Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear.
Because player behavior in games has consistently shown they like doing it.
Actually, its because devs make people believe that is extra content and OMG they actually believe it!
Is it ego or arrogance?
I'm trying to figure out why so many here hold the contention that gamers, except for them, are all weak-willed idiots. I mean, it's obviously a very ignorant stance, but I'm really curious if it is fueled by ego or just a brazen arrogance.
Its not all of them, but apparently its a large enough number of people because companies keep making repeatable content their priority. So yeah, exploiting weak willed people works for business. Too bad the consumer never wins, and those players are too busy falling for it to notice.
Holy cow, he actually answered it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear.
Because player behavior in games has consistently shown they like doing it.
No, they don't. They like receiving the rewards said content provides, but the content itself ceases to be entertaining after the first few playthroughs.
You are contradicting yourself....
They like doing it for the rewards. So they like doing it. Even after it gets old
your logic is wrong gestankfaust. You go to work to make money? does that mean you like your job? do you like working? NO you just like making money. So your logic is wrong, because using your logic you are saying everyone who has a job likes it because they keep doing it.
Are you an ex-EQer or a Millennial? I'm interested in finding out what walk of life you come from that you cannot tell the difference between a job and entertainment.
doesnt matter what my background is or what situation you use. just because you do something repetitively for a reward doesn't mean you enjoy the action you have to take to get the reward.
We get it. You don't know the difference between a job and entertainment. That's not my question. I am asking why you don't see a difference between an obligatory assignment required to earn needed income and a voluntary leisure activity one pays to engage in.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear. What that causes is peaple after awhile just end up rushing through the content to get what they want, since theve prolly gotten burned out of it after so many runs.
These instance dungeons, its the exact same run no matter how many times you do it. Mobs are always in the same spot, bosses all have a set rotation. They all become completly predictable.
Plus the way the game sets up peaple automatically meaning you'll have some peaple who are new or maybe only done it a few times, paired up with peaple who have done the instance over 100 times. That just causes the content to be rushed through and not alow the new commers a chance to go at a relaxed pace and enjoy there journey.
Well i'm talking about my experiance with ff14, but from the vibe i get other mmo's are like this to.
Making peaple do the same content over and over again causing them to wanna just rush it and get it over with. Is that really what the largest portion of players want in mmo's today?
It is easier to let players run a dungeon 500 times then designing 500 different dungeons.
Plus players are pushing the devs to speed up the coding process as they finish the content way faster then the time devs have spent on building it. They need a head start.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear.
Because player behavior in games has consistently shown they like doing it.
people doing it doesn't mean they like it.
It's a voluntary leisure activity that the person is paying to experience, it does.
Yep! They may or may not like it, but there are few things that are more indicative of somebody liking something than their doing it and paying to do it voluntarily.
Not to say that a game won't come along with something better using the same development resources. But over a decade later and we're still waiting.
Some MMO's try to switch things up. LotRO's skirmishes switch out mobs and things to add a little variety. Their end games often randomize dailies to mix things up. But TBH, it doesn't add anything to my personal amusement. Neverwinter has the foundry which gives a daily reward; certainly a boon to have so much good player content but it's still not decimating the old school "gear dailies" games.
Tbh have no sympathy with mmo gamers anymore when they ask these kind of things. Because MMOs come and go with nice ideas ( I know one that did what the OP is talking about) that could push themepark games forward, but because so many players aren't very flexible or very open minded when they jump in a game it just bypasses them and they get so focused one aspect they hate and not looking at it as a whole.
So all I can say is if MMO players aren't willing to change how they approach a game, looking at it as a whole, these ideas will just constantly get over looked and we'll continue to go round in circles.
^Is the truth...but some people will not ever get it. And Devs will not learn
Claiming this is a result of devs failing to learn is an uneducated assumption:
Devs are improving their ability to generate content all the time. If developers had stopped making new games entirely and only developed levels for 1996's Quake 1, then the speed at which we developed Q1 levels, weapons, and other content would be more than 20x faster due to the awesome development tools we'd have developed around that product. But we don't just work on Q1. We make other games.
Often too many things are thrown away between games. When the construction team arrives to demolish the old 1970s home to build your new home, you probably don't want them to keep the cruddy walls of the old house, but you probably do want them to re-use the cranes and tools and stuff they've been using for the last decade or two (otherwise the cost of your house will include the cost of a brand new crane.) Games often make a similar mistake where tools and libraries and thrown away a bit too eagerly.
