I would rather point out that you don't seem to know how it works if you don't understand the differences in how it's monetization model can and is used and the impact that has on the game design.
It's rather obvious you're talking from your "experience" or at least a biased perspective because you've actively sought to disregard how the models work.
It's also why you've made the same blatant mistake yet again by ignoring the many avenues existing in the real-world surrounding both the F2P and B2P models when it comes to transparency about a game and it's contents. It's why you made the same repeated mistake of taking a very narrow concept of how F2P and B2P works to paint a very flowery image oozing bias.
There's been sufficient information provided and prior linked examples to disprove the extremity of your argument. Whether or not you acknowledge this is meaningless at this point.
I state you're running away from the subject because you refuse to acknowledge any and all information that's contrary your version of reality. Dismissing counterargument and making false assumptions that don't even correlate to what's there is all you are doing, which means you have repeated the same comment time and again while the facts around and against it have piled up.
You're right on one thing, my words nor yours can change the reality of this.
So to repeat again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
"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
Someone is seriously trying to argue against this? Cause I refused to read beyond your response...
@Gestankfaust ; Problem is his claim is true if held only by itself. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of reality and how the games actually work.
When you look at how games are produced and marketed in the real world you generally have a lot of hands-on exposure to B2P titles nowadays alongside lots of secondary information. Even pretending all that secondary stuff does not exist, you are still faced with the prolific use of demos, pre-release, betas, expo showings, etc.
It also is completely ignoring the fact that F2P can and does utilize many elements that you see carried over from casinos and elsewhere, where the early game is favorable, but only long enough really to hook a player into things like reward denial, offering stuff that you have no way of accessing or utilizing without paying, transition of skill play into a money game, ante games, content baiting and gating, etc.
This also goes in disregard to the fact that F2P model frequently utilizes the founders packs and similar models that is exactly the same "buy before you play" scenario being suggested. This also compounds with the point that early game does not have to reflect anything of mid to end game because of the points already mentioned.
For example, pick a game.
EDIT: Besides which " I refused to read beyond your response.." is a pretty terrible approach to things if you have any preference towards logic or looking for something being "correct". Even if you disagree with the counterarguments made, it's better to read and see what merits the argument may or may not have. Without doing so you're effectively just saying "I like this sentence so it must be true." which is woefully inadequate.
I really would be happy to prove this point to you if you wish to offer a game title that I can break down for ya.
"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
Last several pages have referenced additional information. The amount of repetition I've done in the course of making this argument, save for the core point, has been relatively minimal and mostly around perpetuated misconceptions and behavior of another.
I also wasn't participant in a good bit of those "16 pages", as I stopped posting for a while since it got exceptionally circular and illogical.
But good on you for trying to arbitrarily insult me.
"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
And again, all of this "speaking" needs to happen through your wallets.
Speaking with your wallet is truly the only way that players can have any say. However, you have to remember that this only works when you SPEND money. The more you spend, the more say you have. If you choose not to spend, you choose not to have any say. If you have stopped spending, and dont like how things are changing, then you have no one to blame buy yourself.
Last several pages have referenced additional information. The amount of repetition I've done in the course of making this argument, save for the core point, has been relatively minimal and mostly around perpetuated misconceptions and behavior of another.
I also wasn't participant in a good bit of those "16 pages", as I stopped posting for a while since it got exceptionally circular and illogical.
But good on you for trying to arbitrarily insult me.
Is outstanding on it's own because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand the fact that a game built on conning a person into paying out has no real mandate to be a quality title. It needs enough to draw a person in and then bleed them. Hence the point made about early game not being representative of mid-end game which you completely ignored in an attempt to isolate a single factor for a false argument.
You just said "it needs enough (quality) to draw a person in" ... so you cannot say it is not a quality title. Short, up front quality is still quality.
Now how long, and how high (of the quality) can be up to debate, but you are certainly not implying that f2p games are quality titles for a while.
And you talk as if f2p titles bleeds every players .. which is deceiving and untrue. You admit that the "conning" does not work on everyone, and there are plenty of free riders out there. (And yes, we debate the number, but you never said it is zero).
You are playing as much the debate game as him (and me). Don't sound like you have a monopoly on arguments or facts.
You just said "it needs enough (quality) to draw a person in" ... so you cannot say it is not a quality title. Short, up front quality is still quality.
Now how long, and how high (of the quality) can be up to debate, but you are certainly not implying that f2p games are quality titles for a while.
And you talk as if f2p titles bleeds every players .. which is deceiving and untrue. You admit that the "conning" does not work on everyone, and there are plenty of free riders out there. (And yes, we debate the number, but you never said it is zero).
You are playing as much the debate game as him (and me). Don't sound like you have a monopoly on arguments or facts.
If a F2P intro only has "enough quality to draw a person in" then it is no different then selling a product on a misleading demo for a B2P title or otherwise. It being an enjoyable game for all of two hours does not take away the fact that the majority of the game is terrible.
Secondly, the point of "not everyone gets conned" is largely meaningless. Of course not everyone is conned, some people have that ability to resist impulse urges and compunctions even if being pressed to make them. I never talked as if it bleeds every player, but I did point out that they are built to bleed their players. It's one game with one set of mechanics, there's no GM back there custom tailoring an experience for each player and excusing some of them from the negative experiences, each user is affected by the same mechanics as the next. Whether or not each person falls victim to that is inconsequential. What does matter is where the numbers are at, and with the numbers in the majority for titles that employ these means, that's a telling fact.
I don't disfavor debate, I disfavor misinformation and arguing opinions in lieu of information and fact. When people can't make distinctions between their bias and subsequently respond progressively more derisive and dismissively towards things they disagree with, that eventually becomes annoying itself. I don't claim any monopoly, but I do point out that I have provided plenty of supporting points that counter the provided claims. You've given me some of these yourself.
