Try again, I got my first professional job as a computer programmer almost 30 years ago.
if nobody's really competing in PvE, then there's no issue with people being able to pay in money
Yeah, there is. Games that don't police the gold sellers end up with a screwed up economy, with annoying spamming, with scams galore, etc etc etc. When you pay for gold, you're screwing over the other players. That may not bother you, but that's what you're doing.
past the grindy parts of the game to get to the fun stuff.
Weird... I've been playing WoW since about a month after it came out. I've never felt like I was grinding. And I know grind, I did grind in Everquest, everyone did.
evidently the new generation of kids value playing in a game over working and supporting a family
Wrong. I couldn't count the number of people I play with who have spouse and kids. The thing is, people recognize that this is a recreational activity. They don't have a need to buy their way to the top. They fit it in to their spare time.
the subscription model of modern MMOs currently favors dragging things out so that the subscription lasts longer, favoring time over skill
So you're complaining that there's lots of game to play? For me that's a plus, not a minus. You seem to be coming into MMOs with the idea that it's a game like any other and you want to buy your way to the end game, finish that, and call it a day. If you want to do that, buy a single player RPG, get the cheat codes, and zip through it. The beauty of the MMO is that it is an ongoing experience.
Defining "level playing field" as "I can buy my way to the top" just violates my sense of fairness. The playing field IS level. Your character has exactly the same opportunities as mine.
The question is, why do you think you need to buy something in the game to have fun? I occasionally start a new character to see how the different classes work, and I pretty much always have a good time starting at level 1. If you aren't enjoying the game at level 10, you probably aren't going to enjoy it at level 80, either.
And as far as "competing", unless you doing player vs. player, you aren't competing with other people. More likely you are cooperating to achieve an objective. If you think you have to compete at who has the biggest sword, that's your problem, not a problem with the game.
Why should I have to get gold to goto dungeons? Why is partaking in the game's economy so necessary? Why can't I just go about my own game without having to go repeatedly kill things to earn money?
Answer: you don't have to get gold to go into dungeons. WoW has had a number of changes, like the limit of elixirs that can be on you to 2 (or 1 flask) and the daily quests, which yield large amounts of gold in a short period of time, so that the need to do anything special to get gold has gone away. I never "grind for things".
Now, if you are convinced that you must have the best gear, the best enchants, the best stats, the highest ranking on the dps meter, then you have to earn that stuff, and that may require grinding, whether for reputation, gold, or simply trying to get a drop. But if you just want to have fun for a few hours, there's no need to go through a painful grind. Maybe an hour or two a week of doing dailies, plus the gold you get from selling junk from dungeons, easily will pay for repairs, food, etc.
Do you pay attention to the news? Do you read anything about how incredibly paranoid and isolated North Korea actually is? Despite attempts from Japan and South Korea to set up better relations? Do you read anything about how heavily militarized the North is? How it keeps its own citizen in ignorance and poverty? The US has established good relations with many former "cold war" enemies, and yet you assert that the problems with North Korea are all due to the US cold war hangovers? You might want to engage in some of that "analytical thinking" yourself.
Witness the common reaction to the idea of pair programming: "it'll disturb my concentration... it's hard to hold the details of your coding in your head if you're talking to someone". Well, frankly, you need to be able to communicate those details, so you _should_ be able to talk to somebody about the coding while you're doing it.
I'm often complimented on my ability to communicate ideas and document clearly. I also hate pair programming, pretty much for the reason listed above. The way I like to work is to cycle between talking to one or two people hashing out the ideas, and designing / coding. But when I'm trying to read code in detail, or lay out the details of code, the last thing I need is someone interrupting me every time I'm about to do something. That just doesn't work for me. I have sat with people to pair on particular problems, and that works fine, but it comes in the natural flow, when we're both ready to do it. The "continuous pair programming" approach, as far as I can tell, has way more to do with power and control than it has to do with communication.
I guess I hit a nerve... all I did was point out that the author of the article, who wants to use FOSS, complained about the problem that once his software is certified, ANYONE can sell it, w/o sharing the cost of certification, and I instantly got modded into oblivion. Just to repeat, here's what the author of TFA article said:
"Suppose I pay the fee to have MirrorMed (my project of choice) certified. There is no way for me to guarentee that only I benifit from the "seal". My competitors which have full access to the code that I would have certified would be able to correctly claim that the code had been certified, and would benifit with me."
You can mod me down if you want to, that doesn't make the problem go away.
