Hands down all you out there that are on the fence about putting down a little $ for darkfall should really check it out. I have played many many mmo's but there is NOTHING that comes close to the experience that the original darkfall gave to me. I won't say its for everyone the world of Agon can be very harsh and cruel at times but without risk there is no reward!
Originally posted by Thebozz I don't know the reasons for everyone that has a problem with sub MMOs, but for me personally I have moved away from them because the sub tends to lock you into playing that one game. If I am spending money on something I want to get my monies worth. So I tend to feel I should be playing that game even if I feel like playing something else or I am wasting my money.
We are talking around £2.50 a week.
Can I ask... what other games do you actually play? Single player ones?
Or are you one of those guys that claim to play 4 MMORPGs at once? Y'know... the ones that make up the super transient super casual (in each game) player base that damage community building and whine for everything to be achievable in 30 min chunks and everyone to be equal no matter how much time they invest?
Can I ask how what's the minimum time that you feel you would need to play a MMORPG in a week to feel that you have gotten your £2.50 worth? An hour? Two? Ten?
How many hours a week do you usually play your chosen MMO(s)?
Sorry for the questions, but I like to try and understand the mindset behind the statements of preference we see.
That is the whole point. I feel like I'm wasting my money if I'm not playing the MMO. I would say when subbed to an MMO I usually spend 4 hours a night on nights off playing the MMO. So about 16 hours a week. So if I choose to spend that gaming time playing a single player game like Civ IV
ok, so you play games for 16 hours a week? And that time is split up amongst both MMORPGs and other titles?
Yes
I don't really like to play super casual.
Friend, playing 3 MMORPGs a week in a 16 hour timeframe (around 5 hours a week per game per week) *IS* super casual.
Exactly Why I wouldn't play three sub games at a time without feeling like I was wasting money.
I wouldn't say there is a set amount of time that I consider it a waste of my money, but generally if I buy a single player game I get hundreds of hours of gameplay for $50 or less because I usually don't buy till it is $20. So lets take Civ IV...
No, lets not use Civ as an example to prove the point, because it is one of the exceptions. As we both know most single player games offer a lot less hours, usually around 20 these days.
Considering I generally play MMOs, sports games, or strategy games, I would say I never play a game with only 20 hours of gameplay before I put it down. So yes Civ is a good example, because it is an example of something I play.
In closing yes if I pay a sub and do not play the game yes I am wasting my money. So is anyone that pays a sub and doesn't play the game. That is basically the definition of wasting money.
No, it isn't the definition of anything. It is *your* definition, but certainly not mine.
So spending money on something you are not using is not wasting money to you. Spending money on something you are not using is not wasting... definition.com disagrees with you.
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.
2.
to fail or neglect to use: to waste an opportunity.
3.
to destroy or consume gradually; wear away: The waves waste the rock of the shore.
4.
to wear down or reduce in bodily substance, health, or strength; emaciate; enfeeble: to be wasted by disease or hunger.
5.
to destroy, devastate, or ruin: a country wasted by a long and futile war.
You see, most people *can* put a time on how much play they have to reach a week to justify that £2.50 spend, and once they reach that time it is no longer a 'waste'. For me personally that would be around an hour, but tbh, I wouldnt be playing a MMORPG if I only had 1-5 hours a week to do so... because the genre dosen't suit that kind of tiny investment (or at least it didn't before it started to cater to the transient ADHD super casuals).
I am currently not playing an MMO, but I wouldn't be playing much of anything if I didn't have atleast a 4 hour block to play. I have always only planned on getting something done in an MMO if I have at minimum 2 hours to dedicate at a given time.
F2P and Cash shops;
Create a super casual player base that leads to the notion that everyone in a game should have equal rewards, no matter how little they play.
Create a transient player base that flits between titles and adds nothing to the community
Has a hugely negative impact on core game design, as the game becomes structured to manipulate the user into paying.
Rely on the exploitation of the vulnerable and gullible to make money
Deliver worst value for anyone but the casuals
Promote pay to achieve over play to achieve
People blame the decline of the MMORPG on quest hubs and 'clones', but to me it's mostly happened because of guys like you. I am not personally attacking you or trying to insult you, but your play style is, in my eyes, responsible for the move into solo centric, super casual, pay to achieve game design that has ruined the genre.
