Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Group-Based PvE MMORPG Embers Adrift is Launching October 15th 2022 | MMORPG.com
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Good joke on that last comment.
You're playing the semantics game with profit and income by applying them as blanket terms for the gross and net modifiers, which is where most the meaning actually comes from.
Which is notable that it's an epic semantics tangent that, as noted in a prior comment, fails to even support or justify the topic(s) of the thread. Instead it's just you running off on a tangent trying to pretend you have superiority over a subject you proved yourself to have a poor grasp on multiple times, with zero tie back to relevant discussion.
Your signature continues to be quite meaningful, though not in the way you seem to believe it.
For those with the attention span of a goldfish, names will not be mentioned, and you can all go look back on my post that started all this, I was making a point how a company could and should invest their money into a better product as opposed to simply trying to increase profits.
Then a bunch of people that obviosity either failed basic economics, or never learned that shit to start with, began to rant and rave about how a company needs to make a profit.
Just to make this clear.. I am going to bring this up, every, single, time any one of you talk about the fiscals of a game company, that you all spent a few pages arguing with me about economics, only because you did not know the difference between income and profit.
You made an unrealistic claim about what a company could and should do in a fictional scenario. People addressed the divergence from that fictional scenario from reality, and you latched onto a couple words and used personal definitions for them which, as noted towards the top of this page, still aren't even accurate in their semantics.
The fact you talk about "fiscals of a game company" and refer to "income" and "profit" entirely in a vacuum ignoring "gross" and "net", just invites people laughing every time you want to bring it up in the future.
Even brought up the much more distinct parts relating to studios and their state of being, that you've completely failed to address while you've been focusing on this inane tangent.
Face it, your egotism has completely killed your ability to make a remotely reasoned argument.
and then, well some people decided that was a great time to show how little they understood economics.
My advice to you, is say less stupid shit, so you don't have to go back and cry you never said that, while linking the very posts where you said that.
"But, people being greedy fucks and focusing on making money at the expense of making a good product, is why older games stagnate, and it is the ONLY reason why older games stagnate."
And then it was pointed out that there's actually a variety of reasons and issues. You latched onto profit as an individual topic, when even Falz talked about it in relativity to being a measuring stick for other factors.
And yet you omitted any response to that, and you focused solely on this artificial tangent of income vs profit. Just as you have multiple times on this page alone now.
You've completely blinded yourself to just how terrible and disconnected from reality your line of argument and your behavior has become.
Well, No, they really didn't give me a good reason the only "variety of reasons given" was they were running archaic hardware and could not handle an upgrade, and that is bullshit when people can play Modern MMO's on their phones.
Care to step up to bat, and try your luck, at giving me a good reason why an existing MMO should not be upgraded?
The hardware statement was an additional footnote. How out of touch with reality must one be to assume everyone is living in the first world with modern hardware?
But again, that wasn't even the first point. Original point was the practicality of upgrading the tech of the game's themselves. This was followed with the point that when doing such upgrades, it's also prone to changing other elements of the game, even accidentally, based on the fact that dev teams have changed, vision of the game has changed, and even the act of changing the underlying tech can have unintended consequences. This stacks with the things also mentioned on page 10 that you ignored regarding the state of company itself and how that impacts such decisions. There's more beyond that as well, but we have six pages of things to trawl back through to quote if we went into everything.
And this was all, again, on the point of doing a significant "upgrade" to old titles. Just to readdress your prior attempt at derailing about upgrading in general (such as minor updates over time) after your original statement about overhauling existing old titles.
This is the problem of you attempting to claim things that were never said, and trying to recontextualize things when we can click a few pages back and see you weren't talking about just updating any existing game, it was doing significant changes to an existing old game (as we can see in the above links). You even expressly used the term "Old School MMO". Your statement;
"Know what I would love to see, which I think would in fact be quite epic, redoing the graphic interface of UO (Ultima Online), make it a 3D Person MMO, like EQ/WoW/etc."
That's not updating existing games as a general argument. That's doing a major overhaul that completely changes it.
And the responses to your argument were derived from your offered framework of doing such massive chances to such old titles. It's only when this argument clearly failed, that you then turned to making claims up about updating live games in a more broad sense.
