Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

It depends upon the community and structure of the game....in a game like WoW there is no interdependance required and it's a large a generaly crappy community...

Try behaving like a general a%%-hat in a game like Gemstone4 and see how far you get.  The moment when there are consequences for ones behavior, is when things start to go south for folks who are unwilling to follow some minimal societal norms.

It's only in games that tend to isolate players from the consequences of thier actions that you tend to get more then a tiny fraction of players willing to consider things like ninja-looting.

 

 

And how many players do Gemstone4 has? Why would anyone want to play a game that put all sort of social constraints on oneself?

There is a reason why LFR, LFD .. and all the matching making feature popular .. aside from the convenience. People LIKE not to be able to deal with other people's expectation and can behave anyway they want to.

Community is way over rated. I don't see a reason to always be forced to be nice to strangers. It is enough to be nice to a few friends. If i am in a good mood, sure, i will be nice. Isnt behavior without consequences a way to escape from the real world?

Originally posted by Sythion

Originally posted by Fly666monkey

Anyone who says that, because they have a family, a job, a child, etc. That prevents them from playing as much as others, and therefore think they should be allowed advantages, two things:

#1 No one cares. Plenty of people have all those things and still make time to play games fair and square. You are not special,  you are not entitled, and you are very selfish for thinking that it's OK to ruin the game for everyone else because you don't have time to play. If playing the game takes too much time away from your responsibilities, don't play. Simple. 

#2 This line of logic would not work anywhere else. Imagine if you said that, because responsibilities take up so much time, that you:

-Should start with a Monopoly and 2 hotels when Playing Monopoly

-When playing chess, your opponent should start wihtout rooks or bishops.

-When you go to a fighting game tournament, you should be able to pick a banned character, because your job and family don't let you practice.

You be laughed at and told to GTFO. So why should this line of logic work with MMO's?

There is no justification for Pay to Win, not ever.

Unfortunately they are built to consume time, and as such are already ruined. Allowing players to skip the BS that designers intentionally put into games in order to extend the time play is not ruining the game for anyone else.

If you don't like the mechanics of the game, don't play. If playing the meat of the game bores you, maybe the game isn't that good? If so, why are you giving them money because they made a game poorly? How does that make sense?

And I could say the same thing about advantages for having more time to play Monopoly/Chess. A better chess player should be a better chess player, regardless of how often they play. Strike a chord wrong? Of course it does, because MMOs do not have any level playing field to begin with.

So you're saying that not having time to practice justifies cheating? What?

Also, your statement about MMO's not being an even playing field is false.  In a WELL DESIGNED game, everyone has the same oprotunity  to succeed. Obviously, if you don't spend time playing in an MMO, or any other game, you aren't going to get very far. If you don't have the time to play a game, DON'T PLAY. Paying for power in a game is cheating, it hurts everyone else playing the game, and it makes you looks like a selfish ass when you say you are entitled to it because (Insert reason here).

So, I've gotten carried away with this thread, I realize that. It's also been taking away time from my work responsibilities, which is quite ironic given my statements earlier.

If you have the time to stay on these forums and argue...

I imagine it seems like I'm saying P2W is the best thing since sliced bread, but that's not how I feel. Let me clarify my point one last time and be done with this forsaken thread.

P2W

P2W is bad, however, it needs to be looked at realistically. Often times an "advantage" over another player does not affect your game.

An advantage over another player does not affect the game? Are you on drugs?

Other times it seems that the bonuses will cause a certain type of player to become over powered, when really they are meant to bring players who could otherwise not experience the game the opportunity to do so (such as a XP boost).

You are experienceing the game just by playing it.

There are plenty of cases where P2W is just bad.

I.E. Every case. 

When it provides real benefits over those who don't play, and over those who aren't able to spend a reasonable amount of time to make up for the benefit. When it locks content out that others need to progress their character. Or when the time to progress without P2W is unacceptably long (MMORTS are notorious for this).

So if Pay 2 Win is bad, why are you defending it? Is it because you think that pay to win is bas unless it's YOU that's gaining an advantage from it? Because based on your past posts, that seems to be the case.

Cash Shops vs. Subscriptions

Both of these models have almost the exact same pros and cons, just a difference between whether the advantage goes to those with time or money (usually it will go to those with time anyway). Subscriptions do have a small advantage in that there is a sense of accomplishment doing something that takes a long time to accomplish, and that the money spent on cash shops can spiral out of control easily.

