Why do casual players seem entitled to cosmetic items added in game?

Why do hardcore players feel they are entitled to an ultimate every xpac?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paintedtarget

Why do hardcore players feel they are entitled to an ultimate every xpac?

---

Because they are very low cost. Think about how little modelling work needs to get done per ultimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collin_Sky

Can't believe there are people now defending MTX in a subscription MMO as a preferred way of obtaining items as opposed to actually earning it in game. Good lord.

Maybe you guys should just bookmark playerauctions.com instead of the forums

---

I mean, you can ignore the actual, salient points about the amounts of time involved in doing these things in a video game vs the time a lot of people actually have to do them along with their real life responsibilities all you want, but it doesn't make those isses with the MMO genre any less real.

Nobody's "destroying vidja games." Everyone's doing the best they can to enjoy their hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

The logical end result of "hipster culture". Having the status symbols of a subculture, but just for fashion, not for the culture / status associated with it. You'd think that zombie graveyard of pay2win MMOs would serve as lesson of what not to encourage in a game that one likes, but alas, here we are.

---

"The culture"? Holy hell.

Look, man - I'm old. I've played about a billion video games. And until now I figured that playing video games for about 50 years (give or take) would have been enough to be a part of "the culture."

What I've discovered, however, is that what I've needed to do this whole time is to earn this specific haircut in this specific video game by beating my metaphorical head against a wall-slash-boss' fist 300 times, with each beat followed by someone telling me I suck, followed by getting kicked, followed by waiting an hour for the next attempt.

With all due respect, I'd rather not be part of that. I have better things to do with my time. Here's $10 for a haircut for my cat girl so I can bypass that. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collin_Sky

If you aren't against actually doing difficult content and feel bad when you cause wipes, then find people who are similar to you in mentality/skill level and learn content as a group where the pressure is off and the goal is to just have fun learning at a pre-determined pace. It's not rocket science. What do you think us hardcore raiders do?

---

I've been a "hardcore raider" before, so I know how it all works, and the time involved. These days it's time that's the main issue for me, personally, so I was speaking more broadly.

But I absolutely get - and sympathize with - the idea that some things in the game take too much time for a lot of people. I don't think suggesting that either/or is a reasonable approach to cover all their bases - people with the time and inclination to raid, and people without.

I can understand people having a philosophical objection to it. I just don't agree with it.

And thanks for that link! Would still be good to see that as an easy-to-access option in the game itself to encourage its use and make it feel more like a part of "the process" of raiding, but nice to know it exists!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

by beating my metaphorical head against a wall-slash-boss' fist 300 times, with each beat followed by someone telling me I suck, followed by getting kicked, followed by waiting an hour for the next attempt.

---

The other part of the "culture" that we all like to pretend isn't part of this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Because they are very low cost. Think about how little modelling work needs to get done per ultimate.

---

Low cost =/= low effort. They also need to have the fight be balanced for every class (FRU fails at this, look at what PCT can do), new mechanics, and presumably a long while of testing after that. As well as slapping on an ugly glow effect on 1 weapon per class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paintedtarget

Why do hardcore players feel they are entitled to an ultimate every xpac?

---

During ShB I remember a bunch of hardcore players being up in arms at the fact that devs had to postpone or in those players' words "cancel" the 2nd Ultimate because of COVID. It's not exactly the same thing here but it does show hardcore players can be entitled as anyone else in this game. They are not guilt-free at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

I mean, you can ignore the actual, salient points about the amounts of time involved in doing these things in a video game vs the time a lot of people actually have to do them along with their real life responsibilities all you want, but it doesn't make those isses with the MMO genre any less real.

---

And you don't understand that the whole point of a game is playing the game. And that for this kind of game, a reward structure that is significantly based on people actually playing the game (and playing it well) is a major factor of the appeal in the first place. There are a lot of games that just let you buy the best gear / cosmetics with real life money, directly in the shop. They are all part of the "zombie graveyard of MMOs". Because they go fundamentally against what makes video games as a medium enjoyable for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

Nobody's "destroying vidja games." Everyone's doing the best they can to enjoy their hobby.

---

You don't follow any industry news, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

"The culture"? Holy hell.

Look, man - I'm old. I've played about a billion video games. And until now I figured that playing video games for about 50 years (give or take) would have been enough to be a part of "the culture."

What I've discovered, however, is that what I've needed to do this whole time is to earn this specific haircut in this specific video game by beating my metaphorical head against a wall-slash-boss' fist 300 times, with each beat followed by someone telling me I suck, followed by getting kicked, followed by waiting an hour for the next attempt.

With all due respect, I'd rather not be part of that. I have better things to do with my time. Here's $10 for a haircut for my cat girl so I can bypass that. Please.

---

Culture isn't a "being" thing, it is what is lived by people. The willingness of people to swipe their card for a "cute hairstyle for my catgirl" is the reason these kinds of things are put for sale in the first place. That's why cool mounts of even ingame bosses are put on the shop, instead of being rewards for the bosses themselves. And why there is no need for the developers to bother with good and regular releases, when the weekly fantasia addicts are pouring in enough money for no additional work on the developer's side. The end result is a worse product, in this case, this particular video game.

