Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Coman
Content locust are the people that rush though the content. Whatever it's takes them a few days, weeks or months the name is still correct and has nothing to do with the amount of content. It's simply about that group of gamers that just plays a lot faster then the avarage gamer. 

The question then is how big is that group currently. If they are inconsequential in numbers, then they can be ignored. However, if they are a growing number of players then the games have to either be designed support that playstyle or marketed such that that people with that playstyle are not attracted to the game, otherwise the game will be adversely affected either in reviews/reputation or subscriber count.

Tough to estimate group size and tough to even define what "adversely affected sub count" really means.

When we have these discussion from the other side, we usually arrive at constructs like "loosing half the subs in 2 months is NORMAL" and "200k subs for a 50mil project is SUCCESS".

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Novusod

Sandbox games have no ending and thus can never be beaten by the content locust. In a sandbox game the content locust is just another player going about their business co-creating the story that has yet to be writen.

wait what?

You first say that there is no content locust but then say that there is a type of game that is immune to the content locus and that in these games the "content locust" becomes a regular player.

How can you say there is no such thing when you clearly use it as an example?

Perhaps a better way to look at it is that theme park games allow for a "content locust" type of player whereas sandboxes do not create this type of player?

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

that is all fine, but I would be more inclined to term it "there should be no such thing as content locusts".  Terming it the way you do makes it sound like "There is no such thing as fat people, because salads taste great"

Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue with your position, and I don't want to derail your thread over semantics within the title.

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

This logic is pretty much proven wrong. There is no "need" to have open ended play driven content. WOW does not have it. Maple Story does not have it. Heck, all raid focus MMO does not have it.

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included.  All I want to do is consume fun content.  When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.

The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by jpnz

Why would I as a so-called 'content locust'; want to play a sandbox game?

I primary play games because I like a good story and sandbox games mostly have awful stories and some have none.

Look at EVE and how the in-game story and how it is presented to the players is just god-awful (EVE Chronicles were awesome though).

If game devs want my $$, they need to provide me with a good story / lore.

That's my personal preference, if you have a problem with that, tough.

 

Maybe you just never heard the story of the conquest of Null-sec or the story of the Mittani. Guess you will never understand this then.

You confuse a story that is only good after the fact, something that you might read in a book, and a  story that your character lives through that is good while it's  being experienced.

I thought "content locust" was a term brought up on these forums. It wasn't developers who talked about them, it was us. They are the people who will go through as much content as possible, as fast as possible, because that's what they do. They are people who buy single player FPS and RPG only to finish them in marathon weekend gaming sessions. I work about three cubicles down from one of these people. The amount of content the game provides is not relevant. It's the way they play games. Moving over to Eve doesn't mean they aren't the type of player that would consume all the available content in a single player game in a weekend.

I only have one small problem with the thread title

its wrong.

otherwise great thread.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included.  All I want to do is consume fun content.  When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.

The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.

That is the wrong definition of "poorly designed".

I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

This logic is pretty much proven wrong. There is no "need" to have open ended play driven content. WOW does not have it. Maple Story does not have it. Heck, all raid focus MMO does not have it.

 

I agree with you.  If the OPs thesis was correct then why are games like EQ, EQ2, & WoW still going?  Seems to me that the OP is another sandbox type of player and there's nothing wrong with that.  It's easy to blame devs if a person rushes to level cap and bypasses content.  The truth is, it's that players own fault, not the devs in most cases.

Originally posted by lizardbones

I thought "content locust" was a term brought up on these forums. It wasn't developers who talked about them, it was us. They are the people who will go through as much content as possible, as fast as possible, because that's what they do. They are people who buy single player FPS and RPG only to finish them in marathon weekend gaming sessions. I work about three cubicles down from one of these people. The amount of content the game provides is not relevant. It's the way they play games. Moving over to Eve doesn't mean they aren't the type of player that would consume all the available content in a single player game in a weekend.

There was a columnist here a while back that I believe coined the term. It has since been brought up regularly.

Wonder where she went? Turnover rate here is attrocious.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Novusod

Originally posted by eyelolled
So your argument is that there isn't such a thing as a player that consumes in months, the content produced by years of developers efforts, because some different types of games don't have content?

 

Is there an echo in here?  There are no content locusts, just poorly designed games that failed to provide enough open ended elements. If said content took years to develop then those were years of wasted efforts on the part of those developers. MMORPGs need to have open ended player driven content if people are going to play these games long term. That is the logic behind my thesis.