The author unwittingly says more than he intended when he complains about the cost of certification:
Suppose I pay the fee to have MirrorMed (my
project of choice) certified. There is no way for me to guarentee that only
I benifit from the "seal". My competitors which have full access to the code
that I would have certified would be able to correctly claim that the code
had been certified, and would benifit with me.
For years, FOSS advocates have talked about how freely redistributable open source software is the better model, and how it's still possible to make money off open source software. Well, if open source is the better, more powerful model for developing software, the certification fee shouldn't be a problem. But as the author points out, he pays the fee, his competitors take the certified software and sell. This just shines a spotlight on the basic problem with commercializing FOSS.
This just goes to show that every class considers the game to be imbalanced against them. I remember when resto druids got buffed. Basically they became the "uber healer" class, and as a priest it was pretty annoying. Not to mention the versatility of the druid. As I recall the priests I talked to were wondering if they would ever get into a raid again.
But it all worked out in the end... I'm still a priest, still healing.
. Take WoW. You can, in theory, create almost limitless variants of skill point distribution, yet only a handful "work". For some classes, it's basically set in stone that you have this or that distribution, depending on whether you want to go against other players or some large raid encounter.
Yes, and no. It's true that my WoW priest wants to be a healer so he's heavily invested in the holy tree. But I haven't taken some talents that other people consider important, based on how I play and what I know I'll use. What I end up with isn't "optimal", but it's optimal for me
One thing that Blizzard is REALLY good at is being very responsive on the stuff that matters to a majority of the player base. Unlike some other MMOs, they actually listen and continue to add useful features that benefit the vast majority of players. But part of being responsive to the vast majority is that they don't try to implement features just because they are "cool" or "technically interesting".
I'd guess that inter-realm chat is way, way down the priority list of most people. I've certainly never heard anyone complain about missing it, either in game or in several WoW podcasts I listen to. And if you've ever listened to World of Warcast, the hosts complain about virtually everything, so if they don't mention wanting it, it really is low priority.
Curious as to why you think that an infrastructure tuned to send basically the same signal to everyone is suddenly going to be able to handle a large number of unique data streams.
"The third reason computers won is piracy. Users prefer it not just because it's free, but because it's more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen."
So the article at least implies that the "sit in the living room with family and watch a show on a shared screen" experience is going away, and that we are each going to sit at our computer screens to watch "TV". And I don't agree with that.
Re:I'm not dead yet
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room. It's just way more pleasant and better set up.
If you're talking about the delivery mechanism, then yeah, it may work out that broadcasting the same signal to everyone is going away. Although even that I question. I'm wondering if the Internet infrastructure really has the bandwidth to support everyone (not just a minority of people) all doing real time streaming. I'm thinking we're at least one generation of the Internet away from such capacity.
Somehow, I don't think writing a bad review of a game is the same as taking a copy w/o paying for it, but Slashdot is notorious for bad analogies. Maybe you could work in car theft?
So you're saying that any software company that doesn't charge the full development cost to the first customer made a terrible business decision?
I'm not ready to pay the entire production cost for a copy of software. Somehow I'd like to have the company split that cost among all the users, rather than having one customer pay $10,000,000 and the others leech off the first customer. If only there was a way to do that... say, to charge each customer a reasonable amount, like $50. What a crazy idea...
Having a copy isn't a problem at all, as long as you purchased it.
Think about it... game developer spends $10 million creating a game, first person buys one copy for $50, uploads it, everyone else gets theirs for free, game company is out $9,999,950. You really think you aren't stealing when you just grab a copy w/o paying for it?
Well, in my case, I'm 15 minutes from Best Buy and my wife would only object to me going there to buy a game if I didn't buy two copies so she could play too. Whereas on my DSL I get about 100 kbyte/sec effective download speed, or about 360 mbytes / hour, so downloading a game that just fits on one CD (are there any of those left?) would take a couple of hours. In reality, most games probably eat up most of a DVD, so I'm guessing we are really talking 10 hours or more to download. And during those 10 hours my connection is slowed down.
And I know the answer from a lot of people is going to be "get a real connection" but guess what, a lot of folks have my speed or slower, or have bandwidth caps, or whatever, and it doesn't make sense for companies to go download only and cut out a big chunk of their potential customers. Games in boxes are here for the long haul.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing you've never worked
Try again, I got my first professional job as a computer programmer almost 30 years ago.
if nobody's really competing in PvE, then there's no issue with people being able to pay in money
Yeah, there is. Games that don't police the gold sellers end up with a screwed up economy, with annoying spamming, with scams galore, etc etc etc. When you pay for gold, you're screwing over the other players. That may not bother you, but that's what you're doing.
past the grindy parts of the game to get to the fun stuff.