Further, you are not getting kicked out by faceless beings. There are human beings on the other end controlling these characters, and if you get such a krass display of hostility when doing harder content, then it's likely because you are actively prog lying, i.e. you broke the implicit social contract. You are being rude to everyone else, it's little surprise that you then find yourself on the receiving end of (ToS breaking) antagonism. For someone who emphasizes how old they are, you sure aren't wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

You don't follow any industry news, do you?

---

I'm curious as to who or what you're thinking is destroying the videogame industry, but given how your post was otherwise unnecessarily and weirdly hostile, I'm reluctant to ask.

I dont think it is a good decision to have character customization (not cosmetics) tied to higher-end content - and it should have been done as it was in Endwalker where its rewarded towards harder casual-midcore content with the option to buy from AH as it gives the general player access to it whether via the lazy way or by farming/doing the content.

I think this is the lazy method of SE to try to funnel the larger casual base to do more higher content by carrot-sticking a hairstyle - but I dont know if a 24-man Savage that doesnt have a long life span will do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paintedtarget

Why do hardcore players feel they are entitled to an ultimate every xpac?

---

Incredibly ironic post considering there's literally an entire thread advocating for a casual player strike because they aren't getting as much content as they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collin_Sky

Incredibly ironic post considering there's literally an entire thread advocating for a casual player strike because they aren't getting as much content as they want.

---

I don’t think trying to pretend like casual players are wrong for thinking they haven’t been given enough content since 6.0 is the right move here

I agree if people won’t try CAR and won’t buy it at (now) 6 million they shouldn’t feel entitled to the hair but the problem of a lack of casual or long form content is real and a serious problem the game is having and “just play savage it’s right there” isn’t the answer to that problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

And you don't understand that the whole point of a game is playing the game.

---

Well this reply was a heck of a ride.

I understand what "the point of a game" is, I promise you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

You don't follow any industry news, do you?

---

You sure do seem to be making a lot of strangely aggressive assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

Culture isn't a "being" thing, it is what is lived by people

---

Is putting things on sale to people who want said things and who have the money for said things bad? Do you also get angry at the people running the supermarket because they're selling milk to people who don't have the time to fully immerse themselves in dairy farm culture? How about people wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey when they weren't actually a member of the team?

The point of games is the nebulous "to have fun," and "fun" means different things to different people. For you it sounds as if it's maybe raiding to get BiS gear. But for some people it's going to be "my character looks cool." If I can get the fun I want out of a game I play for 5 extra bucks I have, who cares? You care? You probably shouldn't.

So when we get to the point of the conversation where "video game culture is lived in" and I'm buying my video game Mariah Carey Christmas outfit in Fortnite because I think it'll be hilarious and make my buddies laugh - what part of that is not "the culture"? Am I supposed to report my planned in-game purchases to some sort of Twitch channel arbitration committe beforehand so I know if it's culturally-approved? Will Ninja suddenly appear and remove my graphics card if I buy the wrong hat or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

The end result is a worse product, in this case, this particular video game.

---

Look, bud, I don't know what to tell you - for some people dropping ten bucks to get the shape of their horns correct is the pinnacle of entertainment that they want this weekend. Agrily telling them how wrong they are to be having fun their way is never gonna go well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

Further, you are not getting kicked out by faceless beings.

---

I didn't say that was happening to me. But we all know it happens.

I once had a buddy in an MMO going off about his friend's wife as being "useless" and "an idiot" because she was messing up their progression by not gearing her stats right, and that was enough for me.

All she wanted to do was see the end of the story.

One of the people in that story was being a jerk. And I'll bet you and I would pick different people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllenThyl

For someone who emphasizes how old they are, you sure aren't wise.

---

Joke's on you. I was voted "most likely to be wise" in all three of my repeating-my-last-year-of-high-school yearbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aidorouge

That's kinda why I wouldn't mind Trusts for Trials & Raids, because at least I got to see the story even if the rewards were minimal/zero, and if I DID want to do the "proper" version for the full/any rewards, at least I know what I'm in for that a guide or video can't do because doing is better than showing sometimes ...BUT that would require redoing said Trials & Raids to be doable by NPCs, and absolutely nobody wants that apparently (which is understandable)

---

I keep hoping for two things from trusts: trials/raids required for story progression, and the ability to just have non-player slots filled in with NPCs so my wife and I can slog through whatever content we'd like together without needing to feel like we're klutzing it up for everyone else.

Clinging to the multiplayer side of things being necessary is feeling more and more like one of those "because that's how it's ALWAYS been!" types of arguments. This game's 10 years old. The genre itself is, what... 40, 50 years old? It's probably okay to provide more options by now without The King of Multiplayer Video Games getting angry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

I keep hoping for two things from trusts: trials/raids required for story progression, and the ability to just have non-player slots filled in with NPCs so my wife and I can slog through whatever content we'd like together without needing to feel like we're klutzing it up for everyone else.

