Well that certainly makes you far more sportsmanlike than 99% of the horde players on all the servers I've played Alliance on.
And I definitely have to agree with you on the gear grind. Back when it was impressive to have 6/8 of your Valor/Lightforge/Dreadmist/etc. was when it was the most fun. At the very least, they should have stopped with Tier 1 and called it good, and then focused on other ways of adding new content instead of just more new instances to obsolete all your gear.
I couldn't agree more. And let's compare 'gamer score' with WoW for a bit. In both, your actual 'rank' numbers reflect little more than how much time you've spent playing the game. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your actual gaming skill - and what's worse, it doesn't even necessarily reflect how much you know about the games you have all the points in. So you think 'R3aV3rX11' knows something about Halo because he's got everything unlocked? Guess again. R3aV3rX11 paid someone to 'power level' his account, so despite having all those points and unlocks he's spent exactly 5 minutes playing the game. And next up on your list you've got 's00persl4yer' who's got a life-time kill-to-death ratio of 10-1. Think he's good? Guess again. He bought the account off some kid at school who got bored with the game. He's also got about 5 minutes actually played. And then you've got the huge group of people who actually did play to level 60, and still suck. In fact, they'll always suck. They've just got hours and hours of more time available to spend than most people.
It'll only get worse if it gets more popular. Count on it. All you have to do is go load up WoW to see where 'gamer score' systems take you.
No, the level 10s are all in friendly zones. He means they camped Lakeshire or Darkshire killing questers just 30-40 levels under them, not 50. Very impressive feat that, being able to take on 10 other people a mere 30 levels under you.
Right. You just turn all your kids over to us and we'll explain to them EXACTLY how copyright laws work. Of course, we'll also just tell you the parts that make our 'cause' look good, but that's how it should be right?
I agree. If anyone is making a real-world profit off in-game IP then yes, it's fair to expect them to pay income tax on that income just like any other source of income. But if that's what this whole article is about, I don't see what the big deal is. You're already supposed to pay income tax on all sources of income, regardless of their nature. (With a few exceptions, such as 'gifts' from individuals.) Taxing the conversion of Linden to real money shouldn't be all that difficult to do at the time the transaction happens, and as for any other transactions - well, that's no different than other sales through similar mediums (eBay, private sales, etc.) except possibly easier to trace because they all happen online instead of being face-to-face cash sales.
But on the other hand, if they're talking about taxing ALL in-game transactions, well, that's beyond insane.
No one said it did. Nor did anyone ask if it did or not. So I fail to see what relevance your post has. The part of my post that you're apparently trying to respond to was just a side-note observation that with most MMOs, trading in-game content for real money isn't supposed to happen in the first place. And implied with that was that as a result, it shouldn't be worthwhile attempting to tax this at all. Except perhaps in the case of Second Life, where people create their own in-game content which can then 'legally' be sold for real world money.
And so my real question still goes unanswered - are they talking about taxing all in-game transactions, or taxing real-world profit made off in-game transactions.
After reading TFA, it's not completely clear. Are they talking about taxing in-game transactions, or taxing in-game content sold for real world $$? Because the former is beyond ridiculous, while the latter actually sounds pretty reasonable. Of course, then there's the fact that most MMOs make it 'illegal' to sell in-game content for real-world $$ in the first place. The only real exception I can think of is Second Life.
Yes, for the most part it does fall on the player to assume responsibility for his own actions. But the truth is, Blizzard is not entirely blameless. The fact is the game is specifically designed to encourage exactly the type of playing schedule posted in the blog in TFA. And what's worse, you're not clued in to that fact until you're 'almost done' with the game - when you hit level 60. (On a side note, whoever said the 'end-game' content is 5-10% of the game hasn't the least clue what he's talking about. Levels 1-59 are about 5-10%.) From levels 1 through 59, the game plays pretty much like any other family-friendly multiplayer game. You can play in bits and pieces as you want, and by yourself or with other people however it suits you. The catch is, when you hit level 60, any progression requires 20+ hours a week (the blogger says 12 at a bare minimum.. but that's a really really bare minimum) and if you really want to make headway you'll play 5 hours every week-night and 10+ hours on Saturday and Sunday. Or alternatively you can spend months devoting every spare hour of your free time to 'PvP' (read: honor-grind), followed up by almost a month of doing 'PvP' literally 24/7 (most players who make the top rank have two or more friends helping them play around the clock). Either way, it's a time investment that's guaranteed to have a huge impact on all other parts of your life. And given the time investment required to get your first character to level 60, most people aren't willing to just call it 'done' there and drop the game, which of course is precisely the effect the game is designed to have.
