9 ms·

Games aren't games anymore, especially multiplayer titles. _Especially_ competitive multiplayer titles aggressively marketed towards the widest range of players

by branon 4y ago

Games aren't games anymore, especially multiplayer titles. _Especially_ competitive multiplayer titles aggressively marketed towards the widest range of players possible. No longer are you simply one player among thousands, you are a uniquely identifiable individual who is allowed (or not) to participate only after identifying yourself to the platform stewards. I don't think this is necessarily bad per se but it really escapes the realm of what I consider a "video game" These competitive platforms with broad mainstream appeal are more akin to social networks, with strict rules around identifying yourself and policing of what's considered acceptable speech/interactions. It makes perfect business sense but I wonder how many people are weirded out by having to explicitly identify themselves to sign up for a video game in the same way they would for a social network/plane ticket/hotel room/etc. It feels less like a game and more like a chore to me if I have to temper and guard my gaming experience because my real-life identity is on the line. Next they will want scans of my photo ID and a picture of me holding the ID next to my face with a timestamp. I'm being sarcastic here but I also think this is a pretty realistic endgame. We all know that phone number verification won't stop anybody with an ounce of motivation to cheat/troll/whatever. It's just an annoying mandated virtue-signal for the real players, as well as a tacitly implied threat: obey the rules, or your real-life UUID goes on the naughty list. To be clear, again I think this makes some sort of sense for an eSports platform, but competitive gaming as a whole kind of escapes me (old school gamer, not the target audience). Maybe they could keep the phone requirement for their professional ladder only? I yearn for the days when my relationship with the game publisher ended when I walked out of the store with my purchase.