You changed your argument, and you tried to brazenly lie about the responses to your original argument. Hence also the irony that your changed argument was actually largely in alignment with the points I and other's previously made.
You want to claim the links prove otherwise, and yet you can't quote a single thing that ever reaffirms it even though I can and have quoted them multiple times to prove you wrong.
Not only can step up to bat, have already. Many times over. Which just belabors the point made on this page about your behavior.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
EDIT: Assuming it works, given this thread says it's apparently borked at the moment.
Wouldn't attribute the tool breaking necessarily to them wanting to hide anything as the thread suggests. Giving benefit of the doubt, if the headcount has increased beyond prior tested scope there's a possibility trying to query all the players was too slow for the tool to return a proper response, if any response. Doesn't necessarily have to be a high number for that to be the case, depending on how it was coded.
It could be so, but giving the benefit of doubt to be sure. Still, there were definitely some new players as I saw through direct observation. While the reception isn't boiling over there is some simmer going on that may heat up over time if they have a sufficient luxury of it to allow for that potential to blossom.
Which returns us to, all of this comes down to money.
Which sits squarely on my main point, the only reason why this is not done, is because companies would rather make more profits then good products.
Anyone that supports that mentality.. legit deserves the shit games they get.
This wasn't even a good attempt at a swipe. You literally just had to ignore the majority of the post to make a claim that wasn't even directly restated. While cost is part of the practicality in upgrading old tech, it's only one of the points. Heck, only one of the points covered in that one segment it was mentioned.
If you're going to lie, perhaps don't leave in the stuff that proves you wrong. Granted I would have just quoted it back to you any ways.
But hey, if you want to agree with me about the stuff I've said previously on the impact of modern game design (your little profit over product quality statement), I won't stop you there. Glad you agree with me.
For profit companies are for profit. That has always been and is so. There is no reason to believe that it will change going forward. It is not a matter of mentality. It simply is what it is and no amount of wishing or bitching will make it otherwise.
If you want to play a MMORPG not focused on profit it must be one operated by a non-profit entity, which for the most part is confined to private servers that scavenge the previously commercial work of others to provide free to donation supported entertainment today.
It's ok. I already know you lie about agreeing. The fact you make statements that directly parallel things I'd already said ends up proofing it all out any ways.
And you really need to learn the difference between gross and net, and how those terms apply to income and profit and affects your little semantics game.
You're trying much too hard to make an argument and attack people, over just making a good conversation or comment.
EDIT: Otherwise it just leads to unnecessary removed comments.
Also, again, if you stop saying stupid things, trying to sound smart, like that Gross and Net thing and how it relates to Income and Profit, which you have shown you have no working knowledge of, you won't have to backtrack and try to save face saying you never said that, when you clearly did.
Just some, friendly advice.
Since you don't seem to be keen on providing any real discussion at this point, we are done here, feel free to respond, but we are done.
Granted, there hasn't really been any backtracking. You trying to keep up that "post a link to saying that" narrative just doesn't work because I can quote anything you've claimed I've written and post it next to the actual statement made, and we immediately see you've lied.
Like the comment in this thread you keep dancing around.
You posted this;
The response to which was this;
You see the problem there? Everyone can see that "Old games looking old" was a rebuke to your own sudden "modern games look old" complaint. And it's very clearly the point that people are not surprised by old games looking old and that was not a primary complaint, much as "modern games look old" was not a complaint that'd been brought up until you made it.
And then you went ahead and made up this statement;
Which, as demonstrated, does not align with the commentary actually made.
It also demonstrates how you easily say the things actually stated by me, like this;
To you claiming this;
While you're not quite right about the variety of reasons (as has already been pointed out), the basic premise of modern game design and more pointedly that the perceived value of doing significant upgrades to old engines does not exist for the investors/publishers to justify additional spending necessary (versus developing a new game) is right there.
You took the very pretense that'd been established early on, and tried to flip it into being your own position of argument.
To which again, I'm happy you agree. You certainly have more to learn on these subjects, and you could find a more honest way to go about things, but fact is it's all right there.
So it's easy to agree with what people stated when you're bumbling your way into repeating things they'd actually stated.