the only restaurants that exist are these crap restaurants which keep popping up, sputtering along for a while and then failing.
Ok, this is a good analogy, lets make it a bit more realistic.
New Restaurant 1 is promoted heavily before opening. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
90 days after the launch of New Restaurant 1, new Restaurant 2 opens. It also has had heavy promotion. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
Now, there may be a slight break, and New Restaurant 3 may not open for 180 days.... but it follows the same pattern. We may also see some of the previous restaurants close, and/or for their owners to open a new restaurant with the same pattern. We also see a lot more people get into the restaurant business, because even if there is a high investment cost, the risk is low if you just follow the same pattern.
In a balanced market you might see a few bad restaurants, but the majority of them would not make enough money to survive, and no one would want to copy them, because there would be no profit in it. However, if the numbers show that people are willing to spend money (and lots of it) because of marketing (and not the actual product) then someone will always be willing to supply that demand.
In reference to gaming, this is how F2P has become popular. People DID get tired of the marketing hype with nothing to back it up (after you have spent your money). This market reaction means that people have a harder time breaking even with subpar products. You may not like what you are seeing (now), but someone with money likes it enough to pay for it.
As I read this, I am eating my homemade Italian Combo Panini, With Provalone, Ham, Pepperoni and Capicola, a little sundried tomato spread on one slice and pesto on the other........Oh yeah!
70% i blame the gamers. 20% the weak developers who always bend and do what the 70% whiners want. 10% press with terrible reviews(including this site)and dishonest rating games because they are payed.
Money grab greed cheaters or the endless dumb down and discussion about times sink these days people don't want for many stupid reasons and demand ez mode instant cookies, if it all takes to long they whine if its to hard they whine. I am sick and tired of MMO'S mainly because of the gamers.
Luckely solo games so dont have to deal with 70%.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Another mmorpg.com "let's blame the gamer". The logical failure in the article is caused by the author saying "time spent in a game means its of value". Sadly that's not always the case.
When you first start to play a game you have to spend a bit of time to get to know the game. You have to spend time to get the right class, you have to customize your character so that it doesn't look ugly, and for many players that time has no or negative value. You are then put into an area that you have to learn your character, and while there are games that can be entertaining at start, mmorpg's have lots of low value content at the beginning.
Once you have done the completed the startup process you can now enjoy the game, and by enjoying I mean playing a huge amount of low effort copy/paste content with "carrot on a stick" approach that's supposed to keep you going. Many times you usually just play without thinking, or you push on because you heard "the game changes at level 30".
Mmorpg's are built to be addictive, its the only way people would be able to tolerate all the garbage content they are filled with. Most time spent playing them has very low value, and in some cases time spent on them has negative value. Its the addictive qualities of the game that can keep us playing even if there is negative value, some can tolerate more than others.
Let's not forget that there are games where you can pay money to reduce your time playing them. There are subs for more exp, potions for more exp, or you can pay $60 for a level 90 character. If people are willing to pay money just so they can skip a lot of content you can't call that content of value.
While I have had a lot of fun times playing mmorpg's there has been a few mmorpg where I literally wasted my time playing them.
Time is money, friend.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Comments
There is no real point in blaming the gamer the fact is games in general have adopted the poor model of an endless grind fest. Aion, GW2, ESO, they all have a grind that is never ending and this causes a couple of issues.
The Arcade Corner
The Daily Exposition
How many times have wee seen representatives from MMO publishers try to place the blame on the player base? Did that make the game succeed? Wildstar, ESO and SWTOR come to mind (Maybe not WS, I thought I recalled a thread but not 100% it was WS) anyway, I do recall statements from other games where developers were blaming their players.
WTF is that?
Developers create soulless, shallow, lackluster games, unfinished and unpolished, rushed out incomplete and lacking and then spin it off on the consumer.
Yeah, keep that up, it's working.
No, it's not really. But what is working is when these same developers put their focus to the task and start fixing the issues, guess what happens? The games get better.
So now SWTOR and ESO have been working hard to recapture what was lost. Other games like WoW and FFXIV:ARR seem to be doing well too.
Imagine what might be possible if MMOs were properly developed (Wait for it.............) BEFORE the game releases.
Ok, this is a good analogy, lets make it a bit more realistic.
New Restaurant 1 is promoted heavily before opening. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
90 days after the launch of New Restaurant 1, new Restaurant 2 opens. It also has had heavy promotion. On opening day it is flooded, with a line out the door. Prices are sky high. The food is terrible.
Over the next month the lines shrink, go away, and within 90 days almost nobody shows up at opening time. They drop the prices over time, and eventually they are selling cheap, crappy food to a small amount of people.
Now, there may be a slight break, and New Restaurant 3 may not open for 180 days.... but it follows the same pattern. We may also see some of the previous restaurants close, and/or for their owners to open a new restaurant with the same pattern. We also see a lot more people get into the restaurant business, because even if there is a high investment cost, the risk is low if you just follow the same pattern.
In a balanced market you might see a few bad restaurants, but the majority of them would not make enough money to survive, and no one would want to copy them, because there would be no profit in it. However, if the numbers show that people are willing to spend money (and lots of it) because of marketing (and not the actual product) then someone will always be willing to supply that demand.
