I think the basic problem is that in most PC games, reaction time is paramount. If you have to press more than one button, you're at a distinct disadvantage.
Players are so expensive when released because their prices are artifically controlled--the manufacturers can get a certain percentage of the population to overpay for the privilege of being an early adopter. If the format is to catch on as the ubiquitous successor to DVD, Blu-ray players won't be $1500 for very long.
PS3's Blu-ray playback capability will probably be somewhat crippled, as was the PS2's DVD playback.
Having worked at a similar mom-and-pop software shop that has outgrown its humble beginnings, I can say with confidence that there is nothing more dangerous to a company (and a programmer's mental health) than a boss who tries to involve himself in the software development process.
Our flagship product was written (illegibly) in VB6. The codebase hadn't changed since VB3, and it wasn't very well-written to begin with. Our small development team spent about half of our time cleaning up after his architectural mistakes, and the other half trying to keep the creaking mess intact.
I spent three years there. I never saw a programmer last even half as long as I did. One lost all hope and just decided to ignore his marching orders and develop UI controls all day. Another ended up working hundred-hour weeks and went completely, literally insane. Everyone currently on the tech staff there has needed leaves of absence of at least three months to keep their shit together. I eventually just gave up and quit. Better to be unemployed and sane than keep a job that makes you foam at the mouth.
The bottom line: In every case I've ever seen, the boss belongs far, far, far away from the code. At all costs.
You really think there was some sort of conspiracy at work here?
I play a level 60 human mage on Thunderhorn, and I'm in an endgame guild. I did not participate in the beta, and didn't know anything about the game before I bought a copy at Best Buy and installed it. A number of my guildmates were in the beta, but a larger number were not.
The fact that Alliance outnumber Horde by such a large number is probably better attributed to psychological factors--people identify with humans more readily (go figure), people tend to like playing the "good guys," etc.
And if it's so bad, and you knew it was coming, why did you roll Horde?
Since the early 20th century, we've meddled (mostly violently) in the governmental affairs of the following countries: Guatemala, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile and Grenada. I'd be hardpressed to explain how any of those countries have benefitted from our involvement.
The money is a big deal, but it's nothing compared to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed.
Sure, rebuilding a destroyed country is a noble goal, even if we're the ones who bombed it to rubble in the first place. But in this case, it's just a line being parroted by talking heads on Fox News because they lost their gamble on WMD's.
Now that we're there, we have to stay until the situation is relatively stable. I don't think we have a choice. But our presence there is predicated entirely upon greed and lies. (Do you really think that Bush believed Saddam and al-Qaeda were connected?) We'll be paying for this war for decades--us with our tax dollars, Iraqis with their lives. And for what? Aside from Bush, Cheney, Rummy and people with stock in Big Oil, who wins?
They've looted a fortune from the Treasury and completely ruined what little international credibility we had left. I may be a progressive, but I consider myself a patriotic American. And as a patriotic American, hearing this hypocritical, self-righteous bullshit about spreading the virtues of democracy to these poor, backwards heathens, well, that makes my blood boil.
Sorry about my angry tone; I almost feel like I'm shooting the messenger here. I'm sure that many of the American workers in Iraq really do want to make the place better. It's just that it rings kind of hollow, given the circumstances.
No, "our" objective is no-bid contracts for Halliburton. The amount of federal money that's simply gone missing in Iraq is mindboggling. $69 million in missing oil (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/oil.p hp). $9 billion unaccounted for (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/ira q.audit/). Go on believing that we're there to bring the light of democracy to these poor heathens. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the ol' boy gang will go on shoveling money out of the Treasury.
Maybe someday, you'll wake up and realize that you and your conservative friends are little more than tools in furthering the selfish agenda of the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Unless the Rapture comes first.
I doubt it. The lack of tactile feedback would make such a controller pretty hard to use.
Touchscreens are also relatively expensive, can't record more than one touch at a time, and might not stand up too well to button-mashing in certain games.