iLoveOncall 4y ago
Games are games. The 0.1% of cheaters ruin those games so much for the masses that it requires actions like this. Unaddressed cheating will literally destroy a game and bankrupt a company. It's sad that we have come to needing this kind of measures to prevent cheating, but the companies aren't the ones to blame for it.
- haswell 4y ago
  This goes hand in hand with cheating, but I imagine this would also help reduce smurfing, which can be just as frustrating as dealing with straight up wall hack types of cheating. I think it’s tempting to look at policies like this and associate them with other trends that are broadly concerning. Minecraft comes to mind. But this seems like a very different situation, with legitimate arguments for why this may be a good thing.
  - branon 4y ago
    Smurfing being seen as something to be reduced/eliminated is also a very new concept to me. When I played MMORPGs, having a smurf (or "alt") account was VERY commonplace, it was simply an alternative way to play the game. Now, increasingly, the context seems to be that it's unacceptable/unfair for some reason. This feels wrong to me. If I can't play the game the way _I_ want to play, what use is it as a recreational activity? It's supposed to be a "game" after all so I don't understand where are all the rules and revisions are coming from. It must be because encountering alt accounts in an open-world MMO is very different than being paired with smurf accounts in a competitive matchmaking system. This I can understand, but I hope the anti-smurf thing doesn't go _too_ far. Alt accounts are the only way to re-experience the bottom of the ladder/beginning of the story in certain types of games.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      People complain about smurfing because mediocre players don't want to be matched against good players (but they will always complain that someone who wins is a smurf). It's only because matchmaking has gotten so good that it's even a problem. In the old days you matched with whoever was available and that was that. Smurfs are also different from alts in my mind at least, an alt is something like a low level WoW character when you have a main that is max level; a smurf is more like Carlsen signing up for a chess.com account under an assumed name to gleefully squish people until his rating gets high enough, then starting another account. It only really works in games where each "match" starts off fresh for both players.
      - 4y ago
- dbttdft 4y ago
  Consider a BR game. 100 players per game. 0.1% being cheaters means 0.01 players per game are cheating. If you play 100 games, then maybe a cheater will be in your game. In fact I have played 10K games in one BR and 2K in another, and these stats seem about accurate. I have had far more games ruined by bugs due to irrational people being the developers. I also beat most of these cheaters since they don't know how to play the game and they can just be outplayed. Congratulations on proving how your outrage is over nothing. And your intrusive "fixes" are over nothing. downvote why? out of arguments?
colinmhayes 4y ago
League of Legends requires a phone number to create an account on the korean server, and there's reasonably widespread belief that that rule is a huge part of why the korean server is regarded as the best in the world. In 10 player competitive games being held hostage by a bad actor sucks. On other servers players who get banned just make a new account which leads to the game not even banning anyone since "oh they'll just make a new account." But in Korea if you get banned 3 times you're totally cut off, so people behave better.
- lawn 4y ago
  > League of Legends requires a phone number to create an account on the korean server, and there's reasonably widespread belief that that rule is a huge part of why the korean server is regarded as the best in the world. I'd attribute their gaming culture over their dystopian digital surveillance tbh.
  - madrox 4y ago
    I would not, and I think characterizing it as "dystopian digital surveillance" is disingenuous. Operators of free to play games only have so many mechanisms to make bans matter, and people behave differently if they know there are negative consequences. Overwatch has a significant toxicity problem as-is.
    - dbttdft 4y ago
      > I would not, None of the games I play have this problem. So you're wrong. I'm not claiming that this proves the problem is culture specific, just knocking down your counter claim.
      - toofy 4y ago
        > None of the games I play have this problem. ooh! if you know of popular free to play games with no toxicity, im absolutely in! which games are these?
  - 4y ago
akerl_ 4y ago
It's not clear why having to log in to a company's servers makes something not a "game". Are MMORPGs not games? The comment about broad appeal is also a bit confusing to me. Why do things stop being games because they're designed to be accessible to many people?
- branon 4y ago
  It's not logging into a server (MMORPG-like) that kills it for me, it's the push to link the in-game identity with a real-life identifier. It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point. For the broad appeal bit, I was thinking tragedy of the commons. A critical mass of actors (good and bad alike) has got to be one of the main drivers behind such a decision. So I'm thinking the more popular a game gets, the higher the likelihood that drastic actions like this are taken, ostensibly to defend against some boogeyman or other.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    taking notes for Metaverse apps here
  - kowbell 4y ago
    > It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point I’m curious what your definition of a game is?
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    I’m not sure what definition of game you’re using, where having to validate your account with a real life identifier (which feels vague, since basically every multiplayer platform already has accounts tied to email addresses, because of course they do) makes something “not a game anymore”. But that’s not the definition that I’m aware of in use anywhere else.
    - branon 4y ago
      Email addresses aren't real-life identifiers, although they could be used that way. And on the inverse, I can buy a burner phone with cash and defeat Blizzard's requirement easily. But it's pretty clear what Blizzard is going for here, since we know their platform is competitive and thus harsher on individuals viewed as bad actors. Blizzard knows full well that most people signing up to play only have one phone number, which is most certainly a real-life identifier for those players. My point is that if players feel compelled to self-censor their interactions online for fear of repercussions[0], then they are not playing a game. They are instead representing themselves as individuals on a social network with competitive/gamified attributes. Requiring phone numbers to play is just a method to gently reinforce this. To each their own - this might be exactly the type of game you like to play. But it departs pretty strongly from the classical definition of "video game" that I grew up with. [0] For example, your primary phone number being disallowed access to all Blizzard services. Maybe they go even further and request that 3rd party services ban you for off-platform violations. Moved this down to a footnote so as not to spread FUD, I'm sure they don't currently do this, nor do I expect them to. But cross-referencing phone numbers would make it very easy to start.