However subscriptions and cash shops can both just as easily do the worse thing imaginable: Intentionally weaken the core gameplay experience of the consumer to make more money. Cash shops do this if they require cash to be successful. Subscriptions do this if there are lots of time sinks put in purposefully.

Fair enough.

Markets

There are markets for both models. Those who are trying to get rid of cash shops completely are trying to hurt the industry as a whole, because having both models helps divide the market into proper niches, so that you can play with the people you want to play with. It also provides a competitive business model, which means subscription companies will have a tougher time abusing their model.

Also true. However, a lot of the cash shop hate extends from the fact that SO MANY games use this model to implement pay to win mechanics. It's not that the cash shop model itself is bad, it's how it's used.

GW2 and cash shop

Most of the people bitching about P2W are not really the core audience of GW2. GW2 is not designed for the pure Progressionist (although they can certainly enjoy the content for awhile, just like they would with any game), and it is not a sandbox.

As such, it really is a good game to model what a fair cash shop can look like in an MMO. It won't be perfect, and I don't mind people complaining about the implementation. However, saying that it shouldn't have any advantages for any player under any circumstance and that cash shops should never be in any game ever is just ridiculous.

Didn't you just say that pay to win is bad? But now you're saying that it's wrong to complain about paid advantages in a game? WELL WHICH IS IT?!

Originally posted by Sythion

Originally posted by Fly666monkey

Anyone who says that, because they have a family, a job, a child, etc. That prevents them from playing as much as others, and therefore think they should be allowed advantages, two things:

#1 No one cares. Plenty of people have all those things and still make time to play games fair and square. You are not special,  you are not entitled, and you are very selfish for thinking that it's OK to ruin the game for everyone else because you don't have time to play. If playing the game takes too much time away from your responsibilities, don't play. Simple. 

#2 This line of logic would not work anywhere else. Imagine if you said that, because responsibilities take up so much time, that you:

-Should start with a Monopoly and 2 hotels when Playing Monopoly

-When playing chess, your opponent should start wihtout rooks or bishops.

-When you go to a fighting game tournament, you should be able to pick a banned character, because your job and family don't let you practice.

You be laughed at and told to GTFO. So why should this line of logic work with MMO's?

There is no justification for Pay to Win, not ever.

Unfortunately they are built to consume time, and as such are already ruined. Allowing players to skip the BS that designers intentionally put into games in order to extend the time play is not ruining the game for anyone else.

And I could say the same thing about advantages for having more time to play Monopoly/Chess. A better chess player should be a better chess player, regardless of how often they play. Strike a chord wrong? Of course it does, because MMOs do not have any level playing field to begin with.

 

So, I've gotten carried away with this thread, I realize that. It's also been taking away time from my work responsibilities, which is quite ironic given my statements earlier.

I imagine it seems like I'm saying P2W is the best thing since sliced bread, but that's not how I feel. Let me clarify my point one last time and be done with this forsaken thread.

P2W

P2W is bad, however, it needs to be looked at realistically. Often times an "advantage" over another player does not affect your game. Other times it seems that the bonuses will cause a certain type of player to become over powered, when really they are meant to bring players who could otherwise not experience the game the opportunity to do so (such as a XP boost).

There are plenty of cases where P2W is just bad. When it provides real benefits over those who don't play, and over those who aren't able to spend a reasonable amount of time to make up for the benefit. When it locks content out that others need to progress their character. Or when the time to progress without P2W is unacceptably long (MMORTS are notorious for this).

P2W is not only bad, it is highly undesired by the would be customers of the product.

If CocaCola desided to put Salt instead of Sugar in its product, will it come and justify its choice trying to convince its customers that it is better this way if they do not like it? No it will lose its customers that will switch for another brand of their liking, and it will be forced to remove the salt and put back sugar in it if it wants to survive as a business.

That is the realistic way of looking at it, there is no other way to look at it. A business is suposed to cater to the Consumer's needs not Force them upon the consumer.

P2W is not wanted nor desired nor enjoyed by the majority of players. You want to have an empty game with empty W v W v W fields? Go right ahead, add as many P2W items as you want, you will guarantee that your game will be forgotten within six months.

That being said, I think we need to be clear as to what P2W really represents or how it is defined.

