| 2903 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
DC Universe Online: Update 3 Developer Roundtable
News Discussion « General Discussion 5/31/11 11:56:19 PM
I'd like to comment on this portion of the roundtable discussion: "Jeff from Ten Ton Hammer then asked why the team couldn’t seem to hit that monthly stride. Essentially, Mark says, they just found out how hard the process was once the game was launched. With the necessity of submitting updates through so many different approval processes while trying to maintain quantity and quality, they just haven’t nailed it yet." Hmm, so before launch, you weren't aware of the approval process for submitting updates. Really? I'll be blunt, I don't believe you. Why? Because I've seen SOE do this before: sell people a broken game with very little content, and make promises to people that they don't follow through on. Imo, everyone who bought the game and/or subcription time on the basis of the promised updates should now qualify for a refund. |
|
|
General: Grinds My Gears: Critique Our Reviews
News Discussion « General Discussion 5/16/11 11:18:38 PM
I found a thought-provoking article about game reviews in general written by a gaming journalist at this link: http://nohighscores.com/node/508 I have no idea whether or not this guy's experience is typical, but it was an interesting read. As for the reviews here at MMORPG.COM, I'm old school. I always found it more informative when various categories were rated, and then used to calculate an overall score. If a game got a low overall score, I'd always check which categories seemed to hurt it the most. If it was a category I didn't really care about, I'd still give the game a shot. The categories also seem to give the review more objectivity imo. I know when I'm involved in hiring people, we've used a grid to help us score the person's performance in the interview. I find this helpful. I may get a really good vibe from someone, but when I look at my grid, I see that they have no idea how to do the job. I'm human, and without some distance and some objective criteria, my feelings definitely influence my assessments, whether I want them to or not. |
|
Originally posted by Quizzical Yup, I totally agree. I used to get game magazines, read the reviews, take some of their recommendations and buy games at release. Over the years I've noticed that the reviews have become less and less reliable. They often read more like P.R. pieces. Lots of exclamation marks, and lots of words like "iconic and robust." Now, I simply don't buy games on release day. I wait for the dust to settle so I can get some good information before I decide how to use my buying power. That has served me well lately. |
|
Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi Heya Fikus ^_^. Good to hear from you too. I've been well, thx for asking. Btw, I want to give credit to a mutual online friend (Shayde) for finding this article and bringing it to my attention. |
|
|
An excerpt from an interesting article:
The gaming industry, the media part, has always struck me as a very odd entity. 15 years later -- it still does. We are in an extremely unique situation in that our livelihood, well, to an extent, is reliant on complete cooperation from the people we are trying to objectively cover. I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but if a publisher thinks I am, why bother dealing with me? Kindness? Do you know how many websites are out there that cover games? All a game publisher has to do is cut off access and poof. You're done.
…
In another perfect world the game media would be no different than the average gamer. Sure, we'd have access to trade shows, talk to people, do interviews, maybe a preview if a game truly interests us, but in the review circles the fact that the media and the publishers have been working so close to one another for so many years simply isn't good -- for the consumer.
|
|
|
DC Universe Online: DC Universe Online Update 2
News Discussion « General Discussion 4/14/11 12:05:42 AM
Your highlighting a fundemental flaw in the game makes a lot of sense to me. I think really that it's just the latest in a list of fundamental flaws people have been trying to highlight (e.g. chat system, pvp exploits). If the endgame content is really difficult, and the option to grind for gear isn't there, and cash shops pop up to sell you the gear, that will smell like a money pit. Not a pretty picture. |
|
Originally posted by TheFur "Second Life (SL) is an online virtual world developed by Linden Lab which was launched on June 23, 2003. A number of free client programs called Viewers[1][2] enable Second Life users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. " (from the wiki) The controversy regarding second life is available on numerous websites. The client is F2P. No need for me to try again, and no point if you're simply going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. You can conduct your own research if you have a real interest. And, as I pointed out, this whole thread is about Apple, an American company. If you want to dismiss the entire thread, that's your prerogative. |
|
Originally posted by TheFur http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/26549.htm http://www.engagedigital.com/2010/01/27/microsoft-points-subject-of-class-action-lawsuit/ And isn't this whole thread about Apple? These are all American companies with controversy/legal issues related to virtual goods. No need to look overseas at all. |
|