cronix 4y ago
And if you're a console player you also get to pay monthly for the privilege of playing online. I miss when game companies didn't host their own games and you could just download the server portion and host it yourself (or rent a server). You can't even play a lot of the single player games/modes without a connection now. > heavily policed speech. I also miss the days when there was no communication provided in-game. It's unnecessary for the vast majority of games. And if we wanted that, we used xfire or something external to collaborate, outside of what has now become yet another walled garden.
- belltaco 4y ago
  >I miss when game companies didn't host their own games and you could just download the server portion and host it yourself (or rent a server) I have hosted several servers for several games over the years but they have huge disadvantages too. One of them being that server admins can see IP addresses of players, and that leads to DDoS. Admin can also be fickle and kick players for whatever reason, had a popular server(which turned into the only server as the game got old) where the admin would kick women if they didn't respond positively to his creepy flirting. And there is no automated matchmaking that takes balance into account.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > Admin can also be fickle and kick players for whatever reason, This also describes the behaviour of common game providers. The difference is: you can switch to a different server if you are annoyed by this, but cannot get rid of the game provider/publisher. > And there is no automated matchmaking that takes balance into account. This could in principle be implemented.
- derekdahmer 4y ago
  I’m nostalgic for the clubhouse feel of private servers but I played CounterStrike 1.6 in the early 2000s and also remember nightly encounters with aimbots, wall hacks, porn sprays, toxic voice chat and uneven teams because there was no centralized matchmaking. Todays system certainly has trade offs but the competitive experience is so much better.
kubav 4y ago
"Next they will want scans of my photo ID and a picture of me holding the ID next to my face with a timestamp." Is this a bad think? F2P games are more lottery than video games. There would be statistics how many kids play it. In the best case scenario this would result in regulation of those practices.
madrox 4y ago
As you say, these are social networks, and your ability to connect with other people playing the game opens all kinds of avenues for attacks and harassment as social networks. No one wants to put up with misanthropes just to play their favorite video game. You can still have that relationship with your publisher, but if you want that in your multiplayer game, you have to go back to a day where people behaved differently on the internet. Those days are gone, and it's not the publisher's fault. It's ours.
- q-big 4y ago
  > You can still have that relationship with your publisher, but if you want that in your multiplayer game, you have to go back to a day where people behaved differently on the internet. Those days are gone, and it's not the publisher's fault. It's ours. In these former days where people behaved differently on the internet, the internet was an insanely weird and wild place where the people did and posted things that are typically not considered acceptable behaviour anymore. To get just a glimpse on this topic, see, for example, the following linked article and its dicussion on Hacker News: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025477
Lammy 4y ago
> Next they will want scans of my photo ID and a picture of me holding the ID next to my face with a timestamp. I'm being sarcastic here but I also think this is a pretty realistic endgame. But of course. After all, we can’t risk giving certain cohorts of people too much self-determination before they’re fully indoctrinated into The Economy: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/content_5449157.htm http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/content_5449157.htm (Google Translate disclaimer) “Implement the real-name registration system for online game accounts — To this end, the "Notice" requires strict real-name registration, and all online game users must use valid identity information to register for game accounts.” Strictly control the length of time for minors to use online games — It is stipulated that no game service shall be provided for minors from 22:00 to 8:00 the next day, and the daily period of statutory holidays shall not exceed 3 hours, and other hours shall not exceed 1.5 hours per day.”
nradov 4y ago
I don't understand these games. With all the hoops you have to jump through just to start playing and then all the grinding to level up it seems almost like applying for and then working a job. Except you're the one paying, not getting paid. Is this actually fun or am I missing something? It's a nice day outside, think I'll take my dog for a walk.
- CrendKing 4y ago
  What about Chess? By your definition, since have to work really hard to level up the elo, and for some professional individuals it is how they survive. Do we suddenly consider Chess no longer a game? You know, some people can really feel and obsess to thee enjoyment when they learn, progress and eventually beat worthy opponents, such enjoyment dog walking will never endow.
keypusher 4y ago
So if I walk into an arcade, and the owner stops and says “hey, we’ve had some incidents recently and you need to write down your name and phone number on this sheet of paper before you can play anything”, all the arcade cabinets suddenly stop being video games? That doesn’t really make any sense.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  If you’re trying to argue by analogy, your opponent will always find a way to disagree over the irrelevant aspects of the analogy If you’re arguing with someone who is making an analogy, you’re wasting your time because it's so easy to ignore their point. Analogies only work between people cooperating to understand something, so just ignore ‘em if youre not working together
spoiler 4y ago
I think you can still play unranked without a phone number, though. So, people who don't want to take the game seriously don't have to. It's a nice compromise, between that and fighting hordes of cheaters/smurfs/whatnits
whateveracct 4y ago
It is still just a game though. For fun. Just because they want to posit their toy as a sport doesn't mean it is. Luckily there's plenty of competitive games out there that are actually fun. The meatgrinder of matchmaking isn't actually the elite competitive environment these gamers think it is. Real competitive video games are played IRL. Your online eSport PC game of the month does not compare to a real tournament at your local arcade/community college/bar/netcafe. If your game doesn't have those, then it's probably a skinner box posing as a ladder with different colored badges as prizes.

