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

[NamiRocket]

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.

[Lilapop]

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.

[Katish]

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.

[Tyintheron]

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.

[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 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?

[Tyintheron]

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.

[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.

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

[Tyintheron]

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).

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."

[TaleraRistain]

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.

[Ardeth]

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.