It's the most silly degree of confirmation bias being presented. Like you have your freaking cheerleader in the background there antagonizing me every so often and upvoting you guys without giving any meaningful commentary.
"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
Someone is seriously trying to argue against this? Cause I refused to read beyond your response...
@Gestankfaust ; Problem is his claim is true if held only by itself. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of reality and how the games actually work.
It also is completely ignoring the fact that F2P can and does utilize many elements that you see carried over from casinos and elsewhere, where the early game is favorable, but only long enough really to hook a player into things like reward denial, offering stuff that you have no way of accessing or utilizing without paying, transition of skill play into a money game, ante games, content baiting and gating, etc.
Ok in reality you are wrong. Let me explain...you claim this statement as a fact when in reality it's your own uninformed opinion. So you can't have a "fact" state "can" and "does". Which is it? Again reality is very clear on the difference between facts and opinions and for 16 pages you have been 100% in the opinion section.
You see EVERY ONE of these f2p games have all the info about their restrictions on their websites clear as day. These players know what they are getting into.
Ok in reality you are wrong. Let me explain...you claim this statement as a fact when in reality it's your own uninformed opinion. So you can't have a "fact" state "can" and "does". Which is it? Again reality is very clear on the difference between facts and opinions and for 16 pages you have been 100% in the opinion section.
You see EVERY ONE of these f2p games have all the info about their restrictions on their websites clear as day. These players know what they are getting into.
If something "does" then it inherently "can" otherwise the only option for it is it "does not". If something "can" then it by that virtue has the choice for if it "does" or "does not". Something that "can't" by it's very nature "does not".
So which is it? Can and does. That phrase is not contradictory.
How is something this simple about thew English language mystifying to you?
And you entirely dodged the points made with your commentary. Whether or not they post up restrictions on their site is inconsequential to how the gameplay itself operates. I have provided multiple links about different games as well as monetization models and the methods used therein. On top of that I have pointed out actual numbers for several games in particular in illustration of these points. For you to call that opinion would implicate that the industry is itself speculative and that the games mechanically are fluid in their existence (IE, have no grounding rules on which they operate), to which I can not perceive either being the case.
Would you like to persist in your claim that games are built on nothing?
"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
You just said "it needs enough (quality) to draw a person in" ... so you cannot say it is not a quality title. Short, up front quality is still quality.
Now how long, and how high (of the quality) can be up to debate, but you are certainly not implying that f2p games are quality titles for a while.
And you talk as if f2p titles bleeds every players .. which is deceiving and untrue. You admit that the "conning" does not work on everyone, and there are plenty of free riders out there. (And yes, we debate the number, but you never said it is zero).
You are playing as much the debate game as him (and me). Don't sound like you have a monopoly on arguments or facts.
If a F2P intro only has "enough quality to draw a person in" then it is no different then selling a product on a misleading demo for a B2P title or otherwise. It being an enjoyable game for all of two hours does not take away the fact that the majority of the game is terrible.
Secondly, the point of "not everyone gets conned" is largely meaningless. Of course not everyone is conned, some people have that ability to resist impulse urges and compunctions even if being pressed to make them. I never talked as if it bleeds every player, but I did point out that they are built to bleed their players. It's one game with one set of mechanics, there's no GM back there custom tailoring an experience for each player and excusing some of them from the negative experiences, each user is affected by the same mechanics as the next. Whether or not each person falls victim to that is inconsequential. What does matter is where the numbers are at, and with the numbers in the majority for titles that employ these means, that's a telling fact.
I don't disfavor debate, I disfavor misinformation and arguing opinions in lieu of information and fact. When people can't make distinctions between their bias and subsequently respond progressively more derisive and dismissively towards things they disagree with, that eventually becomes annoying itself. I don't claim any monopoly, but I do point out that I have provided plenty of supporting points that counter the provided claims. You've given me some of these yourself.
It's the most silly degree of confirmation bias being presented. Like you have your freaking cheerleader in the background there antagonizing me every so often and upvoting you guys without giving any meaningful commentary.
You just said "it needs enough (quality) to draw a person in" ... so you cannot say it is not a quality title. Short, up front quality is still quality.
Now how long, and how high (of the quality) can be up to debate, but you are certainly not implying that f2p games are quality titles for a while.
And you talk as if f2p titles bleeds every players .. which is deceiving and untrue. You admit that the "conning" does not work on everyone, and there are plenty of free riders out there. (And yes, we debate the number, but you never said it is zero).
You are playing as much the debate game as him (and me). Don't sound like you have a monopoly on arguments or facts.
Secondly, the point of "not everyone gets conned" is largely meaningless. Of course not everyone is conned, some people have that ability to resist impulse urges and compunctions even if being pressed to make them. I never talked as if it bleeds every player, but I did point out that they are built to bleed their players. It's one game with one set of mechanics, there's no GM back there custom tailoring an experience for each player and excusing some of them from the negative experiences, each user is affected by the same mechanics as the next. Whether or not each person falls victim to that is inconsequential. What does matter is where the numbers are at, and with the numbers in the majority for titles that employ these means, that's a telling fact.
I don't disfavor debate, I disfavor misinformation and arguing opinions in lieu of information and fact. When people can't make distinctions between their bias and subsequently respond progressively more derisive and dismissively towards things they disagree with, that eventually becomes annoying itself. I don't claim any monopoly, but I do point out that I have provided plenty of supporting points that counter the provided claims. You've given me some of these yourself.
It's the most silly degree of confirmation bias being presented. Like you have your freaking cheerleader in the background there antagonizing me every so often and upvoting you guys without giving any meaningful commentary.