For me, P2W only applies within the PvP context, any sort of Item Buff Lotery Ticket, Lucky Box etc that is related in some way to a Cash Shop and Provides to a Player an Enhancement which augments their chances for Success against another equal Character that does not benefit from same enhancement for Real Cash is P2W.

If it is an Enhancement that aplies to a Player Versus the NPC's or the Environment, then this is not considered P2W. It is a Convinience Item. It is an acceptable Microtransaction at the same degree as Customisation/Cosmetic enhancements.

I personally do not care how "Cool" and "Awesome" GW2 sounds and feels at this Hyped time, if it offers P2W enhancements, I am throwing the game in the garbage can, like I have done with so many others.

I would like to be able to enjoy GW2 for a long time to come, so I am hoping that they are not making this mistake, I do not have any evidence at this time if P2W is in place or not, I am willing to spend the box fees to find out, yet I hope this will not be another Disappointment.

That being said, no ill feelings towards anyone,this is a Forum communication is impersonal, misunderstandings can happen, so no worries no biggie.

All I know for certainty is what I prefer or not in the games I play, P2W is not something that I prefer or desire, and I make the choice to not play games that use it.

I would say that both sides are right in some way. While cash shops with special gear and other stuff is unfair. Giving so much power to the gaming time is also unbalanced no matter the arguement. Each person has its own circumstances, some can't put much money others can't put much time.

I would say that putting some softlimits to xp, raid locks and other activities would balance games for everybody and it would make healthier mmo gaming. That and a non P2W cash shop would be something closer to a balance game for everybody.

I wonder, there are apparently buffs/boosts to guilds under certain scenarios or entire servers for WvW under certain circumstances, will people be upset about that as well if they are in a less prominent guild or a server that is not victorious in battle? Are those not "unfair" advantages?

Maybe the guild I wanted to be in turned me down or I'm in a small guild or the home server I wanted to be on was already full. Should players be left out of the "in-game boost fun zone" because of that? If anything, I see cash shop boosts as the equalizer to not being able to take advantage of in-game mechanics due to bad luck, lack of time or simply not fitting into a specific mold... no game can account for all the problems a player might encounter in or out of game. I don't see boosts as a time saver as a terrible thing for that very reason. Life gives you lemons, ANet gives you lemonade.

Originally posted by NaughtyP

I wonder, there are apparently buffs/boosts to guilds under certain scenarios or entire servers for WvW under certain circumstances, will people be upset about that as well if they are in a less prominent guild or a server that is not victorious in battle? Are those not "unfair" advantages?

Maybe the guild I wanted to be in turned me down or I'm in a small guild or the home server I wanted to be on was already full. Should players be left out of the "in-game boost fun zone" because of that? If anything, I see cash shop boosts as the equalizer to not being able to take advantage of in-game mechanics due to bad luck, lack of time or simply not fitting into a specific mold... no game can account for all the problems a player might encounter in or out of game. I don't see boosts as a time saver as a terrible thing for that very reason. Life gives you lemons, ANet gives you lemonade.

The whole point of boosts is to be exclusionary isn't it? If everyone has a boost, no one has a boost.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by NaughtyP

I wonder, there are apparently buffs/boosts to guilds under certain scenarios or entire servers for WvW under certain circumstances, will people be upset about that as well if they are in a less prominent guild or a server that is not victorious in battle? Are those not "unfair" advantages?

Maybe the guild I wanted to be in turned me down or I'm in a small guild or the home server I wanted to be on was already full. Should players be left out of the "in-game boost fun zone" because of that? If anything, I see cash shop boosts as the equalizer to not being able to take advantage of in-game mechanics due to bad luck, lack of time or simply not fitting into a specific mold... no game can account for all the problems a player might encounter in or out of game. I don't see boosts as a time saver as a terrible thing for that very reason. Life gives you lemons, ANet gives you lemonade.

The whole point of boosts is to be exclusionary isn't it? If everyone has a boost, no one has a boost.

I don't really think that's what GW2 is intending. Being able to purchase cash shop items using the gold <-> gem exchange pretty much negates the possibility exclusivity since there will be more than one path to the same cash shop item anyways, right? Seems like a non-issue to me anyways. /shrug

Originally posted by gandales

I would say that both sides are right in some way. While cash shops with special gear and other stuff is unfair. Giving so much power to the gaming time is also unbalanced no matter the arguement. Each person has its own circumstances, some can't put much money others can't put much time.