There's a happy medium, I think. Take World of Warcraft, for instance. In many of the high-level instances, if your party wipes on the boss, the whole place resets, and you have to spend another two hours getting back there. (I'm thinking of Scholomance and the Baron side of Stratholme, specifically.) That seems like the best way of doing things, at least from my perspective. Dying sucks, because everyone values two hours of their time, but it's not going to drive anyone to real-life suicide or anything. (Remember that these are games, and they're supposed to be fun!:)
But where do you draw the line? As I said in the grandparent post, what if it were your credit card information that were published? Does that qualify as journalism?
If these issues were being decided based on the outcome of this case, then it would definitely be a freedom of speech crisis. But they're already pretty clearly written out. The law states that, in the case of confidential company information being leaked, a journalist's sources are protected if and only if the information being divulged is in the clear public interest. Sounds perfectly fair to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that the specs on the upcoming line of iPod Minis does not qualify as being in the clear public interest.
The outcome of this case has nothing to do with "Mr. DePlume's" status as a journalist. Had the information appeared in the New York Times, the outcome would have been the same.
Even if this "restriction" on free speech were indeed a crisis, it occurred when the law was passed, and not when the judge handed down his decision.
Look, I vote Democratic. I contribute to the EFF and the ACLU. I imagine that my political leanings are similar to yours, at least if you fit the profile of the prototypical/. reader. But arguing that this is a crisis reflects a misunderstanding of the issues at hand, and, as I've said, makes it far easier for the other side to characterize us as Chicken Little-esque crackpots whenever a real problem emerges.
How is this an issue of freedom of speech? Do you argue that you have a right to Apple's trade secrets? Do you think that people who break NDA's should be protected, as long as they launder their information through some shumuck with a website?
What if it were your Social Security number, home address and credit card information that were stolen and posted? I'll bet you'd be singing an entirely different tune then.
This is merely about someone breaking an NDA. It's not about a big, bad, evil company attempting to silence the little guy. (The reason it's the little guy is that legitimate publications would know better than to leak trade secrets. It's clearly illegal, and possibly against journalistic ethics as well. If the New York Times corporation, with its billions of dollars in assets, had been responsible for propogating the leak, do you really think Apple would have been less likely to sue them? Just the opposite, I'd argue.)
I, personally, am more disgusted with people that spout off on a very important issue (i.e. freedom of speech, which may very well be under attack in this country) in an extremely misinformed way. It makes everyone on your side of the issue look bad.
Wait. If you agree that Apple has a case, then what is left to discuss?
By your logic, we should be contributing to the defense funds of the likes of Scott Peterson against the Big, Bad Government--after all, they have far more resources than he does. While I believe that murder should be punished, we should support the EFF in not allowing the powerful to overrun the (clearly guilty) weak without a fight. See what I'm getting at?
I agree that the rich and powerful need to be kept in check. But we do that by having strong and fair laws, and to argue against them when they clearly apply is to undermine the entire cause.
There's a reason for that, BTW. From what I understand, distributors were forcing retailers to buy 5 PS2 games with every PSP they ordered. (I've heard that similar things happen with each console's launch.) It's a slimy way of offloading stale inventory at inflated prices, and the cost gets passed directly on to us.
Whatever. You have your economic views, which are probably academically sound. I have my more pragmatic views, which have the benefit of being held by someone who actually plays the game. Each of us believes that his position is right, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
This seems to have degraded into a formal debate (as opposed to a discussion--the difference being that discussions are held to share ideas, and debates seem to be all about condescendingly pounding your opponent into the ground), and I don't see the point of continuing it.
I suppose you'll see this as impetus to declare victory or whatever. So, umm, congratulations. Maybe someday you can write a textbook.
Just because they broadcast that shit on the news doesn't make it matter.
No, I said the economy in which they live. In other words, the economy in which we live. Nothing to do with the actual game.
Wrong analogy. The question is whether you value your mage more than you value Bonds.
Huh? Weren't you trying to make a point about "the love of the game?"
Uh, but you do charge others for the time and effort you expend to accomplish some task, right? How again does that differ from these people charging others for the time and effort they expend to accomplish some task?
Because what they're doing is disruptive to other players. It's a matter of consideration.
