I'm a college student from North Carolina studying English and Journalism. I'm a reformed Comp Sci Major and a featured writer from Game Informer's community blogs section, which means my things get posted to the front page! Enjoying the new site so far and the long form articles Polygon has been posting.
Maybe because they’ve actually been going through the process of working on the game instead of just playing around with rudimentary concepts. A lot can happen in a year that no one would know about.
It doesn’t do anything close to showing that coercive monetizatition can’t be the norm. That’s a possible assumption, another is also the assumption that perhaps coercive monetization doesn’t work. And if popping up timers on the screen and explicitly telling people they can only get around them by paying isn’t a form of coercive monetization, I don’t know what it. It’s also just about the only thing I’ve encountered in mobile free to play, and isn’t terribly far off from the idea of experience booster.
I think what you meant to say was it shouldn’t be something that makes me want to put in overtime in real life in order to overcome an arbitrary artificial barrier. It should make you want to spend because you like the game, not want to spend so you don’t feel inconvenienced by the design.
Seriously though, no one with a brain is arguing they pose a threat to society – even the arguments the piece points to are simply arguing for more responsible designs of how spending is handled so kids can’t make $5,000 purchases (arguing against that idea is lunacy at best).
I find it amusing that common ground is being called for at the end when the author doesn’t seem to care a lick about the fact that he just called everyone who disagrees with him a conspiratorial nutcase.
Well, half would still be the norm if half are severely compromised, and the rest are good but not perfect or right about where they need to be. And Farmville raked in the cash, the Sims free-to-play rakes in cash. Plenty of free-to-play stuff rakes in cash. Plenty of free-to-play stuff also isn’t enjoyable to play for more a few minutes without paying – some aren’t meant to be enjoyable for more than about 10 minutes once every day. Usage statistics and earnings don’t indicate quality, nor does their ability to be played without paying – Candy Crush stonewalls people pretty hard. In fact, the more widely dispersed a game, movie or song is, the more likely it is to be middling from a number of perspectives. Middling plots are easy to digest for a wide array of different audiences, but little more than adequate for people who know what to look for. Middling gameplay is familiar enough to be picked up by anyone, but won’t wow hardcore fans. Middling song writing is vague enough to survive on a hook and catchy repetition instead of thought provoking revelation. Too many free-to-play games are middling, they’re grey-matter in the grand scheme of gaming. Built from a blueprint that’s been slightly tweaked and repainted. Are there good examples? Sure, I think Neverwinter is a fine MMO despite being F2P, and despite being horribly balanced SWTOR at least has an enjoyable Bioware story hook that was enough to engage me. The signal to noise ratio is so much higher though. Even if it’s split 50/50 like you seem to be suggesting, that still means half the games aren’t worth a damn.
Is it suddenly not snobby to accuse others of snobbery to their face? That’s essentially what this is doing, waving a finger in peoples faces and accusing them of snobbery if they disagree. It’s entire premise is based around calling people closed minded from the moment someone reads the headline. If categorizing someone as lower because they can’t appreciate the value of something you value isn’t snobbery, I don’t know what is.
AND ALL OF THE CHEESE WHEELS.
Well, considering how hard APB sank, that’s a fairly safe assumption. =P
Agreed. Seven “epic” trilogies worth of (roughly 500-1500 word long) books that you might never actually stumble across is a cool touch. Letting me making a decent looking character that I will always have around would be much cooler. The books are a cool way around a codex, but that effort might be better spent elsewhere.
Yeah, this is totally fine. In fact, not inserting bias into this piece is pitch perfect – doing so would be violating basic journalistic practices for simple reporting. This is not a blog, it’s a publication.
Well, he doesn’t. He doesn’t debunk it because there’s nothing scientific about this. There’s no way to gather empirical evidence in either case, so no way to prove anything. There’s too many variables.
In this case, this study is probably being pushed so they can do a bigger one. That’s kinda how it works. Do small scale, if your small scale shows plausibility in your hypothesis you get to move on to a large scale.
That said, not sure why they didn’t try this with multiple pieces of media.
Okay, all I had to do was read the parameters for the study to tell the entire thing is bunk. Who at Ohio State approved such a subjective pile of crap? There’s nothing empirical about this, it relies entirely on conjecture and personal bias. You can’t eliminate the variable of any of those people’s views of race. Also, I’m not really sure why the study should be limited to only students who are white. Last time I checked, white people are not the only people who are not black people.
I’m actually kind of pissed at this, because it suggests this is the type of things students are encouraged to do with their degrees. I’ve studied in two field where the scientific method wasn’t a factor, Computer Science and English – yet I still know enough about how a proper experiment works to know this entire thing is complete garbage.
Again I’m only left to wonder who approved this and who would publish it in a journal.