For 50% of people want some given feature is actually quite low for a poll on a harmless feature. The polling is a lot more well-established in politics. Would it be nice if the government could spend more money on this program? Most people will say yes. And that program? Again, yes. And would it be nice if the government could cut this tax? Yes again. And that tax? Again, yes. When the issues are considered in isolation, the public nearly always wants higher spending and less taxes.
But in politics, as in game development, there are trade-offs. When the issue is, do you want to spend more money on this program, and raise this tax to pay for it, far fewer people say "yes" than if the tax isn't mentioned. If it's, do you want to cut this tax, and eliminate these programs that the tax funds, again, far fewer say "yes" than without the spending cuts.
If it's a choice of, do you want the game forum to be accessible from in-game, or would you rather have an extra race or class added to the game, or an extra zone with a bunch of quests added, or an extra dungeon added, not so many people would say, let's have the in-game forum instead of real game content. In the short-term, those aren't the real trade-offs, as people who set up forums aren't the same people as do the artwork for an extra playable race. But in the long-term, those are the trade-offs, as if you have some sum of money available to hire an employee, you could use it to hire another artist or another web developer.
Just a thought, but seems the topic has really seemed to drift toward a browser in a game and not so much forums in a game. The original question could be addressed by in game "kiosks" (i.e. Auction House type access) that do not make web calls at all. Of course, the "kiosk" could just be a skinned web browser under the covers as well. To that end, it depends on the type of game and whether that sort of functionality really makes sense for the audience.
The browser comes up becuase we can point to implementations of it and there are a number of flexible solutions to make it happen with minimal development effort as it does not involve reinventing the wheel. Additionally, the browser method certainly opens up a lot of possiblities as well. Using EvE as an example again: EvE-Gate comes to mind. For those not familiar, it is basically a social platform that can be accessed in or out of game via a browser. Aside from that known implementation, it seems completely reasonable that things such as auction houses, in-game mail, or even inventory management, could be unteathered from the game client and made accessible whether you are in or out of game. So maybe the idea of putting a browser shouldn't just be viewed as facilitating forum access so much as a stepping stone to blur the lines between in and out of game features. A browser would then become the common interface for those game features whether in or out of the game client itself.
Personally, I like the browser in EvE. It isn't as robust as Chrome or Firefox, but it does exactly what i need/want it to do in a familiar manner. In the end, it is a nice little extra in my gaming experience and is a contributing factor to my generally positive view of the developer. That said, I can understand other people wouldn't care and see it as a waste. To each their own.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
The advantage, if there is one, would be giving people something they want while playing a game, or while somewhere else. People who are in the game and people who are out of the game could have forum style communications.
Except that people already have that, and implemented better than what you propose. You can run both a web browser and a game client at the same time on the same computer, you know.
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by lizardbones The advantage, if there is one, would be giving people something they want while playing a game, or while somewhere else. People who are in the game and people who are out of the game could have forum style communications.
Except that people already have that, and implemented better than what you propose. You can run both a web browser and a game client at the same time on the same computer, you know.
Obviously. We also have email. Why didn't games implement a feature using existing email systems instead of rolling their own? It wasn't to send items because you couldn't do that to begin with. Internet IRC existed long before mmorpg. Why not just use irc programs instead of in-game chat? They do the same thing. You can even have them run overlaying the game you're playing (Steam does this). Because people like the convenience of having everything available in a single client, when it's all devoted to a single purpose. Why aren't we using USENET for our game forums right now?
Having a forum type feature in-game doesn't address an issue or solve a problem. It provides a service. One that people may take advantage of and enjoy for very little investment on the part of the developer. It might even (gasp) be useful! People like posting on forums. People like arguing on forums.
Status - we're at 50% of people thinking in-game forums are a good idea. 31% think it's a no-go. I am surprised that 31% of the people posting would want unlimited game forums and only 19% would want it limited in some way.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"Besides various public trade and discussion forums, as well as faction internal forums, each clan receives a restricted, clan internal forum for the daily communication. Offer your crafted items in one of the trade forums or discuss actual topics with other runners in one of the discussion forums."
Very cool. Would have liked something like that in AC during its day because the forums used to be filled with the biggest auctions and the most entertaining server drama.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"Besides various public trade and discussion forums, as well as faction internal forums, each clan receives a restricted, clan internal forum for the daily communication. Offer your crafted items in one of the trade forums or discuss actual topics with other runners in one of the discussion forums."
Very cool. Would have liked something like that in AC during its day because the forums used to be filled with the biggest auctions and the most entertaining server drama.
This is something that might actually benefit from having some form of in-game forum - Server Identity. You're not likely to meet most of the people on your server. Forums would be one way for people to get to know each other. Maybe make hanging around in "town" more than just waiting for the next instance.
