Are Social MMORPGs Doomed to Fail?
by Alphaville Herald on 21/07/04 at 4:41 pm
Well, are they? The answer given by Randy Farmer in this very interesting paper appears to be …well…maybe. Not good news. This is coming from someone with development and gaming background in The Palace, TSO, Second Life, and Habitat. Among his comments about Second Life: “I loved it when I was unemployed.” There is also the obligatory discussion of this on Terra Nova.
JC Soprano
Jul 21st, 2004
Randy Farmer is a loser.. I worked with him before when I had my complaints about Maxis Tigger. His philosephy is that his employees are always in the right, and never the customer. I had tigger telling me I had no right to play Sims as a Mobster on the phone and when I made my complaint I was told Randy was her boss. He replied back simply stating she did her job and did it well and I had no room to complain since I continued to pay my $10 a month.
JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
http://www.swgmafia.com
No witty retort to put here lol
Cocoanut
Jul 21st, 2004
I enjoyed the terra nova conversation. One thing that bugs me about those sorts of conversations, though, is the idea that all creativity is expressed in terms of object creation.
Creativity can also be expressed in terms of entertainment and events.
You can be creative by designing houses and roofs in TSO, or by designing clothes in There, or by designing cannons in SL.
But you can also be creative by taking the objects others have designed and using them to create entertainment and events, and that is often overlooked in any discussion of what various games have to offer in terms of creativity.
Creation of objects seems to be a more physical sort of creativity; creation of entertainment and events seems to be a more mental sort of creativity. Those terms are obviously not very good; I’m just trying to get at the difference, and the fact that the latter kind of creativity is not often recognized.
coco
Urizenus
Jul 21st, 2004
Good point, Coco.
Maria LaVeaux
Jul 22nd, 2004
Thank you Coco,
THIS is what i have been saying since I started posting on Boards,, These games are about Social Interaction.
What you do with the objects already available IS more important than Making New ones, but more important still is ones ability and willingness to Interact with the other people in the game.
Some people will succeed because of their developed social skills, some will Grow steadily in their ability to interact with others. Unfortunatly there are also those who are socially inept, or stunted. Unable or Unwilling to Interact in any positive way.
Sort of like Real Life,, Isn’t it?
For me, TSO has ALWAYS been about the people. I am only beginning to get bored now because there are so few people on anymore. I NEED social interaction, So, I am exploring elsewhere. As i said before, I will be in TSO until the servers are shut down, and this is because there are others in TSO who are my friends, and i want to be with them as long as possible.
Social Games like this are Not Doomed, Others are flourishing because they continuously work to Create social situations.
TSO is faling, Yes, but not because of what it is, but because of the short sighted indiffernce of it’s operators.
Maria.
humdog
Jul 22nd, 2004
it is getting harder and harder for me to think of these environments and the behaviors that go on in these environments as “social interaction”. the reason why it is getting difficult for me to think of them that way is that often the behaviors available to an individual are so limited, or rather i guess i should say that the available behaviors offer such a narrow range of possibilities that it is hard to express one’s self except within the range that is offered — and that range is pretty much a narrow band somewhere around the middle of the spectrum, bdsm etc notwithstanding.
then there is the whole quizzical question about whether or not you can call interaction that takes place in a commodified environment with a limited set of tools interaction.
urizenus
Jul 22nd, 2004
Well, you do have language. That’s a pretty robust tool. But I agree that in game the fragment of natural language that is usable is pretty narrow. It’s hard to put together a real conversation.
Cocoanut
Jul 22nd, 2004
No, it’s not hard to put together a real conversation, or to have real events. Yes, it is real, it is social, and it is interaction. As much, and more so, as, say, that ages-old tradition of writing letters.
coco
humdog
Jul 22nd, 2004
oh shit this is an ancient argument. i haven’t had this discussion since 1994. but. here goes:
i like what uri says about usable language being narrow in-game (hey i can type and hold a burrito at the same time!!) and you can’t really know (or what passes for know) anybody ingame etc ad nauseum.
it is the same argument that people used to have about email a long time ago (oooooo he/she loves me! i’m gonna run away with him/her! why? because he/she gives good email!!) then they had the same argument about typing chat/send/IM. i know one guy who went so far as to make a huge religious/mystical argument about projection etc which he called “theatre of the ego”. i liked the theatre argument because it played to that element that some would call “deceit” (i am a 18 year old hooters girl blonde. not.) but which is the bread and butter of the online social interaction industry. the theatre argument allows for what people online mostly do anyway. the thing about games is that in online games the deceit is sanctioned and made a tool of play.
