Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why did MMOs become about the money and numbers?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I guess you never played Rift or PoE.
I have seen dev in public chat in both games.
You must know games get put on here to increase site activity, they only loosely follow anyone's concept of a MMO. This was discussed in that thread you made, how about reading it?
To follow up on the penultimte post when entering the wonderful world of the easy MMO apologists you will end up wondering if you are on the same planet. That's par the course.
No one has claimed that. It is your assertion. You made that statement. It is you who is not listening.
Yeah, who grinds and why is a red herring issue. Show me how modern MMORPG introduced grind in a way they didn't exist in older games.
I know exactly how burden of proof works. He made a sensible assumption which you twisted into a straw man. He doesn't need to proof anything.
This is getting tedious... Loktofeit wrote "most people". He did not claim that every one of those "millions of people were satisfied". That is your straw man argument. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
I am not going to chase red herrings, nor do I have the time to chase down and thwart every silly comment you make.
How do you know they have deserted the discussion, but they just don't have the patience to argue with a difficult person such as yourself?
No. Companies didn't change their mindset after WoW, because corporations in every field have always had that same mindset. Any hit product will create a wake of similar competitor products. Sony Walkman, Tamagochi, iPod, Nokia Communicator, iPhone, Pokemon, Doom, Diablo, those little metallic scooters every kid had to have few years back... and yes World of Warcraft. This is not news.
You are complaining about something which is entirely normal and understood completely. We don't need your narratives or your tin foil hat theories to explain them.
Sorry to break your illusions, but it is business as usual. Companies are doing exactly what they've always done.
And just because you say you've beaten me, doesn't mean you have.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
They make the claim that people are satisfied, and then point to how many people are playing and that there are more people playing. People playing does not mean they're satisfied. How else can I put this?
Now who likes to use strawmen? I never said anything invented the grind. But modern themeparks seem to have taken it the furthest. Everything in WoW is a grind to get some new piece of gear, some title, pvp "power", etc. But either way this is a total bunny trail. I'm not saying it's a new concept with MMO's (it very well may be, I'm not saying it ISN'T either), I'm pointing out that there's a problem with assuming that people are satisfied just because they're playing. It's a logical problem that would've been true if you tried to make this same claim 10 years ago.
What's the sensible assumption? I said people are disappointed with MMOs. He said people are satisfied because people are playing them amount of people playing them is going up (never sourced, btw). That's not a sensible assumption, especially when you look at it in the context of the debate. HE BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE I SAID PEOPLE WERE DISAPPOINTED. To say that a large and increasing playerbase means that people are satisfied, he's saying they're not disappointed. This is a non sequitur. Again, what sensible assumption is he making?
It doesn't matter. It's not a sensible assumption. If a significant portion of the market weren't disappointed, why would there be an influx of sandox games? And not only that, why would so many MMO's coming out claim to be "different"?
I'm not talking about chasing down every "silly comment" I make. I'm talking about not abruptly leaving an entire discussion like a "fart in the wind" to quote Shawshank. You personally have done it twice just to me.
Because they're not tired of dealing with me. Most of the people on that list LOVE to try to catch me in anything they can. If there's any single SENTENCE of mine out of place, they jump all over it and cling onto it for dear life. They're leaving discussions because they have nothing left, not because they don't want to argue with me.
I never said that the larger corporations behind MMO development are different than large corporations in any other industry. And furthmore, I have no desire to force them to do anything they don't want to. I'm a capitalist. But part of capitalism is people having the freedom to tell corporations that we don't want to be fed watered down copies of games we've already played just so they can make a quick buck. I'm not sure what's so crazy about that or why you keep using the term "tin foil hat theories" to describe the extremely obvious and intuitive things I'm talking about. In fact they're so obvious and intuitive that you yourself are admitting that they're commonplace!!! So how can you call me crazy and "silly" while saying that my claims are nothing new? that everybody does them?
And by the way, not all company cash in on prior successes as much as every other company. Some companies do it more, some do it less. I'm not sure what's so bad about saying we want the companies that do it less. We want the companies that innovate more and offer different products.
why do you expect a paycheck from your job?
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
No one is saying it isn't there. They're saying its always been there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The MMO industry really doesn't care about the typical MMORPG.com poster who is jaded and tired from their 'mmo experience'. They're looking for the next player.