Clinging to the multiplayer side of things being necessary is feeling more and more like one of those "because that's how it's ALWAYS been!" types of arguments. This game's 10 years old. The genre itself is, what... 40, 50 years old? It's probably okay to provide more options by now without The King of Multiplayer Video Games getting angry about it.

---

“Clinging to old ways”

My brother in Christ it’s an MMO, do you understand what those three words stand for

It’s like walking into a pizza place and wondering why they only make pizza and declaring it’s because “they’ve always done it this way”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

“Clinging to old ways”

My brother in Christ it’s an MMO, do you understand what those three words stand for

It’s like walking into a pizza place and wondering why they only make pizza and declaring it’s because “they’ve always done it this way”

---

Probably pointless relitigating what "MMO" actually means, what it should mean, and what it could mean. That said, the evolution of the genre has seen the practical definition move away from "group content" to an increasing amount of "solo content in a world of other players." Many couples have requested the ability to play together and have the light party filled by NPCs. It has no negative impact on anyone else.

This is why many of us find content requiring statics and party finder to be quaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

Probably pointless relitigating what "MMO" actually means, what it should mean, and what it could mean. That said, the evolution of the genre has seen the practical definition move away from "group content" to an increasing amount of "solo content in a world of other players." Many couples have requested the ability to play together and have the light party filled by NPCs. It has no negative impact on anyone else.

This is why many of us find content requiring statics and party finder to be quaint.

---

In a game like 14 how would moving to “solo in a world of other players” maintain any semblance of interaction. The player economy is useless in this game, if content can be done solo it’s always more efficient to do it solo

In other games that are more solo friendly than 14 there is still stronger degrees of interaction because either they still force you to interact with the player economy or they still lock meaningful rewards behind group content

Attempting to do a similar thing in 14 would just kill everything instantly as you’d basically be playing solo in a world of dynamic NPC’s because the rest of what makes an MMO interactive has already been ripped out of 14

It’s contrived to say in the 14 forum but if you don’t want to play with other players you may not like them an MMO is not the game for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

In a game like 14 how would moving to “solo in a world of other players” maintain any semblance of interaction. The player economy is useless in this game, if content can be done solo it’s always more efficient to do it solo

In other games that are more solo friendly than 14 there is still stronger degrees of interaction because either they still force you to interact with the player economy or they still lock meaningful rewards behind group content

Attempting to do a similar thing in 14 would just kill everything instantly as you’d basically be playing solo in a world of dynamic NPC’s because the rest of what makes an MMO interactive has already been ripped out of 14

---

It makes the degree of interaction a choice, thereby appealing to a broader demographic.

It's not something that appeals to me, but a game that includes an active venue scene and (E)RP surely has more than a "semblance of interaction."

There's been some insane takes in this thread lmao
MTX preferable to in game rewards
Crafting macros are cheating
And now people wanting to completely avoid having to play with other people in an MMO
Good grief

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Collin_Sky

There's been some insane takes in this thread lmao
MTX preferable to in game rewards
Crafting macros are cheating
And now people wanting to completely avoid having to play with other people in an MMO
Good grief

---

If you're genuinely interested, here's Josh Strife Hayes on the topic:

https://youtu.be/AcGezDYNLIU?si=7gK66ZOl7kesG1h2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

“Clinging to old ways”

My brother in Christ it’s an MMO, do you understand what those three words stand for

It’s like walking into a pizza place and wondering why they only make pizza and declaring it’s because “they’ve always done it this way”

---

I definitely don't know what MMO stands for, you're right. I always just assumed it was games for Moms, just spelled wrong, but thanks to your post I've learned that was incorrect!

I mean, I think. You didn't really clarify.

But I do think there are at least a couple of steps in your analogy you're missing to make that an equivalent example.

For example: does this pizza place also make you share 7 slices of your 8 slice pizza with 7 random strangers who react angrily to you "doing it wrong" before taking a vote to kick you out of the place?

Does the pizza parlor require that I wear 8 seperate pieces of clothing and accessories of a minimum quality before I can step inside?

If I approach the pizza parlor with my wife for a date, will it tell me that I can eat the pizza alone OR with 7 strangers, but not JUST with my wife?

I think a pizza parlor set up to follow MMO requirements would probably only have a 1-star rating on Yelp, that's for sure.

...

...what were we talking about, again..?

Right. Yeah. So - yes. I think that encouraging the introduction of quality-of-life features is more important than going with "it's always been this way before." Bear in mind that I'll be prepared to accept that this is your genuine stance ONLY if you're still angrily holding a candle for 1.0's "anima" system, where you couldn't really play the game meaningfully any more once you ran out.

Which, if so - I mean, way to hold to your convictions, my friend!