by branon 4y ago

iLoveOncall 4y ago

Games are games. The 0.1% of cheaters ruin those games so much for the masses that it requires actions like this. Unaddressed cheating will literally destroy a game and bankrupt a company. It's sad that we have come to needing this kind of measures to prevent cheating, but the companies aren't the ones to blame for it.

haswell 4y ago
This goes hand in hand with cheating, but I imagine this would also help reduce smurfing, which can be just as frustrating as dealing with straight up wall hack types of cheating. I think it’s tempting to look at policies like this and associate them with other trends that are broadly concerning. Minecraft comes to mind. But this seems like a very different situation, with legitimate arguments for why this may be a good thing.
- branon 4y ago
  Smurfing being seen as something to be reduced/eliminated is also a very new concept to me. When I played MMORPGs, having a smurf (or "alt") account was VERY commonplace, it was simply an alternative way to play the game. Now, increasingly, the context seems to be that it's unacceptable/unfair for some reason. This feels wrong to me. If I can't play the game the way _I_ want to play, what use is it as a recreational activity? It's supposed to be a "game" after all so I don't understand where are all the rules and revisions are coming from. It must be because encountering alt accounts in an open-world MMO is very different than being paired with smurf accounts in a competitive matchmaking system. This I can understand, but I hope the anti-smurf thing doesn't go _too_ far. Alt accounts are the only way to re-experience the bottom of the ladder/beginning of the story in certain types of games.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    People complain about smurfing because mediocre players don't want to be matched against good players (but they will always complain that someone who wins is a smurf). It's only because matchmaking has gotten so good that it's even a problem. In the old days you matched with whoever was available and that was that. Smurfs are also different from alts in my mind at least, an alt is something like a low level WoW character when you have a main that is max level; a smurf is more like Carlsen signing up for a chess.com account under an assumed name to gleefully squish people until his rating gets high enough, then starting another account. It only really works in games where each "match" starts off fresh for both players.
    - 4y ago
dbttdft 4y ago
Consider a BR game. 100 players per game. 0.1% being cheaters means 0.01 players per game are cheating. If you play 100 games, then maybe a cheater will be in your game. In fact I have played 10K games in one BR and 2K in another, and these stats seem about accurate. I have had far more games ruined by bugs due to irrational people being the developers. I also beat most of these cheaters since they don't know how to play the game and they can just be outplayed. Congratulations on proving how your outrage is over nothing. And your intrusive "fixes" are over nothing. downvote why? out of arguments?

colinmhayes 4y ago

League of Legends requires a phone number to create an account on the korean server, and there's reasonably widespread belief that that rule is a huge part of why the korean server is regarded as the best in the world. In 10 player competitive games being held hostage by a bad actor sucks. On other servers players who get banned just make a new account which leads to the game not even banning anyone since "oh they'll just make a new account." But in Korea if you get banned 3 times you're totally cut off, so people behave better.