The business model is to find the next new person to mmo's, get as much cash out of them as you can with the standard model, rinse and repeat with the next game.
It would probably be easier to colonize mars tomorrow than to build an MMO that would appease people like the OP. A lot of people are sentimental about their virgin moments in gaming. Even I know I adored SWG and have fond memories of pre-cu, but I would be utterly bored in it today.
The genre is stale for those who have already played it. MMO's are really just nothing more than another branch of social gaming nowadays. They're far from the uniqueness they were a decade ago that made it "oh so cool". You won't reproduce that with even those old formulas.
The 'veteran mmo player' here isn't really looking for another mmo as we know them know or even as we knew them before this cash whore fest the industry is in. We're looking for something that doesn't exist, not yet anyway.
I've told you a half a dozen times already that he never said what you think he said. He never said it.
OK, seems like your reading comprehension needs a little work. I never said anything about invention. What if I told you people weren't satisfied playing old school games either? Shouldn't that statement be equally true?
And again, who are you to tell someone that what they are doing is not fun. Some people like to grind new gear. Acquiring gear is perhaps the most addictive part of Diablo. People love it. Difference here is, that you don't seem to like it, and you seem to think your word should mean something when you say it is a "bunny trail". It doesn't. You're not the authority to tell people what is good and what is bad.
And once again, nothing compels people to play if they don't have fun doing it.
No. He said "most people are satisfied". It is ridiculous to claim that satisfaction is a binary state, so it is sensible to assume he meant "people are satisfied enough". It is like you are purposefully trying really hard to find the dumbest interpretation from the words Loktofeit wrote and then proceed to counter that.
If people wouldn't be satisfied enough, they wouldn't be playing or paying for the games. Nothing compels us to play. In their mind, everybody plays the game they feel is the best one at that time. But no one plays if they don't feel happy doing it. They're not addicts (I hope not).
It is a sensible and logical assumption Loktofeit made.
Because if you can't take on the 500lb. gorilla in the room, you need to find someplace else to eat. Bioware tried to dethrone WoW, with a well-known IP and a 175 million dollar budget and they couldn't do it. Do you think developers are dumb? Alright, I grant to some are, but most of them are not. The main point here is the basics of business: If you can't out-do your competitors, do something different. And that is what we are seeing here.
Again, I had to be somewhere. It takes some time to read your posts and compose a reply you might understand.
You can't blame them for catching any one of your bullshit claims - you throw them a lot, and clearly these are responsible for some of your opinions so they are important.
Well then, as a capitalist, you must believe that if there's something wrong with the market, it will correct itself. There is really no point complaining about anything is there? Companies are motivated to serve their customers in the long run. This is business 101. It is in their best interest to keep their customers happy, so that is what they try to do. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to get every last drop from the well if there is any.
People don't "tell corporations what to do". You've misunderstood capitalism. People vote with their wallets. That is capitalism. That is why sales numbers are relevant.
You can be sure that any company that can cash in on prior successes, will do so. You are free to want more innovation and different products. I would only hope that you wouldn't follow the hypocrite route of so many posters here who secretly wish MMORPGs should go back to the old school. Not much innovation there.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There is always larger group of people who will not pay for your product than those who do. Customers paying matters, not those who don't.
Large sub or population drops after launch are expected. It is a consolidation period following sudden, large market moves, such as new product release.
It does not mean what you think it means.
Guys this is simple and has already been discussed both accurately and elegantly by Extra Credits; here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ56Kia8dTU
If you haven't already seen it, give it a watch. It's only about 8 minutes long and really hits all the major points.
Basically it comes down to this:
-MMORPG's are expensive to make. If a game developer is aiming to please even moderately sized niche audiences then they will be aiming for a level of aesthetics and polish that will make the game quite costly. It is inevitable. If what we wanted was a new MMO with the mechanics of UO or EQ and the graphics of UO or EQ then we'd just be playing UO or EQ. The truth is even niche audiences have a higher aesthetic standard than we used to and that comes with associated costs. Darkfall is a great example of a niche game with pretty cool ideas but that is being held back by lack of aesthetic and perhaps more importantly lack of polish.
-Since even a quality niche targeted MMO can be quite costly, this means developers have a large barrier of entry. They need to get funding from investors or publishers. This is where the impact that WoW has had on the market comes into play. Investors and publishers are oftentimes unwilling to invest in projects that have not shown to be successful. Investors and publishers are much more likely to throw their money at WoW clones rather than innovative MMORPG's or not even MMORPG's at all but rather things like MMORTS's, MMO Puzzle Solvers, MMOFPS's etc etc.