But I'd like to think that maybe you can agree that some things that are "staples of the genre" can actually be bad, or un-fun, and - if not outright removed - alternatives can be offered for people who won't otherwise interact with those systems in their current forms anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

I definitely don't know what MMO stands for, you're right. I always just assumed it was games for Moms, just spelled wrong, but thanks to your post I've learned that was incorrect!

I mean, I think. You didn't really clarify.

But I do think there are at least a couple of steps in your analogy you're missing to make that an equivalent example.

For example: does this pizza place also make you share 7 slices of your 8 slice pizza with 7 random strangers who react angrily to you "doing it wrong" before taking a vote to kick you out of the place?

Does the pizza parlor require that I wear 8 seperate pieces of clothing and accessories of a minimum quality before I can step inside?

If I approach the pizza parlor with my wife for a date, will it tell me that I can eat the pizza alone OR with 7 strangers, but not JUST with my wife?

I think a pizza parlor set up to follow MMO requirements would probably only have a 1-star rating on Yelp, that's for sure.

...

...what were we talking about, again..?

Right. Yeah. So - yes. I think that encouraging the introduction of quality-of-life features is more important than going with "it's always been this way before." Bear in mind that I'll be prepared to accept that this is your genuine stance ONLY if you're still angrily holding a candle for 1.0's "anima" system, where you couldn't really play the game meaningfully any more once you ran out.

Which, if so - I mean, way to hold to your convictions, my friend!

But I'd like to think that maybe you can agree that some things that are "staples of the genre" can actually be bad, or un-fun, and - if not outright removed - alternatives can be offered for people who won't otherwise interact with those systems in their current forms anyway.

---

None of those analogies make any sense because the analogy to MMO is pizza itself. When you signed up for an MMO you agreed that you were happy to play with other people to progress and that depending on the situation others may not be happy with your performance, that’s literally the core of an MMO. In your analogies you act like you didn’t sign up for any of this when you signed up for an MMO “I didn’t sign up to eat pizza with 7 strangers I signed up to eat pizza” yes the pizza is the MMO so by proxy you signed up to play with strangers on a game. If you don’t want to play with strangers why did you pick an MMO, second life sims and co-op games exist if you just wanted to play with your wife

Removing the corest of core elements of an MMO (playing with other people) isn’t a “quality of life feature” it’s removing the entire purpose of the game. If you want to play with your wife then queue together and have the other 6 spots fill around you, this isn’t a solo game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Removing the corest of core elements of an MMO (playing with other people) isn’t a “quality of life feature” it’s removing the entire purpose of the game. If you want to play with your wife then queue together and have the other 6 spots fill around you, this isn’t a solo game

---

What? Every non-combat single quest, MSQ or otherwise is carried out solo. With a handful of exceptions, every piece of MSQ combat content can be carried out solo.

If you really believe that "solo play in a world of other players" will destroy 14, sorry to tell you, but that's already happened.

To your point below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

isn’t it funny that every time something actually important happens they make it into a dungeon/trial/raid

Saying “the busywork is solo” is not the gotcha you imagine it to be. Literally every important or critical moment in this game is done in a party

---

This is simply not true. Most of the significant events appear in cut scenes. When there are raids/dungeons/trials associated with those events, 98% can be carried out with NPCs; that is, solo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mawlzy

What? Every non-combat single quest, MSQ or otherwise is carried out solo. With a handful of exceptions, every piece of MSQ combat content can be carried out solo.

If you really believe that "solo play in a world of other players" will destroy 14, sorry to tell you, but that's already happened.

---

isn’t it funny that every time something actually important happens they make it into a dungeon/trial/raid

Saying “the busywork is solo” is not the gotcha you imagine it to be. Literally every important or critical moment in this game is done in a party

It's so tiring to read about how FF14 is an "MMO" when it's the least MMO of all the games I know of.

Almost every aspect of the MMO in this game, besides the heavy content, is dead.
Social interaction and obligations to each other are kept to a minimum here, there are no conflicts of interest, responsibility and moral principles do not exist.

Almost all active communities are gathered into faceless discord groups of several hundred or thousand people, led by several dozen enthusiasts.

This is a game literally for pensioners and closed societies, like sitting with friends in a bar and chill.
The biggest drama I've encountered in two years is that a girl flirted with two banboys at once in one static.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

None of those analogies make any sense because the analogy to MMO is pizza itself. When you signed up for an MMO you agreed that you were happy to play with other people to progress and that depending on the situation others may not be happy with your performance, that’s literally the core of an MMO. In your analogies you act like you didn’t sign up for any of this when you signed up for an MMO “I didn’t sign up to eat pizza with 7 strangers I signed up to eat pizza” yes the pizza is the MMO so by proxy you signed up to play with strangers on a game. If you don’t want to play with strangers why did you pick an MMO, second life sims and co-op games exist if you just wanted to play with your wife

Removing the corest of core elements of an MMO (playing with other people) isn’t a “quality of life feature” it’s removing the entire purpose of the game. If you want to play with your wife then queue together and have the other 6 spots fill around you, this isn’t a solo game

---

I don't believe I got whatever form it is you're talking about. Did I have to mail it in?