It's because you have this misconception that everything you state is a "fact" and that clearly is not the case. You can post your opinions as misinformed and In lieu of facts all you want but in any discussion you will be called out just like you call everyone else out.
So let me get this straight you cry because of these cheerleaders then you attack others because they call you out? See in this reality of online forums you should learn to leave your emotions out of it.
For 16 pages you haven't provide any information to back up your opinions. As I stated above you cant claim a fact by stating well maybe some can but for sure some do. Which is it?
A fact could be something like this...
Some F2p mmo can have action bar restrictions.
This would not be a fact...
Every mmo does have an action bar restriction.
See he the only reason you would use "can" and "does" because you don't have the "FACTS" to claim which one it is.
And for 16 pages this is how you and ax have conducted yourselves.
In reality you both have been stating your opinion. Once you accept this reality you will receive less grief.
It's because you have this misconception that everything you state is a "fact" and that clearly is not the case. You can post your opinions as misinformed and In lieu of facts all you want but in any discussion you will be called out just like you call everyone else out.
So let me get this straight you cry because of these cheerleaders then you attack others because they call you out? See in this reality of online forums you should learn to leave your emotions out of it.
For 16 pages you haven't provide any information to back up your opinions. As I stated above you cant claim a fact by stating well maybe some can but for sure some do. Which is it?
A fact could be something like this...
Some F2p mmo can have action bar restrictions.
This would not be a fact...
Every mmo does have an action bar restriction.
See he the only reason you would use "can" and "does" because you don't have the "FACTS" to claim which one it is.
And for 16 pages this is how you and ax have conducted yourselves.
In reality you both have been stating your opinion. Once you accept this reality you will receive less grief.
This goes right back to the point that I have provided previous links and statistics regarding my comments. I don't make the claim that any title does something individually unless I can make a direct example within said title.
When I said "can and does" I followed it with a list of elements that can be found as commonplace elements in F2P monetization models and gameplay. This isn't an opinion I fabricated from nowhere, but astatement on the industry based on it's actualbehaviorobserved from multiple sources and notably some of the most successful titles (as well as commentary from individual developers). That you disagree with these facts does not turn them into "my opinions". You are free to post your own counter evidence at any time assuming you have any.
Your supposition that a game's own reported statistics, that of multiple analytic companies, multiple data analytic consultants and designers, and the very mechanics they run on is all insubstantial is an excessively irrational argument to be making.
When I make a counterpoint about how much a game is actually free versus not free, that isn't an opinion, it's a breakdown of how much content there is in the game and how much of it has a price tag attached. This is also why you see that if I don't know much about a title's contents, I say as much and refrain from commenting on it.
To say correcting someone is attacking them is irrational. I "cry" because of individuals that would rant without providing an even halfway realistic or rational argument and find fault in those that favor simply taunting others and voting nonsensically as if liking a irrational comment makes it suddenly sensible.
As of right now, you have only provided unfounded remarks with zero basing in any reality and made personal accusations of what I feel and think without any evidence to support the claims made. Thus-far I have deigned not to comment on my own opinions, if you wish to ask me what they are then feel free to do so.
"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
To say correcting someone is attacking them is irrational. I "cry" because of individuals that would rant without providing an even halfway realistic or rational argument and find fault in those that favor simply taunting others and voting nonsensically as if liking a irrational comment makes it suddenly sensible.
As of right now, you have only provided unfounded remarks with zero basing in any reality and made personal accusations of what I feel and think without any evidence to support the claims made. Thus-far I have deigned not to comment on my own opinions, if you wish to ask me what they are then feel free to do so.
Again to post a few links or numbers from some obscure website and a few games that are not even MMORPGS is not a very good source to use for ALL MMORPGS which you continue to try and fail at doing.
Yes what you have posted for 17 pages now is your OPINION based off these obscure website and very limited data of a few games. This in no way represents every MMORPG out today.
Its not a personal attack to tell you the FACT about how you for 17 pages have been posting your OPINION. Again once you accept this reality you will suffer a lot less grief.
Its amazing how some people truly think everything they spout out is a fact lol. If you were so smart on this topic and everything you've said for 17 pages was accurate and 100% fact, you wouldn't be on some random site where less than .0001% of MMORPGS players attend for weeks hijacking another thread because your thread got closed.
For ten pages you have steered this thread off topic and gave the OP the misconception people care about his topic...now that is a FACT
Edit:
Btw does gameutra pay you to keep their OPINION pieces on your desk top? You would think the FACT they are called OPINION pieces would give you a hint.
Again to post a few links or numbers from some obscure website and a few games that are not even MMORPGS is not a very good source to use for ALL MMORPGS which you continue to try and fail at doing.
Yes what you have posted for 17 pages now is your OPINION based off these obscure website and very limited data of a few games. This in no way represents every MMORPG out today.
Its not a personal attack to tell you the FACT about how you for 17 pages have been posting your OPINION. Again once you accept this reality you will suffer a lot less grief.
Its amazing how some people truly think everything they spout out is a fact lol. If you were so smart on this topic and everything you've said for 17 pages was accurate and 100% fact, you wouldn't be on some random site where less than .0001% of MMORPGS players attend for weeks hijacking another thread because your thread got closed.
For ten pages you have steered this thread off topic and gave the OP the misconception people care about his topic...now that is a FACT
If you looked at those "obscure" websites you'd find that one of them is an analytics site itself while multiple reference analytics websites and data, as well as several of those pages are authored by individuals in the industry and others consulting for the industry. Besides which, whether or not you frequent an individual side does not dictate whether or not that site is obscure or popular (not to mention it's popularity status has nothing to do with it's content).