I would say that putting some softlimits to xp, raid locks and other activities would balance games for everybody and it would make healthier mmo gaming. That and a non P2W cash shop would be something closer to a balance game for everybody.

Why is time an issue all of the sudden?

I find the argument of time a bit nonsensical. Even in a game such as WoW where Time played = progression = Success, still everyone will be equal once the time played is equal.

If I can play 4 hours per week, and it takes 12 hours of game time to reach a certain level or to aquire a piece of gear, why is it a problem that another player who can play 6 hours a day can get to that point in 2 days while it will take me 3 weeks of real time, but still i will be able to be EQUAL to that player when I played equal amount of time?

It is not a problem in my view at all, it is how it is we both have equal opportunity to reach the same level of competitivness in good time.

On the other hand however, in a game with a cash shop that gives Advantages via microtransactions, it is not the same at all.

A - Depending on the game, a player that does not buy from the shop may never be able to Equal the gap. not enjoyable from the begining.

B - Even if possible to obtain same advantages through in game activities, it is usually a longer process, but most importantly it does not leave the player the freedom to play the game as they wish compelling them to engage in the prescribed activities in order to reach that balance point as players who buy the advantages. And the game quickly turns in to a routine job. And this is not a way to enjoy games.

And still speaking about Advantages in relation to mainly PvP where balance really counts. Any Convenience or Cosmetic advantages or even advantages for PVE offered via microtransactions are fine and a more sensible middle point for both the Game Company and its customer Players.

Originally posted by Suraknar

Originally posted by gandales

I would say that both sides are right in some way. While cash shops with special gear and other stuff is unfair. Giving so much power to the gaming time is also unbalanced no matter the arguement. Each person has its own circumstances, some can't put much money others can't put much time.

I would say that putting some softlimits to xp, raid locks and other activities would balance games for everybody and it would make healthier mmo gaming. That and a non P2W cash shop would be something closer to a balance game for everybody.

Why is time an issue all of the sudden?

I find the argument of time a bit nonsensical. Even in a game such as WoW where Time played = progression = Success, still everyone will be equal once the time played is equal.

If I can play 4 hours per week, and it takes 12 hours of game time to reach a certain level or to aquire a piece of gear, why is it a problem that another player who can play 6 hours a day can get to that point in 2 days while it will take me 3 weeks of real time, but still i will be able to be EQUAL to that player when I played equal amount of time?

It is not a problem in my view at all, it is how it is we both have equal opportunity to reach the same level of competitivness in good time.

On the other hand however, in a game with a cash shop that gives Advantages via microtransactions, it is not the same at all.

A - Depending on the game, a player that does not buy from the shop may never be able to Equal the gap. not enjoyable from the begining.

B - Even if possible to obtain same advantages through in game activities, it is usually a longer process, but most importantly it does not leave the player the freedom to play the game as they wish compelling them to engage in the prescribed activities in order to reach that balance point as players who buy the advantages. And the game quickly turns in to a routine job. And this is not a way to enjoy games.

And still speaking about Advantages in relation to mainly PvP where balance really counts. Any Convenience or Cosmetic advantages or even advantages for PVE offered via microtransactions are fine and a more sensible middle point for both the Game Company and its customer Players.

Again, it is pretty much the same. Let's say just for the sake of argument that the required investment to get the things to be a top player in a p2w game is $100. On the other hand, in a non p2w game the required time to be at the top is 100 hours. In your argument the time is not an issue since by putting an hour a day, I just need over three months while the fastest ways would be just over 4 days.    On the other hand if I can put $100 I can get what I need  but if I put $1 a day I would get the same over three months. So, those situations are basically same.

To clarify the issue of immediate achievement through cash shop, keep in mind two things. First, games are developed in chunks(issues, expansions, patches) not as a continium so while assuming maximum ability to buy stuff there is a quantity after which anything more expended won't make difference. Second, after buying stuff, the player still needs to play the game so it won't get to use the things it bought right away.

One person on this forum stated that mmorpgs should not be a money limited activity, comparing sports like horse racing to other sports like basketball. However, mmos required money for development and if the mmo does not have large numbers it would need more money per account to survive. In most p2w games, people play for free on the account of those who has paid since they are giving the income to the developing company. In some games, those paying customers are satisfied by fluffy items but it is not always the case. If the company can't find a way to get income from not advantage stuff then there will no choice but going to p2w territory.

