4 ms·

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 co

by 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.
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      Overwatch’s only social features are in-game voice/text chat, whose purpose is primarily coordinating with your team. If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Putting something in a footnote doesn’t make it it FUD, for what it’s worth.
      - q-big 4y ago
        > If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Why not let stupid people shout stupid things ...
        akerl_ 4y ago
        Because it’s disruptive to the rest of us trying to play the game?
- mechanical_bear 4y ago
  How is that not a game anymore? It is certainly not a FUN game (cough Apex) when beset by cheaters constantly. I’ll gladly give up anonymity to make the game fun again.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
  - inkywatcher 4y ago
    In the case of Apex Legends, I think the experientially high incidence of cheaters and persistently active cheat manufacturers (as well as almost-cheats like using mouse and keyboard on consoles for superior aim assist) are both a compliment to the game and a side effect of battle royales. Larger lobbies and survival of the fittest equates to a higher likelihood of encountering the cheaters that exist. Even if less than 1% of players cheat, it is quite possible to encounter one during an evening of play. And it sometimes seems like the cheating comes in waves, where a new one will be wildly popular for a while before the team in charge of it catches on. All that is to say, additional identifiers might be against the hacker ethos, but hopefully not the gamer ethos.
- mixedCase 4y ago
  I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Doubly so when, in this case, the goal is to identify you as a person by the platform holder who needs to validate to the best of their ability that you're not a ban-evading cheater ruining other people's games. You are not personally identifying yourself to other players.
  - branon 4y ago
    No, you have it exactly right. I posit that a service run by a platform-holder who has a legitimate need to validate players' identity in this manner, for these reasons, is not quite the same as the video games (even the multiplayer ones) which have existed up until now. They have built something very different. And it's great! I just think it's also important to discuss what it really is, why, and the current+future implications. I feel there should be a new term to describe this type of game. Up until now "eSports" has been used but that seems passe. Metagame perhaps? Might have sounded dumb a few years ago, but there's strong precedent now :P
    - akerl_ 4y ago
      How about we just call it a game? It’s not clear why we’d need to find a new term because you have a nostalgia for games based on their login requirements.
dbttdft 4y ago
> Are MMORPGs not games? Yes. I've never played one, but from what I can tell it's like a forum where you go on with an identity and form clubs with people and chat about stuff, then you play some wonky subgame for 1 minute in that 3 hour session, then you go press a bunch of buttons to gamble for virtual prizes, etc.
- akerl_ 4y ago
  Do… you know what an MMORPG is? Some hints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online...
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    Yeah, the subgame is the PVP. But that's rare and requires players to play for thousands of hours to get to whatever level and probably is like an RPG but with worse mechanics because the devs spend most of their time adding new items and currencies and other things peripheral to the game But thanks for the downvote, you really got me there.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  I upvoted you and here's why. I've played lots of MMOs when I was younger and it's always the same: the "game" doesnt really start until you hit the "endgame" (usually near max level with decent gear). Until that point, you are often grinding and doing daily events, like a job. And we often joke that once we get there: "Finally, I get to play the game". Then there's fear of missing out with seasonal or other limited-time awards etc. which " forces" you to play when you don't want to. Jonathan Blow has written about why this isn't fun game design. And those are some reasons why despite having played a lot of these, I agree with the pithy comment that they aren't games.
  - dbttdft 4y ago
    Yeah I was excited about the idea of MMO back in 2000 when my friends told me about one they played. Then realized they're all scams (and do not even have any MMO element; You can't actually have a bunch of players fighting and when you do it just lags and bugs) and dodged that bullet.

by akerl_ 4y ago

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.
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    Overwatch’s only social features are in-game voice/text chat, whose purpose is primarily coordinating with your team. If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Putting something in a footnote doesn’t make it it FUD, for what it’s worth.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > If this helps censor the people who are interrupting the game to shout racist insults or read their manifestos, that seems like a win for gaming to me. Why not let stupid people shout stupid things ...
      - akerl_ 4y ago
        Because it’s disruptive to the rest of us trying to play the game?
mechanical_bear 4y ago
How is that not a game anymore? It is certainly not a FUN game (cough Apex) when beset by cheaters constantly. I’ll gladly give up anonymity to make the game fun again.
- dbttdft 4y ago
- inkywatcher 4y ago
  In the case of Apex Legends, I think the experientially high incidence of cheaters and persistently active cheat manufacturers (as well as almost-cheats like using mouse and keyboard on consoles for superior aim assist) are both a compliment to the game and a side effect of battle royales. Larger lobbies and survival of the fittest equates to a higher likelihood of encountering the cheaters that exist. Even if less than 1% of players cheat, it is quite possible to encounter one during an evening of play. And it sometimes seems like the cheating comes in waves, where a new one will be wildly popular for a while before the team in charge of it catches on. All that is to say, additional identifiers might be against the hacker ethos, but hopefully not the gamer ethos.
mixedCase 4y ago
I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Doubly so when, in this case, the goal is to identify you as a person by the platform holder who needs to validate to the best of their ability that you're not a ban-evading cheater ruining other people's games. You are not personally identifying yourself to other players.
- branon 4y ago
  No, you have it exactly right. I posit that a service run by a platform-holder who has a legitimate need to validate players' identity in this manner, for these reasons, is not quite the same as the video games (even the multiplayer ones) which have existed up until now. They have built something very different. And it's great! I just think it's also important to discuss what it really is, why, and the current+future implications. I feel there should be a new term to describe this type of game. Up until now "eSports" has been used but that seems passe. Metagame perhaps? Might have sounded dumb a few years ago, but there's strong precedent now :P
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    How about we just call it a game? It’s not clear why we’d need to find a new term because you have a nostalgia for games based on their login requirements.

dbttdft 4y ago

> Are MMORPGs not games? Yes. I've never played one, but from what I can tell it's like a forum where you go on with an identity and form clubs with people and chat about stuff, then you play some wonky subgame for 1 minute in that 3 hour session, then you go press a bunch of buttons to gamble for virtual prizes, etc.

akerl_ 4y ago
Do… you know what an MMORPG is? Some hints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online...
- dbttdft 4y ago
  Yeah, the subgame is the PVP. But that's rare and requires players to play for thousands of hours to get to whatever level and probably is like an RPG but with worse mechanics because the devs spend most of their time adding new items and currencies and other things peripheral to the game But thanks for the downvote, you really got me there.
llanowarelves 4y ago
I upvoted you and here's why. I've played lots of MMOs when I was younger and it's always the same: the "game" doesnt really start until you hit the "endgame" (usually near max level with decent gear). Until that point, you are often grinding and doing daily events, like a job. And we often joke that once we get there: "Finally, I get to play the game". Then there's fear of missing out with seasonal or other limited-time awards etc. which " forces" you to play when you don't want to. Jonathan Blow has written about why this isn't fun game design. And those are some reasons why despite having played a lot of these, I agree with the pithy comment that they aren't games.
- dbttdft 4y ago
  Yeah I was excited about the idea of MMO back in 2000 when my friends told me about one they played. Then realized they're all scams (and do not even have any MMO element; You can't actually have a bunch of players fighting and when you do it just lags and bugs) and dodged that bullet.