-However, the recent "failure" of WoW clones has provided a new datapoint for investors to examine. The industry is realizing that mass market appeal is not a sound investment either. As such we're likely to see ventures back into niche territory and probably into other new MMO genres that are cheaper to produce than an MMORPG.
The link below shows why this is a modern issue (as well as looking at many other problems in gaming today):
http://www.nowgamer.com/features/983293/the_biggest_problem_facing_the_games_industry_today.html
The previous poster brings up similar points.
Again I point out that in some ways your opinions are not that different, these issues were always there as you say, I think we just feel that an event horizon of no return was reached. As to the issue of deliberate malpractice, as I said before we cannot see into a companies mind, we cannot be certain. But we can see the intent of individuals like the Ex CEO of EA who has crowed about how he made designers think of cost first and how all their future games would be simple enough "for your mum to play". We can also make a decision about certain titles, SimCity is a tale of putting corporate ethos before making a fine game. This should not lead anyone to think EA is somehow an evil company, I just see it as misdirected and yet still producing some great titles.
Do you understand the context of the argument?
It depends on why you're saying it. At the moment we have a lot of people complaining on forums about basically every new MMO that comes out, we have developers themselves talking about a lack of innovation and how things need to change, we have developers constantly promising that THEIR game is different (why would they promise something that's different if people didn't want something different?), and we have a large number of sandbox games coming out. If those things were true during the reign of these old school games then yes that statement would be equally true.
LOL. No. First of all, the bunny trail I mentioned is because you're talking about the fact that grinds have always been in MMOs. That means nothing. Using the amount of players or the increase in players as an argument that people are satisfied would have been just as flawed then as it is now, so it doesn't MATTER if oldschool games had the same amount of grind. The point is that there are ways to get people to keep playing your game that don't involve satisfaction, and in the proper context of the debate, they don't necessarily involve people NOT being disappointed.
Also, I'm not telling people what they can and cannot like. In fact you're the one speaking for these people, not me. I'm not saying they're not having fun, I'm saying you don't have if they ARE. Even friends of mine who love WoW admit that the grind is horrendous, so I know at least SOME people don't like it. I can't prove how many, but I don't have to. I merely have to show that your argument is based on an assumption.
Again, do you understand the context of the argument? He brought up people being satisfied when I was talking about people being disappointed. "Satisfied enough" means jack. So if I say that people are disappointed and he (and others) come along and say "actually, I think most people are satisfied because they're playing the game", how can you not see that this level of "satisfaction" isn't just "somewhat satisfied" or "satisfied enough to keep playing" but it HAS to mean "satisfied to the point of having no disappointment" because he's using it to counter my claim that people are disappointed.
Well VengeSunsoar would take issue with anybody using the term "addiction" regarding people playing video games but people do definitely get heavily invested into games like WoW even if they're not necessarily having fun. That's kind of how it's designed. That's the whole point of carrot-on-a-stick game design.
But again, what is "satisfied enough" nonsense? Are they so satisfied that they're not disappointed? You don't think a lot of people are playing these games while waiting for something better?
So people are serving customers that they don't think exist or what? If they're making games that are different, it's because there's a market for them. If there's a market for them, it's because people want something different.
[Antagonistic]
You're not addressing the point, you're just trying to take a potshot. The point is they're not sick of arguing with me because they're constantly trying to poke holes in what I say. They run out of arguments, not out of patience.
Part of capitalism is corporations listening to what people want. How can they know who to serve if we don't voice our opinions? How will they know what game to make if people don't ask for it???
And what do you mean that is why sales numbers are relevant? Relevant to what? They're relevant to a question of "what game is going to have the highest sales", that's all they're relevant to.
Wrong. Some companies are more likely to release rehashed BS than others. I don't know why you guys are so unwilling to admit that some companies are more honest and hardworking than others. I think it's because once you do admit that, our argument makes perfect sense: all we're asking for is more of the kind of developers that make their game because they want to make a good game and less of the developers that make their game solely to make money. It's simple.