Game software doesn't have fixed, reliable requirements. In fact the more flexible a team is at rapidly iterating during development, the more likely they'll end up with a fun game. This implies things weren't designed with absolute flawless precision right from the start, which is why this comic ends up being accurate...
There are other factors too, but the point is that developers are constantly learning to create content faster for players, but that there are certain unavoidable factors causing things to release slower (and the biggest one is that we're not all still working on Quake 1.)
But at the end of the day none of that matters. The thing that matters is it takes 2 months (or however long) to create a dungeon (or whatever) and you either make that dungeon last 2 months, or players finish it in a day and are bored for the rest of the 2 months before you put out your next content. Thus: content gets designed to be repeated.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear.
Because player behavior in games has consistently shown they like doing it.
No, they don't. They like receiving the rewards said content provides, but the content itself ceases to be entertaining after the first few playthroughs.
You are contradicting yourself....
They like doing it for the rewards. So they like doing it. Even after it gets old
your logic is wrong gestankfaust. You go to work to make money? does that mean you like your job? do you like working? NO you just like making money. So your logic is wrong, because using your logic you are saying everyone who has a job likes it because they keep doing it.
Are you an ex-EQer or a Millennial? I'm interested in finding out what walk of life you come from that you cannot tell the difference between a job and entertainment.
doesnt matter what my background is or what situation you use. just because you do something repetitively for a reward doesn't mean you enjoy the action you have to take to get the reward.
We get it. You don't know the difference between a job and entertainment. That's not my question. I am asking why you don't see a difference between an obligatory assignment required to earn needed income and a voluntary leisure activity one pays to engage in.
We get it. You cant understand my 2nd example about grinding mobs for exp so you deleted it from my reply that you quoted. Do i know the difference between work and games? Nice straw man argument. Nice job also cutting out half my reply from your own reply, which actually nullifies your ridiculous question. So learn to read or stop deleting sentences. I gave you another gaming example of ppl doing something repetitively which was GRINDING MOBS NONSTOP TO GET EXP. I can guarantee you that grinding mobs for exp is repetitive and many people dont like it , but do it for the gold and exp. Same thing as instances. As someone else stated, you can like or dislike something you do repetitively because you are going after a reward.
Not sure how much longer I can keep chasing your need for pedantic answers. I guess at this point its turning into troll behavior on your end as I've already nullified the initial statement of "They like doing it for the rewards. So they like doing it. Even after it gets old". That was the entire point of my reply. Anything else you ask about such as what my age bracket is or age range is not relevant. Nice try at a straw man argument tho, I didn't answer you my age range, so i'm clearly wrong? nope. learn to read and study logic. /pwned you
Final side note: Hilarious how a discussion about instances is turned into a thread about someone's age range/generation and if someone knows the difference between a game and work. Learn to stay on topic junior and dont ask questions you already know the answer to and don't ask questions that aren't a part of the original OP post unless you want to look like a troll. I generally think things go off thread when someone starts getting super pedantic about a reply they see which is about a reply to a thread. You are taking it out of the scope of the OP's thread which wastes all our time.
You can take a sentence from someone's reply made by anyone and turn it into another thread discussion if you like, it doesn't make you smart. Like for example, you could get pedantic and say "this isn't a waste of time im learning" or "thats not a sentence its a sentence fragment, you are stupid" etc etc. So learn to stay on topic of the OP's post
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Why do dev's design games where you end up running the same instance dungeon 100's of times for gear.
Because player behavior in games has consistently shown they like doing it.
people doing it doesn't mean they like it.
It's a voluntary leisure activity that the person is paying to experience, it does.
Yep! They may or may not like it, but there are few things that are more indicative of somebody liking something than their doing it and paying to do it voluntarily.
Not to say that a game won't come along with something better using the same development resources. But over a decade later and we're still waiting.
Some MMO's try to switch things up. LotRO's skirmishes switch out mobs and things to add a little variety. Their end games often randomize dailies to mix things up. But TBH, it doesn't add anything to my personal amusement. Neverwinter has the foundry which gives a daily reward; certainly a boon to have so much good player content but it's still not decimating the old school "gear dailies" games.
Except they've basically stopped paying for it. Your example is perfect, MMO content has become so boring and repetitive to players they won't pay for it, they demand free to play models instead.