Exactly wrong. Someone gets killed in real life and they still have property or other valuables that can be used by friends and family. By all reports, Blizzard's actions froze everything about the accounts in question. I think what you were trying to say is that a killing in WoW is not a "real" killing, but that misses the point that it is a real killing from the character's perspective. You're not adopting a proper "in game" mentality to rationally discuss the ethical backdrop of their actions. You dehumanize everyone when you suggest that actions of foreign leaders can be brutal and unaccountable. You can try to handwave it all away with "it's just a game", but the principles remain the same.
OK, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that you think an account suspension in a game is more damaging than the murder of a loved one because the loved one's possessions are redistributed afterwards?
I don't take a character's perspective because I am not a level 52 mage. That's a fictional character in a game that I play for fun, and to say that the in-game world of WoW and real life are anything similar to each other is, in my humble opinion, rather delusional.
Are you attempting to claim that either is a purely free market? Hell, you even make my point by flat out stating there's corruption.
Yeah, the U.S. in the late 1800's was pretty much a completely free market, at least until the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The other one was admittedly a bit of a stretch, but the point remains the same: without some manner of imposed artificial control, systems tend to become corrupted by a few greedy individuals that ruin things for everyone else.
I want you to reread your own words over and over until you realize why Blizzard's actions solve nothing.
Here's where we differ philosophically. You seem to think that whatever is physically possible is acceptable behavior, whereas I feel that people have a responsibility to behave in a civilized manner, regardless of whether their environment is conducive to bad behavior. I also think that the percentage of people abusing the system is miniscule, and that if you make sweeping changes that impact everybody, you're pretty much killing the patient to cure the ailment.
They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctions. You fucking over feed on a species, and you're both in trouble. Yes, that drastically alters the game, but I think it alters it for the better. No more of things popping up out of thin air. Boy meets girl and, if you're part of that world (I mean really part of the game and not just mindless level grinding), then killing them means no spawn, and killing all the spawns eventually means the same thing.
WTF? I don't even know where to start on this one. I reiterate that this is a game, and not an economic or ecological sandbox. Nor is it supposed to be a parallel world to reality. A large part of the game is indeed level grinding. Remove that, and you have an entirely different game.
They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctio
Nice rhetoric, but entirely disingenuous. Everyone spouting "just a game" needs to immediately go in and wipe out all their characters. If you are unwilling to do that, if you value what you've created, I don't even want to hear that we should be treating it differently. It like the old argument that sports stars should be in it for the love of the game and not the dough; say it all you like, but economic forces dictate that they can draw millions for game play. Is it really so wrong to point out similar forces in a MMORPG?
Similar forces, but not identical. The economy in which sports stars (and we) live is vitally important to our everyday life. The economy in WoW exists only to support a game that people (presumably) play for enjoyment. The stakes are entirely different, and while that might not mathematically affect the way the economy works, it certainly has to be taken into consideration. I value my level 52 mage, but not as much as I'm sure Barry Bonds values his paycheck.
Maybe, but I don't see you running around shooting people dead.
Now that's just silly. I don't sell gold, either. In both cases, it's an issue of a small, ruthless minority causing problems for "the rest of us."
It's kind of funny that nobody has at least tried to argue that Blizzard's dictatorship is benevolent.
In this case, I think it pretty much is. Every transaction that anyone has ever made is in a database table somewhere. If that were the case in real life, trials would be a lot simpler. Comparing account suspension to summary execution is somewhat disingenuous, considering that the losses suffered in summary execution are orders of magnitude higher. Additionally, Blizzard has a financial incentive to not piss off their honest customers, who clearly comprise a vast majority of their subscription revenues. I don't think that simply deleting accounts will solve the problem, but, again, it's a start, and it makes it slightly less palatable to farm gold.
What you're probably alluding to is more corruption and not purely free markets like you claim. If you can't give an example, I must assume you're just making stuff up here.
The two are very closely related. History has shown time and again that when a situation allows one to gain at the expense of others, there are always people willing to do it. In a zero-sum economy, what someone gains, someone else must lose, right? As for examples, look at how workers were treated in the late 19th century under industry moguls such as Carnegie. Hell, look at the rampant present corruption in the current Bush administration.