I get the overall point but I take issue with a couple of specifics. And I don't know if this is your opinion or paraphrasing from that video but anyway:
It's reasonable to assume that companies would innovate more with better graphics than UO's or EQ's. Look at games like The Repopulation. A relatively small company with a very deep and complex game and the graphics are fine. They're not top notch, but they're fine. I think that's the kind of quality we sandbox players would reasonably expect.
Darkfall definitely hasn't failed because of its aesthetics. It could absolutely benefit from some polish (fixing bugs), but even that has largely been worked out. The reason darkfall isn't doing well (though I don't really know the numbers) is because it's NOT a sandbox. There's no variety when it comes to different professions. Everybody is just a fighter who also harvests and maybe crafts. Everything is based around PvP.
Not only that, there are no mechanics to deter mindless killing. The game design kind of makes up for that with the heavy emphasis on clans. So you ally or war dec clans and so politics kind of dictates who you fight out in the wild and who you don't, but a lot of the time it's just "oh another person, get ready for a fight."
I remember during the first year of DAoC I joined the VN forums and wrote, "what the fvck are you guys talking about? This is one of the greatest games ever made in the history of . . . well, in the history of the world." I was laughed right out of the forum as a complete newb who knew nothing about gaming and its history. Now I look back and feel like I didn't make such a bad call.
Why was I able to enjoy DAoC and all these other guys were crazed with hate and complaints? Well, for one, DAoC was my first MMO. I was fresh, I was enjoying it without expectations or ideas of right and wrong. I just knew it my heart this game was completely awesome, I didn't necessarily know why it was awesome, nor could I articulate a strong intellectual case in my defense. Yet history is on my side, DAoC is generally considered one of the classics today. Which means, in a sense, that through those naive eyes of the newb I actually saw the game much more clearly than my jaded veteran counterparts.
Over time I became older and more jaded myself. Each new game seemed more shallow than the game that came before it. The MMO magic began to fade. And yet, new players were coming up who did seem to love this new type of game. My natural, instinctive, response was to blame the developers. They weren't making games like they used to! But then I thought, wasn't that what the DAoC bashers were saying all those years ago (seems like yesterday)? I wish I could get access to the VN archives to go back and check.
And then it occurred to me, the problem isn't with the games . . . it is with my own mind.
That may be the case for you, but it isn't for everybody. Games have changed. Some people prefer the way games used to be, on an objective level.
THe OP's question is loaded...
We already know the answer. I bared witness to it, during World of Warcraft's beta. (Remember, pre-WoW there were not that many beta testers.) When in a beta forum discussion with one of the developers. Some of us were hitting him pretty hard about the "dumbed-down mechanics".. and teased about fisherprice.
He said that Blizzard's target audience for WoW was a broader/younger demographic than t of EverQuest's.
Because there are more of them.
Ironically, when WOW was released it only took 4 month for many guilds to kill every dragon.. they then went back to EQ.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
You can't really prefer something objectively. But whether you prefer the old or new wasn't my point. I personally prefer the old as well.
My point is that we don't realize the extent to which our conceptual efforts to hold onto the past prevent us from enjoying the present. Consequently, our opinions about whether the past was superior are never really objective because it is our firm belief that they were better that makes us think the present games suck. Every time we play a new game, we are experiencing it through the lens of those old games. It is inevitable, then, that we will experience the current games as sucking, it is like expecting fish to taste like hamburger. And then when they do seem to suck, we say to ourselves, "see! I was right! The new games just aren't as good as they used to be" which just reinforces our convictions and we become harder and harder and more entrenched in our biases. This is the process of getting old. The reality, however, may just be that the reason the old games were great was because we played them without such judgements and prejudices.
The only way we could truly assess whether the present games are inferior to the past games would be if we were able and willing to experience the new games with the same fresh eyes that we experienced the old games with. We have to be willing to become newbs again. Only then would the two be on equal footing with a fairness that could be compared.
Gamers, particularly older gamers, need to be willing to look at the role the inside plays in their gaming life, not just the outside.
Concerning investments in particular, investors do not invest in a developer based on the project they are currently doing. They invest in a developer based on their past performance. Gamasutra
If a developer has this awesome idea for an MMORPG, but they've never created a successful game, then they will not get investment dollars. If a developer has a mediocre idea for a game, but they have a history of building games that make money, then they will get investment dollars. That's not to say that the idea for a game has no bearing at all, but investors will trust a developer who has made games in the past has a better idea of what works than developers who have not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Oh I think that DAoC was one of the greatest and certainly the greatest for the way it did RvR...