No, they might be playing it, they really don't enjoy it, or they would value it more.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We get it. You cant understand my 2nd example about grinding mobs for exp so you deleted it from my reply that you quoted. Do i know the difference between work and games? Nice straw man argument.
"your logic is wrong gestankfaust. You go to work to make money? does that mean you like your job? do you like working? NO you just like making money. So your logic is wrong, because using your logic you are saying everyone who has a job likes it because they keep doing it."
I don't think Strawman means what you think it means. I noticed you still didn't answer the question.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We get it. You cant understand my 2nd example about grinding mobs for exp so you deleted it from my reply that you quoted. Do i know the difference between work and games? Nice straw man argument.
"your logic is wrong gestankfaust. You go to work to make money? does that mean you like your job? do you like working? NO you just like making money. So your logic is wrong, because using your logic you are saying everyone who has a job likes it because they keep doing it."
I don't think Strawman means what you think it means. I noticed you still didn't answer the question.
yeah you make up a fake argument like "why dont you answer this question etc" "I noticed you didnt answer the question" which is to distract from your failed arguement in the original point but now you have this "straw man" that you are whacking as if its the original issue. so yeah i get what it means. notice I didnt answer what question? you didnt ask me anything that pertained to instances and their repetition. I can ask you what ever you like and if you dont answer it, it doesnt mean I won the arguement, and I can keep pressing the issue with you all day. Please see this attachment of 1000 questions, what you didnt answer them all why not? i see you haven't answered them all. see i can be fake clever too. id say grow up.
EDIT: I see how you got that huge post count, by trolling about unrelated stuff that doesn't pertain to the actual thread. Keep living large!
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
^Is the truth...but some people will not ever get it. And Devs will not learn
Claiming this is a result of devs failing to learn is an uneducated assumption:
Devs are improving their ability to generate content all the time. If developers had stopped making new games entirely and only developed levels for 1996's Quake 1, then the speed at which we developed Q1 levels, weapons, and other content would be more than 20x faster due to the awesome development tools we'd have developed around that product. But we don't just work on Q1. We make other games.
Often too many things are thrown away between games. When the construction team arrives to demolish the old 1970s home to build your new home, you probably don't want them to keep the cruddy walls of the old house, but you probably do want them to re-use the cranes and tools and stuff they've been using for the last decade or two (otherwise the cost of your house will include the cost of a brand new crane.) Games often make a similar mistake where tools and libraries and thrown away a bit too eagerly.
Game software doesn't have fixed, reliable requirements. In fact the more flexible a team is at rapidly iterating during development, the more likely they'll end up with a fun game. This implies things weren't designed with absolute flawless precision right from the start, which is why this comic ends up being accurate...
There are other factors too, but the point is that developers are constantly learning to create content faster for players, but that there are certain unavoidable factors causing things to release slower (and the biggest one is that we're not all still working on Quake 1.)
But at the end of the day none of that matters. The thing that matters is it takes 2 months (or however long) to create a dungeon (or whatever) and you either make that dungeon last 2 months, or players finish it in a day and are bored for the rest of the 2 months before you put out your next content. Thus: content gets designed to be repeated.
I don't disagree a bit, Axe. And I may be going off topic here, but here's my conundrum...
Each game developer builds its own tools to then build whatever game it's going to build(put SIMPLY). As a person who is NOT a software developer but is involved directly in software development(and those developers) that IS NOT gaming related, I still know enough to accept that much.
How on earth do we end up paying a fifth of the price of a game, after it was completed, for maybe 1/25th of the original content as DLC? Fallout, New Vegas, A game I love, as an example. The game is made, the tools built, yet, 4 hours of a 100+ hour $60 game costs you 10 bucks. After the foundation has been built.
I'm not trying to discredit you here, and I don't think it does, really. But don't you think that's kinda BS?
^Is the truth...but some people will not ever get it. And Devs will not learn
Claiming this is a result of devs failing to learn is an uneducated assumption:
Devs are improving their ability to generate content all the time. If developers had stopped making new games entirely and only developed levels for 1996's Quake 1, then the speed at which we developed Q1 levels, weapons, and other content would be more than 20x faster due to the awesome development tools we'd have developed around that product. But we don't just work on Q1. We make other games.