You're missing the big picture. Blizzard is quite able to fix their bloody game so that camping is not economically advantageous.
How? Do you have any suggestions? I don't think that you could do much of anything that would have a profound effect without drastically altering the game.
So, what, Blizzard goes through the whole process again (and again and again)?
Yeah, pretty much. I don't really think the farmers can get much more annoying, and if they do, it will be by committing even more blatant violations, and their accounts will be suspended even faster. It also takes at least a month (even going 24/7) to get a character to the point where he can farm the valuable enemies. If you can make it less profitable (by, for instance, forcing a farmer to spend a month with no return on his investment), it will drive gold prices up, decreasing demand for gold. Maybe it will drive some of them away. In any case, it's a start, and I'd rather they do this in the interim than wait six months while they sit on their hands and develop a better solution.
Two problems with that attitude: you're reject what might be an objective viewpoint...
True, but this economy only matters within the context of the game. Without that context, I'd say you lack the perspective to do more than hold a hollow de
The problem with arguments like yours is that WoW is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't frankly give a rat's ass whether someone can profit enormously from it. If that's what you're looking to do, you're playing the wrong game.
The issue is that when the stakes get high enough (in any economy), people turn into unethical assholes. That's why drug violence is such a problem in our society. It's why there's so much trouble with insider trading in the stock market. Hell, it was even responsible for that comical London IKEA store riot last month.
The problem with purely free markets is that a large percentage of people tend to end up getting treated like shit. Which sucks in real life, but that's an entirely separate issue.
But why in the world would you want to deal with these issues in a game that you're supposed to play for fun? Do you want to have to work around Chinese sweatshop grunts perpetually camping the enemy that you have to kill for a quest? Is that an acceptable price to pay for the opportunity for a few people to get rich in a game world? Is your right to make money in the virtual world of Azeroth more important than the desire of a vast majority of their subscribers to just have a fun, balanced game to play? I don't think it is.
And, in more direct terms, Blizzard owns the servers, the software and everything in between. If they don't want you doing something, that's their prerogative. If you don't like it, return the game and go play the stock market. Granted, there are financial ramifications for bad decisions--people will cancel their subscriptions--but that simply gives them more incentive to cater to the vast majority of subscribers who want these pricks removed.
And finally, do you actually play WoW? If not, you are, in my humble opinion, not the least bit qualified to comment on what's good for the gameplay experience. But hey, this is Slashdot, after all, and that's never stopped anyone before...
It works the same way that it works in real life--there are some thoughtful, intelligent, interesting people out there, but they're lost in the vast sea of fucktards. It's not hopeless; you just have to do some networking.
Throwing up your hands in disgust isn't a viable solution. Just group with people. Lots of people. Add the ones you like to your friends list. If you meet someone you don't like (and you will--often, if you're older than 14 and have any semblance of standards), don't group with them again. And eventually, you'll find a good guild to join, or, in the absence of that, enough good people to make your own.
You can't expect to find good guild friends in general chat. The guilds that advertise there are terrible precisely because they advertise on general chat and accept everybody. But they do exist, and if you're a mature, thoughtful player, they're looking for people like you.
It would also take away a lot of the incentive to get to level 60 in the first place. From Blizzard's perspective, it would also let people do everything in PvE in a shorter amount of time and thus cut subscription revenues.
why do they insist on "repair" or whatever costs to get money out of the system instead of simple taxes?
Are you serious? Can you imagine what the message boards would look like if they did something like that? Can you imagine how many people would quit?
Games are supposed to be a fun diversion in which one can leave real-world issues behind. Would you really want to accumulate wealth in a game, only to have it taken away? And, more importantly, do you think the subscriber base would stand for it?
No thanks; I see enough 12-year old rants in broken English as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the basic problem is that in most PC games, reaction time is paramount. If you have to press more than one button, you're at a distinct disadvantage.
Players are so expensive when released because their prices are artifically controlled--the manufacturers can get a certain percentage of the population to overpay for the privilege of being an early adopter. If the format is to catch on as the ubiquitous successor to DVD, Blu-ray players won't be $1500 for very long.