TSO, after all, is not exactly filled with people who look like grandma celestie.
but here’s the thing: its a screen. its a screen and it is a screen that you don’t own, that you didn’t design, and that contains functionality that for the most part you can’t change, no matter how many different shades of purple you can color your wings. making your wings purple is a form of drinking gin. the more shades of purple you get, the more gin you drink, so to speak.
of course you must realize that i am a person who writes with a fountain pen, washes dishes by hand and generally doesn’t really enjoy being part of the Wired World. my heart belongs to the revolutionary in the amazon who writes about magna carta. *he* is the future. not you.
*he* is the future because he understands that
the world used to be less segmented and more open to all those things that used to be expressed in the now-polluted words and phrases like “community” and “commons” and “democracy”.
he also understands that the words have been polluted by commercial interests, just as social interaction is polluted by commercial interests and because he understands that, he has the possibility of pointing to a way *out* of living our lives as consumer-worker-slaves who get fucked twice for every piece of consumer goods we buy, consumer goods which now, apparently, include social interaction.
Cocoanut
Jul 23rd, 2004
Well . . . I choose to pay for TSO, and I choose to have a phone, and to have a computer, and a television, and a VCR, and all kinds of things like that for communication and entertainment.
I don’t think most people are deceitful online. It’s just that it’s not the same as when you meet a person face-to-face. Which is actually a good thing, in that you have a meeting more purely of minds.
I have real relationships with people online, and some of those friends I have met irl. Friends are friends, what can I say? Works for me.
coco
humdog
Jul 24th, 2004
you apparently do not understand that when you talk/deal with online people you are more likely to be dealing with projection than with another person. this is particularly true when the environment, because of its cumbersome qualities, does not allow for spontaniety of word and gesture. when a person writes a letter (your analogy)the person displays a great deal of the essence of their self-ness. in online environments particularly those where practically the only options available are to look like a barbie doll or a creature from a freakshow-zoo, you have to figure that you are not so much talking to the person but to the image that person likes to sell.
i will give you and ian a new word to add to your dictionary game. the word is AUTHENTICITY.
Cocoanut
Jul 24th, 2004
The language used in correspondence is entirely available to use in the game, too.
When I talk with another person online I understand that I actually AM talking with another person online, not just their “projection”.
I’ve met about 60 online friends, two of them from the Sims Online. So I really don’t think you have much to teach me about this.
coco
Cocoanut
Jul 24th, 2004
P.S. Ian? I don’t think Ian has commented in this thread.
F. Randall Farmer
Jul 24th, 2004
JC Soprano has a right to his opinion about my status as a ‘loser’, but I must disagree with the statement that “his employees are always in the right, and never the customer.” This is simply untrue and sour grapes on his part. Ask yourself: What if two customers are in conflict (say, about a self-proclaimed mobster violating the terms-of-service by harassing other customers?) Are both customers (the mobster and the victim) right? Pul-eeze. Run your own service some day, deal with some real customers, and then come back and tell me that I’m a loser again. I’ll be here.
Coco’s comments about creativity through object arrangement are right on. We first saw this effect in the original Habitat, and again in WorldsAway and The Palace (it even happened in UO.) The bother was always the ‘help’ text/names of the objects gave away the clever construction techniques.
Though, in the end, I’m still convinced that TSO was missing one of the biggest draws of the Sims: User created textures/rugs/skins/clothing/etc. I can’t speak to the operational commitment from EA since my departure, but I personally belive the service could easily be twice the size it is now. It might even be profitable (though I don’t think it could ever make back the investment cost.)