To which I also need to repeat this point as you obviously didn't read it. "When I make a counterpoint about how much a game is actually free versus not free, that isn't an opinion, it's a breakdown of how much content there is in the game and how much of it has a price tag attached. This is also why you see that if I don't know much about a title's contents, I say as much and refrain from commenting on it." I share no comment on if I think the game is good or bad, I share no preference in how a game plays or which titles I enjoy.
I certainly do address the F2P industry as a whole, but I also am sane enough to only address the subjects upon which I actually have familiarity and information to support. I made a very open offer to dissect any title of another's choosing previously, to which only one person has taken me up on and they were immediately unhappy when I actually responded with information (apparently there was the assumption that I wouldn't respond).
That you and a couple others derailed a thread and got it closed while I was asleep is rather inconsequential to, well, everything. The fact you are the only one to even bother bringing things up and talk about emotions as an attempt to elicit an emotionally driven response is pretty telling of how much information you even have (or more to the point, don't) on the subject at hand. Attacking me endlessly and baselessly is pointless.
I "for 17 pages" have been an intermittent participant conversing on several subjects on several occasions. Your only counterargument is to continue claiming that reality has no mechanical basis, which makes no sense. You even ignore the fact that technically, even with my present adamancy, you've posted in this thread even when I have elected not to making your supposed jab at me just now rather ironic.
EDIT: As for your gamasutra jab, I cite articles which have their own supporting evidence and links, if you do not like that their comments have it's own data (one of those gamasutra articles utilizing multiple analytic sites) that's your problem.
"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
Again to post a few links or numbers from some obscure website and a few games that are not even MMORPGS is not a very good source to use for ALL MMORPGS which you continue to try and fail at doing.
Yes what you have posted for 17 pages now is your OPINION based off these obscure website and very limited data of a few games. This in no way represents every MMORPG out today.
Its not a personal attack to tell you the FACT about how you for 17 pages have been posting your OPINION. Again once you accept this reality you will suffer a lot less grief.
Its amazing how some people truly think everything they spout out is a fact lol. If you were so smart on this topic and everything you've said for 17 pages was accurate and 100% fact, you wouldn't be on some random site where less than .0001% of MMORPGS players attend for weeks hijacking another thread because your thread got closed.
For ten pages you have steered this thread off topic and gave the OP the misconception people care about his topic...now that is a FACT
If you looked at those "obscure" websites you'd find that one of them is an analytics site itself while multiple reference analytics websites and data, as well as several of those pages are authored by individuals in the industry and others consulting for the industry. Besides which, whether or not you frequent an individual side does not dictate whether or not that site is obscure or popular (not to mention it's popularity status has nothing to do with it's content).
To which I also need to repeat this point as you obviously didn't read it. "When I make a counterpoint about how much a game is actually free versus not free, that isn't an opinion, it's a breakdown of how much content there is in the game and how much of it has a price tag attached. This is also why you see that if I don't know much about a title's contents, I say as much and refrain from commenting on it."
I certainly do address the F2P industry as a whole, but I also am sane enough to only address the subjects upon which I actually have familiarity and information to support. I made a very open offer to dissect any title of another's choosing previously, to which only one person has taken me up on and they were immediately unhappy when I actually responded with information (apparently there was the assumption that I wouldn't respond).
That you and a couple others derailed a thread and got it closed while I was asleep is rather inconsequential to, well, everything. The fact you are the only one to even bother bringing things up and talk about emotions as an attempt to elicit an emotionally driven response is pretty telling of how much information you even have (or more to the point, don't) on the subject at hand. Attacking me endlessly and baselessly is pointless.
I "for 17 pages" have been an intermittent participant conversing on several subjects on several occasions. Your only counterargument is to continue claiming that reality has no mechanical basis, which makes no sense. You even ignore the fact that technically, even with my present adamancy, you've posted in this thread even when I have elected not to making your supposed jab at me just now rather ironic.
75% of your " factual links" are OPINION PIECES one is even about mobile games! . Is that really that hard to understand? Again how in the world does a person take an OPINION PIECE and turn it into THIER OWN FACTS! Only on the internet I guess. How much does the unemployed wacko pay you to keep his link on your desktop?
The other link from superdata won't even tell you which games they are talking about.
You do realize that P2P MMORPGS also have a decline in members? Not sure your point with that link. And you do realize they state their data is not meant to be used as facts for an entire industry right? For example when they do sales for a particular game it usually does not count DOWNLOADS. So to claim their data as fact when they themselves do not is a mystery.
Just keep up with your passive aggressive attacks, and reporting everyone who disagrees and calls you out. Clearly I just put FACTS out for everyone to see.
A recap:
Your facts about f2p MMORPGS comes from the following:
OPINION PIECES
A data sites that states their data is NOT meant to be used as FACTS for the entire mmorpg genre
Citations, as I rather literally just stated, the value of the opinion pieces is the fact that I picked them for the cited stats and additional information they provide. Do try to keep up.
As for superdata, their claim is "more than 37 million digital gamers across over 500 titles".
And here we cycle back to you again making the argument that everything including the diatribe from devs and consultants on what the games actually do are entirely meaningless on top of any and all measurable metrics. If you want to believe all of reality is opinion, then that's fine by me, it only means that my argument (as an opinion) has all the same validity and merit as any other opinion that's been provided.
P2P MMOs being on the decline isn't surprising at all, I have in fact commented on such previously, noting the "race to the bottom" that was instigated because of the growing prevalence of the F2P market. That changes nothing about anything else I previously have stated.
So certainly, you posed a fact. A fact which I myself made quite a while ago. What you also did was jump to the side again in your continued adamant trial to attack me irrationally. The fact that you would bring up "hijacking another thread" while you are the instigator of an entirely off-topic tangent within the very thread you were suggesting was hijacked of a personal and rather relentless attack on me instead of even answering the subject of the conversation that was being held is a great example unto itself of just how far from fact you are treading.