They've added a bunch of quality of life features since it started. So where do you draw the line? You didn't respond to the anima thing, so I assume you were fine with that, right? How about the glamour system? Is that okay? People used to (and still) complain that it doesn't let you "see" someone else's current level of gear/raid progression. How about Ishgardian restoration for getting your crafters up?

Where's the limit for you, personally?

Because what I keep finding is that quality of life changes are great until they might have an effect on something you, personally, like to do.

"Thank goodness we have glamour!" "Yeah, it's nice to look how I want!" "Those mounts are account wide, too!" "Thank goodness! Now I don't have to farm on every alt!" "Now we can try to get them to make raiding more accessible to solo players or smaller groups!" "NO DON'T TOUCH MY STAPLES OF THE GENRE"

My whole point was that one of the core parts of MMOs is that they evolve, and it tends to be for the better when it comes to quality of life. If you're clinging to "BUT MULTIPLAYER IN ALL THINGS" I unfortunately have some bad news about a whole lot of features that are already in the game. And if your point is "I really, REALLY take issue with that guy wanting to play this game ONLY with his wife because it goes against that middle M in MMO and I shall defend that M with my life" then... okay, I guess..?

I just disagree that anything design-wise should be "sacred" if it could be made more fun for more people.

You have to consider what is a core feature of a genre and what isn’t. Glamour isn’t a core feature of an MMO, neither is legacy’s garbage anima system.

You can’t “QOL” your way out of the core features of a game, like what if I sucked at using a gun or was afraid of guns, should I ask to “QOL” guns out of a first person shooter game? No of course not because that’s a core facet of the game

You are basically saying “well since square tweaked around the edges of their own garbage spaghetti code that’s valid justification to completely change core facets of what makes up the foundation of the genre this game is a part of”

So I’ll again ask if you really really don’t want to play with other people WHY did you play an MMO? Nobody has provided me with an answer to this question. You knew it was an MMO, you knew that other people are involved in this game it’s literally in the name. If you don’t want to play with others why play the genre that has it in the name? I physically don’t understand this, you might not like the multiplayer aspect but others do, if you don’t want it there is other genres for you. You see it as QOL I see it as erosion of the foundation of the genre. So if you are so opposed to it why are you playing the type of game that unabashedly works this way. I don’t like say……..competitive PVP so I don’t play it, I don’t go into a competitive PVP game and go “I don’t like playing against others can we introduce modes where we cooperate against bots, it’s just QOL”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Nobody has provided me with an answer to this question.

---

This is so simple. Are u sure, u played this game all time?

This world alive. People like to be in alive world. They enjoy that like a tourists.

Performances by orchestral groups, many afkres in Limsa, crafters in Ishgard. Everywhere there is some kind of small bustle that creates an indescribable liveliness to the world.

People like to wander in such a world, mixing game elements and communication, without strong commitments. And chances they met a person with similar views much higher, because you are already in the same game.

Try IRL simply petting a random stranger on the street or asking him strange questions. The result for you will be extremely disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

So I’ll again ask if you really really don’t want to play with other people WHY did you play an MMO? Nobody has provided me with an answer to this question.

---

"To be alone, you must have something to be alone from."
Queen of Beggars - Thief

People want to be with other players. They want to be seen as the great players with lots of achievments. But because of anxiety and other reasons they don't actually want to play with other people because they fear rejection. But at least they want to be close to other players. They want to be alone - not lonely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

You have to consider what is a core feature of a genre and what isn’t. Glamour isn’t a core feature of an MMO, neither is legacy’s garbage anima system.

You can’t “QOL” your way out of the core features of a game, like what if I sucked at using a gun or was afraid of guns, should I ask to “QOL” guns out of a first person shooter game? No of course not because that’s a core facet of the game

---

Okay, so, if you want a real answer? When I started playing MMOs there weren't raids, or instanced dungeons, or a lot of the things that are given as staples of the genre these days. The appeal of an MMO (which, by the way, wasn't even what they were called back then) was never about those things, because they didn't exist. The appeal was just (as IceEyes stated very eloquently above me) that you got to roam around a world with a bunch of other people in it.

That's it. That's the appeal. That's the reason for playing.

I'm fine with other people being around. I'm fine with other people raiding. I'm fine with other people having a team of 20 moustached Roegadyn in their underpants doing squats in Limsa. It's all good stuff!

Now, if I can beat up a boss WITH my wife and WITHOUT LeetDude SixTeeNine whispering me to kill myself for wasting 3 minutes and 12 seconds of his valuable raiding time because I fat-fingered my keyboard at the exact wrong moment? That'd be a really nice quality-of-life addition to the game for me and, I'm sure, for a lot of others.

This idea that forced multiplayer combat is somehow this unassailable element of the genre without which the entire game would collapse is just a very old-fashioned genre-specific viewpoint. It never used to be - it was optional, and for bragging rights only.