There are mmos for everybody, some more hardcore than others. People can choose what they want to play. For those who has more time most likely the big AAA titles for those with less time but some money can go to f2p games. Keep in mind that this whole argument is for those who want to be competitive in game, for those who not it is pretty much meaningless p2w or not, it is just a relaxing activity, like people who play wow without stepping in a raid.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by NaughtyP

I wonder, there are apparently buffs/boosts to guilds under certain scenarios or entire servers for WvW under certain circumstances, will people be upset about that as well if they are in a less prominent guild or a server that is not victorious in battle? Are those not "unfair" advantages?

Maybe the guild I wanted to be in turned me down or I'm in a small guild or the home server I wanted to be on was already full. Should players be left out of the "in-game boost fun zone" because of that? If anything, I see cash shop boosts as the equalizer to not being able to take advantage of in-game mechanics due to bad luck, lack of time or simply not fitting into a specific mold... no game can account for all the problems a player might encounter in or out of game. I don't see boosts as a time saver as a terrible thing for that very reason. Life gives you lemons, ANet gives you lemonade.

The whole point of boosts is to be exclusionary isn't it? If everyone has a boost, no one has a boost.

Actually nope. The whole point of boosts is to create a market that people will spend money in. If everyone does so, so much the better.

Originally posted by gandales

Originally posted by Suraknar

Originally posted by gandales

I would say that both sides are right in some way. While cash shops with special gear and other stuff is unfair. Giving so much power to the gaming time is also unbalanced no matter the arguement. Each person has its own circumstances, some can't put much money others can't put much time.

I would say that putting some softlimits to xp, raid locks and other activities would balance games for everybody and it would make healthier mmo gaming. That and a non P2W cash shop would be something closer to a balance game for everybody.

Why is time an issue all of the sudden?

I find the argument of time a bit nonsensical. Even in a game such as WoW where Time played = progression = Success, still everyone will be equal once the time played is equal.

If I can play 4 hours per week, and it takes 12 hours of game time to reach a certain level or to aquire a piece of gear, why is it a problem that another player who can play 6 hours a day can get to that point in 2 days while it will take me 3 weeks of real time, but still i will be able to be EQUAL to that player when I played equal amount of time?

It is not a problem in my view at all, it is how it is we both have equal opportunity to reach the same level of competitivness in good time.

On the other hand however, in a game with a cash shop that gives Advantages via microtransactions, it is not the same at all.

A - Depending on the game, a player that does not buy from the shop may never be able to Equal the gap. not enjoyable from the begining.

B - Even if possible to obtain same advantages through in game activities, it is usually a longer process, but most importantly it does not leave the player the freedom to play the game as they wish compelling them to engage in the prescribed activities in order to reach that balance point as players who buy the advantages. And the game quickly turns in to a routine job. And this is not a way to enjoy games.

And still speaking about Advantages in relation to mainly PvP where balance really counts. Any Convenience or Cosmetic advantages or even advantages for PVE offered via microtransactions are fine and a more sensible middle point for both the Game Company and its customer Players.

Again, it is pretty much the same. Let's say just for the sake of argument that the required investment to get the things to be a top player in a p2w game is $100. On the other hand, in a non p2w game the required time to be at the top is 100 hours. In your argument the time is not an issue since by putting an hour a day, I just need over three months while the fastest ways would be just over 4 days.    On the other hand if I can put $100 I can get what I need  but if I put $1 a day I would get the same over three months. So, those situations are basically same.

I really fail to see how this is the same, and I think that there is a flaw in your reasoning. The problem with it is that no game offers the possibility to buy anything significant for 1$ a day, second, even if it did, 1$ a day is already 30$ per month which is Double the amount of a standard subscription.

Thirdly, if a player can spend 100$ in 5 minutes in order to get to the equivalent competitive level than another, who is to say that a month later a new range of items appear on the shop, and then everyone who wants to be competitive has to spend again another 100$?

So in a 2 month perriod, you payed more than a Year's worth Standard Subscription. It is therefore really not the same thing at all, not the same value for this enetertainment medium at all.

P2W, is a money grab, it tries to impose a manipulative way of generating income for a business, as simple as that. Manipulative because it plays with players wants and emotions to try and gauge more money out them using the game as a platform for this opperation. And as such, I personally will not play any of the games that have P2W offerings.

