| 97 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
OP: have you ever heard of the term "sheep"? Not the animal but what it means when applied to humans. "BAH BAH BAH its popular so it has to be the best" says the lil sheep.
|
|
Originally posted by EvolvedMonky
EvolvedMonky: Have you heard the term "troll"? Not the animal but what it means when applied to humans. "WAH WAH WAH its popular so I must be cool if I trash it" says the lil troll. |
|
Originally posted by NotNiceDino
EvolvedMonky: Have you heard the term "troll"? Not the animal but what it means when applied to humans. "WAH WAH WAH its popular so I must be cool if I trash it" says the lil troll. Other people are like this.
Some people are just completely different. It' all fine and well unless people start generalizing and dealing in absolutes :)) 'Most powerful is he who controls his own power.' |
|
|
maskedweasel
Elite Member
Joined: 9/24/07
"Kids, try imagining how far the universe extends! Keep thinking about it until you go insane." |
I think people are alittle confused.. the songs listed in the OP, hey.. they're good albums, they are popular because they appeal to a certain crowd that likes them. Musically theres nothing wrong with them, but the problem in hindsight is that they've been played out.
Songs can get played out in a matter of months now because theres becoming less and less diversity in songs nowadays. I find good bands are becoming fewer and far between for me.. I used to love a genre of music, now i'm looking to other places to find stuff I can get into.
Now, as far a WoW goes and MMOs... how long does it take for an MMO to get played out? I think we're starting to see it, its like the old standby releases a new album and everyone will buy it, but it just doesn't have the luster the first few albums did. Eventually you'll ask yourself what the hell it is you're even listening to anymore.
So to wrap it up, high sub numbers are a good indicator of the popularity of something, and just because something is popular today doesn't mean it will always be popular. |
|
The XFire numbers are up, it must be a success... |
|
|
It has already been proven that popularity does not equal quality. Why are you guys still debating the topic? |
|
|
@ OP: Bravo! Point well made!
Ken www.RealmLords.com |
|
|
maskedweasel
Elite Member
Joined: 9/24/07
"Kids, try imagining how far the universe extends! Keep thinking about it until you go insane." |
Lock thread now? anyone? |
Originally posted by Ruyn
You misunderstand the analogy. The fastfood analogy is not meaning cheap as in monetary value but from a quality standpoint. The better analogy would be Wal-Mart. A lot of people shop at Wal-Mart because it the price is right and it CATERS TO EVERYBODY, except of course the people who look for a quality product or quality service. WoW is the Wal-Mart of MMO's.
This is where the analogy consistently fails, because it's being based on an automatic assumption of higher quality that does not logically follow simply because a game has a smaller market share - an assumption that is based on bias toward the smaller playerbase games, or bias against the larger playerbase game. If WoW is the McDonald's of MMOs (low quality, unhealthy food: high accessibility and convenience; extremely high worldwide income), that does not mean that smaller playerbase games must be Tavern on the Green by comparison. There are enormous differences in accessibility, operating costs, target audience, pricing, etc, - enough that make such a stretch in logic just plain silly. No, I contend that if WoW is the McDonalds of MMOs, then games with much smaller playerbases are the Captain D's, the Popeye's Chicken, or the White Castles of the MMO world. If WoW is the WalMart of MMOs, smaller MMOs aren't neccessarily Neiman Marcus or Saks - they are more likely the KMart's, Venture's, or Dickey Bub's (look that one up) of the MMO space. |
|
Originally posted by Rohn
You misunderstand the analogy. The fastfood analogy is not meaning cheap as in monetary value but from a quality standpoint. The better analogy would be Wal-Mart. A lot of people shop at Wal-Mart because it the price is right and it CATERS TO EVERYBODY, except of course the people who look for a quality product or quality service. WoW is the Wal-Mart of MMO's.
This is where the analogy consistently fails, because it's being based on an automatic assumption of higher quality that does not logically follow simply because a game has a smaller market share - an assumption that is based on bias toward the smaller playerbase games, or bias against the larger playerbase game. If WoW is the McDonald's of MMOs (low quality, unhealthy food: high accessibility and convenience; extremely high worldwide income), that does not mean that smaller playerbase games must be Tavern on the Green by comparison. There are enormous differences in accessibility, operating costs, target audience, pricing, etc, - enough that make such a stretch in logic just plain silly. No, I contend that if WoW is the McDonalds of MMOs, then games with much smaller playerbases are the Captain D's, the Popeye's Chicken, or the White Castles of the MMO world. If WoW is the WalMart of MMOs, smaller MMOs aren't neccessarily Neiman Marcus or Saks - they are more likely the KMart's, Venture's, or Dickey Bub's (look that one up) of the MMO space.