In reference to gaming, this is how F2P has become popular. People DID get tired of the marketing hype with nothing to back it up (after you have spent your money). This market reaction means that people have a harder time breaking even with subpar products. You may not like what you are seeing (now), but someone with money likes it enough to pay for it.
Ok, so there is money to be made from crappy, half-assed games. But if that is true then surely it stands to reason that a quality game which is not only technically sound but also recaptures the magic of MMO gaming would stand to make substantially greater profit. Now I know that's easier said then done but it surely could be done.
And here's the depressing truth: if the fault does lie with the gamers themselves then there is no hope. The behavior of the masses can not be changed by a few people griping on forums. The people who make the games could change what they are doing but we will never change the behavior of millions of consumers.
OMG you finally got through to me , I am so awful. I am a stupid bad customer, shame on ME!!!
Come on guy, blaming the playerbase again for the state of MMORPGs? Feel free to add "unpaid corporate shill" to your resume. If people won't pay for a product then it is the fault of the producer of that product not the intended consumer. The industry has no one to blame but themselves for their flops.
See, here is where you are catching on. Games cost money to make (the more technical/visual the game the more money) and most people can not afford to make them without outside investors (which is why Kickstarter is now popular). When people ask for money from investors, they ask for projections, based on comparable products.
Games that have been innovative, or tried to change the pattern have proven to be expensive... and their returns have not shown to be any better. This means that it is harder to get money for them, and each time that they dont do well, it gets harder.
There is also the issue of defining what a 'better' game is. Developers try to get funds for a variation of an existing game, but make improvements... look at Wildstar. They tried to make a better raiding game, and it hasnt worked out well for them. They are going to have to backtrack, and re-design the game to be more generic, in the hopes of eventually getting a return on the investment. This isnt going to incentize others to make similar investments.
This all leads back to gamers... who dont understand how to vote with their wallets. They think that by NOT spending on what they perceive as a bad game, they will eventually get a good game. However the way it works is that whomever spends is voting. Not spending is just not having any input. People still spend on bad games due to marketing, regardless of the actual game. People who are not spending (because there are no good games) are just making the dollars spent by the clueless masses that much more powerful.
The only way to change the market, is to outspend the people throwing money at bad games. If consumers were to throw lots of money at good CONCEPTS (regardless of actual results) we would see others trying a similar approach, and eventually we would have better games (i.e. if enough people try to make a good game, someone will succeed).
No, this is more like a sailor blaming the cooks for a horrible meal, when in reality its the cookware and grade F food stocks he was given to make the meal from.
Devs are great but they do what they can with what they're given (by publishers and kickstarters etc) to pander to people whose diet varies from mcdonalds (COD) to dry aged waygu (sp?) beef (EQ/Early predecessors)
The problem is the middlemen involved in getting the games to us and the greed and budget involved.
I also saw endgame mentioned in the article. I challenge this: since EQ, when has a game's endgame (or lack thereof) NOT been complained about? I don't recall a single case. Its the biggest challenge in game development.
Well, good luck with that. How do you propose to convince the unwashed masses to throw lots of money in the direction you want them to throw it? If I knew how to do that I would be sitting on my own private island somewhere right about now.
Your solution is unworkable which leaves us back where we started. Sitting around waiting for someone who actually has the power to do something (the people who make these games) to, you know, actually do something.
As I read this, I am eating my homemade Italian Combo Panini, With Provalone, Ham, Pepperoni and Capicola, a little sundried tomato spread on one slice and pesto on the other........Oh yeah!
70% i blame the gamers.
20% the weak developers who always bend and do what the 70% whiners want.
10% press with terrible reviews(including this site)and dishonest rating games because they are payed.
Money grab greed cheaters or the endless dumb down and discussion about times sink these days people don't want for many stupid reasons and demand ez mode instant cookies, if it all takes to long they whine if its to hard they whine. I am sick and tired of MMO'S mainly because of the gamers.
Luckely solo games so dont have to deal with 70%.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
This article was well written, and honest.
A very good read.
Nice work Beau.
Another mmorpg.com "let's blame the gamer". The logical failure in the article is caused by the author saying "time spent in a game means its of value". Sadly that's not always the case.
When you first start to play a game you have to spend a bit of time to get to know the game. You have to spend time to get the right class, you have to customize your character so that it doesn't look ugly, and for many players that time has no or negative value. You are then put into an area that you have to learn your character, and while there are games that can be entertaining at start, mmorpg's have lots of low value content at the beginning.
Once you have done the completed the startup process you can now enjoy the game, and by enjoying I mean playing a huge amount of low effort copy/paste content with "carrot on a stick" approach that's supposed to keep you going. Many times you usually just play without thinking, or you push on because you heard "the game changes at level 30".
Mmorpg's are built to be addictive, its the only way people would be able to tolerate all the garbage content they are filled with. Most time spent playing them has very low value, and in some cases time spent on them has negative value. Its the addictive qualities of the game that can keep us playing even if there is negative value, some can tolerate more than others.
Let's not forget that there are games where you can pay money to reduce your time playing them. There are subs for more exp, potions for more exp, or you can pay $60 for a level 90 character. If people are willing to pay money just so they can skip a lot of content you can't call that content of value.
While I have had a lot of fun times playing mmorpg's there has been a few mmorpg where I literally wasted my time playing them.
Time is money, friend.