So yes, everyone does have to take responsibility for their own play-styles and choices, but to say Blizzard is entirely blameless is false.
I and my clanmates would very likely have purchased your software (garbage though it is, even without spyware). Now I most certainly won't, and most likely my clanmates won't either.
That's what my concern is about. I mean really... which is worse, having to pop in a second DVD for the odd game or waiting minutes instead of seconds for loading times... not only when initially starting the game, but at various points throughout the game as well. The longer access time of BluRay discs will more than make up for anything gained by not having to decompress files in real-time.
Now if you could 'install' your 10 favorite games from the BluRay discs to a local hard drive, it would be much less of an issue.
Except that once you start taxing emails, it'll be just one more of those taxes they (whoever gets the revenue) depends on, and they'll keep pushing it up when they 'need' more cash flow. No thanks, I'd rather deal with spam.
And thanks to Yahoo's way of dealing with spam, I can see exactly what I'd be getting with no spam filtering at all.
Yeah, see the difference is some of us get our fun out of following the story line in a game and seeing cool new concepts. We don't get our fun out of 'work'. If the game's too darn hard... screw that. I'm gonna find one I can play for FUN, not grind out my progress one small inch at a time, or have to redo what I just spent 2 hours beating because there's no darn save. But I agree with ffrinch. Having different save options for different levels of play is a great idea. Max Payne did it perfectly.
Yeah. It looks like Sony is finally going through the same thing Nintendo went through with the N64. I guess that's what happens when you rest on your laurels. Hopefully Sony can recover as well.
Levels and unlocks in MMORPGS or BF2 actually give you some advantages or more options in games, however pathetic these might be. (In the end they're still mostly about boosting your e-peen, but at least they have a pretense of being more...) Since 'Gamerscore' is merely a way for you to keep score of what you've done so far (and make your e-peen bigger than your friends') it becomes worth exactly nothing when you have someone 'powerlevel' it, because it doesn't even show your score then. All it shows is that you have enough of an inferiority complex to pay someone to raise your score.
Maybe I should hire Tiger to play a few rounds of golf for me while I get a massage... that'll help the ol' scorecard.
And yet, since DRM is precisely what restricts you to the bounds that iTunes sets.. it DOES have everything to do with DRM. Because without DRM, you could use your files with whatever the heck software you wanted, and the 'core functional changes' in iTunes wouldn't matter.
I can see where they get the fresh urge for episodic content, but I really don't think it'll work. They're looking at MMORPGs and the way they keep adding content a bit at a time. The problem is, MMORPGs start out with an established game world (most of the developers trying the 'episodic' trend have to create entire new maps and levels for each new episode), and most of the new content is relatively easy to add in for the time it takes to design and implement it. For episodic content to work well it's going to mean a new release every 6 months at the most - and preferably once a month - with at least 5-10 hours worth of new content per month. These days the average gamer will blow through that 5-10 hours worth in a week or even a day. If that's all they get and have to wait a whole year for the next installment in a "to be continued" series, I don't think most will be too eager to shell out for the next one.. unless the series is really just *that* good. Most aren't, Half Life 2 included. So personally, given the choice between 5-10 hours of content once a year or 40 hours of content every 3-4 years I'm going to choose the latter, and I tend to think most other gamers would as well.
It was a nice run, and good while it lasted. Thankfully the gamers who want a good rig but don't have time to build their own still have Falcon Northwest and a few other companies to fall back on.
You actually got what I was saying.. even the reason why I was saying Linux is better, lol. (What's better than something free that actually works?) But to restate my previous post.. for home users compatibility is what matters most. Who gives a crap if it's got some issues and isn't "the best"? If it doesn't run my programs, it's really pretty useless for me now isn't it?
Ok, we all know Windows sucks underneath. It's been a pretty crappy OS ever since they first came out with Win95, and stability/ease of use hasn't gotten much better since. No, it's all about compatibility. The day all my PC games and favorite apps run under Mac OS I'll consider switching. Of course by then they'll also likely all run under Linux, which is even better.
I think this guy really has the right idea. Many single-player games definitely need more variation on the difficulty scales. I've played games where the "inhumanly impossibly hard" level was so easy you could breeze through without even one save and reload. And then I've played other games where the "easy toddler noob" level was so hard I gave up in frustration despite being a veteran at other games in the same genre, even in the same series.