Well so you know I prefer group centric game play, play to acheive game design. I didn't talk once about buying my way through a game, I was mostly referring to paying for additional content like the DDO freemium design. I have ran into as much poor design from sub fee games with the time sinks to keep people paying. Just look at the original darkfall for a poorly designed sub fee game. When it came out it was a giant time sink so people swam into walls in town or macroed for hours. I prefer playing a game than doing stuff like that.
Gonna cut and paste you here to reduce the mess that our quotes are becoming.
Just to clarify though... you agree now that you qualify as a super casual in each of the MMORPGs you play at maybe 5 hours a week in each?
"So yes Civ is a good example, because it is an example of something I play."
Well, I read it that you were using Civ as am example to demonstrate a wider point of how single player games are better value then MMORPGs. If you are saying that this one game is better value then I would agree, but we agree that it is still one of the exceptions and not the rule?
The vast majority of single player games do not deliver the same value in play time (enjoyment value is another debate).
"So spending money on something you are not using is not wasting money to you. Spending money on something you are not using is not wasting... definition.com disagrees with you."
Like I said, if I get 1-2 hours out of a MMORPG that I paid £2.50 to play then I *have* used it, so your point is invalid.
You just seem to think that if I haven't used it for, what, 20 hours a week then it's somehow a 'waste'. I am telling you that, to me, that isn't the case and that if I play for an hour or two that's worth £2.50 *to me*.
Are you honestly saying that if I haven't played a game for the full 168 hours a week then the £2.50 I have spent is 'wasted'..? this is obviously ridiculous.
You definition quote is irrelevant so I haven't copied it over in interests of clarity.
"Well so you know I prefer group centric game play, play to acheive game design."
Well, you are the guy that also told me he wasn't super casual in a game at 5 hours a week, so yeah...
Noone that supports play to achieve game design supports cash shops. They may say they do, but in reality they don't.
"I prefer playing a game than doing stuff like that."
This statement speaks volumes tbh and is the true mantra of the super casual transient cash shopper.
Just to repeat, and then I will leave this thread because we are now at the point I think where we will just repeat ourselves and that gets boring fast (you can have the inevitable last word, I really don't mind);
F2P and Cash shops;
Create a super casual player base that leads to the notion that everyone in a game should have equal rewards, no matter how little they play.
Create a transient player base that flits between titles and adds nothing to the community
Has a hugely negative impact on core game design, as the game becomes structured to manipulate the user into paying.
Rely on the exploitation of the vulnerable and gullible to make money
Deliver worst value for anyone but the casuals
Promote pay to achieve over play to achieve
People blame the decline of the MMORPG on quest hubs and 'clones', but to me it's mostly happened because of this.It is a play style is, in my eyes, responsible for the move into solo centric, super casual, pay to achieve game design that has ruined the genre.
*edited to depersonalise from you and make a wider point*
Gonna cut and paste you here to reduce the mess that our quotes are becoming.
Just to clarify though... you agree now that you qualify as a super casual in each of the MMORPGs you play at maybe 5 hours a week in each?
"So yes Civ is a good example, because it is an example of something I play."
Well, I read it that you were using Civ as am example to demonstrate a wider point of how single player games are better value then MMORPGs. If you are saying that this one game is better value then I would agree, but we agree that it is still one of the exceptions and not the rule?
The vast majority of single player games do not deliver the same value in play time (enjoyment value is another debate).
"So spending money on something you are not using is not wasting money to you. Spending money on something you are not using is not wasting... definition.com disagrees with you."
Like I said, if I get 1-2 hours out of a MMORPG that I paid £2.50 to play then I *have* used it, so your point is invalid.
You just seem to think that if I haven't used it for, what, 20 hours a week then it's somehow a 'waste'. I am telling you that, to me, that isn't the case and that if I play for an hour or two that's worth £2.50 *to me*.
Are you honestly saying that if I haven't played a game for the full 168 hours a week then the £2.50 I have spent is 'wasted'..? this is obviously ridiculous.
You definition quote is irrelevant so I haven't copied it over in interests of clarity.
"Well so you know I prefer group centric game play, play to acheive game design."
Well, you are the guy that also told me he wasn't super casual in a game at 5 hours a week, so yeah...
Noone that supports play to achieve game design supports cash shops. They may say they do, but in reality they don't.