"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
Citations, as I rather literally just stated, the value of the opinion pieces is the fact that I picked them for the cited stats and additional information they provide. Do try to keep up.
As for superdata, their claim is "more than 37 million digital gamers across over 500 titles".
And here we cycle back to you again making the argument that everything including the diatribe from devs and consultants on what the games actually do are entirely meaningless on top of any and all measurable metrics. If you want to believe all of reality is opinion, then that's fine by me, it only means that my argument (as an opinion) has all the same validity and merit as any other opinion that's been provided.
P2P MMOs being on the decline isn't surprising at all, I have in fact commented on such previously, noting the "race to the bottom" that was instigated because of the growing prevalence of the F2P market. That changes nothing about anything else I previously have stated.
So certainly, you posed a fact. A fact which I myself made quite a while ago. What you also did was jump to the side again in your continued adamant trial to attack me irrationally. The fact that you would bring up "hijacking another thread" while you are the instigator of an entirely off-topic tangent within the very thread you were suggesting was hijacked of a personal and rather relentless attack on me instead of even answering the subject of the conversation that was being held is a great example unto itself of just how far from fact you are treading.
Whether P2P MMO's are in decline is a questionable opinion, the same could largely be said for F2P MMO's or even B2P MMO's. Its easy to fall into the trap laid by so many differing opinions, in thinking that one of them is more correct than another, unfortunately when you refer to Superdata, you are relying on their opinion being more informed than others, when there is little to suggest that this is actually true. It's worth remembering that Superdata, and others like them, are a business, that are always trying to self promote, they do not have and afaik have never had any access to data held by MMO companies, that wasn't already within the public perview, as with Blizzards and Activisions public accounting, all Superdata have done is 'widen the net' by including sources, also publicly available, that are from without the MMO genre, and use those to influence their own 'opinions' which they are attempting to sell btw, to other corporate concerns, to do so they have to be perceived as being a credible source themselves, its a shame that often their 'opinions' often appear to be mistaken, and they get it wrong more often than right, but the same could easily be said about the people on these forums, but, the only difference is, that here, its labelled as 'opinions'.
Are you seriously unaware of how F2P works? This isn't something you can discuss away. F2P players experience more of a game firsthand before paying. B2P players must pay prior to experiencing any significant portion of the game firsthand. It's not even a contest, and I'm not sure where you thought you "proved" this was subjective.
The only good example of B2P/F2P is Guild Wars 2. It has gone F2P (and was B2P). Do you believe that players had more information about the game BEFORE it went F2P?
Whether P2P MMO's are in decline is a questionable opinion, the same could largely be said for F2P MMO's or even B2P MMO's. Its easy to fall into the trap laid by so many differing opinions, in thinking that one of them is more correct than another, unfortunately when you refer to Superdata, you are relying on their opinion being more informed than others, when there is little to suggest that this is actually true. It's worth remembering that Superdata, and others like them, are a business, that are always trying to self promote, they do not have and afaik have never had any access to data held by MMO companies, that wasn't already within the public perview, as with Blizzards and Activisions public accounting, all Superdata have done is 'widen the net' by including sources, also publicly available, that are from without the MMO genre, and use those to influence their own 'opinions' which they are attempting to sell btw, to other corporate concerns, to do so they have to be perceived as being a credible source themselves, its a shame that often their 'opinions' often appear to be mistaken, and they get it wrong more often than right, but the same could easily be said about the people on these forums, but, the only difference is, that here, its labelled as 'opinions'.
You repeat that stance a lot, despite every bit of information and evidence to the contrary. @Phry , just because YOU don't have access to the data or ways to verify it doesn't mean that Activision, Microsoft, Google, Zynga, Konami, Ubisoft, PayPal, Visa, ProSiebenSat, and Apple do not have access to data outside their own and do not have ways to verify the data their research is based on.
What YOU see is an infographic released now and then. What YOU don't see is the extensive market level and title level historical data it is based on. Any company or set of companies can compare that data. If the numbers were off, SuperData would have been long since gone instead of continuing to be a reliable source for 3 or 4 years running.
I know you're not an idiot and in every other regard you're an extremely reasonable person, so it's odd that you bust out the tinfoil for this one particular company.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You repeat that stance a lot, despite every bit of information and evidence to the contrary. @Phry , just because YOU don't have access to the data or ways to verify it doesn't mean that Activision, Microsoft, Google, Zynga, Konami, Ubisoft, PayPal, Visa, ProSiebenSat, and Apple do not have access to data outside their own and do not have ways to verify the data their research is based on.
What YOU see is an infographic released now and then. What YOU don't see is the extensive market level and title level historical data it is based on. Any company or set of companies can compare that data. If the numbers were off, SuperData would have been long since gone instead of continuing to be a reliable source for 3 or 4 years running.
I know you're not an idiot and in every other regard you're an extremely reasonable person, so it's odd that you bust out the tinfoil for this one particular company.
Most of the companies that you have listed do have access to data outside of their own, and also supply/confirm the data posted by companies like Superdata. Industries tend to be secretive of specific/timely data, but tend to exchange bulk/quarterly data rather freely, as it helps everyone
@Gestankfaust ; Problem is his claim is true if held only by itself. You have to put it into perspective with the rest of reality and how the games actually work.
My claim has never changed. The claim that you're now admitting is true is what in the past you called an "assumption", and subsequently claimed to have "disputed".
Your argument might have made sense if you had immediately admitted the truth of what I said: "that's true, but there's a bigger picture..."
There is a bigger picture. More factors are involved. But the biggest factor is the one I keep restating.