Also, having a game take longer to beat can be good, but not if it's longer only because of repetitive grinding, frustrations, etc. If the game is longer but is still pure fun the whole way through, then having it be longer is good.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that certainly makes you far more sportsmanlike than 99% of the horde players on all the servers I've played Alliance on.
And I definitely have to agree with you on the gear grind. Back when it was impressive to have 6/8 of your Valor/Lightforge/Dreadmist/etc. was when it was the most fun. At the very least, they should have stopped with Tier 1 and called it good, and then focused on other ways of adding new content instead of just more new instances to obsolete all your gear.
I couldn't agree more. And let's compare 'gamer score' with WoW for a bit. In both, your actual 'rank' numbers reflect little more than how much time you've spent playing the game. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with your actual gaming skill - and what's worse, it doesn't even necessarily reflect how much you know about the games you have all the points in. So you think 'R3aV3rX11' knows something about Halo because he's got everything unlocked? Guess again. R3aV3rX11 paid someone to 'power level' his account, so despite having all those points and unlocks he's spent exactly 5 minutes playing the game. And next up on your list you've got 's00persl4yer' who's got a life-time kill-to-death ratio of 10-1. Think he's good? Guess again. He bought the account off some kid at school who got bored with the game. He's also got about 5 minutes actually played. And then you've got the huge group of people who actually did play to level 60, and still suck. In fact, they'll always suck. They've just got hours and hours of more time available to spend than most people.
It'll only get worse if it gets more popular. Count on it. All you have to do is go load up WoW to see where 'gamer score' systems take you.
No, the level 10s are all in friendly zones. He means they camped Lakeshire or Darkshire killing questers just 30-40 levels under them, not 50. Very impressive feat that, being able to take on 10 other people a mere 30 levels under you.
Right. You just turn all your kids over to us and we'll explain to them EXACTLY how copyright laws work. Of course, we'll also just tell you the parts that make our 'cause' look good, but that's how it should be right?
I agree. If anyone is making a real-world profit off in-game IP then yes, it's fair to expect them to pay income tax on that income just like any other source of income. But if that's what this whole article is about, I don't see what the big deal is. You're already supposed to pay income tax on all sources of income, regardless of their nature. (With a few exceptions, such as 'gifts' from individuals.) Taxing the conversion of Linden to real money shouldn't be all that difficult to do at the time the transaction happens, and as for any other transactions - well, that's no different than other sales through similar mediums (eBay, private sales, etc.) except possibly easier to trace because they all happen online instead of being face-to-face cash sales.
But on the other hand, if they're talking about taxing ALL in-game transactions, well, that's beyond insane.
No one said it did. Nor did anyone ask if it did or not. So I fail to see what relevance your post has. The part of my post that you're apparently trying to respond to was just a side-note observation that with most MMOs, trading in-game content for real money isn't supposed to happen in the first place. And implied with that was that as a result, it shouldn't be worthwhile attempting to tax this at all. Except perhaps in the case of Second Life, where people create their own in-game content which can then 'legally' be sold for real world money.
And so my real question still goes unanswered - are they talking about taxing all in-game transactions, or taxing real-world profit made off in-game transactions.
After reading TFA, it's not completely clear. Are they talking about taxing in-game transactions, or taxing in-game content sold for real world $$? Because the former is beyond ridiculous, while the latter actually sounds pretty reasonable. Of course, then there's the fact that most MMOs make it 'illegal' to sell in-game content for real-world $$ in the first place. The only real exception I can think of is Second Life.
Yes, for the most part it does fall on the player to assume responsibility for his own actions. But the truth is, Blizzard is not entirely blameless. The fact is the game is specifically designed to encourage exactly the type of playing schedule posted in the blog in TFA. And what's worse, you're not clued in to that fact until you're 'almost done' with the game - when you hit level 60. (On a side note, whoever said the 'end-game' content is 5-10% of the game hasn't the least clue what he's talking about. Levels 1-59 are about 5-10%.) From levels 1 through 59, the game plays pretty much like any other family-friendly multiplayer game. You can play in bits and pieces as you want, and by yourself or with other people however it suits you. The catch is, when you hit level 60, any progression requires 20+ hours a week (the blogger says 12 at a bare minimum.. but that's a really really bare minimum) and if you really want to make headway you'll play 5 hours every week-night and 10+ hours on Saturday and Sunday. Or alternatively you can spend months devoting every spare hour of your free time to 'PvP' (read: honor-grind), followed up by almost a month of doing 'PvP' literally 24/7 (most players who make the top rank have two or more friends helping them play around the clock). Either way, it's a time investment that's guaranteed to have a huge impact on all other parts of your life. And given the time investment required to get your first character to level 60, most people aren't willing to just call it 'done' there and drop the game, which of course is precisely the effect the game is designed to have.