Weird... I've been playing WoW since about a month after it came out. I've never felt like I was grinding. And I know grind, I did grind in Everquest, everyone did.
evidently the new generation of kids value playing in a game over working and supporting a family
Wrong. I couldn't count the number of people I play with who have spouse and kids. The thing is, people recognize that this is a recreational activity. They don't have a need to buy their way to the top. They fit it in to their spare time.
the subscription model of modern MMOs currently favors dragging things out so that the subscription lasts longer, favoring time over skill
So you're complaining that there's lots of game to play? For me that's a plus, not a minus. You seem to be coming into MMOs with the idea that it's a game like any other and you want to buy your way to the end game, finish that, and call it a day. If you want to do that, buy a single player RPG, get the cheat codes, and zip through it. The beauty of the MMO is that it is an ongoing experience.
Defining "level playing field" as "I can buy my way to the top" just violates my sense of fairness. The playing field IS level. Your character has exactly the same opportunities as mine.
The question is, why do you think you need to buy something in the game to have fun? I occasionally start a new character to see how the different classes work, and I pretty much always have a good time starting at level 1. If you aren't enjoying the game at level 10, you probably aren't going to enjoy it at level 80, either.
And as far as "competing", unless you doing player vs. player, you aren't competing with other people. More likely you are cooperating to achieve an objective. If you think you have to compete at who has the biggest sword, that's your problem, not a problem with the game.
Why should I have to get gold to goto dungeons? Why is partaking in the game's economy so necessary? Why can't I just go about my own game without having to go repeatedly kill things to earn money?
Answer: you don't have to get gold to go into dungeons. WoW has had a number of changes, like the limit of elixirs that can be on you to 2 (or 1 flask) and the daily quests, which yield large amounts of gold in a short period of time, so that the need to do anything special to get gold has gone away. I never "grind for things".
Now, if you are convinced that you must have the best gear, the best enchants, the best stats, the highest ranking on the dps meter, then you have to earn that stuff, and that may require grinding, whether for reputation, gold, or simply trying to get a drop. But if you just want to have fun for a few hours, there's no need to go through a painful grind. Maybe an hour or two a week of doing dailies, plus the gold you get from selling junk from dungeons, easily will pay for repairs, food, etc.
Do you pay attention to the news? Do you read anything about how incredibly paranoid and isolated North Korea actually is? Despite attempts from Japan and South Korea to set up better relations? Do you read anything about how heavily militarized the North is? How it keeps its own citizen in ignorance and poverty? The US has established good relations with many former "cold war" enemies, and yet you assert that the problems with North Korea are all due to the US cold war hangovers? You might want to engage in some of that "analytical thinking" yourself.
Witness the common reaction to the idea of pair programming: "it'll disturb my concentration... it's hard to hold the details of your coding in your head if you're talking to someone". Well, frankly, you need to be able to communicate those details, so you _should_ be able to talk to somebody about the coding while you're doing it.
I'm often complimented on my ability to communicate ideas and document clearly. I also hate pair programming, pretty much for the reason listed above. The way I like to work is to cycle between talking to one or two people hashing out the ideas, and designing / coding. But when I'm trying to read code in detail, or lay out the details of code, the last thing I need is someone interrupting me every time I'm about to do something. That just doesn't work for me. I have sat with people to pair on particular problems, and that works fine, but it comes in the natural flow, when we're both ready to do it. The "continuous pair programming" approach, as far as I can tell, has way more to do with power and control than it has to do with communication.
They way they differentiate is when the software they buy in the store runs on the computer.
I don't think MS is quaking in their boots yet.
Are you saying that in the USA the wealthy are at an inherent advantaged over the poor?
You mean, like the rest of the world?
I guess I hit a nerve... all I did was point out that the author of the article, who wants to use FOSS, complained about the problem that once his software is certified, ANYONE can sell it, w/o sharing the cost of certification, and I instantly got modded into oblivion. Just to repeat, here's what the author of TFA article said:
"Suppose I pay the fee to have MirrorMed (my project of choice) certified. There is no way for me to guarentee that only I benifit from the "seal". My competitors which have full access to the code that I would have certified would be able to correctly claim that the code had been certified, and would benifit with me."
You can mod me down if you want to, that doesn't make the problem go away.
The author unwittingly says more than he intended when he complains about the cost of certification:
Suppose I pay the fee to have MirrorMed (my project of choice) certified. There is no way for me to guarentee that only I benifit from the "seal". My competitors which have full access to the code that I would have certified would be able to correctly claim that the code had been certified, and would benifit with me.