I think it's an important option to have for people who like that sort of thing, don't get me wrong - but saying that it's "what I signed up for" is way off the mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

You have to consider what is a core feature of a genre and what isn’t. Glamour isn’t a core feature of an MMO

---

When a game like this makes as much money as it does off of cash shop outfits and fantasias, or people spend as much time as they do finding pieces and throwing outfits together in game, I don't think you can unironically say that aesthetics of a player character are not a major tentpole in a massively multiplayer online role-playing game like this one.

Even transmogrification in WoW is a big deal. Cataclysm was an expansion that was, in general, bleeding subscribers. WoW had only experienced growth prior to that time and it was the first time the game was ever on a downward trend. There was only one point during that expansion where that bleeding stopped and the subscriber count went back up. If you're trying to guess where this is going next and you guessed that it was the same patch that added transmogrification, then you'd be right. Their numbers have shown transmog to be a very big deal for players. A not insignificant amount of people spend a lot of time running content and putting together outfits that they can show off on their characters. And they've only added more systems since then to aid in that.

FFXIV is no different in this regard and to suggest it is is to woefully undersell just how important glamour is to a good deal of players. It's not anything that's going to solely prop the game up when other aspects of the game are caught lacking, but it's also not at all a minor part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

You have to consider what is a core feature of a genre and what isn’t. Glamour isn’t a core feature of an MMO, neither is legacy’s garbage anima system.

You can’t “QOL” your way out of the core features of a game, like what if I sucked at using a gun or was afraid of guns, should I ask to “QOL” guns out of a first person shooter game? No of course not because that’s a core facet of the game

You are basically saying “well since square tweaked around the edges of their own garbage spaghetti code that’s valid justification to completely change core facets of what makes up the foundation of the genre this game is a part of”

So I’ll again ask if you really really don’t want to play with other people WHY did you play an MMO? Nobody has provided me with an answer to this question. You knew it was an MMO, you knew that other people are involved in this game it’s literally in the name. If you don’t want to play with others why play the genre that has it in the name? I physically don’t understand this, you might not like the multiplayer aspect but others do, if you don’t want it there is other genres for you. You see it as QOL I see it as erosion of the foundation of the genre. So if you are so opposed to it why are you playing the type of game that unabashedly works this way. I don’t like say……..competitive PVP so I don’t play it, I don’t go into a competitive PVP game and go “I don’t like playing against others can we introduce modes where we cooperate against bots, it’s just QOL”

---

Guy, what are you on? This isn't an MMO disguised as Final Fantasy, this is Final Fantasy disguised as an MMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyintheron

Okay, so, if you want a real answer? When I started playing MMOs there weren't raids, or instanced dungeons, or a lot of the things that are given as staples of the genre these days. The appeal of an MMO (which, by the way, wasn't even what they were called back then) was never about those things, because they didn't exist. The appeal was just (as IceEyes stated very eloquently above me) that you got to roam around a world with a bunch of other people in it.

That's it. That's the appeal. That's the reason for playing.

I'm fine with other people being around. I'm fine with other people raiding. I'm fine with other people having a team of 20 moustached Roegadyn in their underpants doing squats in Limsa. It's all good stuff!

Now, if I can beat up a boss WITH my wife and WITHOUT LeetDude SixTeeNine whispering me to kill myself for wasting 3 minutes and 12 seconds of his valuable raiding time because I fat-fingered my keyboard at the exact wrong moment? That'd be a really nice quality-of-life addition to the game for me and, I'm sure, for a lot of others.

This idea that forced multiplayer combat is somehow this unassailable element of the genre without which the entire game would collapse is just a very old-fashioned genre-specific viewpoint. It never used to be - it was optional, and for bragging rights only.

I think it's an important option to have for people who like that sort of thing, don't get me wrong - but saying that it's "what I signed up for" is way off the mark.

---

When were you playing mmos, mmos have always been addressed as such lel. Mabinogi a 20+ year old mmo still had those instanced dungeons, raids, etc during beta those aren't new concepts and it was still addressed as an mmorpg. I still use it as an example to this day just because of how old it is and how much there is to do because they expand features. Are you sure you were playing an mmo? And if so what dictates an mmo? If a traditional mmo was defined as "just having other players around" imvu would be considered an mmo, and we all know imvu is not considered a traditional mmo.


I don't agree that glamours aren't important nor that there shouldn't be solo content but they shouldn't come at the cost of playing with other actual players nor content designed with that in mind. Making friends in content, that is the whole strong point of an mmo and in my opinion what defines an mmo to begin with. In fact older mmos thrived on that content in their hayday, for example Maplestory had plenty of parties hunting mobs and bosses which got players to talk more and become friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katish

When were you playing mmos, mmos have always been addressed as such lel. Mabinogi a 20+ year old mmo still had those instanced dungeons, raids, etc during beta those aren't new concepts and it was still addressed as an mmorpg. I still use it as an example to this day just because of how old it is and how much there is to do because they expand features. Are you sure you were playing an mmo? And if so what dictates an mmo? If it were just hanging out with players imvu would be considered an mmo, and we all know imvu is not an mmo hopefully.