Randy
JC Soprano
Jul 24th, 2004
Randy,
I don’t think anyone was arguing my right to my opinion of you.. But as for my customer is never right. EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge EA” You say I violated the terms of service, yet most I’ve ever been suspended for is swearing or having a website. When I spoke to you, you did not even want to listen to my complaints. Did you know that Tigger told me on the phone I had no right to play a mobster since I am not Italian. So much for be somebody else. I tried to explain this to you, but you did not want to hear it becuase like many others you sterotyped me. You did not want to hear my complaints and it was quite clear in your e-mail. Just becuase you think I am violating terms of service (no proof) does that mean I am no longer a customer EA cares about? I am someone that has no say even though I pay my money? I think not.
As for customers, news flash I’ve done customer service and tech support most of my life. I run my own hosting and website design business that is and has been doing well. I know how to deal with customers. I’ve been doing it since I got my first job. That don’t make me an expert granted, but don’t tell me I don’t know customer service. Reading your e-mails, you had no concept of customer service or care. This is EA’s biggest flaw, once they get the customers money, they don’t care. God forbid you speak ill of them too. If EA actually did there job groups like myself wouldn’t exist. We are the people players turn to when EA Games can’t or refuses to help them. My group is simply an extension of customer service that if EA did their job would not be needed.
JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
http://www.swgmafia.com
May the force NOT be with Randy.
P.S. I am curious though if your departure from EA Games or at least the TSO realm of it was due to my various complaints about you and how you handled the Tigger situation. I noticed you were no longer with EA/TSO shortly after I made my complaints with corporate.
JC Soprano
Jul 24th, 2004
Mistype:
EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge EA”
Should be:
EA’s motto or slogan is “Challenge Everything”
Frankly it should be: “Challenge Everything, Except EA”
JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
http://www.swgmafia.com
May the Schwartz be with you!
Maria LaVeaux
Jul 25th, 2004
David Attenborrough the naturalist once described Human beings as “Compulsive Communicators”
Our ability to Formulate Abstract ideas, coupled with a Complex language for communicating same to others of our species makes us more, or less unique in the world.
One thing people should realize however, is that Spoken Language accounts for only about half of anything we wish to convey, Body language, Eye contact, Tone, and inflection transmit almost as much information as the words we use. Unfortunatly, these visual, and auditory signals are not available to us in most On line communication. If no modification is made to typed word, to compensate, then what we say may be taken as misrepresentation (Note, i’m NOT referring to the 45 year old male truck driver claiming to be a 17 year old female cheerleader). Not everyone is fully Adept at using language alone to communicate. Sarcasm, or Phaceciousness, (I have no idea if i spelled that right) are hard to detect in Type alone, as is something spoken in Whimsey. Yes,, All this conversation IS a social action., But we are drawn to these social games over chat rooms because they give us a Few more clues into the intent of the speaker by providing for the Visual, and Auditory need of Human speech. the More representative the game, the More attractive it becomes.
I learned to speak English when i was six. I soon realized, at that tender age, that if i did not choose my words carefully, Embarassing, or Hurtful misunderstandings would result. Hence, I read a great deal, and i Choose my words with Due consideration.
Language is one of the most Powerful tools at our disposal. Used skillfully, it can be like a Artists brush, an surgeons scalple, or a Barbarians Club. Put any of these impliments in the hands of a Blind man, and their effectiveness is halved at least.
Social games will continue because WE as a Species Want to talk to as many of our fellows as Possible and they give us yet another opportunity to do so. Will they remain exactly as they are now? certainly not, because Every form in which we convey our thoughts, Every medium for communication has Continuously evolved along with the thoughts they convey.
The only constant in th Universe, is change.
Maria.
humdog
Jul 25th, 2004
humans are symbol makers and sign makers. that is what they do, in my opinion. the ability to communicate online is very limited right now because the technology is new, say, relative to writing. as Maria points out there are big chunks/clues missing. people in the presence of
missing chunks of meaning will tend to supply what they need to make a message. sometimes the chunks supplied do not line up with the chunks that should have been sent. this creates distortion. if your entire relationship with somebody is going to consist of typing short messages twice a week, well that’s not going to be a big deal. but no one in my opinion should agree to the illusion that they *know* anybody that they have typing at.