Still around 50% for, 32% against. Interestingly, the number of people who are for in-game forums with no restrictions is the same number of people who are against having in-game forums at all. The two have matched for most of the life of the Poll. I don't know what that means, but it's interesting.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
For 50% of people want some given feature is actually quite low for a poll on a harmless feature. The polling is a lot more well-established in politics. Would it be nice if the government could spend more money on this program? Most people will say yes. And that program? Again, yes. And would it be nice if the government could cut this tax? Yes again. And that tax? Again, yes. When the issues are considered in isolation, the public nearly always wants higher spending and less taxes.
But in politics, as in game development, there are trade-offs. When the issue is, do you want to spend more money on this program, and raise this tax to pay for it, far fewer people say "yes" than if the tax isn't mentioned. If it's, do you want to cut this tax, and eliminate these programs that the tax funds, again, far fewer say "yes" than without the spending cuts.
If it's a choice of, do you want the game forum to be accessible from in-game, or would you rather have an extra race or class added to the game, or an extra zone with a bunch of quests added, or an extra dungeon added, not so many people would say, let's have the in-game forum instead of real game content. In the short-term, those aren't the real trade-offs, as people who set up forums aren't the same people as do the artwork for an extra playable race. But in the long-term, those are the trade-offs, as if you have some sum of money available to hire an employee, you could use it to hire another artist or another web developer.
Just a thought, but seems the topic has really seemed to drift toward a browser in a game and not so much forums in a game. The original question could be addressed by in game "kiosks" (i.e. Auction House type access) that do not make web calls at all. Of course, the "kiosk" could just be a skinned web browser under the covers as well. To that end, it depends on the type of game and whether that sort of functionality really makes sense for the audience.
The browser comes up becuase we can point to implementations of it and there are a number of flexible solutions to make it happen with minimal development effort as it does not involve reinventing the wheel. Additionally, the browser method certainly opens up a lot of possiblities as well. Using EvE as an example again: EvE-Gate comes to mind. For those not familiar, it is basically a social platform that can be accessed in or out of game via a browser. Aside from that known implementation, it seems completely reasonable that things such as auction houses, in-game mail, or even inventory management, could be unteathered from the game client and made accessible whether you are in or out of game. So maybe the idea of putting a browser shouldn't just be viewed as facilitating forum access so much as a stepping stone to blur the lines between in and out of game features. A browser would then become the common interface for those game features whether in or out of the game client itself.
Personally, I like the browser in EvE. It isn't as robust as Chrome or Firefox, but it does exactly what i need/want it to do in a familiar manner. In the end, it is a nice little extra in my gaming experience and is a contributing factor to my generally positive view of the developer. That said, I can understand other people wouldn't care and see it as a waste. To each their own.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Except that people already have that, and implemented better than what you propose. You can run both a web browser and a game client at the same time on the same computer, you know.
Obviously. We also have email. Why didn't games implement a feature using existing email systems instead of rolling their own? It wasn't to send items because you couldn't do that to begin with. Internet IRC existed long before mmorpg. Why not just use irc programs instead of in-game chat? They do the same thing. You can even have them run overlaying the game you're playing (Steam does this). Because people like the convenience of having everything available in a single client, when it's all devoted to a single purpose. Why aren't we using USENET for our game forums right now?
Having a forum type feature in-game doesn't address an issue or solve a problem. It provides a service. One that people may take advantage of and enjoy for very little investment on the part of the developer. It might even (gasp) be useful! People like posting on forums. People like arguing on forums.
Status - we're at 50% of people thinking in-game forums are a good idea. 31% think it's a no-go. I am surprised that 31% of the people posting would want unlimited game forums and only 19% would want it limited in some way.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Offical-forum inside the game? I don't see much point in it because the forums are just an alt+tab, and two click away.
What I have seen, though, is an ingame non-offical forum, among other things. Main problem with that is its not moderated.
"Besides various public trade and discussion forums, as well as faction internal forums, each clan receives a restricted, clan internal forum for the daily communication. Offer your crafted items in one of the trade forums or discuss actual topics with other runners in one of the discussion forums."
Very cool. Would have liked something like that in AC during its day because the forums used to be filled with the biggest auctions and the most entertaining server drama.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Very cool. Would have liked something like that in AC during its day because the forums used to be filled with the biggest auctions and the most entertaining server drama.
This is something that might actually benefit from having some form of in-game forum - Server Identity. You're not likely to meet most of the people on your server. Forums would be one way for people to get to know each other. Maybe make hanging around in "town" more than just waiting for the next instance.
Still around 50% for, 32% against. Interestingly, the number of people who are for in-game forums with no restrictions is the same number of people who are against having in-game forums at all. The two have matched for most of the life of the Poll. I don't know what that means, but it's interesting.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.