"I prefer playing a game than doing stuff like that."
This statement speaks volumes tbh and is the true mantra of the super casual transient cash shopper.
Just to repeat, and then I will leave this thread because we are now at the point I think where we will just repeat ourselves and that gets boring fast (you can have the inevitable last word, I really don't mind);
F2P and Cash shops;
Create a super casual player base that leads to the notion that everyone in a game should have equal rewards, no matter how little they play.
Create a transient player base that flits between titles and adds nothing to the community
Has a hugely negative impact on core game design, as the game becomes structured to manipulate the user into paying.
Rely on the exploitation of the vulnerable and gullible to make money
Deliver worst value for anyone but the casuals
Promote pay to achieve over play to achieve
People blame the decline of the MMORPG on quest hubs and 'clones', but to me it's mostly happened because of this.It is a play style is, in my eyes, responsible for the move into solo centric, super casual, pay to achieve game design that has ruined the genre.
*edited to depersonalise from you and make a wider point*
Thanks for letting me have the last word. I never stated I play any game 5 hours a week, but yet you continue to say I think playing an MMO 5 hours a week is not super casual. Not at all what I said. So I am also done, because I can't have a logical conversation with someone that isn't going to take time to read what I say and actually respond to anything I actually say. The definition of waste is also completely relevent to a conversation about wasting money in which one person states waste does not mean what waste means, but ok whatever.
Comments
Well so you know I prefer group centric game play, play to acheive game design. I didn't talk once about buying my way through a game, I was mostly referring to paying for additional content like the DDO freemium design. I have ran into as much poor design from sub fee games with the time sinks to keep people paying. Just look at the original darkfall for a poorly designed sub fee game. When it came out it was a giant time sink so people swam into walls in town or macroed for hours. I prefer playing a game than doing stuff like that.
Gonna cut and paste you here to reduce the mess that our quotes are becoming.
Just to clarify though... you agree now that you qualify as a super casual in each of the MMORPGs you play at maybe 5 hours a week in each?
"So yes Civ is a good example, because it is an example of something I play."
Well, I read it that you were using Civ as am example to demonstrate a wider point of how single player games are better value then MMORPGs. If you are saying that this one game is better value then I would agree, but we agree that it is still one of the exceptions and not the rule?
The vast majority of single player games do not deliver the same value in play time (enjoyment value is another debate).
"So spending money on something you are not using is not wasting money to you. Spending money on something you are not using is not wasting... definition.com disagrees with you."
Like I said, if I get 1-2 hours out of a MMORPG that I paid £2.50 to play then I *have* used it, so your point is invalid.
You just seem to think that if I haven't used it for, what, 20 hours a week then it's somehow a 'waste'. I am telling you that, to me, that isn't the case and that if I play for an hour or two that's worth £2.50 *to me*.
Are you honestly saying that if I haven't played a game for the full 168 hours a week then the £2.50 I have spent is 'wasted'..? this is obviously ridiculous.
You definition quote is irrelevant so I haven't copied it over in interests of clarity.
"Well so you know I prefer group centric game play, play to acheive game design."
Well, you are the guy that also told me he wasn't super casual in a game at 5 hours a week, so yeah...
Noone that supports play to achieve game design supports cash shops. They may say they do, but in reality they don't.
"I prefer playing a game than doing stuff like that."
This statement speaks volumes tbh and is the true mantra of the super casual transient cash shopper.
Just to repeat, and then I will leave this thread because we are now at the point I think where we will just repeat ourselves and that gets boring fast (you can have the inevitable last word, I really don't mind);
F2P and Cash shops;
People blame the decline of the MMORPG on quest hubs and 'clones', but to me it's mostly happened because of this.It is a play style is, in my eyes, responsible for the move into solo centric, super casual, pay to achieve game design that has ruined the genre.
*edited to depersonalise from you and make a wider point*
Thanks for letting me have the last word. I never stated I play any game 5 hours a week, but yet you continue to say I think playing an MMO 5 hours a week is not super casual. Not at all what I said. So I am also done, because I can't have a logical conversation with someone that isn't going to take time to read what I say and actually respond to anything I actually say. The definition of waste is also completely relevent to a conversation about wasting money in which one person states waste does not mean what waste means, but ok whatever.