Often too many things are thrown away between games. When the construction team arrives to demolish the old 1970s home to build your new home, you probably don't want them to keep the cruddy walls of the old house, but you probably do want them to re-use the cranes and tools and stuff they've been using for the last decade or two (otherwise the cost of your house will include the cost of a brand new crane.) Games often make a similar mistake where tools and libraries and thrown away a bit too eagerly.
Game software doesn't have fixed, reliable requirements. In fact the more flexible a team is at rapidly iterating during development, the more likely they'll end up with a fun game. This implies things weren't designed with absolute flawless precision right from the start, which is why this comic ends up being accurate...
There are other factors too, but the point is that developers are constantly learning to create content faster for players, but that there are certain unavoidable factors causing things to release slower (and the biggest one is that we're not all still working on Quake 1.)
But at the end of the day none of that matters. The thing that matters is it takes 2 months (or however long) to create a dungeon (or whatever) and you either make that dungeon last 2 months, or players finish it in a day and are bored for the rest of the 2 months before you put out your next content. Thus: content gets designed to be repeated.
I don't disagree a bit, Axe. And I may be going off topic here, but here's my conundrum...
Each game developer builds its own tools to then build whatever game it's going to build(put SIMPLY). As a person who is NOT a software developer but is involved directly in software development(and those developers) that IS NOT gaming related, I still know enough to accept that much.
How on earth do we end up paying a fifth of the price of a game, after it was completed, for maybe 1/25th of the original content as DLC? Fallout, New Vegas, A game I love, as an example. The game is made, the tools built, yet, 4 hours of a 100+ hour $60 game costs you 10 bucks. After the foundation has been built.
I'm not trying to discredit you here, and I don't think it does, really. But don't you think that's kinda BS?
You are going to have to give explicit examples of these games and the "numbers" to support it. Plus, apples and oranges are different. Different companies have different costs.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I would argue that game companies are completely misunderstanding their metrics. Sure tons of people do instanced content. Probably more than any other activity in an MMO. But did they ever stop to consider that they do that because there is NOTHING ELSE offered to them?
So many games with instancing have done away with things like open dungeons, world bosses, etc. There is just no other option to continue advancing your character. Of course people do it, because there is NO other option!
You are going to have to give explicit examples of these games and the "numbers" to support it. Plus, apples and oranges are different. Different companies have different costs.
I gave my "explicit" example. Fallout: New Vegas.
$60 Game could go for 60-100+ hours of content.
$10 DLC? about 4 hours. That's not unusual for DLC, and certainly was the mark for this game.
Again, my point isn't to prove Axe wrong... I think he's right. My point is that prices of games and their content have little to do with development cost.
I would argue that game companies are completely misunderstanding their metrics. Sure tons of people do instanced content. Probably more than any other activity in an MMO. But did they ever stop to consider that they do that because there is NOTHING ELSE offered to them?
So many games with instancing have done away with things like open dungeons, world bosses, etc. There is just no other option to continue advancing your character. Of course people do it, because there is NO other option!
It's more like players are misunderstanding. Even if some game studio actually make such a game, everyone on this forum will just complain that game sucks and dont' play anyway. Kind of like every single sandbox ever created in the past 10 years.
Besides, when I actual play a game with open dungeons and world bosses, people spend more time complaining they should be instanced. Since with so many casual noobs, it's impossible to make hard open world content especially with the mega server going on being the new trend. Everyone will just flood to "the good server", while the bad server are never capable of doing hard world boss.
I don't disagree a bit, Axe. And I may be going off topic here, but here's my conundrum...
Each game developer builds its own tools to then build whatever game it's going to build(put SIMPLY). As a person who is NOT a software developer but is involved directly in software development(and those developers) that IS NOT gaming related, I still know enough to accept that much.
How on earth do we end up paying a fifth of the price of a game, after it was completed, for maybe 1/25th of the original content as DLC? Fallout, New Vegas, A game I love, as an example. The game is made, the tools built, yet, 4 hours of a 100+ hour $60 game costs you 10 bucks. After the foundation has been built.
I'm not trying to discredit you here, and I don't think it does, really. But don't you think that's kinda BS?
It's certainly a reasonable complaint. Basically players are going to try to be as efficient with their dollars as possible, and developers as efficient at getting those dollars, and it requires a certain awareness on both sides for the trade to work best. For developers that means providing enough content that players feel it was worth the price. For players it means not immediately purchasing every little thing a developer offers until you're sure it'll be worth it (ie research the DLC a little beforehand to discover it only lasts 4 hours and avoid purchasing it.)