Yes, most other games would be compared to fast food too if we use the McDonalds analogy, ive never challenged that myself and have in fact stated such a point in other threads. Still, id rather eat in Burger King or Subway than in McDonalds... Just to make things clear... |
|
Originally posted by Caleveira
This is where the analogy consistently fails, because it's being based on an automatic assumption of higher quality that does not logically follow simply because a game has a smaller market share - an assumption that is based on bias toward the smaller playerbase games, or bias against the larger playerbase game. If WoW is the McDonald's of MMOs (low quality, unhealthy food: high accessibility and convenience; extremely high worldwide income), that does not mean that smaller playerbase games must be Tavern on the Green by comparison. There are enormous differences in accessibility, operating costs, target audience, pricing, etc, - enough that make such a stretch in logic just plain silly. No, I contend that if WoW is the McDonalds of MMOs, then games with much smaller playerbases are the Captain D's, the Popeye's Chicken, or the White Castles of the MMO world. If WoW is the WalMart of MMOs, smaller MMOs aren't neccessarily Neiman Marcus or Saks - they are more likely the KMart's, Venture's, or Dickey Bub's (look that one up) of the MMO space.
Yes, most other games would be compared to fast food too if we use the McDonalds analogy, ive never challenged that myself and have in fact stated such a point in other threads. Still, id rather eat in Burger King or Subway than in McDonalds...
Again, that would be based on personal taste, i.e. opinion, rather than irrefutable fact about superior quality in the product or service. |
|
Originally posted by Rohn
This is where the analogy consistently fails, because it's being based on an automatic assumption of higher quality that does not logically follow simply because a game has a smaller market share - an assumption that is based on bias toward the smaller playerbase games, or bias against the larger playerbase game. If WoW is the McDonald's of MMOs (low quality, unhealthy food: high accessibility and convenience; extremely high worldwide income), that does not mean that smaller playerbase games must be Tavern on the Green by comparison. There are enormous differences in accessibility, operating costs, target audience, pricing, etc, - enough that make such a stretch in logic just plain silly. No, I contend that if WoW is the McDonalds of MMOs, then games with much smaller playerbases are the Captain D's, the Popeye's Chicken, or the White Castles of the MMO world. If WoW is the WalMart of MMOs, smaller MMOs aren't neccessarily Neiman Marcus or Saks - they are more likely the KMart's, Venture's, or Dickey Bub's (look that one up) of the MMO space.
Yes, most other games would be compared to fast food too if we use the McDonalds analogy, ive never challenged that myself and have in fact stated such a point in other threads. Still, id rather eat in Burger King or Subway than in McDonalds...
Again, that would be based on personal taste, i.e. opinion, rather than irrefutable fact about superior quality in the product or service.
Certainly, this is offtopic and does not address the OPs post. Just to make things clear... |
|
Originally posted by Caleveira
Certainly, this is offtopic and does not address the OPs post.
In that the OP is using an entirely different medium to draw a similarly flawed analogy, it's on topic. Curiously, the OP omitted some years. In any event, I wonder if the OP would have felt comfortable if, in building this argument, he/she has used the best-selling PC computer games in each of those years instead of music. Would the analogy have looked as "self-evident"? |
|
Originally posted by Rohn
In that the OP is using an entirely different medium to draw a similarly flawed analogy, it's on topic. Curiously, the OP omitted some years. In any event, I wonder if the OP would have felt comfortable if, in building this argument, he/she has used the best-selling PC computer games in each of those years instead of music. Would the analogy have looked as "self-evident"?
The comparison is a different one since, in internet terms, both music and video games are different forms of content media. Fast food restaurants are obviously not. Yes, the OP certainly chose to good effect the more evident cases of succesful bad works in the music industry, but this doesnt invalidate his point that sales numbers alone do not speak of arts intrinsic value. The point is not wether any given MMO (it wasnt the OP who brought up WOW) is a good product or not, but wether box sales or sub numbers could by themselves be used as proof of quality. IMO he makes a legitimate point, we should be speaking of factors other than financial success in discussing a games quality. f2ps could also be used as an example, hyped and inflated numbers aside, there are more than a couple of f2p MMOs out there which very likely have a larger base than EVE, could this numbers be used to claim they have better quality? No, and not just because of low barrier entry (my point about WOW) but because population numbers are not one of the main factors in evaluating wether a game is good (as oposed to doing well). Also many players dont factor it in when deciding wether theyll stick with a game. Emphasis on many, i didnt mean most... Just to make things clear... |
|
|
Millions of people say Spice girls are good,the minority say they are bad.Who is right?
And i have never seen a bad game sell millions of games,Why do People feel that their point of view is right,Me i taught that Wii Sports is huge waste and mediocre game but it is number selling of console game ever.So who is right millions of people who like wii sports or me? They are best selling stuff because lots of people like them,Just because you don't like them does not mean they have merit and not worthy of rating.Success is the only true gauge of quality( longevity and continued success is the truest measure of quality).Your goal when make a game is to have people play it,You can say Diablo 2 is a better game than Guilds War but GW sold 6 million games and Diablo 2 4 million which is the better game.If more people want to play you are better game
|
|
Originally posted by luckturtz
It really doesn't matter who is "right".