I don't agree that glamours aren't important nor that there shouldn't be solo content but they shouldn't come at the cost of playing with other actual players. That is the whole gimmick of an mmo as you inferred. In fact older mmos thrived on that content in their hayday, for example Maplestory had plenty of bosses and stuff that made newbies players want to grind to eventually join in on the fun in a party.

---

Well this made me feel old. I, uh... hm. This'll take some unravelling.

So the first MMOs I played were MUDs, or multi-user dungeons. They were typically text-based, and the most popular one I played at the time supported "up to" 256 players logged in at once. Defining an MMO for me would be that it has a larger number of players than what would typically be supported on a "local" network game (which would have been, let's say, topping out at 64 players back in the late 1990s) and had a dedicated remote server to store all the character data, so it was "online" and required an internet connection. It also has persistence - if you log out, you don't lose your progress.

They started calling them MMOs around the time of Ultima Online, which was 1997 or so.

EverQuest was the next really "big one" (for its day, circa 1999), which initially had zones, rather than instances. You could go to a zone with a necromancer's castle and a boss at the top, for example, but every other player in the game could be in the same zone at the same time. There wasn't a specific instance of the zone put aside from everyone else for you and your party.

So, no, they weren't "always addressed as such" and they didn't "always have instanced dungeons and raids."

And we're clearly not going to agree on this, but yes, I would absolutely define IMVU as an MMO. It requires an internet connection, it allows a large number of players at once, and it has persistence. The actual theme of the game has nothing to do with what the initial definition of the genre was - it had to support a lot of players, be on-line, and have some sense of persistence (and that last one is actually kind of debateable).

Whether or not you had to bring 78 whale noses to Sir Goffrey alongside a further 12 of your most whale-murderingest buddies wasn't part of what defined a game as an MMO at all.

You are not dating yourself friend, I too have played those. Though we should take up the de facto of what is seen as marketable early days for the mmo industry i.e after the term was coined (early 2000s) as raids and dungeons had already been a thing when it came to be what was marketed as an early mmo. That is why I also don't consider imvu an mmo because yes you can use the internet and hang out with friends but that simplifies what an mmo actually was marketed to be...it is not just having people there it is coercing them to hang out hence why IMVU never marketed themselves as one or ever will because they reason themselves an online chatroom before anything else. Mmos have raids, bosses, rp, dungeons, things that drive people to interact. If all it took was an internet connection everything would be deemed as a marketable mmo.

Here is mabinogi beta that happened in 2003 dungeons aren't new and you may be surprised to find out this mmo had a playing music feature then back then (ahead of its time really) It has its charm even to this day.
https://youtu.be/DBagdLjS_LI?si=h38i-pao0sZBKTf2

Off topic: Does anyone remember the awful sound dial-up made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katish

You are not dating yourself friend, I too have played those. Though we should take up the de facto of what is seen as marketable early days for the mmo industry when the term was coined. As raids and dungeons had already been a thing when it came to be what was marketed as an early mmo. That is why I also don't consider imvu an mmo because yes you can use the internet and hang out with friends but that simplifies what an mmo actually was marketed to be...it is not just having people there it is coercing them to hang out hence why IMVU never marketed themselves as one or ever will because they reason themselves an online chatroom before anything else. Mmos have raids, bosses, rp, dungeons, things that drive people to interact. If all it took was an internet connection everything would be deemed as a marketable mmo.

---

I think that's really getting into the weeds, though. IMVU has described itself as an MMO on multiple occasions (definitely in the mid-2000s, when the term carried a bit more cultural weight) and it certainly has people who RP. Does that disqualify it, or qualify it?

But that's kind of my point, anyway - I don't think that trying to argue over what defines a game as "being an MMO" is going to make anyone happy, because everyone will have a slightly different take on where the line is. I think an MMO is defined mechanically, you think it's defined by content, and that's fine.

The problem is that those sorts of biases lead to a lot of headbutting over what's good for the game.

As an example: I think that if someone says "hey, this would be a great feature to add to the game, I'd find it really useful" and they get rebuffed with "no, we can't do that because it goes against a system the game has always had" is kind of... bad? It's a non-reason. Or, more accurately, it's a very PERSONAL reason. Almost like saying "I don't like change, so no."

But what if the idea is good? What if it's fun? Why say no? "Because it's tradition" is one of the worst possible arguments for keeping from making a good change to a bad system.

Imvu has never advertised themselves as an mmo only other sites have referenced imvu as one which they don't have control over. If you have seen them do so care to back that up? For as long as I've been playing, very very early days, they have referenced themselves as a virtual chatroom.