PS3's Blu-ray playback capability will probably be somewhat crippled, as was the PS2's DVD playback.
So, as New Year's Eve is coming, remember to use only tall glasses for your party!!!
If you want to have a good party, you should probably do the opposite.
Having worked at a similar mom-and-pop software shop that has outgrown its humble beginnings, I can say with confidence that there is nothing more dangerous to a company (and a programmer's mental health) than a boss who tries to involve himself in the software development process.
Our flagship product was written (illegibly) in VB6. The codebase hadn't changed since VB3, and it wasn't very well-written to begin with. Our small development team spent about half of our time cleaning up after his architectural mistakes, and the other half trying to keep the creaking mess intact.
I spent three years there. I never saw a programmer last even half as long as I did. One lost all hope and just decided to ignore his marching orders and develop UI controls all day. Another ended up working hundred-hour weeks and went completely, literally insane. Everyone currently on the tech staff there has needed leaves of absence of at least three months to keep their shit together. I eventually just gave up and quit. Better to be unemployed and sane than keep a job that makes you foam at the mouth.
The bottom line: In every case I've ever seen, the boss belongs far, far, far away from the code. At all costs.
You really think there was some sort of conspiracy at work here?
I play a level 60 human mage on Thunderhorn, and I'm in an endgame guild. I did not participate in the beta, and didn't know anything about the game before I bought a copy at Best Buy and installed it. A number of my guildmates were in the beta, but a larger number were not.
The fact that Alliance outnumber Horde by such a large number is probably better attributed to psychological factors--people identify with humans more readily (go figure), people tend to like playing the "good guys," etc.
And if it's so bad, and you knew it was coming, why did you roll Horde?
Since the early 20th century, we've meddled (mostly violently) in the governmental affairs of the following countries: Guatemala, Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile and Grenada. I'd be hardpressed to explain how any of those countries have benefitted from our involvement.
actually, all consoles are sold at a loss
Not all. Nintendo, for one, has never followed this strategy.
We shall see. Considering our track record in South and Central America, I'm not optimistic.
The money is a big deal, but it's nothing compared to the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed.
Sure, rebuilding a destroyed country is a noble goal, even if we're the ones who bombed it to rubble in the first place. But in this case, it's just a line being parroted by talking heads on Fox News because they lost their gamble on WMD's.
Now that we're there, we have to stay until the situation is relatively stable. I don't think we have a choice. But our presence there is predicated entirely upon greed and lies. (Do you really think that Bush believed Saddam and al-Qaeda were connected?) We'll be paying for this war for decades--us with our tax dollars, Iraqis with their lives. And for what? Aside from Bush, Cheney, Rummy and people with stock in Big Oil, who wins?
They've looted a fortune from the Treasury and completely ruined what little international credibility we had left. I may be a progressive, but I consider myself a patriotic American. And as a patriotic American, hearing this hypocritical, self-righteous bullshit about spreading the virtues of democracy to these poor, backwards heathens, well, that makes my blood boil.
Sorry about my angry tone; I almost feel like I'm shooting the messenger here. I'm sure that many of the American workers in Iraq really do want to make the place better. It's just that it rings kind of hollow, given the circumstances.
No, "our" objective is no-bid contracts for Halliburton. The amount of federal money that's simply gone missing in Iraq is mindboggling. $69 million in missing oil (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/oil.p hp). $9 billion unaccounted for (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/ira q.audit/). Go on believing that we're there to bring the light of democracy to these poor heathens. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the ol' boy gang will go on shoveling money out of the Treasury.
Maybe someday, you'll wake up and realize that you and your conservative friends are little more than tools in furthering the selfish agenda of the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Unless the Rapture comes first.
I doubt it. The lack of tactile feedback would make such a controller pretty hard to use.
Touchscreens are also relatively expensive, can't record more than one touch at a time, and might not stand up too well to button-mashing in certain games.
Well, then it seems pretty clear to me that they need to start funding more crystal ball startups.