lawn 4y ago
> League of Legends requires a phone number to create an account on the korean server, and there's reasonably widespread belief that that rule is a huge part of why the korean server is regarded as the best in the world. I'd attribute their gaming culture over their dystopian digital surveillance tbh.
- madrox 4y ago
  I would not, and I think characterizing it as "dystopian digital surveillance" is disingenuous. Operators of free to play games only have so many mechanisms to make bans matter, and people behave differently if they know there are negative consequences. Overwatch has a significant toxicity problem as-is.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    > I would not, None of the games I play have this problem. So you're wrong. I'm not claiming that this proves the problem is culture specific, just knocking down your counter claim.
    - toofy 4y ago
      > None of the games I play have this problem. ooh! if you know of popular free to play games with no toxicity, im absolutely in! which games are these?
- 4y ago

akerl_ 4y ago

It's not clear why having to log in to a company's servers makes something not a "game". Are MMORPGs not games? The comment about broad appeal is also a bit confusing to me. Why do things stop being games because they're designed to be accessible to many people?

branon 4y ago
It's not logging into a server (MMORPG-like) that kills it for me, it's the push to link the in-game identity with a real-life identifier. It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point. For the broad appeal bit, I was thinking tragedy of the commons. A critical mass of actors (good and bad alike) has got to be one of the main drivers behind such a decision. So I'm thinking the more popular a game gets, the higher the likelihood that drastic actions like this are taken, ostensibly to defend against some boogeyman or other.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  taking notes for Metaverse apps here
- kowbell 4y ago
  > It's not (in an almost literal sense!) a game anymore at that point I’m curious what your definition of a game is?
- akerl_ 4y ago
  I’m not sure what definition of game you’re using, where having to validate your account with a real life identifier (which feels vague, since basically every multiplayer platform already has accounts tied to email addresses, because of course they do) makes something “not a game anymore”. But that’s not the definition that I’m aware of in use anywhere else.
  - branon 4y ago
    Email addresses aren't real-life identifiers, although they could be used that way. And on the inverse, I can buy a burner phone with cash and defeat Blizzard's requirement easily. But it's pretty clear what Blizzard is going for here, since we know their platform is competitive and thus harsher on individuals viewed as bad actors. Blizzard knows full well that most people signing up to play only have one phone number, which is most certainly a real-life identifier for those players. My point is that if players feel compelled to self-censor their interactions online for fear of repercussions[0], then they are not playing a game. They are instead representing themselves as individuals on a social network with competitive/gamified attributes. Requiring phone numbers to play is just a method to gently reinforce this. To each their own - this might be exactly the type of game you like to play. But it departs pretty strongly from the classical definition of "video game" that I grew up with. [0] For example, your primary phone number being disallowed access to all Blizzard services. Maybe they go even further and request that 3rd party services ban you for off-platform violations. Moved this down to a footnote so as not to spread FUD, I'm sure they don't currently do this, nor do I expect them to. But cross-referencing phone numbers would make it very easy to start.

cronix 4y ago

And if you're a console player you also get to pay monthly for the privilege of playing online. I miss when game companies didn't host their own games and you could just download the server portion and host it yourself (or rent a server). You can't even play a lot of the single player games/modes without a connection now. > heavily policed speech. I also miss the days when there was no communication provided in-game. It's unnecessary for the vast majority of games. And if we wanted that, we used xfire or something external to collaborate, outside of what has now become yet another walled garden.

belltaco 4y ago
>I miss when game companies didn't host their own games and you could just download the server portion and host it yourself (or rent a server) I have hosted several servers for several games over the years but they have huge disadvantages too. One of them being that server admins can see IP addresses of players, and that leads to DDoS. Admin can also be fickle and kick players for whatever reason, had a popular server(which turned into the only server as the game got old) where the admin would kick women if they didn't respond positively to his creepy flirting. And there is no automated matchmaking that takes balance into account.
- q-big 4y ago
  > Admin can also be fickle and kick players for whatever reason, This also describes the behaviour of common game providers. The difference is: you can switch to a different server if you are annoyed by this, but cannot get rid of the game provider/publisher. > And there is no automated matchmaking that takes balance into account. This could in principle be implemented.
derekdahmer 4y ago
I’m nostalgic for the clubhouse feel of private servers but I played CounterStrike 1.6 in the early 2000s and also remember nightly encounters with aimbots, wall hacks, porn sprays, toxic voice chat and uneven teams because there was no centralized matchmaking. Todays system certainly has trade offs but the competitive experience is so much better.