So yes, everyone does have to take responsibility for their own play-styles and choices, but to say Blizzard is entirely blameless is false.
I and my clanmates would very likely have purchased your software (garbage though it is, even without spyware). Now I most certainly won't, and most likely my clanmates won't either.
That's what my concern is about. I mean really... which is worse, having to pop in a second DVD for the odd game or waiting minutes instead of seconds for loading times... not only when initially starting the game, but at various points throughout the game as well. The longer access time of BluRay discs will more than make up for anything gained by not having to decompress files in real-time.
Now if you could 'install' your 10 favorite games from the BluRay discs to a local hard drive, it would be much less of an issue.
You mean like Oblivion? Too bad that didn't fit on a DVD...
Now you've got both feet stuck in your mouth. Let's see if you can fit anything else in there.
Except that once you start taxing emails, it'll be just one more of those taxes they (whoever gets the revenue) depends on, and they'll keep pushing it up when they 'need' more cash flow. No thanks, I'd rather deal with spam.
And thanks to Yahoo's way of dealing with spam, I can see exactly what I'd be getting with no spam filtering at all.
consumers don't like them. And do they really think I'm going to shell out money for an over-priced DVD that I can't even play on my PC?
I could add oh so much more... but I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, see the difference is some of us get our fun out of following the story line in a game and seeing cool new concepts. We don't get our fun out of 'work'. If the game's too darn hard... screw that. I'm gonna find one I can play for FUN, not grind out my progress one small inch at a time, or have to redo what I just spent 2 hours beating because there's no darn save. But I agree with ffrinch. Having different save options for different levels of play is a great idea. Max Payne did it perfectly.
Yeah. It looks like Sony is finally going through the same thing Nintendo went through with the N64. I guess that's what happens when you rest on your laurels. Hopefully Sony can recover as well.
I'll take mine for $200 thank you! :D
Maybe I should hire Tiger to play a few rounds of golf for me while I get a massage... that'll help the ol' scorecard.
Nice try though.
I can see where they get the fresh urge for episodic content, but I really don't think it'll work. They're looking at MMORPGs and the way they keep adding content a bit at a time. The problem is, MMORPGs start out with an established game world (most of the developers trying the 'episodic' trend have to create entire new maps and levels for each new episode), and most of the new content is relatively easy to add in for the time it takes to design and implement it. For episodic content to work well it's going to mean a new release every 6 months at the most - and preferably once a month - with at least 5-10 hours worth of new content per month. These days the average gamer will blow through that 5-10 hours worth in a week or even a day. If that's all they get and have to wait a whole year for the next installment in a "to be continued" series, I don't think most will be too eager to shell out for the next one.. unless the series is really just *that* good. Most aren't, Half Life 2 included. So personally, given the choice between 5-10 hours of content once a year or 40 hours of content every 3-4 years I'm going to choose the latter, and I tend to think most other gamers would as well.
It was a nice run, and good while it lasted. Thankfully the gamers who want a good rig but don't have time to build their own still have Falcon Northwest and a few other companies to fall back on.
You actually got what I was saying.. even the reason why I was saying Linux is better, lol. (What's better than something free that actually works?) But to restate my previous post.. for home users compatibility is what matters most. Who gives a crap if it's got some issues and isn't "the best"? If it doesn't run my programs, it's really pretty useless for me now isn't it?
How about you try reading an entire post before flaming? Then perhaps you wouldn't look quite so ignorant.
Ok, we all know Windows sucks underneath. It's been a pretty crappy OS ever since they first came out with Win95, and stability/ease of use hasn't gotten much better since. No, it's all about compatibility. The day all my PC games and favorite apps run under Mac OS I'll consider switching. Of course by then they'll also likely all run under Linux, which is even better.
Also, having a game take longer to beat can be good, but not if it's longer only because of repetitive grinding, frustrations, etc. If the game is longer but is still pure fun the whole way through, then having it be longer is good.