There's a happy medium, I think. Take World of Warcraft, for instance. In many of the high-level instances, if your party wipes on the boss, the whole place resets, and you have to spend another two hours getting back there. (I'm thinking of Scholomance and the Baron side of Stratholme, specifically.) That seems like the best way of doing things, at least from my perspective. Dying sucks, because everyone values two hours of their time, but it's not going to drive anyone to real-life suicide or anything. (Remember that these are games, and they're supposed to be fun! :)
It can already be done.
See section 9.3 of the Adobe PDF Reference, Fifth Edition.
But where do you draw the line? As I said in the grandparent post, what if it were your credit card information that were published? Does that qualify as journalism?
If these issues were being decided based on the outcome of this case, then it would definitely be a freedom of speech crisis. But they're already pretty clearly written out. The law states that, in the case of confidential company information being leaked, a journalist's sources are protected if and only if the information being divulged is in the clear public interest. Sounds perfectly fair to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that the specs on the upcoming line of iPod Minis does not qualify as being in the clear public interest.
The outcome of this case has nothing to do with "Mr. DePlume's" status as a journalist. Had the information appeared in the New York Times, the outcome would have been the same.
Even if this "restriction" on free speech were indeed a crisis, it occurred when the law was passed, and not when the judge handed down his decision.
Look, I vote Democratic. I contribute to the EFF and the ACLU. I imagine that my political leanings are similar to yours, at least if you fit the profile of the prototypical /. reader. But arguing that this is a crisis reflects a misunderstanding of the issues at hand, and, as I've said, makes it far easier for the other side to characterize us as Chicken Little-esque crackpots whenever a real problem emerges.
How is this an issue of freedom of speech? Do you argue that you have a right to Apple's trade secrets? Do you think that people who break NDA's should be protected, as long as they launder their information through some shumuck with a website?
What if it were your Social Security number, home address and credit card information that were stolen and posted? I'll bet you'd be singing an entirely different tune then.
This is merely about someone breaking an NDA. It's not about a big, bad, evil company attempting to silence the little guy. (The reason it's the little guy is that legitimate publications would know better than to leak trade secrets. It's clearly illegal, and possibly against journalistic ethics as well. If the New York Times corporation, with its billions of dollars in assets, had been responsible for propogating the leak, do you really think Apple would have been less likely to sue them? Just the opposite, I'd argue.)
I, personally, am more disgusted with people that spout off on a very important issue (i.e. freedom of speech, which may very well be under attack in this country) in an extremely misinformed way. It makes everyone on your side of the issue look bad.
Wait. If you agree that Apple has a case, then what is left to discuss?
By your logic, we should be contributing to the defense funds of the likes of Scott Peterson against the Big, Bad Government--after all, they have far more resources than he does. While I believe that murder should be punished, we should support the EFF in not allowing the powerful to overrun the (clearly guilty) weak without a fight. See what I'm getting at?
I agree that the rich and powerful need to be kept in check. But we do that by having strong and fair laws, and to argue against them when they clearly apply is to undermine the entire cause.
There's a reason for that, BTW. From what I understand, distributors were forcing retailers to buy 5 PS2 games with every PSP they ordered. (I've heard that similar things happen with each console's launch.) It's a slimy way of offloading stale inventory at inflated prices, and the cost gets passed directly on to us.
Whatever. You have your economic views, which are probably academically sound. I have my more pragmatic views, which have the benefit of being held by someone who actually plays the game. Each of us believes that his position is right, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
This seems to have degraded into a formal debate (as opposed to a discussion--the difference being that discussions are held to share ideas, and debates seem to be all about condescendingly pounding your opponent into the ground), and I don't see the point of continuing it.
I suppose you'll see this as impetus to declare victory or whatever. So, umm, congratulations. Maybe someday you can write a textbook.
Just because they broadcast that shit on the news doesn't make it matter.
No, I said the economy in which they live. In other words, the economy in which we live. Nothing to do with the actual game.
Wrong analogy. The question is whether you value your mage more than you value Bonds.
Huh? Weren't you trying to make a point about "the love of the game?"
Uh, but you do charge others for the time and effort you expend to accomplish some task, right? How again does that differ from these people charging others for the time and effort they expend to accomplish some task?