kubav 4y ago

"Next they will want scans of my photo ID and a picture of me holding the ID next to my face with a timestamp." Is this a bad think? F2P games are more lottery than video games. There would be statistics how many kids play it. In the best case scenario this would result in regulation of those practices.

madrox 4y ago

As you say, these are social networks, and your ability to connect with other people playing the game opens all kinds of avenues for attacks and harassment as social networks. No one wants to put up with misanthropes just to play their favorite video game. You can still have that relationship with your publisher, but if you want that in your multiplayer game, you have to go back to a day where people behaved differently on the internet. Those days are gone, and it's not the publisher's fault. It's ours.

q-big 4y ago
> You can still have that relationship with your publisher, but if you want that in your multiplayer game, you have to go back to a day where people behaved differently on the internet. Those days are gone, and it's not the publisher's fault. It's ours. In these former days where people behaved differently on the internet, the internet was an insanely weird and wild place where the people did and posted things that are typically not considered acceptable behaviour anymore. To get just a glimpse on this topic, see, for example, the following linked article and its dicussion on Hacker News: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025477

Lammy 4y ago

> Next they will want scans of my photo ID and a picture of me holding the ID next to my face with a timestamp. I'm being sarcastic here but I also think this is a pretty realistic endgame. But of course. After all, we can’t risk giving certain cohorts of people too much self-determination before they’re fully indoctrinated into The Economy: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/content_5449157.htm http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/content_5449157.htm (Google Translate disclaimer) “Implement the real-name registration system for online game accounts — To this end, the "Notice" requires strict real-name registration, and all online game users must use valid identity information to register for game accounts.” Strictly control the length of time for minors to use online games — It is stipulated that no game service shall be provided for minors from 22:00 to 8:00 the next day, and the daily period of statutory holidays shall not exceed 3 hours, and other hours shall not exceed 1.5 hours per day.”

nradov 4y ago

I don't understand these games. With all the hoops you have to jump through just to start playing and then all the grinding to level up it seems almost like applying for and then working a job. Except you're the one paying, not getting paid. Is this actually fun or am I missing something? It's a nice day outside, think I'll take my dog for a walk.

CrendKing 4y ago
What about Chess? By your definition, since have to work really hard to level up the elo, and for some professional individuals it is how they survive. Do we suddenly consider Chess no longer a game? You know, some people can really feel and obsess to thee enjoyment when they learn, progress and eventually beat worthy opponents, such enjoyment dog walking will never endow.

keypusher 4y ago

So if I walk into an arcade, and the owner stops and says “hey, we’ve had some incidents recently and you need to write down your name and phone number on this sheet of paper before you can play anything”, all the arcade cabinets suddenly stop being video games? That doesn’t really make any sense.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
If you’re trying to argue by analogy, your opponent will always find a way to disagree over the irrelevant aspects of the analogy If you’re arguing with someone who is making an analogy, you’re wasting your time because it's so easy to ignore their point. Analogies only work between people cooperating to understand something, so just ignore ‘em if youre not working together

spoiler 4y ago

I think you can still play unranked without a phone number, though. So, people who don't want to take the game seriously don't have to. It's a nice compromise, between that and fighting hordes of cheaters/smurfs/whatnits

whateveracct 4y ago

It is still just a game though. For fun. Just because they want to posit their toy as a sport doesn't mean it is. Luckily there's plenty of competitive games out there that are actually fun. The meatgrinder of matchmaking isn't actually the elite competitive environment these gamers think it is. Real competitive video games are played IRL. Your online eSport PC game of the month does not compare to a real tournament at your local arcade/community college/bar/netcafe. If your game doesn't have those, then it's probably a skinner box posing as a ladder with different colored badges as prizes.