If that happens (many players avoid DLC because it's known to be poor bang-for-the-buck) then it forces developers to change either the product or the price to avoid that in the future. Developers will push the line, and players should call them on it if they go too far, by not buying the product.
It's a little dangerous to measure things in hours, as 5 hours completing Portal was a vastly different experience than 5 hours grinding the same mobs to level one time in Lineage 2. Both were 5 hours, but one provided true quality and the other was trash. So "4 hours" doesn't automatically tell me whether the DLC was worth it or not, but either way it's clear you didn't feel you got your money's worth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can't honestly claim that folks would choose running the same exact experience 50 times over running 50 new and unique experiences when the reward is equal in terms of item reward and quality.
It's shown players "prefer" it like players "prefer" to stare at a PC screen that damages their vision when playing video games: there isn't really another viable option right now.
You are going to have to give explicit examples of these games and the "numbers" to support it. Plus, apples and oranges are different. Different companies have different costs.
Eh, he gave an explicit example and he's not trying to claim that Bethesda doing that is automatically a bad business decision. He's only telling us he individually didn't like it. People don't need evidence to say they didn't feel a product was worth their money. They only need evidence to claim it was a bad business choice.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't disagree a bit, Axe. And I may be going off topic here, but here's my conundrum...
Each game developer builds its own tools to then build whatever game it's going to build(put SIMPLY). As a person who is NOT a software developer but is involved directly in software development(and those developers) that IS NOT gaming related, I still know enough to accept that much.
How on earth do we end up paying a fifth of the price of a game, after it was completed, for maybe 1/25th of the original content as DLC? Fallout, New Vegas, A game I love, as an example. The game is made, the tools built, yet, 4 hours of a 100+ hour $60 game costs you 10 bucks. After the foundation has been built.
I'm not trying to discredit you here, and I don't think it does, really. But don't you think that's kinda BS?
It's certainly a reasonable complaint. Basically players are going to try to be as efficient with their dollars as possible, and developers as efficient at getting those dollars, and it requires a certain awareness on both sides for the trade to work best. For developers that means providing enough content that players feel it was worth the price. For players it means not immediately purchasing every little thing a developer offers until you're sure it'll be worth it (ie research the DLC a little beforehand to discover it only lasts 4 hours and avoid purchasing it.)
If that happens (many players avoid DLC because it's known to be poor bang-for-the-buck) then it forces developers to change either the product or the price to avoid that in the future. Developers will push the line, and players should call them on it if they go too far, by not buying the product.
It's a little dangerous to measure things in hours, as 5 hours completing Portal was a vastly different experience than 5 hours grinding the same mobs to level one time in Lineage 2. Both were 5 hours, but one provided true quality and the other was trash. So "4 hours" doesn't automatically tell me whether the DLC was worth it or not, but either way it's clear you didn't feel you got your money's worth.
4-5 hours is about the average for DLC, in my experience. So while bethesda might be my example of poor bang for the buck DLC, it's a widespread practice, which is the bit that bothers me. In F:NV I recall the content, quality-wise, being on par with the rest of the game, Old World Blues stacking up with the best of the original content, IMO.
In that particular game, they put out 4 DLC's at 10 bucks a pop. So basically $40 for what was, even collectively, a sliver's worth of content compared to the $60 game it was for. And they didn't even have to manufacture boxes and discs for it.
If only I could wait out Fallout 4 until they put out a GotY edition. That's what I do for most other games. But alas I'm a post apoc Nuka Cola geek and they've got me dead to rights.
Comments
Holy cow, he actually answered it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We get it. You don't know the difference between a job and entertainment. That's not my question. I am asking why you don't see a difference between an obligatory assignment required to earn needed income and a voluntary leisure activity one pays to engage in.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It is easier to let players run a dungeon 500 times then designing 500 different dungeons.
Plus players are pushing the devs to speed up the coding process as they finish the content way faster then the time devs have spent on building it. They need a head start.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
Yep! They may or may not like it, but there are few things that are more indicative of somebody liking something than their doing it and paying to do it voluntarily.
Not to say that a game won't come along with something better using the same development resources. But over a decade later and we're still waiting.