All of these things people try to sell (music, games etc) are made for one reason... to make profit. In the business world the most profit = the best.
As opposed to some person who thinks that something which made next to no money is "the best" becuase THEY enjoyed it.
Its all perspective... however... if a game doesn't have the sub numbers .. guess what? Its sinks.
So I agree with this quote.. except I don't worry about "millions of other people" .. I just think about it from the business perspective. As to the OP...
You are correct stop using sub numbers. Let's look at quateryly financial statements and see what company is making enough money to keep pushing product... and not close/merge servers or shut down games.
I know the best game ever... to bad it got shut down due to lack of profit... but at least it was totally awesome even tho it no longer exists!! it won!! Being able to choose the skills you want to use, offers much less variety than pre-made class based systems. -Future Game Developer |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr Hah. I was more than happy to remain on a mature, eloquent and cordial level. It was your decision to drag the discussion down by tossing around insults. Unfortunately, it is getting a bit tedious now, so I shall once again provide the much-needed maturity by stemming the tide of vitriol. It is gratifying to see that you were unable to counter my argument; I shall take that as a concession on your part.
I have appointed myself the final judge of this thread. My ruling is that you have won the thread. |
|
Originally posted by FreddyNoNose
I have appointed myself the final judge of this thread. My ruling is that you have won the thread.
How cute, Ilvaldyr has a boyfriend... Just to make things clear... |
|
|
To the guy who said, 'American Statistics', those numbers are world wide sales and sorry to break it to you, but the world buys American music more than they do their own, same for games and same for movies. To everyone else, this post isn't about WOW it's about people who try to use one unrelated statistic to back up their personal opinion. Just like I did in the OP it just goes to show that opinion cannot be refuted on a particular basis if that basis is formed with fact but to do so is pointless because it can be argued either way. To make my analogy in line with gamers and games, The Sims sold 16 million copies and that was just part one. I played that game for about a half hour before I uninstalled it because it was boring. Those kind of statistics might matter to the mindless drones out there buying whatever the flashing advertisements tell them to, but on a site like this, people expect more than hype. The analogy to Walmart was a perfect example of my point because your average person wants average things. Once you move beyond average you still may want the basics here and there but over all you can't go back for all your needs. When I wanted a new computer chair I went to walmart and bought a $15 dollar fold up lawn chair because its the most comfortable chair I've found. Would I ever think of going there for things that are important to me like computer parts? Hell no. When your level of interest in something moves beyond the basic, lowest common denominator you always move beyond what is average. That's why a game like wow is perfect for gaming. It brings people in to the world of games. If they decide they want more than the basics there are a ton of different options, and I'm talking about single player games as well as MMOs. It doesn't make it the greatest, though, it just means it was average enough in just enough ways to not put off your average potential gamer. |
|
|
Before posting, I made sure I read the OP's premise, and every post thereafter. This thread seems like a scorcher. Ilvaldyr, I've seen your posts elsewhere and as much as I can remember, they've been well formulated. However in this thread I've failed to find anywhere where you offer any sort of logic train. You made a claim, dismissed someone else's, and applied very shaky, circular reasoning when challenged on your claim and dismissal. Caleveira, you are absolutely correct. Every argument you've made has been detailed and spot on. In the end, the only thing that stands true is that if a game has high subscriber counts, it's popular. That's all it proves. Popularity is not directly linked to quality, it's not directly linked to truth, it's not directly linked to efficiency. Popular game is popular, nothing else.