Because what they're doing is disruptive to other players. It's a matter of consideration.
Exactly wrong. Someone gets killed in real life and they still have property or other valuables that can be used by friends and family. By all reports, Blizzard's actions froze everything about the accounts in question. I think what you were trying to say is that a killing in WoW is not a "real" killing, but that misses the point that it is a real killing from the character's perspective. You're not adopting a proper "in game" mentality to rationally discuss the ethical backdrop of their actions. You dehumanize everyone when you suggest that actions of foreign leaders can be brutal and unaccountable. You can try to handwave it all away with "it's just a game", but the principles remain the same.
OK, wait a second. You're trying to tell me that you think an account suspension in a game is more damaging than the murder of a loved one because the loved one's possessions are redistributed afterwards?
I don't take a character's perspective because I am not a level 52 mage. That's a fictional character in a game that I play for fun, and to say that the in-game world of WoW and real life are anything similar to each other is, in my humble opinion, rather delusional.
Are you attempting to claim that either is a purely free market? Hell, you even make my point by flat out stating there's corruption.
Yeah, the U.S. in the late 1800's was pretty much a completely free market, at least until the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The other one was admittedly a bit of a stretch, but the point remains the same: without some manner of imposed artificial control, systems tend to become corrupted by a few greedy individuals that ruin things for everyone else.
I want you to reread your own words over and over until you realize why Blizzard's actions solve nothing.
Here's where we differ philosophically. You seem to think that whatever is physically possible is acceptable behavior, whereas I feel that people have a responsibility to behave in a civilized manner, regardless of whether their environment is conducive to bad behavior. I also think that the percentage of people abusing the system is miniscule, and that if you make sweeping changes that impact everybody, you're pretty much killing the patient to cure the ailment.
They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctions. You fucking over feed on a species, and you're both in trouble. Yes, that drastically alters the game, but I think it alters it for the better. No more of things popping up out of thin air. Boy meets girl and, if you're part of that world (I mean really part of the game and not just mindless level grinding), then killing them means no spawn, and killing all the spawns eventually means the same thing.
WTF? I don't even know where to start on this one. I reiterate that this is a game, and not an economic or ecological sandbox. Nor is it supposed to be a parallel world to reality. A large part of the game is indeed level grinding. Remove that, and you have an entirely different game.
They need to create a real ecology and stop having things just spawn with gold all ripe for farming. You know what I'd like to see: extinctio
Nice rhetoric, but entirely disingenuous. Everyone spouting "just a game" needs to immediately go in and wipe out all their characters. If you are unwilling to do that, if you value what you've created, I don't even want to hear that we should be treating it differently. It like the old argument that sports stars should be in it for the love of the game and not the dough; say it all you like, but economic forces dictate that they can draw millions for game play. Is it really so wrong to point out similar forces in a MMORPG?
Similar forces, but not identical. The economy in which sports stars (and we) live is vitally important to our everyday life. The economy in WoW exists only to support a game that people (presumably) play for enjoyment. The stakes are entirely different, and while that might not mathematically affect the way the economy works, it certainly has to be taken into consideration. I value my level 52 mage, but not as much as I'm sure Barry Bonds values his paycheck.
Maybe, but I don't see you running around shooting people dead.
Now that's just silly. I don't sell gold, either. In both cases, it's an issue of a small, ruthless minority causing problems for "the rest of us."
It's kind of funny that nobody has at least tried to argue that Blizzard's dictatorship is benevolent.
In this case, I think it pretty much is. Every transaction that anyone has ever made is in a database table somewhere. If that were the case in real life, trials would be a lot simpler. Comparing account suspension to summary execution is somewhat disingenuous, considering that the losses suffered in summary execution are orders of magnitude higher. Additionally, Blizzard has a financial incentive to not piss off their honest customers, who clearly comprise a vast majority of their subscription revenues. I don't think that simply deleting accounts will solve the problem, but, again, it's a start, and it makes it slightly less palatable to farm gold.
What you're probably alluding to is more corruption and not purely free markets like you claim. If you can't give an example, I must assume you're just making stuff up here.