The smaller factors do exist, but are basically avoidable: after playing (for free) a F2P game, I will very quickly realize whether it has gameplay-ruining P2W, and I can completely avoid giving money to that game. Negative factors like P2W do harm gameplay, but they don't hold the entire game for ransom like B2P does (and that is why my claim is the biggest factor involved.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wouldn't mind a model where you could play for free and a spending cap of 15€ per month, if you spend that then no one has any advantage over you from paying. The option of playing for free with some disadvantages would be a way for people to try out the game.
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month. I do see the benefit of being able to try a game for free though to see if it's interesting.
My claim has never changed. The claim that you're now admitting is true is what in the past you called an "assumption", and subsequently claimed to have "disputed".
Your argument might have made sense if you had immediately admitted the truth of what I said: "that's true, but there's a bigger picture..."
There is a bigger picture. More factors are involved. But the biggest factor is the one I keep restating.
The smaller factors do exist, but are basically avoidable: after playing (for free) a F2P game, I will very quickly realize whether it has gameplay-ruining P2W, and I can completely avoid giving money to that game. Negative factors like P2W do harm gameplay, but they don't hold the entire game for ransom like B2P does (and that is why my claim is the biggest factor involved.)
My stance didn't change on it, it's still functionally an assumption because when held against that bigger picture it does not operate as you wish to claim it does.
It's the same as if you were saying albinos have purple eyes. From a super subjective and very controlled sliver of reality you can get it to be true with the right pigmentation level and light reflection. As soon as you start adding in all the other factors though that "truth" quickly changes and degrades into a phenomena existing only in finite conditions.
Whether or not your core claim is true is inconsequential to the point that it is a truth only if held in a vacuum.
Your only counterargument provided is personal anecdote, that is not an argument nor example. You're only saying you as an individual will do something (to which I also pointed out in the past the case of one not always being aware or or accounting for their impulse actions, so your claims is based on other's trusting you have a high level of self control). You also single out P2W, which is curious since it's not the thing I have talked about or pointed out as the major flaw that causes the most monetary drain.
Hence my prior linking of info relating to LoL and it's monetization strategy.
You're attempting to change the argument and still dismiss most all the points on it. It's great that you as a single entity have such anecdote about screening skills and can look through everything to spot the tricks, traps, etc. That says nothing beyond the self though as an example or argument.
"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
My stance didn't change on it, it's still functionally an assumption because when held against that bigger picture it does not operate as you wish to claim it does.
It's the same as if you were saying albinos have purple eyes. From a super subjective and very controlled sliver of reality you can get it to be true with the right pigmentation level and light reflection. As soon as you start adding in all the other factors though that "truth" quickly changes and degrades into a phenomena existing only in finite conditions.
Whether or not your core claim is true is inconsequential to the point that it is a truth only if held in a vacuum.
Your only counterargument provided is personal anecdote, that is not an argument nor example. You're only saying you as an individual will do something (to which I also pointed out in the past the case of one not always being aware or or accounting for their impulse actions, so your claims is based on other's trusting you have a high level of self control). You also single out P2W, which is curious since it's not the thing I have talked about or pointed out as the major flaw that causes the most monetary drain.
Hence my prior linking of info relating to LoL and it's monetization strategy.
You're attempting to change the argument and still dismiss most all the points on it. It's great that you as a single entity have such anecdote about screening skills and can look through everything to spot the tricks, traps, etc. That says nothing beyond the self though as an example or argument.
It's not an assumption. It's how the models work. I haven't provided evidence because logic is sufficient and none of the other factors involved are bigger than "you must pay to experience this game" vs. "you can experience a lot of this game for free". When a player wants to judge whether entertainment is worth paying for, experiencing that entertainment firsthand is the single best source of information available.
Citing LoL's monetization strategy misses the bigger picture, because that LoL player will try the game free and if they don't like it then LoL's monetization strategy is irrelevant, and the player leaves without paying. Meanwhile in a B2P game you can't experience any significant portion of gameplay unless you pay. So if anyone is ignoring the bigger picture here and trying to cite facts in a vacuum, it's you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
It's rather obvious you're talking from your "experience" or at least a biased perspective because you've actively sought to disregard how the models work.
It's also why you've made the same blatant mistake yet again by ignoring the many avenues existing in the real-world surrounding both the F2P and B2P models when it comes to transparency about a game and it's contents. It's why you made the same repeated mistake of taking a very narrow concept of how F2P and B2P works to paint a very flowery image oozing bias.
There's been sufficient information provided and prior linked examples to disprove the extremity of your argument. Whether or not you acknowledge this is meaningless at this point.
I state you're running away from the subject because you refuse to acknowledge any and all information that's contrary your version of reality. Dismissing counterargument and making false assumptions that don't even correlate to what's there is all you are doing, which means you have repeated the same comment time and again while the facts around and against it have piled up.
You're right on one thing, my words nor yours can change the reality of this.
So to repeat again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
"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
When you look at how games are produced and marketed in the real world you generally have a lot of hands-on exposure to B2P titles nowadays alongside lots of secondary information. Even pretending all that secondary stuff does not exist, you are still faced with the prolific use of demos, pre-release, betas, expo showings, etc.
It also is completely ignoring the fact that F2P can and does utilize many elements that you see carried over from casinos and elsewhere, where the early game is favorable, but only long enough really to hook a player into things like reward denial, offering stuff that you have no way of accessing or utilizing without paying, transition of skill play into a money game, ante games, content baiting and gating, etc.
This also goes in disregard to the fact that F2P model frequently utilizes the founders packs and similar models that is exactly the same "buy before you play" scenario being suggested. This also compounds with the point that early game does not have to reflect anything of mid to end game because of the points already mentioned.
For example, pick a game.
EDIT: Besides which " I refused to read beyond your response.." is a pretty terrible approach to things if you have any preference towards logic or looking for something being "correct". Even if you disagree with the counterarguments made, it's better to read and see what merits the argument may or may not have. Without doing so you're effectively just saying "I like this sentence so it must be true." which is woefully inadequate.