Originally posted by Isane Excellent point and very relevant to MMOs. You used to login to a virtual world (MMO) go to a virtual store, pay virtual cash and receive virtual goods. It was all part of the entertainment experience. Now, however, you login to a virtual world, go to a virtual store, and pay real cash for virtual goods. Something very significant has changed. Also, after you pay real cash for your virtual item, the company that "sold" it to you immediately claims that the item you just bought has no monetary value, therefore your consumer rights are null and void. Anyone who can't see a number of problems with the new scenario should probably look harder. Heh, well either that or you're one of the people raking in the dough from the new scenario. In which case I can understand you defending it so vigorously. |
|
Originally posted by WSIMike Yes I've read interviews with other "industry leaders" where they talk about how to essentially soak people via RMT business models. As you say, their primary focus hasn't been providing entertainment or a quality gaming experience. It's been how to hook people with their business model and take them for as much as they possibly can. Nasty, nasty business. If someone is unwise enough to take the bait, are they responsible for their actions? Well, we're always responsible for the choices we make, but so are those who go to great lengths to bait the hook and reel us in. Should the RMT industry be completely unmonitored and unregulated? If it is, I guess it would be the only industry like it in our free market economy. Business transactions need parameters that can be legally enforced, or someone's going to get badly screwed. |
|
Originally posted by WSIMike Here's a link to one presentation I saw re. RMT: http://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/virtual-goods-why-how-they-work |
|
Originally posted by WSIMike If you saw the training material for F2P devs, you'd be even more convinced of your position. They are instructed in how to hook people into a game, create dependence on virtual items for gameplay, relationship-building and even self-worth, and then monetize the crap out of these items--particularly targetting their most avid (i.e. addicted) users. I highlighted this in another thread, and provided a link to an actual training seminar. |
|
Originally posted by TheFur Unfortunately many of the F2P games that have caused controversy are products of North American companies. So, the whole idea that we might be trying to force our worldview on foreign cultures is a red herring. Virtual impulse items are not the same as "real" impulse items because in the real world my environment cannot be artificially manipulated to increase demand. Laws against exploitation, defrauding etc. have been side-stepped by companies claiming that they do not apply because goods and services purchased are "virtual" and as a result--they claim--have no real monetary value. This point in particular is likely something the FTC and legislators want to resolve. If goods "sold" to customers are virtual, does that really mean the customer has no rights? Some North American companies in the EULAs say yes. Customers, of course, say no. Someone needs to mediate this dispute, and this particular dispute falls under the FTC's mandate. |
|
Originally posted by TheFur I don't think what some people are saying, and what you are hearing them say are the same thing tbh. Are people responsible for their choices? Yes. Are parents responsible to supervise their children with regard to their online activities? Yes. Are some F2P models child-friendly and upfront about the true nature of the services people are purchasing? Yes. Should developers who work for companies that run their business this way get an honest days pay for an honest days work? Yes, absolutely. Hopefully you feel that some of your points are being acknowledged here? At the same time, do some RMT games use misleading language when discussing the so-called purchase of virtual goods? I think so. Do some RMT games intentionally manipulate people to spend more in the item shop by tinkering with the game mechanics to artificially stimulate demand? Probably. Do some RMT games take customers money and give them essentially nothing in return? (e.g. the item may or may not work, it may be deleted at any time, it may be modified at any time, if it is you're totally S.O.L..) Absolutely. Do some RMT games ask children to agree to contracts that they can't possibly understand, and do some of the terms relate to the use of a parents credit card? Unfortunately, yes they most certainly do. The problem, as I see it, is not the F2P RMT model. As someone pointed out no two RMT games are exactly alike. Some can be very upfront, non-manipulative and child friendly. Others seem to be quite the opposite. If the FTC intervenes, they will be targetting games/services/companies that give RMT a bad name by their unethical business practices. Personally, I don't understand why any gamer would want to defend such practices, and I have no problem with the FTC dropping the hammer if need be. |
|
Originally posted by wfSeg Excellent point. There are huge differences between F2P games. Some are very consumer friendly. In those games you know what you're paying for, you get what you pay for, there is no gambling real money on a random chance of winning a virtual item and in some cases (e.g. pirate galaxy) if there is a problem with a virtual item you do have rights to a refund. You also get a refund if the item is changed before your limited license period expires. F2P games that are run ethically have absolutely no worries, imo. On the other hand, some games have apparently been built on a foundation of getting gamers hooked and then screwing them every which way they can, consumer rights be damned. I won't be surprised if the companies behind these games are targetted for some form of legal action. Frankly it's been a long time coming, but I think other issues have been a priority--e.g. banking scandals and the near collapse of the global economy. |
|
|
The only thing SOE ever did wrong with this game was the NGE right?