The two are very closely related. History has shown time and again that when a situation allows one to gain at the expense of others, there are always people willing to do it. In a zero-sum economy, what someone gains, someone else must lose, right? As for examples, look at how workers were treated in the late 19th century under industry moguls such as Carnegie. Hell, look at the rampant present corruption in the current Bush administration.
You're missing the big picture. Blizzard is quite able to fix their bloody game so that camping is not economically advantageous.
How? Do you have any suggestions? I don't think that you could do much of anything that would have a profound effect without drastically altering the game.
So, what, Blizzard goes through the whole process again (and again and again)?
Yeah, pretty much. I don't really think the farmers can get much more annoying, and if they do, it will be by committing even more blatant violations, and their accounts will be suspended even faster. It also takes at least a month (even going 24/7) to get a character to the point where he can farm the valuable enemies. If you can make it less profitable (by, for instance, forcing a farmer to spend a month with no return on his investment), it will drive gold prices up, decreasing demand for gold. Maybe it will drive some of them away. In any case, it's a start, and I'd rather they do this in the interim than wait six months while they sit on their hands and develop a better solution.
Two problems with that attitude: you're reject what might be an objective viewpoint...
True, but this economy only matters within the context of the game. Without that context, I'd say you lack the perspective to do more than hold a hollow de
The problem with arguments like yours is that WoW is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't frankly give a rat's ass whether someone can profit enormously from it. If that's what you're looking to do, you're playing the wrong game.
The issue is that when the stakes get high enough (in any economy), people turn into unethical assholes. That's why drug violence is such a problem in our society. It's why there's so much trouble with insider trading in the stock market. Hell, it was even responsible for that comical London IKEA store riot last month.
The problem with purely free markets is that a large percentage of people tend to end up getting treated like shit. Which sucks in real life, but that's an entirely separate issue.
But why in the world would you want to deal with these issues in a game that you're supposed to play for fun? Do you want to have to work around Chinese sweatshop grunts perpetually camping the enemy that you have to kill for a quest? Is that an acceptable price to pay for the opportunity for a few people to get rich in a game world? Is your right to make money in the virtual world of Azeroth more important than the desire of a vast majority of their subscribers to just have a fun, balanced game to play? I don't think it is.
And, in more direct terms, Blizzard owns the servers, the software and everything in between. If they don't want you doing something, that's their prerogative. If you don't like it, return the game and go play the stock market. Granted, there are financial ramifications for bad decisions--people will cancel their subscriptions--but that simply gives them more incentive to cater to the vast majority of subscribers who want these pricks removed.
And finally, do you actually play WoW? If not, you are, in my humble opinion, not the least bit qualified to comment on what's good for the gameplay experience. But hey, this is Slashdot, after all, and that's never stopped anyone before...
It works the same way that it works in real life--there are some thoughtful, intelligent, interesting people out there, but they're lost in the vast sea of fucktards. It's not hopeless; you just have to do some networking.
Throwing up your hands in disgust isn't a viable solution. Just group with people. Lots of people. Add the ones you like to your friends list. If you meet someone you don't like (and you will--often, if you're older than 14 and have any semblance of standards), don't group with them again. And eventually, you'll find a good guild to join, or, in the absence of that, enough good people to make your own.
You can't expect to find good guild friends in general chat. The guilds that advertise there are terrible precisely because they advertise on general chat and accept everybody. But they do exist, and if you're a mature, thoughtful player, they're looking for people like you.
I guarantee it.
It would also take away a lot of the incentive to get to level 60 in the first place. From Blizzard's perspective, it would also let people do everything in PvE in a shorter amount of time and thus cut subscription revenues.
why do they insist on "repair" or whatever costs to get money out of the system instead of simple taxes?
Are you serious? Can you imagine what the message boards would look like if they did something like that? Can you imagine how many people would quit?
Games are supposed to be a fun diversion in which one can leave real-world issues behind. Would you really want to accumulate wealth in a game, only to have it taken away? And, more importantly, do you think the subscriber base would stand for it?
No thanks; I see enough 12-year old rants in broken English as it is.