However, it was also a big neon sign for how the customers and lack of action by the company were going to destroy it and every other MMO.
Oh why is that? Radar.... I remember when it first came out someone said something about Odin's Eye in guild chat. I was such a noob I thought they were talking about Midgard cuz we all RvR'd in that frontier at the time (not emain). I don't even remember the server name but I remember the guild was Crusaders of Honor (I mean CoH lol.. coh was announced already at that time of course).
Anyway I quit and came back a bit after Nimue (rp server) opened. When we started having bg's that's when I knew what odin's eye was. (because of the sheer volume of people using it and skilla etc etc). Mythic did nothing....
Hell they gave a free lifetime account to the guy that found the hole in the zone wall and went into albion griefing people out in Salisbury plains... then did finally at some point end up perma banning him for exploiting. However, they did nothing about radar until November of 2004... right between the launches of EQ2 and WoW.
To me the combined action of players so obviously happy to cheat and companies lack of action in banning... defined most of the player mentality we run into.
Its ok to do all these "bad" things because nothing will happen... it destroyed the communities... it destroyed the player base.. subscriber base etc
You see the same crap in RL with the lack of consequences for your actions and the affect its having on the things people escalate into their behavior.
/shrugs
For games to change much for the better the ToS and Eula need to become legally binding contracts. We agree to abide by it and the company agrees to enforce it. You break it.. you get banned.. they don't enforce it.. you get your money back.. all of it. (no lawsuits just complete refunds).
Of course this is just my point of view... but it is the exact reason I solo mostly now. I do not have any interest in grouping or playing with people I see as trash because they cheat and/or act like it.
MMOs became about the money and subscription numbers because of the then/now college-aged students flooding the markets and allowing mom and pop (or asian) games to be financed and produced. If there weren't nearly as many interns and other guys to do the amount of work needed to make a game then surely game wouldn't be made.
That's the beauty of having a larger workforce from college you can raise prices, raise capital and get tax bonuses (under the tax code interns and new guys (the college kids) aren't qualified to be real workers based on work) so you can even write them off your company's taxes.
With so many kids flooding the market with fewer and fewer jobs the companies are still taking them in and with that the associated (guaranteed-- like a subscription) wages.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
Of course your opinions are at least partially formed by when you play which game. But you can play your first game, watch your first movie, have sex for the first time with a specific type of girl, etc and still change your opinions after the fact. Of course you're affected by your first, but that's not the only thing going on.
No amount of context is going to fix this. You made up the argument "many people = satisfied people". It is a straw man of what Loktofeit wrote. By now you are having this argument all by yourself. We are not really getting anywhere with this until you admit you were wrong. Other posters have said it is a straw man. Why do you insist on fighting?
Forums are not an accurate sample of the community. You cannot base your argument on forum post. No serious developer has complained about a lack of innovation. Kickstarters are another thing. To tell you're innovative, to set yourself apart from the competition is just regular marketing.
You implied people are compelled to play even when they were not satisfied. You called this "carrot-on-a-stick game design" if I remember correctly. Tell me what is this power that makes people do something which they are not happy with?
Mind control?
If they weren't satisfied enough, they wouldn't be playing. Do you realize that the counter proposition to Loktofeit's assumption is this: "Most people play even when they are dissatisfied." Are you ready to say stand by this?
They are satisfied enough to play and pay for the game. I thought we already established this.
No, but we are getting closer. They are making different games because they have no choice. They can't hope compete with the big boys in the mainstream niche so they have to look for revenue elsewhere. If you think every developer out there that's making a sandbox, is making it solely for the love of making good games, you
You kept pressing on it.
You know what? I did take a potshot. But only because its so easy. They didn't ran out of arguments. They likely got tired because you didn't listen. You don't win arguments by ad nauseam.
Customer is nearly always wrong. At least with voicing their wants and needs. Observation is far more reliable. I have some experience in the field after all.
Being honest and hardworking has got little to do with what type of games they're making. Zynga almost exclusively releases titles which are re-skinned remakes of someone else's game. As far as I know, this is very rare in MMORPG circles. Can you think of any?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, I didn't make that up. Lok himself said "if millions of people..." that implies that the number of people means anything, it doesn't. Also Narius made the same argument.
