Dear GGG..

"

dwqrf#0717 wrote:

Bwhahha. I didn't know Minecraft was a MMO, League of legend was a MMO, Counter Strike was a MMO, StarCraft was a MMO. All this times, those massive, online, and multiplayers games were MMOs and I didn't even know it.

video chess is an mmo. Online poker is an mmo.

This OP likely deserved his probie status, much like many of the things he wrote in his post here and responses.....he is incredibly self-centered and abrasive.

And then he just claimed wikipedia is "the most unreliable" source of information. Which is legitimately hilarious. While it certainly isn't the MOST reliable source, it is quite accurate and heavily....HEAVILY moderated. It's not enough for a research paper, but for damn near all general knowledge and especially for definitions it is almost always accurate. No matter HOW reliable the source is...its just good practice to verify it elsewhere. It literally takes zero effort to see that, in the case of the definition of "MMO", wikipedia is 100% reliable.

The OP is just straight up wrong. Even "the most unreliable" source of information is more correct than he is lol.

"

ExaltedReapers#1455 wrote:

"

KubaLy#4534 wrote:

"

ExaltedReapers#1455 wrote:

Games are entertainment products first and foremost. Not challenges, not art, not scoreboards to be climbed, and especially not jobs.

Even tho I would probably agree with most, if not all of your issues with POE2, I stopped reading after those lies. Sorry to bring it to you but you're not one to decide what games 'are' and 'are not'. Unless you make your own game. You then can decide what its nature gonna be.

Truth is often painful. but 100 million spent over 5 years with dozens of peoples hard work to be placed on the market for profit would say otherwise. I know its a tuff truth to swallow but all games from pong to fornight are first and formost products to be sold with the intention to make a profit

This is moving the goalposts.
Youw assertion was:

"

ExaltedReapers#1455 wrote:

Games are entertainment products first and foremost. Not challenges, not art, not scoreboards to be climbed, and especially not jobs.

Nowhere in there did you say games are first and foremost for profit. The mere existence of games that are not out there first and foremost to make profit but for a variety of reasons, falsifies your assertion. Your pivot to profit as the primary instead of entertainment is where the goalposts were moved.

That games are put out specifically to be "eSports", which means for people to treat as jobs and get paid to play them, also falsifies your claim quite specifically. Now, as to the structure of your assertion, it falsifies itself.

Consider this:
"Automobiles are first and foremost transportation products. Not museum pieces, not for quarter mile leaderboards, not for having intimate relations in, not for recording videos in, and especially not jobs."

Yet some automobiles are explicitly made for use in having a job, some are made explicitly to put on racetracks, and most are made explicitly to be flexible in how they are used.

Obviously, I hope, the first example is your argument, and the second is disproving the structure of it because the structure of your overall argument is that the first assertion *precludes* the others.

Your moved argument is a non sequitur that fails to address the criticisms and failures of your first. Even if we accepted the claim as true, that the first priority of all games made is to make a profit, that doesn't mean there are not others. In fact, your use of the term "first and foremost" mandates other uses exist. Meanwhile the dropping of "entertainment products" is what destroys your second assertion as a defense because it shifts your claim.

Now your claim of "well it is massive, it is multiplayer, and it is online" meaning it is an MMO is also false. Indeed it is at best a seven year old's logic. It is like saying "this person is a girl, and is friend, therefore she is my girlfriend." But wait, there is another example of why that argument is false.

You can take a minivan, go to an SCCA event and enter into and engage in the sport of autocross. This does not make the minivan a sports car, despite it being a "car" and engaging in "sports."

Now to the technical reasons why that MMO claim of yours is false.

MMOs have "open worlds" where players are out in the world exploring and doing quests, engaging in the environment, and doing so with other players not necessarily in their party. Furthermore, this world has to be persistent and shared. This persistence enables shared events between unaffiliated players.

This has been, and remains, a key aspect of an MMO, though not the only one. PoE2 does not have that. PoE2 has a social hub, but no persistent shared world, and no persistent shared world events. In order to be out doing things "in the world" you have to party up, and go out to a dedicated instance where it is just your party and the instance.

If you want to argue that this somehow qualifies, then you have to argue as well that Starcraft and Starcraft II also qualify. After all, both SC & SC2 have an online social hub, are session based multiplayer, and are/have been "massive." Which brings us to your next incorrect claim.

PoE2 is a session based multiplayer game, not a massively multiplayer game. MMO is not three words in isolation lined up, but a specific phrase. It isn't "massive, multiplayer", it is "massively multiplayer" - which also negates your retort as the first word is "massively" not "massive." This means that PoE2's total player count is irrelevant because that isn't what the criteria is. The term "massively multiplayer" refers to the amount of players in a *single, shared world* instance, not a social hub. PoE2's multiplayer is limited to, IIRC, 6 players. While I can't speak to teh hard limits, in can say I have never even seen a hundred players in a single town (ie. social hub).

That you fail to get such basic language structure and facts incorrect discredits your claim of you spouting "objective truths" - a term I am reasonably certain you don't understand either given your misuse of it. Indeed about 98% of what you wrote is pure opinion, with the other two percent being misrepresentation and factual inaccuracy. Nothing wrong with opinion, so long as you don't misrepresent it as objective truth.

With that, unfortunately, it renders rest of your post irrelevant as you have clearly established you are not acting in good faith, but in a "I want things my way and hereby proclaim them as objective truth, so you can't question me" fashion instead, and people will pick up on that (and did) and dismiss you. This is not how one engenders discussion.

If you instead were to offer your opinions as the opinions they are, perhaps you would get different responses, and see discussion rather than strong disagreement and clear correction; and, more broadly, perhaps less probation.

"

Strangehill#1736 wrote:

"Retail WoW died when it stopped being about the average user experience and started being about high tier raiding"

Entirely the opposite, retail wow decline started with cataclysm and lfg tier raids

When there's nothing to play for there no reason to play

"Diablo 4 despite all its problems has nothing but broad appeal, not that its what's best but they're numbers speak truth."

Diablo 4 sold very well but its retention is nowhere, blizzard is all about flashy marketing and design by committee, they do not build games for players they build games for shareholders, they do not care for seasons beyond selling battle pass only expansions

It remains to be seen about direction of poe2 as it is bare bones right now but GGG is all about retention and they should not kowtow to players who want everything straight away because those are not people who come back once they've had their fill

I can only speak for myself here but having the mentality that forget the players who will leave anyway is crazy. Many like myself play and try these games because we are looking for an amazing game to play for a long time. We leave for a reason. Im still playing but will probably leave soon and its not because its a built in statistic in my brain but because the correct changes won't be made to keep me enjoying the game.

Campaign is best thing I have played since elden ring on level of enjoyment. I want so bad for this game to be a forever game but I really dont like the endgame, it's a completely different experience and the most repetative and boring thing I have experienced in a long time and the whole season economy reset thing will just put the icing on the cake, the way to solve repetitiveness is not to reset and do it all again lol. This game has the potential to keep a hell of a lot of players but they need to actually listen to the many and not the few.

And when we have all left don't say " see i told you" because we left for real in game reasons not because its normal.

Create the game for the majority and they will stay.

"

TheRealBill#2836 wrote:

amazing post

Your assessment of the mental capacities at or around that of a 7 year old is accurate and apparent.

Well crafted and deeply correct response