Some MMO's try to switch things up. LotRO's skirmishes switch out mobs and things to add a little variety. Their end games often randomize dailies to mix things up. But TBH, it doesn't add anything to my personal amusement. Neverwinter has the foundry which gives a daily reward; certainly a boon to have so much good player content but it's still not decimating the old school "gear dailies" games.
well, diablo shows people actually play those type of game.
as with ff14, wow, and gw2.
and there are tones of asian mmorpg which have the same thing like maple story which people seemed to have a bunch of player too.
Tbh have no sympathy with mmo gamers anymore when they ask these kind of things. Because MMOs come and go with nice ideas ( I know one that did what the OP is talking about) that could push themepark games forward, but because so many players aren't very flexible or very open minded when they jump in a game it just bypasses them and they get so focused one aspect they hate and not looking at it as a whole.
So all I can say is if MMO players aren't willing to change how they approach a game, looking at it as a whole, these ideas will just constantly get over looked and we'll continue to go round in circles.
Claiming this is a result of devs failing to learn is an uneducated assumption:
There are other factors too, but the point is that developers are constantly learning to create content faster for players, but that there are certain unavoidable factors causing things to release slower (and the biggest one is that we're not all still working on Quake 1.)
But at the end of the day none of that matters. The thing that matters is it takes 2 months (or however long) to create a dungeon (or whatever) and you either make that dungeon last 2 months, or players finish it in a day and are bored for the rest of the 2 months before you put out your next content. Thus: content gets designed to be repeated.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We get it. You cant understand my 2nd example about grinding mobs for exp so you deleted it from my reply that you quoted. Do i know the difference between work and games? Nice straw man argument. Nice job also cutting out half my reply from your own reply, which actually nullifies your ridiculous question. So learn to read or stop deleting sentences. I gave you another gaming example of ppl doing something repetitively which was GRINDING MOBS NONSTOP TO GET EXP. I can guarantee you that grinding mobs for exp is repetitive and many people dont like it , but do it for the gold and exp. Same thing as instances. As someone else stated, you can like or dislike something you do repetitively because you are going after a reward.
Not sure how much longer I can keep chasing your need for pedantic answers. I guess at this point its turning into troll behavior on your end as I've already nullified the initial statement of "They like doing it for the rewards. So they like doing it. Even after it gets old". That was the entire point of my reply. Anything else you ask about such as what my age bracket is or age range is not relevant. Nice try at a straw man argument tho, I didn't answer you my age range, so i'm clearly wrong? nope. learn to read and study logic. /pwned you
Final side note: Hilarious how a discussion about instances is turned into a thread about someone's age range/generation and if someone knows the difference between a game and work. Learn to stay on topic junior and dont ask questions you already know the answer to and don't ask questions that aren't a part of the original OP post unless you want to look like a troll. I generally think things go off thread when someone starts getting super pedantic about a reply they see which is about a reply to a thread. You are taking it out of the scope of the OP's thread which wastes all our time.
You can take a sentence from someone's reply made by anyone and turn it into another thread discussion if you like, it doesn't make you smart. Like for example, you could get pedantic and say "this isn't a waste of time im learning" or "thats not a sentence its a sentence fragment, you are stupid" etc etc. So learn to stay on topic of the OP's post
Because if the hamsters stay on a wheel for a long time and are satisfied... you only have to build one wheel, instead of a whole hamster racetrack...
It's much easier to build armor sets than it is to build 6x the content.
No bitchers.
So a game with 10 million armor sets has exactly the same amount of content as a game with just the starter armor? Fascinating!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Except they've basically stopped paying for it. Your example is perfect, MMO content has become so boring and repetitive to players they won't pay for it, they demand free to play models instead.
No, they might be playing it, they really don't enjoy it, or they would value it more.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"your logic is wrong gestankfaust. You go to work to make money? does that mean you like your job? do you like working? NO you just like making money. So your logic is wrong, because using your logic you are saying everyone who has a job likes it because they keep doing it."
I don't think Strawman means what you think it means. I noticed you still didn't answer the question.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
yeah you make up a fake argument like "why dont you answer this question etc" "I noticed you didnt answer the question" which is to distract from your failed arguement in the original point but now you have this "straw man" that you are whacking as if its the original issue. so yeah i get what it means. notice I didnt answer what question? you didnt ask me anything that pertained to instances and their repetition. I can ask you what ever you like and if you dont answer it, it doesnt mean I won the arguement, and I can keep pressing the issue with you all day. Please see this attachment of 1000 questions, what you didnt answer them all why not? i see you haven't answered them all. see i can be fake clever too. id say grow up.