For years, FOSS advocates have talked about how freely redistributable open source software is the better model, and how it's still possible to make money off open source software. Well, if open source is the better, more powerful model for developing software, the certification fee shouldn't be a problem. But as the author points out, he pays the fee, his competitors take the certified software and sell. This just shines a spotlight on the basic problem with commercializing FOSS.
Cue the black helicopters and scary X-files music.
This just goes to show that every class considers the game to be imbalanced against them. I remember when resto druids got buffed. Basically they became the "uber healer" class, and as a priest it was pretty annoying. Not to mention the versatility of the druid. As I recall the priests I talked to were wondering if they would ever get into a raid again.
But it all worked out in the end... I'm still a priest, still healing.
. Take WoW. You can, in theory, create almost limitless variants of skill point distribution, yet only a handful "work". For some classes, it's basically set in stone that you have this or that distribution, depending on whether you want to go against other players or some large raid encounter.
Yes, and no. It's true that my WoW priest wants to be a healer so he's heavily invested in the holy tree. But I haven't taken some talents that other people consider important, based on how I play and what I know I'll use. What I end up with isn't "optimal", but it's optimal for me
Well, in WoW there's a limit... if a player is a certain # of levels below another, you don't gain any honor for killing them.
Actually, it just takes insanity.
One thing that Blizzard is REALLY good at is being very responsive on the stuff that matters to a majority of the player base. Unlike some other MMOs, they actually listen and continue to add useful features that benefit the vast majority of players. But part of being responsive to the vast majority is that they don't try to implement features just because they are "cool" or "technically interesting".
I'd guess that inter-realm chat is way, way down the priority list of most people. I've certainly never heard anyone complain about missing it, either in game or in several WoW podcasts I listen to. And if you've ever listened to World of Warcast, the hosts complain about virtually everything, so if they don't mention wanting it, it really is low priority.
You might want to actually RTFA that I was replying to, and then you might understand what I'm talking about, and why I was modded up.
Or then again, maybe not.
Curious as to why you think that an infrastructure tuned to send basically the same signal to everyone is suddenly going to be able to handle a large number of unique data streams.
The article says:
"The third reason computers won is piracy. Users prefer it not just because it's free, but because it's more convenient. Bittorrent and YouTube have already trained a new generation of viewers that the place to watch shows is on a computer screen."
So the article at least implies that the "sit in the living room with family and watch a show on a shared screen" experience is going away, and that we are each going to sit at our computer screens to watch "TV". And I don't agree with that.
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room. It's just way more pleasant and better set up.
If you're talking about the delivery mechanism, then yeah, it may work out that broadcasting the same signal to everyone is going away. Although even that I question. I'm wondering if the Internet infrastructure really has the bandwidth to support everyone (not just a minority of people) all doing real time streaming. I'm thinking we're at least one generation of the Internet away from such capacity.
If you build a toll bridge and I managed to sneak across it w/o paying the toll, do you still have a bridge?
Somehow, I don't think writing a bad review of a game is the same as taking a copy w/o paying for it, but Slashdot is notorious for bad analogies. Maybe you could work in car theft?
So you're saying that any software company that doesn't charge the full development cost to the first customer made a terrible business decision?
I'm not ready to pay the entire production cost for a copy of software. Somehow I'd like to have the company split that cost among all the users, rather than having one customer pay $10,000,000 and the others leech off the first customer. If only there was a way to do that... say, to charge each customer a reasonable amount, like $50. What a crazy idea...
Having a copy isn't a problem at all, as long as you purchased it.
Think about it... game developer spends $10 million creating a game, first person buys one copy for $50, uploads it, everyone else gets theirs for free, game company is out $9,999,950. You really think you aren't stealing when you just grab a copy w/o paying for it?
Well, in my case, I'm 15 minutes from Best Buy and my wife would only object to me going there to buy a game if I didn't buy two copies so she could play too. Whereas on my DSL I get about 100 kbyte/sec effective download speed, or about 360 mbytes / hour, so downloading a game that just fits on one CD (are there any of those left?) would take a couple of hours. In reality, most games probably eat up most of a DVD, so I'm guessing we are really talking 10 hours or more to download. And during those 10 hours my connection is slowed down.
And I know the answer from a lot of people is going to be "get a real connection" but guess what, a lot of folks have my speed or slower, or have bandwidth caps, or whatever, and it doesn't make sense for companies to go download only and cut out a big chunk of their potential customers. Games in boxes are here for the long haul.
You mean like the Scourge Invasion and plague that preceeded WotLK?