SWG Veteran Refuge « Star Wars Galaxies 3/01/11 11:26:03 PM
Based on everything I've read in this thread (some good reading btw) players do not believe that the NGE was an isolated incident. One of the main problems Smed actually admitted to once was not listening to players. I'll agree with him on that one. If anyone suggests that NGE was one, uncharacteristic mistake that a few disturbed players refuse to forgive....you're still not listening. |
|
|
Here are a few questions I'd have for providers of F2P (i.e. RMT) games: Do you really ask minors to click on EULAs that are written by your lawyers using language written by and for adults? Do you really accept credit card transactions from minors without having a mechanism for card holder validation? Do you really "sell" "items" at an RMT "shop" and then claim that no one has actually purchased anything? Do you sell limited licenses to use virtual services but disguise this in language that is misleading to the customer? If you "sell" a virtual item, and it doesn't function as advertised, do you refuse the customer a refund? If you "sell" a virtual item, and then immediately thereafter delete or devalue it, do you refuse the customer a refund? Do you have people purchase a random chance of winning a virtual item without following the regulations for lotteries and sweepstakes? Do you really think that a EULA is a legally binding contract when it can be changed at any time by the service provider without any notification to the customer? Did a company rep really say that people are purchasing virtual land in your game, and then did you turn around and claim that ownership was never implied? Did you take millions of dollars from customers via some or all of the above practices, and did these customers then barrage us with countless complaints by telephone, fax and/or email so that we now have to waste tax payers dollars investigating you? Do I think the FTC might have similar questions. LOL, yeah. I think they might :) |
|
|
EULAs written by lawyers ask children to click on them acknowledging that they understand the terms of use. This, imo, is unconsionable. Children cannot understand what they are allegedly agreeing to. Many of the terms refer to the use of a parent's credit card. One FTP game had children agree that any use of the credit card was "authorized." To be quite blunt, children aren't able to made that decision...and they should not be asked to. In contrast another FTP game has parents make all the financial decisions/transactions. Children are not asked to agree to the EULA, they are told to get a parent. Some of the games appear to exploit a child's naivety intentionally to access parental funds. If that is in fact the case. It should...and will be addressed by law enforcement agencies like the FTC. Richard this has been a long time coming as complaints about virtual item sales/licensing have been piling up, and law-suits have been mounting. Also, games like online gambling are extensively regulated and have repeatedly been in the news. If you're not aware of this history, I'd encourage you to do some research. P.S. Consumers and their advocates have repeatedly talked to service providers about the manner in which virtual economies can--and often do--side-step consumer rights legislation. This screams for intervention...intervention that would not be necessary if certain companies held themselves to some very basic ethical standards. |
|
|
General: Are Cranky Players the Problem?
News Discussion « General Discussion 2/14/11 11:57:38 PM
When City of Heroes put sweeping changes to PvP on their test servers, they received 300 pages (not posts) of feedback explaining how negatively the changes would impact gameplay and player progress. They didn't listen. As a result, I watched PvP die on 8 of 10 servers. Not only that, but the overall populations on those servers seemed greatly diminished. When StarWars Galaxies failed to listen to players regarding sweeping revamps known as the Combat Upgrade and New Game Enhancements, they lost probably tens of thousands of players, and many of their servers were shut down due to low populations. In both of these examples, those expressing concerns were labelled a vocal minority, and their views were dismissed. Sadly, this did not help either game. Having said that, I too have seen people who seem to enjoy creating forum drama more than playing the associated MMO. What I find unfortunate is that MMO developers/producers seem unable to determine which feedback is valid, and which is drama for its own sake. If they hired a qualitative research analyst to sift through their forums and polls, they might screw this up a lot less. In my experience many MMO companies may (or may not) know how to code good games. They don't, however, seem highly skilled at working with people. |
|
|
Well okay, but the only game SOE ever screwed up was SWG right?
SWG Veteran Refuge « Star Wars Galaxies 2/13/11 2:33:03 PM
Originally posted by hayes303 So nice to read such a well thought-out response :) Thanks. I think we agree on the SWG deal, that NGE wasn't the only thing that went wrong, just that it happened to be the worst. Are people's perceptions influenced by the worst thing that happened to them? I'm sure they are, that's only human imo. That's why companies should avoid scenarios like the NGE. They tend to be unforgettable...as much as the company might hope everyone will forget. At the same time, what I think, and what others seem to see is that NGE wasn't really all that uncharacteristic of SOE. They've surprised people before that with very unpopular decisions, and they've done so again afterwards. I've seen some posts and articles that seem to suggest that SOE gets bad press simply because people refuse to get over that one mistake they made in one of their titles. This theory seems to cast SOE in a favourable light, at the expense of their customers' credibility. I simply don't buy it, and it doesn't seem to fit with others' experience. Likewise regarding titles like Vanguard, Matrix and SWG, I don't buy the notion that SOE's partners screwed them up, and that SOE was somehow an innocent by-stander. That seems like a spin-job that doesn't fit with others' experiences and observations. Brenlo of SOE, for example, told me personally that NGE was 100% SOE's decision. He posted this on the public forums, and people still try shift blame to LucasArts. That truly amazes me. Simply put, I think that people have bad feelings towards SOE because of a number of bad experiences across a number of their titles. Sure NGE was probably the worst example of this, but I don't think it was by any means an isolated event, as some seem to suggest. If SOE really wants to avoid bad word-of-mouth, it seems to me that they need to become experts at releasing polished games, listening to customer feedback, following through on what they say they're going to do, and avoiding nasty surprises. Pointing fingers at business partners and suggesting that their players are unreasonable crack-pots doesn't seem like a winning strategy. If anything it just alienates people more, and generates more negative discussion. |
|