If the industry feels that it is difficult to make money with an MMO then the industry should take a hard look at their designs and do some introspection and make games that people would play, secondly, the industry could decide to raise the subscription fees, it is usually 14.99, well why not move it up a bit to 16.99 or even 19.99. I would personally not mind that and since costs of life are going up all over the place.

On the other hand, working in the IT field myself I know that costs in that field are actually getting cheaper, so the argument of opperating costs simply does not fly with me.

15 years ago, it cost much much more for bandwidth, server farms and equipment than it does today. So while the opperating costs have lowered over the years and as more and more people got access to the Internet the Subscription fees remained the same.

What has gone up is the Devellopment costs, I will give you that, it seems like it takes bigger and bigger investements to make MMORPG's now days compared to 15 years ago, yet, usually this Investment is recuperated at launch or within the first 3 months of an MMO in many cases even generating a profit.

No, the companies are trying to make more money out of a popular entertainment product in order to raise their stock ratings.

The games that fail, do so because of the shortsightedness of their Devellopers and Designers, in the past 8 years I would estimate 99% of all MMORPG's made are actually the same game with same or very similar mechanics features and gameplay with different setting, colors sounds and FX.

That is why games fail to generate escompted revenues from the subscription model.

As players we do not need a new payment way...what we need is a new fun and refreshing game that we will play for long time and pay a sub for. But when the Industry keep churning the same old same old time and again, then lose their player base within 6 months the solution is not trying to find new ways to make profit, the solution is cretating a better product.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

It depends upon the community and structure of the game....in a game like WoW there is no interdependance required and it's a large a generaly crappy community...

Try behaving like a general a%%-hat in a game like Gemstone4 and see how far you get.  The moment when there are consequences for ones behavior, is when things start to go south for folks who are unwilling to follow some minimal societal norms.

It's only in games that tend to isolate players from the consequences of thier actions that you tend to get more then a tiny fraction of players willing to consider things like ninja-looting.

 

 

And how many players do Gemstone4 has? Why would anyone want to play a game that put all sort of social constraints on oneself?

There is a reason why LFR, LFD .. and all the matching making feature popular .. aside from the convenience. People LIKE not to be able to deal with other people's expectation and can behave anyway they want to.

Community is way over rated. I don't see a reason to always be forced to be nice to strangers. It is enough to be nice to a few friends. If i am in a good mood, sure, i will be nice. Isnt behavior without consequences a way to escape from the real world?

Shockingly some people who play MMO's actualy ENJOY interacting with other people...reasonably large numbers of other people, in fact. Who would have thunk it? Some people ENJOY being part of a community and the things that brings to game (or any other hobby/activity for that matter). They even ENJOY interacting with people who are freindly and respectfull towards other players in a game...and know how to behave in a game environment with other player...and even understand concepts like "sportsmanship"..... shocking to think about isn't it?

If you find behaving respectfully to other players overly burdensome then there are plenty of single-player venues to satisfy any anti-social drives you might have. Fortunately I grew up in an era where one was EXPECTED to behave respectfully to others both at work and at play, regardless of whether they were strangers or not and regardless of the environment. The value of doing so was considered self-evident and was not a burden to the individual. Thus one was expected to comport oneself according to certain basic values whether one was at work, at school, on the baseball/football field or in a virtual gamespace shared with other individuals. This was seen as a virtue, NOT a burden.

Sadly this is a lesson that seems to be lost (or never has been learned) by many individuals today, especialy as is evident in many games.

Note that while one may be interacting in a virtual space and a fictional world.... there are still REAL PEOPLE behind the keyboards sharing that space.... one still has a responsibility as a PERSON to treat those other PERSONS shareing the play space with respect....regardless of the actions of ones "character".....even when ones virtual "character" may be dashing the other virtual "characters" brains in with a virtual mace. The fictionality of the world does NOT divorce one of thier basic responsibility as a human being to act respectfully toward other human beings behind the keyboards.

As far as the number of people playing Gemstone...it is sufficient to have allowed it to be a commercialy viable entity since before 1990 until today..... sufficient, in fact, to largely be responsible for having financed the development of the Hero Engine that has been licensed to many MMO's (including TOR).  Which means that it's player population is larger then many small MMO's...this despite the fact that it is a text based game built on a code base dating from an era before the Web was a common commercial venue.

But by all means....if communities and social interaction have no value to you in the venue of playing a game....there are any number of offerings that suit those preferences. Fortunately they are NOT the only offerings available for those of us who feel otherwise.