From the get-go I said that forums aren't a perfect indicator. But that, coupled with games all promising something "different" and the fact that a number of self-proclaimed "different" games are on the horizon, I'd say it's safe to assume that people want something different.
And what about that "future of online gaming" panel that mmorpg just had at pax? Weren't they talking about a lack of innovation?
What are you even talking about? Do you deny that such a tactic even EXISTS in gaming? Because that's all it takes for you to realize that number of subs has little to say about who is satisfied and who isn't. I know at least some people that do fall victim to it, so it's a real issue. I'm sure this is where you demand proof that there is anybody playing WoW who finds the grinding NOT FUN but will play anyway.
Not only that, as I've pointed out (and neither you nor anybody else has dealt with), what if people are jumping from game to game? What if there are so many WoW clones and other bad games that it keeps people in the industry, while they're not satisfied with any individual game? What if people like the idea of an MMORPG, even if the current implementation leaves much to be desired? TOTAL SUBS DOESN'T INDICATE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T DISAPPOINTED.
No no no. I don't have to counter what he's saying as if his is the first statement made. I already stated my position: a lot of people are disappointed with MMORPG's right now. Lok was countering MY point by saying they're satisfied. If he just means "satisfied enough to keep playing" then it's an utterly pointless statement and has nothing to do with my point which is that people are disappointed. But naturally you're not getting all over Lok's shit about changing the subject from "are people disappointed?" to "are people satisfied at least enough to keep playing?"
Do you realize how pointless it is to basically say "if people are playing, it's safe to assume that most people are satisfied enough to KEEP PLAYING"? It was used as an argument against me saying that people are disappointed, but now you're trying to make it sound like he's merely saying people are "satisfied enough."
Again, you just don't understand the argument and are wasting everybody's time by being involved in an argument that you don't understand. Saying they're satisfied enough to keep playing means nothing.
I what?
At any rate, it's not a coincidence that they're making a type of game that people are asking for on the forums. It's a sandbox influx for a reason. But even so, I don't see what your point is. I agree that they can't compete with the big dogs. But if they're making the games then obviously they think the games will be profitable. So if anything it shows that you guys (I don't remember if you specifically said this) are wrong when you claim that people make the games they do because they HAVE to make games like those; that they can't afford to make any other type of game because of how expensive they are.
Not being able to compete with the big games wouldn't magically make sandboxes more viable, it means they've always been economically viable.
And you don't win arguments by ignoring points either. Here it is again: if they're so sick of me, why do they constantly try to pick fights with me?
Observation of what? Somebody has to make the first new type of game, and it seems pretty reasonable to at least take into account what people say they want. What else would you use to decide what kind of game to make?
I absolutely agree that the customer is usually wrong about specifics. You don't listen to every single thing they say regarding the details, but the broad strokes aren't usually wrong.
I don't follow the politics of what company has their hand in what game. But I do know that there are a lot of copy-cats right now and not much innovation.
Also I'm not talking about honest and hardworking. I'm saying some companies will make a product they think is good and NOT CARE AT ALL about how much money it's going to make, some companies DON'T CARE AT ALL about if their game is good and only care about how much money it's going to make. Some (most, I'm sure) companies are somewhere in the middle. What's wrong with saying we think companies nowadays are playing too safe, trying to cash in on previous successes? I don't get why this is such a ridiculous, "tin foil" theory?
I mean, it is one thing when people are just plain hacking, like you are talking about. But even when they aren't, many games have suffered from poor mechanics which when exploited the right way lead to the same kinds of unfair advantages hacking does. With DAoC it was the buff bots. Completely legal, but an exploit of the game's mechanics nevertheless, one that the devs were slow to address. Other games had similar problems.
CoH for example. When the guy who has never even played the game suddenly has a more powerful toon than you (and more money) after a few days you know something is wrong. Yet he didn't do anything illegal, the game's mechanics made that kind of power-leveling possible, and simultaneously made playing the game legitimately seem almost silly.
Once you add competition to any game, people will seek to find any advantage they can, and not so few will stumble across things that seem more like exploits. The ones that don't exploit will feel increased pressure to do so in order to compete if other people are getting away with it. It is like steroid use in sports. I doubt most athletes want to be on steroids, but what choice do they have if steroid use has basically become a prerequisite to being the best?
It is around that point, particularly if there are no indications that the developers are working on a solution, that I move onto another game.