Your thesis is just wrong, there are many self-professed content locusts, myself included.  All I want to do is consume fun content.  When the content stops being fun, or when I've consumed it all, I go elsewhere.

The amount of content available has no bearing whatsoever on whether people want to consume it like locusts.

That is the wrong definition of "poorly designed".

I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter.

I didn't write that, but I do agree with you.  He  seems to think that people will stop consuming content for the sake of consuming content, which is what a  content locust is, if there is just more content.  No, that'll just keep them busy longer.  He also seems to think that content locusts are going to go out and create their own content if they are given those tools.  I have zero interest in creating content.  I want to play a game, not write a game.  I've done more than enough content creation in my life, I just want to have a good time and play a game.

Originally posted by Cephus404

 

I didn't write that, but I do agree with you.  He  seems to think that people will stop consuming content for the sake of consuming content, which is what a  content locust is, if there is just more content.  No, that'll just keep them busy longer.  He also seems to think that content locusts are going to go out and create their own content if they are given those tools.  I have zero interest in creating content.  I want to play a game, not write a game.  I've done more than enough content creation in my life, I just want to have a good time and play a game.

I agree with this post.

It is similar to wanting to read a book and not write a book.

I am awful at writing and will never write a novel in my life.

That doesn't mean I don't have the tools to do so (cause I have notepad! :P).

Just some clification on the thesis.

The reason I say there is no such thing as a content locust is because that is the way players always played the games. Players always had to get through the content in some way or another. Consuming the content rapidly was just the way players played through the games. Tearing through content was the way players got through the games. "Content locust" is a made up term to excuse game failure and poor design. Players didn't change, it was the games that changed as developers abandoned sandbox in favor of poorly designed themeparks. That is why I say there is no such thing as a content locust.

"Content locust" is a poorly thought up excuse not an actual subset of players. Every player is a content locust if you buy into this excuse. It is ultimately a defeatist mentality. It is like expecting children to not to rip the wraping paper when they open gifts on Christmas morning. Do we call these children Christmas locusts? No, they are just children. That is just the way it is. "Content locust" just means player. The sooner we stop making these excuses and labeling players as "content locusts" it will be a step forward for MMORPG industry.

---

Originally posted by Novusod
Just some clification on the thesis.

The reason I say there is no such thing as a content locust is because that is the way players always played the games. Players always had to get through the content in some way or another. Consuming the content rapidly was just the way players played through the games. Tearing through content was the way players got through the games. "Content locust" is a made up term to excuse game failure and poor design. Players didn't change, it was the games that changed as developers abandoned sandbox in favor of poorly designed themeparks. That is why I say there is no such thing as a content locust.

 

"Content locust" is a poorly thought up excuse not an actual subset of players. Every player is a content locust if you buy into this excuse. It is ultimately a defeatist mentality. It is like expecting children to not to rip the wraping paper when they open gifts on Christmas morning. Do we call these children Christmas locusts? No, they are just children. That is just the way it is. "Content locust" just means player. The sooner we stop making these excuses and labeling players as "content locusts" it will be a step forward for MMORPG industry.

---

didn't read the thread, but the title gets +1.

Make better games.

"I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter"

When gaming studios are putting millions into making these games and the certainty of them getting a return on invesment is being brought into question, it matters a lot.

Duration may not matter to you, but it does to many players. More importantly it matters to the gaming company. Already we see MMO design focused on the short term. The changes in finance model and lay offs which have happened within 12 months for SWTOR, TSW and Terra do not bode well for future MMO's. MMO's in the pipeline will already have downgraded their forcasts of after sales profit. This is bad news for the MMO genre because duration does matter.

Originally posted by Scot

"I say a game is well design if it is fun to play. Duration does not matter"

When gaming studios are putting millions into making these games and the certainty of them getting a return on invesment is being brought into question, it matters a lot.

Duration may not matter to you, but it does to many players. More importantly it matters to the gaming company. Already we see MMO design focused on the short term. The changes in finance model and lay offs which have happened within 12 months for SWTOR, TSW and Terra do not bode well for future MMO's. MMO's in the pipeline will already have downgraded their forcasts of after sales profit. This is bad news for the MMO genre because duration does matter.

"well" is a matter of perspective. More shorter MMO with better content (but not as much) is totally fine with me. I get that you don't like it. But you don't make up the whole MMO market, do you?