I really would be happy to prove this point to you if you wish to offer a game title that I can break down for ya.
"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
I also wasn't participant in a good bit of those "16 pages", as I stopped posting for a while since it got exceptionally circular and illogical.
But good on you for trying to arbitrarily insult me.
"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
Now how long, and how high (of the quality) can be up to debate, but you are certainly not implying that f2p games are quality titles for a while.
And you talk as if f2p titles bleeds every players .. which is deceiving and untrue. You admit that the "conning" does not work on everyone, and there are plenty of free riders out there. (And yes, we debate the number, but you never said it is zero).
You are playing as much the debate game as him (and me). Don't sound like you have a monopoly on arguments or facts.
Secondly, the point of "not everyone gets conned" is largely meaningless. Of course not everyone is conned, some people have that ability to resist impulse urges and compunctions even if being pressed to make them. I never talked as if it bleeds every player, but I did point out that they are built to bleed their players. It's one game with one set of mechanics, there's no GM back there custom tailoring an experience for each player and excusing some of them from the negative experiences, each user is affected by the same mechanics as the next. Whether or not each person falls victim to that is inconsequential. What does matter is where the numbers are at, and with the numbers in the majority for titles that employ these means, that's a telling fact.
I don't disfavor debate, I disfavor misinformation and arguing opinions in lieu of information and fact. When people can't make distinctions between their bias and subsequently respond progressively more derisive and dismissively towards things they disagree with, that eventually becomes annoying itself. I don't claim any monopoly, but I do point out that I have provided plenty of supporting points that counter the provided claims. You've given me some of these yourself.
It's the most silly degree of confirmation bias being presented. Like you have your freaking cheerleader in the background there antagonizing me every so often and upvoting you guys without giving any meaningful commentary.
"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
You see EVERY ONE of these f2p games have all the info about their restrictions on their websites clear as day. These players know what they are getting into.
So which is it? Can and does. That phrase is not contradictory.
How is something this simple about thew English language mystifying to you?
And you entirely dodged the points made with your commentary. Whether or not they post up restrictions on their site is inconsequential to how the gameplay itself operates. I have provided multiple links about different games as well as monetization models and the methods used therein. On top of that I have pointed out actual numbers for several games in particular in illustration of these points. For you to call that opinion would implicate that the industry is itself speculative and that the games mechanically are fluid in their existence (IE, have no grounding rules on which they operate), to which I can not perceive either being the case.
Would you like to persist in your claim that games are built on nothing?
"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
So let me get this straight you cry because of these cheerleaders then you attack others because they call you out? See in this reality of online forums you should learn to leave your emotions out of it.
For 16 pages you haven't provide any information to back up your opinions. As I stated above you cant claim a fact by stating well maybe some can but for sure some do. Which is it?
A fact could be something like this...
Some F2p mmo can have action bar restrictions.
This would not be a fact...
Every mmo does have an action bar restriction.
See he the only reason you would use "can" and "does" because you don't have the "FACTS" to claim which one it is.
And for 16 pages this is how you and ax have conducted yourselves.
In reality you both have been stating your opinion. Once you accept this reality you will receive less grief.
When I said "can and does" I followed it with a list of elements that can be found as commonplace elements in F2P monetization models and gameplay. This isn't an opinion I fabricated from nowhere, but a statement on the industry based on it's actual behavior observed from multiple sources and notably some of the most successful titles (as well as commentary from individual developers). That you disagree with these facts does not turn them into "my opinions". You are free to post your own counter evidence at any time assuming you have any.
Your supposition that a game's own reported statistics, that of multiple analytic companies, multiple data analytic consultants and designers, and the very mechanics they run on is all insubstantial is an excessively irrational argument to be making.
When I make a counterpoint about how much a game is actually free versus not free, that isn't an opinion, it's a breakdown of how much content there is in the game and how much of it has a price tag attached. This is also why you see that if I don't know much about a title's contents, I say as much and refrain from commenting on it.
To say correcting someone is attacking them is irrational. I "cry" because of individuals that would rant without providing an even halfway realistic or rational argument and find fault in those that favor simply taunting others and voting nonsensically as if liking a irrational comment makes it suddenly sensible.
As of right now, you have only provided unfounded remarks with zero basing in any reality and made personal accusations of what I feel and think without any evidence to support the claims made. Thus-far I have deigned not to comment on my own opinions, if you wish to ask me what they are then feel free to do so.
"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
Yes what you have posted for 17 pages now is your OPINION based off these obscure website and very limited data of a few games. This in no way represents every MMORPG out today.
Its not a personal attack to tell you the FACT about how you for 17 pages have been posting your OPINION. Again once you accept this reality you will suffer a lot less grief.
Its amazing how some people truly think everything they spout out is a fact lol. If you were so smart on this topic and everything you've said for 17 pages was accurate and 100% fact, you wouldn't be on some random site where less than .0001% of MMORPGS players attend for weeks hijacking another thread because your thread got closed.
For ten pages you have steered this thread off topic and gave the OP the misconception people care about his topic...now that is a FACT
Edit:
Btw does gameutra pay you to keep their OPINION pieces on your desk top? You would think the FACT they are called OPINION pieces would give you a hint.
To which I also need to repeat this point as you obviously didn't read it. "When I make a counterpoint about how much a game is actually free versus not free, that isn't an opinion, it's a breakdown of how much content there is in the game and how much of it has a price tag attached. This is also why you see that if I don't know much about a title's contents, I say as much and refrain from commenting on it." I share no comment on if I think the game is good or bad, I share no preference in how a game plays or which titles I enjoy.