And although it has people RP the game isn't coercing them to RP that is just the byproduct of people wanting to do so. Technically there are people probably rping on Facebook right now lel (even though no one really uses now). People used to rp over aim as well.


Though people are bound to butt heads mostly because the sheer drought of content for anyone really. This mmo has been failing to deliver. That is the true issue imo it is sad when mobile games are releasing more content consecutively for all types of difficulty but you in ffxiv you get one piece of content made to last three months and the events are just talk to two npcs and collect XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katish

Imvu has never advertised themselves as an mmo only other sites have referenced imvu as one which they don't have control over. If you have seen them do so care to back that up? For as long as I've been playing, very very early days, they have referenced themselves as a virtual chatroom.

---

I mean, I've never really been in the habit of storing old banner ads for games that I never really played for 15 years, so I'm afraid I can't do that!

I guess my question to you would be - even if we assume you're right, and that I'm just senile, and they never advertised themselves as an MMO - if every MMO-centric website wrote articles about it being an MMO, don't you think those sites have an idea of what they're talking about? If IMVU gave interviews and resources to a site specializing in MMOs, don't you think that counts as some implicit acceptance of the genre they're in?

They're calling themselves "a metaverse" on their site these days, by the looks.

It's all just different words for the same thing (in my opinion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katish

And although it has people RP the game isn't coercing them to RP that is just the byproduct of people wanting to do so. Technically there are people probably rping on Facebook right now lel (even though no one really uses now). People used to rp over aim.

---

I mean, sure.

But at this point I'm just a bit lost. You SEEM to be saying that you think quality-of-life features should take a back-seat to... what would you phrase it as? "Genre expectations"?

I'm just not sure what MMO/live service/metaverse/virtual chat room/other marketing term game can survive in this market without trying to de-suckify their long-standing bugbear systems. If you stick your head in the sand and say "NO! This is the way it's always been!" you're going to have your breakfast eaten by the game that's being responsive and receptive to its players' wants.

Heck, we've seen it happen in this very game, when WoW's perfect storm of "users don't know what they want" coupled with all that other badness caused a huge influx of new players.

I just don't get what saying "no" to new or improved quality of life features for the sake of "tradition" gains, outside of a slowly-dwindling playerbase of people congratulating themselves for being the only "hardcore" people playing the game "the right way."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Removing the corest of core elements of an MMO (playing with other people) isn’t a “quality of life feature” it’s removing the entire purpose of the game. If you want to play with your wife then queue together and have the other 6 spots fill around you, this isn’t a solo game

---

Those "core elements" changed over the past 25 years. When I played EverQuest, we all did the same things, leveled the same places, pursued the same items, because that was all there was to do and there was very little choice except to do it with other people.

The trend over the past 25 years is not focusing on a solo experience, but making a solo experience an option and putting the choice to interact more into player hands. The genre did not become more widespread until entries like WoW and EQII started putting out the carrot to entice players to join the multiplayer content, rather than forcing them into no other option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

Those "core elements" changed over the past 25 years. When I played EverQuest, we all did the same things, leveled the same places, pursued the same items, because that was all there was to do and there was very little choice except to do it with other people.

The trend over the past 25 years is not focusing on a solo experience, but making a solo experience an option and putting the choice to interact more into player hands. The genre did not become more widespread until entries like WoW and EQII started putting out the carrot to entice players to join the multiplayer content, rather than forcing them into no other option.

---

Exactly! That merit of those old games speaks volumes, especially with how games have become. Even your single-player games have the very same issue of the player looking up what are the best items and only caring about the reward instead of the content. I never thought about beating a game like Mario. I just played it. And if a friend came over, I handed them a controller.

Anymore in games, all we do is seek to label and place people. There's an irony I used to tell people about how when I was younger, I was into anime, games, and comics. And back then, when you met someone else who did, you instantly became friends with them because of that comradery. You knew they knew what it was like to be different. To be treated like a loser and geek. And now, in almost every fandom, it's all about gatekeeping and ostrisizing people to keep them out of your cool kids club.

To kind of bring it back to the mmo genre

We have an issue in all games, not just mmos of putting people in groups instead of making content that everyone can enjoy. I don't think forcing one type of content is the awnser, but I also can't really think of a solution that doesn't alienate someone else.

I want to raid and do savage and ultimates, but you have to be realistic. It's too hard because they tuned it to what that fringe playerbase wanted. So even if I want to tighten my bootstraps to do it, I'm going to end up climbing Everest. And of course, that's going to frustrate me and make me quit. Because it never took into account that I'm the level 0 person. It never took the time to ease me up. It just offered me level 10 content and players gatekeeping me and wondered why I couldn't do it. And why I refused to try.

To me, that's the bigger gripe about the reward being on top of Everest and the developers knowingly doing it than the reward itself. Also, the gatekeeping. Which to some extent I get. Time is our most valuable resource. So wasting it isn't ideal. This is why most casual players ignore high-end content. It feels like a waste of time because of all the brick walls of things you need to know that the game itself doesn't teach nor prepare you for.