EDIT: I see how you got that huge post count, by trolling about unrelated stuff that doesn't pertain to the actual thread. Keep living large!
I don't disagree a bit, Axe. And I may be going off topic here, but here's my conundrum...
Each game developer builds its own tools to then build whatever game it's going to build(put SIMPLY). As a person who is NOT a software developer but is involved directly in software development(and those developers) that IS NOT gaming related, I still know enough to accept that much.
How on earth do we end up paying a fifth of the price of a game, after it was completed, for maybe 1/25th of the original content as DLC? Fallout, New Vegas, A game I love, as an example. The game is made, the tools built, yet, 4 hours of a 100+ hour $60 game costs you 10 bucks. After the foundation has been built.
I'm not trying to discredit you here, and I don't think it does, really. But don't you think that's kinda BS?
You are going to have to give explicit examples of these games and the "numbers" to support it. Plus, apples and oranges are different. Different companies have different costs.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I would argue that game companies are completely misunderstanding their metrics. Sure tons of people do instanced content. Probably more than any other activity in an MMO. But did they ever stop to consider that they do that because there is NOTHING ELSE offered to them?
So many games with instancing have done away with things like open dungeons, world bosses, etc. There is just no other option to continue advancing your character. Of course people do it, because there is NO other option!
I gave my "explicit" example. Fallout: New Vegas.
$60 Game could go for 60-100+ hours of content.
$10 DLC? about 4 hours. That's not unusual for DLC, and certainly was the mark for this game.
Again, my point isn't to prove Axe wrong... I think he's right. My point is that prices of games and their content have little to do with development cost.
It's more like players are misunderstanding. Even if some game studio actually make such a game, everyone on this forum will just complain that game sucks and dont' play anyway. Kind of like every single sandbox ever created in the past 10 years.
Besides, when I actual play a game with open dungeons and world bosses, people spend more time complaining they should be instanced. Since with so many casual noobs, it's impossible to make hard open world content especially with the mega server going on being the new trend. Everyone will just flood to "the good server", while the bad server are never capable of doing hard world boss.
It's certainly a reasonable complaint. Basically players are going to try to be as efficient with their dollars as possible, and developers as efficient at getting those dollars, and it requires a certain awareness on both sides for the trade to work best. For developers that means providing enough content that players feel it was worth the price. For players it means not immediately purchasing every little thing a developer offers until you're sure it'll be worth it (ie research the DLC a little beforehand to discover it only lasts 4 hours and avoid purchasing it.)
If that happens (many players avoid DLC because it's known to be poor bang-for-the-buck) then it forces developers to change either the product or the price to avoid that in the future. Developers will push the line, and players should call them on it if they go too far, by not buying the product.
It's a little dangerous to measure things in hours, as 5 hours completing Portal was a vastly different experience than 5 hours grinding the same mobs to level one time in Lineage 2. Both were 5 hours, but one provided true quality and the other was trash. So "4 hours" doesn't automatically tell me whether the DLC was worth it or not, but either way it's clear you didn't feel you got your money's worth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can't honestly claim that folks would choose running the same exact experience 50 times over running 50 new and unique experiences when the reward is equal in terms of item reward and quality.
It's shown players "prefer" it like players "prefer" to stare at a PC screen that damages their vision when playing video games: there isn't really another viable option right now.
Eh, he gave an explicit example and he's not trying to claim that Bethesda doing that is automatically a bad business decision. He's only telling us he individually didn't like it. People don't need evidence to say they didn't feel a product was worth their money. They only need evidence to claim it was a bad business choice.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
4-5 hours is about the average for DLC, in my experience. So while bethesda might be my example of poor bang for the buck DLC, it's a widespread practice, which is the bit that bothers me. In F:NV I recall the content, quality-wise, being on par with the rest of the game, Old World Blues stacking up with the best of the original content, IMO.
In that particular game, they put out 4 DLC's at 10 bucks a pop. So basically $40 for what was, even collectively, a sliver's worth of content compared to the $60 game it was for. And they didn't even have to manufacture boxes and discs for it.
If only I could wait out Fallout 4 until they put out a GotY edition. That's what I do for most other games. But alas I'm a post apoc Nuka Cola geek and they've got me dead to rights.