As far as the OP: perhaps we could steer the thread into a productive discussion. In lieu of subscriber counts, to which people immediately assume biggest number means best product (as is apparent in this thread alone), perhaps a seperate, or additional criterium be added. Why not a standard of 'hours played per pay period per account'. Take all collective hours played over a 1 month standard, divide by the number of accounts active during that month. This would provide not some external number of how big a game is, but an internal (inside the game world) value of how 'alive' it is. How much does your playerbase enjoy logging in? As a result, how much more dynamic does your game world become? While we still aren't in a position to use this as a standard that establishes which game is best, it would bring us one step closer. |
|
|
Actually, that seems like a good gauge of how much a game can hold someone's attention over time. It also does away with quality OR subs as a sole criteria and would look at just how much that particular game puts forth enough greatness to keep them playing for extended amounts of time. If a game has 100k subs but the people only play for an hour a piece, it seems like a game could be called better if it only had 33k subs but was good enough to keep people playing for 4 hours per week. |
|
Originally posted by pojung You have made the exact same mistake as Caleveira did. You read my point as "WoW is the best game because it has the most subs". That's not what I said. I made two claims and one conclusion: 1. WoW has 6 million subscripions in the west. My conclusion was/is that 6 million people willing to pay a recurring subscription fee is a good indication that the service for which they are paying (i.e. WoW) is offering a quality gaming experience. If it wasn't, they would stop paying for that recurring service and choose another game. The reason why I haven't bothered refuting any challenges on my claims is simply because my claims have not been challenged. Instead, I have been repeatedly challenged on a claim that I did not make, despite having categorically stated so several times in this thread.  |
|
Originally posted by Ilvaldyr You have made the exact same mistake as Caleveira did. You read my point as "WoW is the best game because it has the most subs". That's not what I said. I made two claims and one conclusion: 1. WoW has 6 million subscripions in the west. My conclusion was/is that 6 million people willing to pay a recurring subscription fee is a good indication that the service for which they are paying (i.e. WoW) is offering a quality gaming experience. If it wasn't, they would stop paying for that recurring service and choose another game. The reason why I haven't bothered refuting any challenges on my claims is simply because my claims have not been challenged. Instead, I have been repeatedly challenged on a claim that I did not make, despite having categorically stated so several times in this thread.
+1 ---------------------------- |
|
|
@ Ilvaldyr I have reread each of your posts exclusively to try and see things from your standpoint based on your most recent claim. You have made the exact same mistake as Caleveira did. You read my point as "WoW is the best game because it has the most subs". I concede here. After re-reading each of your posts, you do not use 'best' in any of your statements. However, from your formulated stance, understand how it was voiced in a way that quickly becomes misleading: Gotta measure quality somehow. then becomes: Quality and popularity go hand-in-hand. Inclusively or exclusively? Depending on your claims, one is true, the other is undeniably false. Accessibility and popularity go hand-in-hand, as an example. This is the claim I speak of that you fail to provide any sort of justification for. Because of this, and your next sentences: In a market as saturated as the MMO genre, people have choices. They aren't going to continue to pay month after month for a game that is lacking in quality. It really does read like your stance is one that claims exclusivity to quality being the influence of popularity. People continue to pay for a variety of reasons: they don't turn off bill payments despite not playing (recurring is a great marketing angle), they pay for social networking etc. Quality, in subjective terms even, is not the sole reason. So no, people will continue paying monthly with or without quality, because there are other criteria. That's not what I said. I made two claims and one conclusion: 1. WoW has 6 million subscripions in the west. My conclusion was/is that 6 million people willing to pay a recurring subscription fee is a good indication that the service for which they are paying (i.e. WoW) is offering a quality gaming experience. If it wasn't, they would stop paying for that recurring service and choose another game. I've just touched on these topics above. To credit you where due, you also made the following claim that I will isolate here: Your responses (and analogies) in this post have been in regards to whether one game is "better" or "more quality" than another game. That was never my point. I have no desire to compare games because I accept that which game is "better" or "more quality" is largely subjective. I've already stated as much. I do fail to see, however, where you 'stated as much' considering you were explicit in your 'Gotta measure quality somehow' and your 'quality and popularity go hand in hand'. You do, to your credit, establish you weren't here to dispute better/quality despite lack of transparent previous statements. The reason why I haven't bothered refuting any challenges on my claims is simply because my claims have not been challenged. Instead, I have been repeatedly challenged on a claim that I did not make, despite having categorically stated so several times in this thread. Your claims were challenged indeed. You were approached on why the analogies are flawed to which you never anwered. We touched on your claims and now to the dismissal: The junk food analogy is utterly flawed. Most analogies are. How is it flawed? You never explain. You merely make a statement with no backing. Furthermore, how are 'most' analogies flawed? You follow this up with the following: Analogy is legitimate discourse when it's not flawed. Yours is, therefore is not legitimate discourse. I will not reply to it, or to those used by the OP as they do not apply to the subject matter and I have no intention of legitimising them. If you are incapable of defining your argument without wrapping it up in a twisted and senseless analogy, then your argument is not worthy of response. Data isn't legitimate if it's flawed either, but you still haven't explained why it's flawed. You make again the claim that it is flawed, then that it's not legitimate. Is this not circular reasoning? You then turn the discussion onto the OP and your opponent in the matter, rather than following up on your statements. However, you finally explain why you claim it is flawed: My viewpoint has always been that comparisons are pointless because they are informed by subjective bias. My argument in this thread is that, if 6 million people are willing to continually pay a subscription fee for a game, then that is a good indication of "quality". But the issue here is that you still use yourself as the proving factor. You then state, again, your stance on numbers vs. quality.
In summation, you indeed made no claim as to 'numbers = best'. Yours was 'numbers = quality'. So I concede there is a conclusion that was jumped to wrongfully. However, the claims you do make, you fail to provide any sort of support for. |
|
Originally posted by pojung
|
|