I certainly do address the F2P industry as a whole, but I also am sane enough to only address the subjects upon which I actually have familiarity and information to support. I made a very open offer to dissect any title of another's choosing previously, to which only one person has taken me up on and they were immediately unhappy when I actually responded with information (apparently there was the assumption that I wouldn't respond).
That you and a couple others derailed a thread and got it closed while I was asleep is rather inconsequential to, well, everything. The fact you are the only one to even bother bringing things up and talk about emotions as an attempt to elicit an emotionally driven response is pretty telling of how much information you even have (or more to the point, don't) on the subject at hand. Attacking me endlessly and baselessly is pointless.
I "for 17 pages" have been an intermittent participant conversing on several subjects on several occasions. Your only counterargument is to continue claiming that reality has no mechanical basis, which makes no sense. You even ignore the fact that technically, even with my present adamancy, you've posted in this thread even when I have elected not to making your supposed jab at me just now rather ironic.
EDIT: As for your gamasutra jab, I cite articles which have their own supporting evidence and links, if you do not like that their comments have it's own data (one of those gamasutra articles utilizing multiple analytic sites) that's your problem.
"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
How much does the unemployed wacko pay you to keep his link on your desktop?
The other link from superdata won't even tell you which games they are talking about.
You do realize that P2P MMORPGS also have a decline in members? Not sure your point with that link. And you do realize they state their data is not meant to be used as facts for an entire industry right? For example when they do sales for a particular game it usually does not count DOWNLOADS. So to claim their data as fact when they themselves do not is a mystery.
Just keep up with your passive aggressive attacks, and reporting everyone who disagrees and calls you out. Clearly I just put FACTS out for everyone to see.
A recap:
Your facts about f2p MMORPGS comes from the following:
OPINION PIECES
A data sites that states their data is NOT meant to be used as FACTS for the entire mmorpg genre
And some OPINION article about mobile games.
These are where YOU get your "facts" hmm?
As for superdata, their claim is "more than 37 million digital gamers across over 500 titles".
And here we cycle back to you again making the argument that everything including the diatribe from devs and consultants on what the games actually do are entirely meaningless on top of any and all measurable metrics. If you want to believe all of reality is opinion, then that's fine by me, it only means that my argument (as an opinion) has all the same validity and merit as any other opinion that's been provided.
P2P MMOs being on the decline isn't surprising at all, I have in fact commented on such previously, noting the "race to the bottom" that was instigated because of the growing prevalence of the F2P market. That changes nothing about anything else I previously have stated.
So certainly, you posed a fact. A fact which I myself made quite a while ago. What you also did was jump to the side again in your continued adamant trial to attack me irrationally. The fact that you would bring up "hijacking another thread" while you are the instigator of an entirely off-topic tangent within the very thread you were suggesting was hijacked of a personal and rather relentless attack on me instead of even answering the subject of the conversation that was being held is a great example unto itself of just how far from fact you are treading.
"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
It's worth remembering that Superdata, and others like them, are a business, that are always trying to self promote, they do not have and afaik have never had any access to data held by MMO companies, that wasn't already within the public perview, as with Blizzards and Activisions public accounting, all Superdata have done is 'widen the net' by including sources, also publicly available, that are from without the MMO genre, and use those to influence their own 'opinions' which they are attempting to sell btw, to other corporate concerns, to do so they have to be perceived as being a credible source themselves, its a shame that often their 'opinions' often appear to be mistaken, and they get it wrong more often than right, but the same could easily be said about the people on these forums, but, the only difference is, that here, its labelled as 'opinions'.
What YOU see is an infographic released now and then. What YOU don't see is the extensive market level and title level historical data it is based on. Any company or set of companies can compare that data. If the numbers were off, SuperData would have been long since gone instead of continuing to be a reliable source for 3 or 4 years running.
I know you're not an idiot and in every other regard you're an extremely reasonable person, so it's odd that you bust out the tinfoil for this one particular company.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your argument might have made sense if you had immediately admitted the truth of what I said: "that's true, but there's a bigger picture..."
There is a bigger picture. More factors are involved. But the biggest factor is the one I keep restating.
The smaller factors do exist, but are basically avoidable: after playing (for free) a F2P game, I will very quickly realize whether it has gameplay-ruining P2W, and I can completely avoid giving money to that game. Negative factors like P2W do harm gameplay, but they don't hold the entire game for ransom like B2P does (and that is why my claim is the biggest factor involved.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month. I do see the benefit of being able to try a game for free though to see if it's interesting.
It's the same as if you were saying albinos have purple eyes. From a super subjective and very controlled sliver of reality you can get it to be true with the right pigmentation level and light reflection. As soon as you start adding in all the other factors though that "truth" quickly changes and degrades into a phenomena existing only in finite conditions.
Whether or not your core claim is true is inconsequential to the point that it is a truth only if held in a vacuum.
Your only counterargument provided is personal anecdote, that is not an argument nor example. You're only saying you as an individual will do something (to which I also pointed out in the past the case of one not always being aware or or accounting for their impulse actions, so your claims is based on other's trusting you have a high level of self control). You also single out P2W, which is curious since it's not the thing I have talked about or pointed out as the major flaw that causes the most monetary drain.
Hence my prior linking of info relating to LoL and it's monetization strategy.
You're attempting to change the argument and still dismiss most all the points on it. It's great that you as a single entity have such anecdote about screening skills and can look through everything to spot the tricks, traps, etc. That says nothing beyond the self though as an example or argument.
"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
Citing LoL's monetization strategy misses the bigger picture, because that LoL player will try the game free and if they don't like it then LoL's monetization strategy is irrelevant, and the player leaves without paying. Meanwhile in a B2P game you can't experience any significant portion of gameplay unless you pay. So if anyone is ignoring the bigger picture here and trying to cite facts in a vacuum, it's you.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver