Here is a list of top 10 selling games in May 2012. 8 out of 10 are combat games. All the gameplay are combat in these 8 games, except may be Diablo 3, which has a AH component. Just D3 sells 6.3M copies.
Any reasonable person will agree that there is a demand for combat gameplay. BTW, the rest of the 2 are 1 sports game and 1 dancing game.
If combat is not so popular, violence in video games will not be such a hot topic. I believe you can do your own web search to find tons of such articles. Here is one to get you started ...
"Nine out of ten (89%) of the top-selling video games contained violence; about half of all games contained serious violence, and 17% featured violence as the primary focus of the game.18"
1. there is no proof that has been provided that people are not asking for housing so really just on this point only the entire debate is based on bullsh*t assumptions.
2. saying that people 'dont ask for it' as evidence is silly. Does that mean I dont want a bl*w job from my favorite porn star? because I didnt ask for it? come on guys
My post was NOT about housing ... it was in response for your issue on whether there is evidence to support "there is demand for combat gameplay".
But to your point ..
1) There is also no proof that people are asking for it.
Now here is what we have evidence FOR:
a) Devs do not think that housing is important -> obviously, otherwise they will put more resource into it.
b) Devs see more player data than we do -> this one is obvious ... they logged everything people do in game, and have full log of official game forums.
You draw your own conclusion based on these two points.
1. There isnt any evidence that people are asking for it or evidence that people are not asking for it.
2. its extreemly common for developers to do thing for no other reason then that they have their head rammed up their a$$. There is no evidence to suggest they would do anything based on reason and even more specifically a random baseless reason someone pulled out of their a$$ with no bases of substance other than assumptions.
3. despite common believe companies DO NOT base all their design choices completely on what people ask for. I have no idea where that delisional assumption came from.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Player housing really only makes sense if the game has made at least one successful expansion, by that point they have some idea how solid the player base is.
Originally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it. all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'sorry never gonna happen that way.
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory. he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong. The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
no the evidence is too weak.
1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it.
2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence.
Dur. The theory was, "Not enough people are asking for it". This has the double defense of being plausible...
look either you all know the emails that have been sent to developers or you dont. Otherwise to be completely frank nobody have a f8cking clue what is or is not being asked for and shouldnt be used as evidence.
jesus love of god!
to suggest a cause and effect assumes it true in all cases. if you use cause and effect as you eveidence then the following is also true.
1. people are 'asking' for combat.
2. people are asking for housing BECUASE ITS IN GAMES!!!!!!!!!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by nariusseldonwell,1) we are talking about the industry, and it is clear that if you want the dev to do anything, burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a demand.2) there are many people making many claims on this thread. There is nothing special to make the first claim in an internet thread like this. It just open up the discussion.3) There is clear NO PROOF that there is a huge demand for housing. There is also no conclusive proof that there is none.
there is no 'clear proof' that people want combat either. Nobody asks for it. all this is doesnt matter. in basic logic the person who makes a positive declaration almost ALWAYS has the burden of proof if only one party has burden. You cant make a statement and basically say 'I dont have to proove anything you have to proove I am wrong'sorry never gonna happen that way.Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...without any evidence to proove the theory. he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demandThey really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong. The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive. no the evidence is too weak. 1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it.2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence. Dur. The theory was, "Not enough people are asking for it". This has the double defense of being plausible...look either you all know the emails that have been sent to developers or you dont. Otherwise to be completely frank nobody have a f8cking clue what is or is not being asked for and shouldnt be used as evidence.
jesus love of god!
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1. There isnt any evidence that people are asking for it or evidence that people are not asking for it.
2. its extreemly common for developers to do thing for no other reason then that they have their head rammed up their a$$. There is no evidence to suggest they would do anything based on reason and even more specifically a random baseless reason someone pulled out of their a$$ with no bases of substance other than assumptions.
1) I did not say there is evidence either way. What i listed as evidence is pretty clear.
2) You have no evidence that "its extreemly common for developers to do thing for no other reason then that they have their head rammed up their a$$". In fact, there is plenty of evidence that at least Blizz listen to, rrespond to (blue post) and hence aware of what players are saying.
The statement that "some devs (particular blizz) knows what players are saying on official forums" is well supported.
I am saying if one party has the burden of proof but not the other than in this case its the first party.
party one is making a statement, giving a reason. the other party is simply saying its not true. The second party cant have the burden of proof for a declaration made by someone with a reason and no published evidence to support that declaration.
We happen to know how business works. Are you seriously suggesting that all these companies know they can make tons of money by putting in housing, they're just laughing and saying "we'd rather piss this guy on a forum off and not do it!"?
Seriously?
These companies exist to make money. They are going to put in any features they can come up with that will make them more money. If they do not put those features in, they do not think they are going to make them more money. Where are we losing you?
But no, you're just like all the other niche advocates who think everyone on the planet wants what you want, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.
here is the full list best I can recall.
1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing.
2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it.
3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for.
4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for.
5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
What is your logic disagreeing with the reason that business needs proof for resource allocation purpose?
Do you think you can go get VC backing or a business loan just because "you have a hunch, and there is no evidence either way"?
This is an idea I think the developers should look at. Due to real-estate constrains in many game worlds they should only allow guilds to build housing. And inside of that guild house the members can have instanced apartments. This will solve so many issues for the devs as to space and game aesthetics.
If the guild has to pay fees to maintain this property, the members can pay rent for the apartment to help defray the guilds costs. Apartments can be of different sizes and layouts and only the rents would differ. Also they can offer EQ2 like decorating mechanics and house items.
Also, I think it best, that the guild would have to gather all of the materials to build the guild hall with its apartments. Much like a guild town was built in AOC.
As far as characters who do not belong to a guild, they can always rent an apartment (already in game) down in the slums (at a higher cost than a guild apartment).
And I can’t think of a better DE than a guild only event to stop the robbers inside their guild hall or apartments.
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.
here is the full list best I can recall.
1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing.
2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it.
3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for.
4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for.
5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue.
You can look at these forums and the Blizzard forums to see that there are people who are interested in housing enough to make posts about it. There are 227 people online right now, and at least 91 of them have responded to my poll on housing (however flawed that poll may be found).
So, your #1 is false. People are asking about it housing and asking for housing.
Here's some information that might be interesting. Rift is going to have player housing and so is WoW. It may be instanced, and possibly fluff, but it's going to exist...so at least two of the primary movers and shakers think there's enough people asking for it or who want housing. They are much more an authority on what their players want than we are.
It would be funny if the question had to be changed to "Why hasn't housing shown up before now?" because there was housing in every game. Maybe the question would become, "Why isn't there useful housing instead of just fluff housing?".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
What is your logic disagreeing with the reason that business needs proof for resource allocation purpose?
Do you think you can go get VC backing or a business loan just because "you have a hunch, and there is no evidence either way"?
was there proof that cell phones would be popular before they hit the market? no
was there proof that MMOs would be popular before they were created? no
was there evidence that people would want social media sites before they were created? no
I am sure I could go on but you get the point.
Its not and 'on or 'off' situation. evidence is nice to have if you can get it but i assure you every business idea isnt discared if there is no evidence. its a nice thing to have but its not a universal requirement.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
What is your logic disagreeing with the reason that business needs proof for resource allocation purpose?
Do you think you can go get VC backing or a business loan just because "you have a hunch, and there is no evidence either way"?
was there proof that cell phones would be popular before they hit the market? no
was there proof that MMOs would be popular before they were created? no
was there evidence that people would want social media sites before they were created? no
I am sure I could go on but you get the point.
Its not and 'on or 'off' situation. evidence is nice to have if you can get it but i assure you every business idea isnt discared if there is no evidence. its a nice thing to have but its not a universal requirement.
1) no. But unlike housing, there is no possibility of evidence. For housing, there are games with it, and there are forums discussing it.
2) Yes, there *are* precursor to MMOs. Kingdom of Drakkar, Isle of Kesmai, neverwinter night on AOL, even MUDs.... which shows that a large scale will work.
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.
here is the full list best I can recall.
1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing.
2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it.
3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for.
4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for.
5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue.
You can look at these forums and the Blizzard forums to see that there are people who are interested in housing enough to make posts about it. There are 227 people online right now, and at least 91 of them have responded to my poll on housing (however flawed that poll may be found).
So, your #1 is false. People are asking about it housing and asking for housing.
Here's some information that might be interesting. Rift is going to have player housing and so is WoW. It may be instanced, and possibly fluff, but it's going to exist...so at least two of the primary movers and shakers think there's enough people asking for it or who want housing. They are much more an authority on what their players want than we are.
It would be funny if the question had to be changed to "Why hasn't housing shown up before now?" because there was housing in every game. Maybe the question would become, "Why isn't there useful housing instead of just fluff housing?".
so I am confused.
1. The orginal poster suggested that people are NOT asking for housing and you are suggesting that they are asking for housing. So which is it? he is saying people are not asking for it and that we have to provide evidence his conculsions based on that are invalid.
2. what is 'asking for it' exactly? posting on a forum page or sending an email? could we be more vauge and obtuse about this?
3. The question should be 'would people like useful housing' or various forms of that statement
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SEANMCADOriginally posted by lizardbones
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.here is the full list best I can recall. 1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing.2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it.3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for.4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for.5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars.6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue. You can look at these forums and the Blizzard forums to see that there are people who are interested in housing enough to make posts about it. There are 227 people online right now, and at least 91 of them have responded to my poll on housing (however flawed that poll may be found). So, your #1 is false. People are asking about it housing and asking for housing. Here's some information that might be interesting. Rift is going to have player housing and so is WoW. It may be instanced, and possibly fluff, but it's going to exist...so at least two of the primary movers and shakers think there's enough people asking for it or who want housing. They are much more an authority on what their players want than we are. It would be funny if the question had to be changed to "Why hasn't housing shown up before now?" because there was housing in every game. Maybe the question would become, "Why isn't there useful housing instead of just fluff housing?". so I am confused.
1. The orginal poster suggested that people are NOT asking for housing and you are suggesting that they are asking for housing. So which is it? he is saying people are not asking for it and that we have to provide evidence his conculsions based on that are invalid.
2. what is 'asking for it' exactly? posting on a forum page or sending an email? could we be more vauge and obtuse about this?
3. The question should be 'would people like useful housing' or various forms of that statement
1. People are asking for housing. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Are 'enough' people asking for housing? I dunno. 'Enough' would be different for each developer. Trion and Blizzard think 'enough' people would want housing to put some effort into putting it in their games now, though apparently they didn't think enough people would want it last year.
2. I'm only talking about forums, because that's the only information I have access to. If we don't quantify the asking, then people are definitely asking for it. I don't know how many though.
3. For us, yeah, that would be a good question. For a developer though, they're going to wonder what kind of housing will give them a return on their investment time. That could be 'useful' housing, or it could be housing where you hang pictures and arrange furniture. For a developer, the 'right' housing is the housing that their players will enjoy. It could be different for each developer. Blizzard's players might want to arrange furniture, while Funcom's players might want a computer desk with a functional in game browser to talk to people on forums. *shrug*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
was there proof that cell phones would be popular before they hit the market? no
was there proof that MMOs would be popular before they were created? no
was there evidence that people would want social media sites before they were created? no
I am sure I could go on but you get the point.
Its not and 'on or 'off' situation. evidence is nice to have if you can get it but i assure you every business idea isnt discared if there is no evidence. its a nice thing to have but its not a universal requirement.
I would aruge that there was plenty of evidence predicting that cell phones would be huge. Human beings as a rule always want better ways to communicate.
When I was in highschool, there was an arcade game in a 7-11 that my friend and I played together. The great thing about it was that unlike the standard fighting games it allowed us to cooperate in such a way that we became much more powerful as a team. That to me is a crear sign that cooperative online gameplay would be strike a cord with a lot of people.
When I was in high school BBSes were very big. Then I was introduced to the Internet and discussion boards (similar to this one). While I could not predict the precise way Facebook and Youtube would evolve, I knew early on that this level of social interconnectivity with total strangers was irrestible.
Stuff like that does not just come out of the blue. There are usually big signs hinting at what is too come. People just don't pay attention to it. However, the level of technology has to raise far enough to make the new paradigm practical. If you gamble on it too early, you will get burned.
well if I have done one thing in some very odd way I managed to transfer the statement of 'players dont want housing because they havent been asking for them' into 'there is plenty of evidence of players asking for housing' without me even trying to do so.
This is a very bizzare conversation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would aruge that there was plenty of evidence predicting that cell phones would be huge. Human beings as a rule always want better ways to communicate.
When I was in highschool, there was an arcade game in a 7-11 that my friend and I played together. The great thing about it was that unlike the standard fighting games it allowed us to cooperate in such a way that we became much more powerful as a team. That to me is a crear sign that cooperative online gameplay would be strike a cord with a lot of people.
When I was in high school BBSes were very big. Then I was introduced to the Internet and discussion boards (similar to this one). While I could not predict the precise way Facebook and Youtube would evolve, I knew early on that this level of social interconnectivity with total strangers was irrestible.
Stuff like that does not just come out of the blue. There are usually big signs hinting at what is too come. People just don't pay attention to it. However, the level of technology has to raise far enough to make the new paradigm practical. If you gamble on it too early, you will get burned.
The orginal statement was that basically business will not take action on an idea unless consumers ask for it. My statement was in realtion to that, thus I really should have said 'where people asking for cell phones before they came out'? I am sure you can pull some obtuse evidence to suggest that they have but what I am saying is that every business descision doesnt wait for the consumers to ask for it first and I know this from first hand experince working in the business world for many years.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy.The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done. The hypothesis will always exist in an eternal state of 'Not Wrong' until it is either accepted as True or proven False. This has happened. The hypothesis was submitted, with some evidence and existed in a state of 'Not Wrong'. It wasn't accepted as True, but wasn't proven False either. Person A is still under no particular obligation at this point.
If person B disagrees, and wants to prove the hypothesis wrong, then they have to do just that. Prove it wrong. They can refute the evidence, but that doesn't refute the hypothesis. Being proven false can only happen if Person B steps up and refutes the hypothesis with evidence. If the conversation on the hypothesis is to move forward, person B has to do it.
Hypothesis: Not enough people ask for or want housing. Evidence: If developers thought there was enough interest, they would do it to make money. Counter Evidence: Threads like this one, and threads on other game forums. People do indeed ask for and about housing. Counter Evidence: Both Trion and Blizzard are implementing housing in their games. There is enough interest to warrant the effort housing requires because developers are doing it.
The hypothesis cannot be true.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMOExposed Its verry simple, the focus of MMORPG's is based on the raider and PvPers only. And as you can read often here on MMORPG.com as well many raiders/pvpers say playerhouses add nothing to a MMORPG and there for devs should only focus on providing content for them. Which is very egoistic cause most of those people didn't even play MMORPG's before WoW and don't even know how important a house was for a MMORPG before WoW. Beside just because they aren't using it doesn't mean its useless. LoTRO does a great job with the houses, offering both player as guildhouses. And you can show off your goodies there. So i don't get the raiders who say it adds nothing extra...it adds bragging rights! Decorate your house with epic loot and show it off to others...they love to do so with wearing the elite loot stuff from raids while standing in a low lvl area till the next raid starts so i see no valid reason of them to say it doesn't add anything extra there for it should not be in the game.
And that brings me to my other point. Remember how MMORPG's used to be for all kind of players? From raiders and pvpers, to RPers and people who just loved to explore the maps presented to them? You hardly get to explore in MMORPG's these days anymore and everything is done for the raiders and pvpers only. It became like Call of Duty, removing everything that would distract from only a part of what makes a MMORPG. But it totally fits 2012 where mainstream gamers who didn't play games before it became the cool thing to do. And said all MMORPG gamers where nerdy no livers untill WoW came out and made the MMORPG genre a cool genre to play so now these people think themselfs to be the ones who knows whats best for the genre. Devs/publishers only listen to these people cause they are the majority. Just as with other genres. We old gamers are screwd cause we know how games can be, but they can't cause the new gamer won't allow it. They think just because they won't use a feature that no one else is allowed to have it. They fear that they might get a dungeon less to raid in each month booohoooo. Even though they can choose a milliontriljoin of other MMORPG's to play and have a wide variation of raids in most games, they will not accept it that it might cost them a dungeon extra at launch or with the next update.
Shame FF14 failed at launch, they had some nice ideas with none combative classes. And thats what should be in MMORPG's again. All kind of classes, all kind of content. Wanna raid? Go raid in the dungeons but just accept that you won't recieve a new dungeon every 2 or 3 months so other content can be offered. Want to be a smith, go out to mine resources and become the greatest smith in the game. And this shouldn't be something silly as in other MMORPG's where its a proffesion you take on the side, but a full class where you lvl up in skill by producing great stuff so you can make the harder stuff. MMORPG's should become online worlds again, not a smash em up and get epic loot room as it is now.
Houses add a lot to a MMORPG, and to be honest its time RPers get something from devs as well cause the RPer suffers the most now that more and more MMORPG's don't even allow you to sit on chairs. It began with removing houses from MMORPG's, now simple things as sitting on a chair and no more chat bubbles and it only gets worse just because its no raider stuff.
Originally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy.
The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.
problem is
1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification
2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I would aruge that there was plenty of evidence predicting that cell phones would be huge. Human beings as a rule always want better ways to communicate.
When I was in highschool, there was an arcade game in a 7-11 that my friend and I played together. The great thing about it was that unlike the standard fighting games it allowed us to cooperate in such a way that we became much more powerful as a team. That to me is a crear sign that cooperative online gameplay would be strike a cord with a lot of people.
When I was in high school BBSes were very big. Then I was introduced to the Internet and discussion boards (similar to this one). While I could not predict the precise way Facebook and Youtube would evolve, I knew early on that this level of social interconnectivity with total strangers was irrestible.
Stuff like that does not just come out of the blue. There are usually big signs hinting at what is too come. People just don't pay attention to it. However, the level of technology has to raise far enough to make the new paradigm practical. If you gamble on it too early, you will get burned.
The orginal statement was that basically business will not take action on an idea unless consumers ask for it. My statement was in realtion to that, thus I really should have said 'where people asking for cell phones before they came out'? I am sure you can pull some obtuse evidence to suggest that they have but what I am saying is that every business descision doesnt wait for the consumers to ask for it first and I know this from first hand experince working in the business world for many years.
On top of that, when i talk to friends in MMORPG's or browse forums i see a lot of player housing request. So the consumer does ask for it, they are just not listened too or the devs see no value in it.
MMOExposed Its verry simple, the focus of MMORPG's is based on the raider and PvPers only. And as you can read often here on MMORPG.com as well many raiders/pvpers say playerhouses add nothing to a MMORPG and there for devs should only focus on providing content for them. Which is very egoistic cause most of those people didn't even play MMORPG's before WoW and don't even know how important a house was for a MMORPG before WoW. Beside just because they aren't using it doesn't mean its useless. LoTRO does a great job with the houses, offering both player as guildhouses. And you can show off your goodies there. So i don't get the raiders who say it adds nothing extra...it adds bragging rights! Decorate your house with epic loot and show it off to others...they love to do so with wearing the elite loot stuff from raids while standing in a low lvl area till the next raid starts so i see no valid reason of them to say it doesn't add anything extra there for it should not be in the game.
And that brings me to my other point. Remember how MMORPG's used to be for all kind of players? From raiders and pvpers, to RPers and people who just loved to explore the maps presented to them? You hardly get to explore in MMORPG's these days anymore and everything is done for the raiders and pvpers only. It became like Call of Duty, removing everything that would distract from only a part of what makes a MMORPG. But it totally fits 2012 where mainstream gamers who didn't play games before it became the cool thing to do. And said all MMORPG gamers where nerdy no livers untill WoW came out and made the MMORPG genre a cool genre to play so now these people think themselfs to be the ones who knows whats best for the genre. Devs/publishers only listen to these people cause they are the majority. Just as with other genres. We old gamers are screwd cause we know how games can be, but they can't cause the new gamer won't allow it. They think just because they won't use a feature that no one else is allowed to have it. They fear that they might get a dungeon less to raid in each month booohoooo. Even though they can choose a milliontriljoin of other MMORPG's to play and have a wide variation of raids in most games, they will not accept it that it might cost them a dungeon extra at launch or with the next update.
Shame FF14 failed at launch, they had some nice ideas with none combative classes. And thats what should be in MMORPG's again. All kind of classes, all kind of content. Wanna raid? Go raid in the dungeons but just accept that you won't recieve a new dungeon every 2 or 3 months so other content can be offered. Want to be a smith, go out to mine resources and become the greatest smith in the game. And this shouldn't be something silly as in other MMORPG's where its a proffesion you take on the side, but a full class where you lvl up in skill by producing great stuff so you can make the harder stuff. MMORPG's should become online worlds again, not a smash em up and get epic loot room as it is now.
Houses add a lot to a MMORPG, and to be honest its time RPers get something from devs as well cause the RPer suffers the most now that more and more MMORPG's don't even allow you to sit on chairs. It began with removing houses from MMORPG's, now simple things as sitting on a chair and no more chat bubbles and it only gets worse just because its no raider stuff.
Good post.
Thing is MMO devs aren't making worlds for the players to enjoy anymore. They are making quests hubs and PvP instanced zones.
For example SWTOR would have really shined with a bit of sandbox features and a living world. Now it's just a dumb theme park on rails. You, eventually, burn through the content then leave.
The future of successful MMO lies in a Themed "Sandboxes" games. Until the producers gets it well... their products will blow.
Thing is MMO devs aren't making worlds for the players to enjoy anymore. They are making quests hubs and PvP instanced zones.
For example SWTOR would have really shined with a bit of sandbox features and a living world. Now it's just a dumb theme park on rails. You, eventually, burn through the content then leave.
The future of successful MMO lies in a Themed "Sandboxes" games. Until the producers gets it well... their products will blow.
Thanks, and yeah i agree. Themed Sandboxe would be great, it gives both kind of players something to do. I liked that about SWG (im still not sure how to name it, if it was a pure sandbox or a mix between sandbox and theme). You had plenty of quests you could take and still there was a lot to do if you didn't quest. And i loved it you decided for yourself what faction you would join but helping them out....or stay neutral..what ever, it was your character, do as you like ^^
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy. The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.problem is
1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification
2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence. Even if the evidence is just "I believe this to be true!" That doesn't invalidate the idea presented. The idea is either true or false, with or without any evidence presented to support it. The idea could be true and a fact with no evidence at all presented to support it. They presented their idea with evidence. They fulfilled whatever obligation they had to the idea.
For the conversation to move forward, the idea can be accepted, rejected, proven right (hard) or proven wrong (easy). Invalidating the evidence because it's an opinion doesn't prove the idea wrong. You can always just reject the idea but that's really just opinion versus opinion. It's much more definitive to prove the original idea wrong, without even bothering with the original evidence presented. If the point is to definitively "win", then party B, who rejects the idea must prove it wrong.
If we were the International Society For The Scientific Study Of MMORPG, then maybe we'd have a methodology, with formal rules and even forms to fill out when we presented ideas. The evidence presented with ideas would have to pass some sort of test maybe, and the ideas would have to follow some sort of rigid code to get presented to the rest of the group. We're not the ISFTSSOMMORPG, so we can just have conversations with opinions and all the bad evidence that includes.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Torvaldr For the love of all that is good math and science I hope neither of you are mathematicians or programmers. The rules of logic dictate that the one making the claim (the OP) has the burden of proof. No one has to disprove the OP. However, if anyone can find a single instance of disproof then whatever "proof" the OP has is flawed and his argument is a fallacy. The moral of the story is, don't make claims you can't prove.
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done.
problem is
1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification
2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence.
no its not.
I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'
sorry...no good, failed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
1. There isnt any evidence that people are asking for it or evidence that people are not asking for it.
2. its extreemly common for developers to do thing for no other reason then that they have their head rammed up their a$$. There is no evidence to suggest they would do anything based on reason and even more specifically a random baseless reason someone pulled out of their a$$ with no bases of substance other than assumptions.
3. despite common believe companies DO NOT base all their design choices completely on what people ask for. I have no idea where that delisional assumption came from.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Player housing really only makes sense if the game has made at least one successful expansion, by that point they have some idea how solid the player base is.
look either you all know the emails that have been sent to developers or you dont. Otherwise to be completely frank nobody have a f8cking clue what is or is not being asked for and shouldnt be used as evidence.
jesus love of god!
to suggest a cause and effect assumes it true in all cases. if you use cause and effect as you eveidence then the following is also true.
1. people are 'asking' for combat.
2. people are asking for housing BECUASE ITS IN GAMES!!!!!!!!!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Wait a minute. That's not how it works. Someone submits a theory, with their reasons supporting the theory...
without any evidence to proove the theory. he just made a declaration. didnt provide any evidence and besides, 'people not asking for it' is EXTREEMLY weak evidence. People arent asking for a game with free real life bl8w jobs either but that doesnt mean there isnt a demand
They really don't have to prove their theory right. Their supporting evidence is, "I think so". True, it's really poor evidence, but it's the supporting evidence...one person believes it. It's up to anyone else who cares to prove the theory wrong. The way to prove it wrong would be to poll some developers and find out what they say on the matter. It's difficult, but it would be definitive.
no the evidence is too weak. 1. how does he actually know people are not asking for it? he is assuming this, how does he actually know it. 2. people not asking for something that basically doesnt exist (proper housing) cant be used as evidence that people dont like it. This implies that I do not want amazing s8x for several amazing women because I havent asked for it. Its silly evidence.
Dur. The theory was, "Not enough people are asking for it". This has the double defense of being plausible...
look either you all know the emails that have been sent to developers or you dont. Otherwise to be completely frank nobody have a f8cking clue what is or is not being asked for and shouldnt be used as evidence.
jesus love of god!
Strangely enough, I agree. I don't like theories that are defensible because the information needed to prove/disprove the theory is hidden. It is a plausible theory, but that doesn't make it a good theory. It's also a simple theory, which people tend to like, but it's a complex issue...which makes me doubt that the theory is totally true. Or rather, even if the theory is true, I doubt it is the only reason developers don't give housing priority development time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1) I did not say there is evidence either way. What i listed as evidence is pretty clear.
2) You have no evidence that "its extreemly common for developers to do thing for no other reason then that they have their head rammed up their a$$". In fact, there is plenty of evidence that at least Blizz listen to, rrespond to (blue post) and hence aware of what players are saying.
The statement that "some devs (particular blizz) knows what players are saying on official forums" is well supported.
We happen to know how business works. Are you seriously suggesting that all these companies know they can make tons of money by putting in housing, they're just laughing and saying "we'd rather piss this guy on a forum off and not do it!"?
Seriously?
These companies exist to make money. They are going to put in any features they can come up with that will make them more money. If they do not put those features in, they do not think they are going to make them more money. Where are we losing you?
But no, you're just like all the other niche advocates who think everyone on the planet wants what you want, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
here is the full list best I can recall.
1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing.
2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it.
3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for.
4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for.
5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars.
6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other.
7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What is your logic disagreeing with the reason that business needs proof for resource allocation purpose?
Do you think you can go get VC backing or a business loan just because "you have a hunch, and there is no evidence either way"?
Nanulak
You can look at these forums and the Blizzard forums to see that there are people who are interested in housing enough to make posts about it. There are 227 people online right now, and at least 91 of them have responded to my poll on housing (however flawed that poll may be found).
So, your #1 is false. People are asking about it housing and asking for housing.
Here's some information that might be interesting. Rift is going to have player housing and so is WoW. It may be instanced, and possibly fluff, but it's going to exist...so at least two of the primary movers and shakers think there's enough people asking for it or who want housing. They are much more an authority on what their players want than we are.
It would be funny if the question had to be changed to "Why hasn't housing shown up before now?" because there was housing in every game. Maybe the question would become, "Why isn't there useful housing instead of just fluff housing?".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
was there proof that cell phones would be popular before they hit the market? no
was there proof that MMOs would be popular before they were created? no
was there evidence that people would want social media sites before they were created? no
I am sure I could go on but you get the point.
Its not and 'on or 'off' situation. evidence is nice to have if you can get it but i assure you every business idea isnt discared if there is no evidence. its a nice thing to have but its not a universal requirement.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) no. But unlike housing, there is no possibility of evidence. For housing, there are games with it, and there are forums discussing it.
2) Yes, there *are* precursor to MMOs. Kingdom of Drakkar, Isle of Kesmai, neverwinter night on AOL, even MUDs.... which shows that a large scale will work.
3) Yes. The popularity of use-net, IRC, ....
so I am confused.
1. The orginal poster suggested that people are NOT asking for housing and you are suggesting that they are asking for housing. So which is it? he is saying people are not asking for it and that we have to provide evidence his conculsions based on that are invalid.
2. what is 'asking for it' exactly? posting on a forum page or sending an email? could we be more vauge and obtuse about this?
3. The question should be 'would people like useful housing' or various forms of that statement
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
here is the full list best I can recall. 1. nobody has provided any evidence that people are or are not asking for housing. 2. something existing in prevlance doesnt suggest or proove that people are asking for it. 3. there are a f8ck ton of things we all want that we havent asked for. 4. there are a f8ck ton of things that are possible, that havent been created that we havent asked for. 5. not being a fan of a rusted out crappy car doesnt mean you dont like cars. 6.when someone makes a positive declaration providing evidence that is neither known as a fact nor has a known casualality effect the person who says 'its not true' doesnt have the 'burden' of proof, the person making the baseless positive statement does if any one person has more burden then the other. 7. there is a difference between a vanity pet with no stats and a sword with stats. This is a critical important concept when talking about housing becuase its relates 1000000000000% to the issue.
You can look at these forums and the Blizzard forums to see that there are people who are interested in housing enough to make posts about it. There are 227 people online right now, and at least 91 of them have responded to my poll on housing (however flawed that poll may be found). So, your #1 is false. People are asking about it housing and asking for housing. Here's some information that might be interesting. Rift is going to have player housing and so is WoW. It may be instanced, and possibly fluff, but it's going to exist...so at least two of the primary movers and shakers think there's enough people asking for it or who want housing. They are much more an authority on what their players want than we are. It would be funny if the question had to be changed to "Why hasn't housing shown up before now?" because there was housing in every game. Maybe the question would become, "Why isn't there useful housing instead of just fluff housing?".
so I am confused.
1. The orginal poster suggested that people are NOT asking for housing and you are suggesting that they are asking for housing. So which is it? he is saying people are not asking for it and that we have to provide evidence his conculsions based on that are invalid.
2. what is 'asking for it' exactly? posting on a forum page or sending an email? could we be more vauge and obtuse about this?
3. The question should be 'would people like useful housing' or various forms of that statement
1. People are asking for housing. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Are 'enough' people asking for housing? I dunno. 'Enough' would be different for each developer. Trion and Blizzard think 'enough' people would want housing to put some effort into putting it in their games now, though apparently they didn't think enough people would want it last year.
2. I'm only talking about forums, because that's the only information I have access to. If we don't quantify the asking, then people are definitely asking for it. I don't know how many though.
3. For us, yeah, that would be a good question. For a developer though, they're going to wonder what kind of housing will give them a return on their investment time. That could be 'useful' housing, or it could be housing where you hang pictures and arrange furniture. For a developer, the 'right' housing is the housing that their players will enjoy. It could be different for each developer. Blizzard's players might want to arrange furniture, while Funcom's players might want a computer desk with a functional in game browser to talk to people on forums. *shrug*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I would aruge that there was plenty of evidence predicting that cell phones would be huge. Human beings as a rule always want better ways to communicate.
When I was in highschool, there was an arcade game in a 7-11 that my friend and I played together. The great thing about it was that unlike the standard fighting games it allowed us to cooperate in such a way that we became much more powerful as a team. That to me is a crear sign that cooperative online gameplay would be strike a cord with a lot of people.
When I was in high school BBSes were very big. Then I was introduced to the Internet and discussion boards (similar to this one). While I could not predict the precise way Facebook and Youtube would evolve, I knew early on that this level of social interconnectivity with total strangers was irrestible.
Stuff like that does not just come out of the blue. There are usually big signs hinting at what is too come. People just don't pay attention to it. However, the level of technology has to raise far enough to make the new paradigm practical. If you gamble on it too early, you will get burned.
well if I have done one thing in some very odd way I managed to transfer the statement of 'players dont want housing because they havent been asking for them' into 'there is plenty of evidence of players asking for housing' without me even trying to do so.
This is a very bizzare conversation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The orginal statement was that basically business will not take action on an idea unless consumers ask for it. My statement was in realtion to that, thus I really should have said 'where people asking for cell phones before they came out'? I am sure you can pull some obtuse evidence to suggest that they have but what I am saying is that every business descision doesnt wait for the consumers to ask for it first and I know this from first hand experince working in the business world for many years.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If person A submits a hypothesis (I should have been using this word, I didn't), with evidence to support it, then they are done. The hypothesis will always exist in an eternal state of 'Not Wrong' until it is either accepted as True or proven False. This has happened. The hypothesis was submitted, with some evidence and existed in a state of 'Not Wrong'. It wasn't accepted as True, but wasn't proven False either. Person A is still under no particular obligation at this point.
If person B disagrees, and wants to prove the hypothesis wrong, then they have to do just that. Prove it wrong. They can refute the evidence, but that doesn't refute the hypothesis. Being proven false can only happen if Person B steps up and refutes the hypothesis with evidence. If the conversation on the hypothesis is to move forward, person B has to do it.
Hypothesis: Not enough people ask for or want housing.
Evidence: If developers thought there was enough interest, they would do it to make money.
Counter Evidence: Threads like this one, and threads on other game forums. People do indeed ask for and about housing.
Counter Evidence: Both Trion and Blizzard are implementing housing in their games. There is enough interest to warrant the effort housing requires because developers are doing it.
The hypothesis cannot be true.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMOExposed Its verry simple, the focus of MMORPG's is based on the raider and PvPers only. And as you can read often here on MMORPG.com as well many raiders/pvpers say playerhouses add nothing to a MMORPG and there for devs should only focus on providing content for them. Which is very egoistic cause most of those people didn't even play MMORPG's before WoW and don't even know how important a house was for a MMORPG before WoW. Beside just because they aren't using it doesn't mean its useless. LoTRO does a great job with the houses, offering both player as guildhouses. And you can show off your goodies there. So i don't get the raiders who say it adds nothing extra...it adds bragging rights! Decorate your house with epic loot and show it off to others...they love to do so with wearing the elite loot stuff from raids while standing in a low lvl area till the next raid starts so i see no valid reason of them to say it doesn't add anything extra there for it should not be in the game.
And that brings me to my other point. Remember how MMORPG's used to be for all kind of players? From raiders and pvpers, to RPers and people who just loved to explore the maps presented to them? You hardly get to explore in MMORPG's these days anymore and everything is done for the raiders and pvpers only. It became like Call of Duty, removing everything that would distract from only a part of what makes a MMORPG. But it totally fits 2012 where mainstream gamers who didn't play games before it became the cool thing to do. And said all MMORPG gamers where nerdy no livers untill WoW came out and made the MMORPG genre a cool genre to play so now these people think themselfs to be the ones who knows whats best for the genre. Devs/publishers only listen to these people cause they are the majority. Just as with other genres. We old gamers are screwd cause we know how games can be, but they can't cause the new gamer won't allow it. They think just because they won't use a feature that no one else is allowed to have it. They fear that they might get a dungeon less to raid in each month booohoooo. Even though they can choose a milliontriljoin of other MMORPG's to play and have a wide variation of raids in most games, they will not accept it that it might cost them a dungeon extra at launch or with the next update.
Shame FF14 failed at launch, they had some nice ideas with none combative classes. And thats what should be in MMORPG's again. All kind of classes, all kind of content. Wanna raid? Go raid in the dungeons but just accept that you won't recieve a new dungeon every 2 or 3 months so other content can be offered. Want to be a smith, go out to mine resources and become the greatest smith in the game. And this shouldn't be something silly as in other MMORPG's where its a proffesion you take on the side, but a full class where you lvl up in skill by producing great stuff so you can make the harder stuff. MMORPG's should become online worlds again, not a smash em up and get epic loot room as it is now.
Houses add a lot to a MMORPG, and to be honest its time RPers get something from devs as well cause the RPer suffers the most now that more and more MMORPG's don't even allow you to sit on chairs. It began with removing houses from MMORPG's, now simple things as sitting on a chair and no more chat bubbles and it only gets worse just because its no raider stuff.
problem is
1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification
2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
On top of that, when i talk to friends in MMORPG's or browse forums i see a lot of player housing request. So the consumer does ask for it, they are just not listened too or the devs see no value in it.
Good post.
Thing is MMO devs aren't making worlds for the players to enjoy anymore. They are making quests hubs and PvP instanced zones.
For example SWTOR would have really shined with a bit of sandbox features and a living world. Now it's just a dumb theme park on rails. You, eventually, burn through the content then leave.
The future of successful MMO lies in a Themed "Sandboxes" games. Until the producers gets it well... their products will blow.
Thanks, and yeah i agree. Themed Sandboxe would be great, it gives both kind of players something to do. I liked that about SWG (im still not sure how to name it, if it was a pure sandbox or a mix between sandbox and theme). You had plenty of quests you could take and still there was a lot to do if you didn't quest. And i loved it you decided for yourself what faction you would join but helping them out....or stay neutral..what ever, it was your character, do as you like ^^
problem is
1. the OP didnt submit evidence. He submited assumed evidence without clarification
2. the OP didnt submit it as hypothesis but as fact.
Bad evidence is still evidence. Even if the evidence is just "I believe this to be true!" That doesn't invalidate the idea presented. The idea is either true or false, with or without any evidence presented to support it. The idea could be true and a fact with no evidence at all presented to support it. They presented their idea with evidence. They fulfilled whatever obligation they had to the idea.
For the conversation to move forward, the idea can be accepted, rejected, proven right (hard) or proven wrong (easy). Invalidating the evidence because it's an opinion doesn't prove the idea wrong. You can always just reject the idea but that's really just opinion versus opinion. It's much more definitive to prove the original idea wrong, without even bothering with the original evidence presented. If the point is to definitively "win", then party B, who rejects the idea must prove it wrong.
If we were the International Society For The Scientific Study Of MMORPG, then maybe we'd have a methodology, with formal rules and even forms to fill out when we presented ideas. The evidence presented with ideas would have to pass some sort of test maybe, and the ideas would have to follow some sort of rigid code to get presented to the rest of the group. We're not the ISFTSSOMMORPG, so we can just have conversations with opinions and all the bad evidence that includes.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
no its not.
I cant say 'santa is real and my evidence is that its cold up north'
sorry...no good, failed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me