in 1994 i was the host of an online conference for people who had fallen for people that they met online. in 1994 this was a very big deal and the debate at that time was raging about whether or not a person could “know” or “be intimate” with somebody who was known through online communication(s) only. at that same time a philosophy prof i knew (not dr ludlow) assigned, in an ethics class, the following question as a paper: “if a spouse has intimate, non-sexual, conversations with an individual, would that be an infidelity? why or why not?”. the question was raised in that manner because, at that time,
people were getting involved in very complicated
online conversations that created strong bonds between people that in some cases disrupted established families etc.
in the conference i hosted for several months,
at least three couples left their spouses for
people that they met online. (i was not one of those people). in all cases but one, the change was a disaster for everyone involved. it was clear even among those people who stayed where they were, that there was a very large gap between the person they thought they were talking to and the person that they were, in
reality, talking to.
of course people are now used to doing this stuff so there is now a built-in expectation that the person you meet in meatspace from the online world is going to be different than the person you are expecting.
but a game like TSO ties you down more than old text-based chat stuff ties you down. if you mean by knowing somebody that you want to run cocktail party conversations with the world, well, you’re in the right place to be sure. but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult, and the medium itself is spun all over the place.
Cocoanut
Jul 25th, 2004
” but talking to anybody anytime is an act of faith, and people are hard to know. online communication is just much more difficult,”
Exactly. When I say I “know” someone online, I mean I “know” them to varying degrees. When I say I “know” someone irl, I also mean I “know” them to varying degrees.
1. In real life, I know an old friend very, very well, for fifteen years. Then this summer, she changes, inexplicably, for the worse. I start to think about brain tumors. I spend a lot of time thinking of all that I know about her, to figure out what it is I DON’T know.
I know my daughters’ friends’ mothers. I “know” them. Yet I know them less than I know my old friend. But enough to trust them. To a degree of accuracy. To varying degrees of liking for each one; to varying degrees of what we have in common. I make judgment calls.
I know my husband, and have known him for many moons. I know him better than anyone on earth does, or probably ever did. Yet I can never really “know” him, in the sense that my knowledge is complete or infallible. His thoughts remain largely unknown to me. He could surprise me, like my friend who recently changed. I can never know him completely; I can never predict his behavior with guaranteed accuracy. He could get a brain tumor. He could just get tired of me and leave one day. He could go through some sort of crisis I didn’t even know about and join a monastery.
People are, at base, fundamentally unknowable except by themselves (and not always then, particularly if there is brain disease at work), and by their creator (if there is one).
2. Online, I also know people to varying degrees. Those who are my closer friends, I have come to know through doing a whole lot more than typing short messages to them twice a week. I know them fairly well from:
(a) talking to them about a myriad of subjects for hours and hours over months and months
(b) seeing how they relate to other people (through language, emotes, and game play style) for the same amount of time
(c) seeing them over a long period of time; i.e., getting comparative samples from day after day after day after day
and (d) learning numerous facts and details about their real lives.
Just as in real life, some friends online are pretty much casual, friendly acquaintences, and some I know very, very well. Not as well as I might know a good friend irl, but better than I know my next-door neighbor.
And quite a few I have met irl, along with the families of many of them. In all cases to date, the individuals I have met irl have not surprised me in any way. There’s always the possibility one of them could turn out to be an ax-murderer, but there’s always the possibility my next-door neighbor could turn out to be an ax-murderer, too.
So, yes, online relationships are very real. It is a mistake to categorize them all as on the same level as superficial cocktail party conversations. Some are, some aren’t; depending on the individuals involved. Most of mine aren’t.
3. As Maria pointed out, we actually have MORE visual clues to a person’s preferences and behavior through the Sims Online than we have through, say, a chat room, where the only clues beyond language are font choices; or through written correspondence, where the only additional clues are basically stationery choice, handwriting, and postmark.
Whereas Humdog, you seem to be arguing that choosing among these avatars and interactions actually is more limiting than liberating.
I disagree. I think you may have general contempt for the sorts of avatars one is given to choose from (which I don’t), and that causes you to conclude they are more limiting than having none at all. I don’t think most people feel that way; hence, as Maria pointed out, the popularity of online games.
4. As you point out, Humdog, people have gotten more sophisticated about the amount of deceit possible online and have put their guard up against online predators.
But the fact that online predators exist doesn’t negate the very real value of online friendships and relationships, or make them into something superficial that somehow doesn’t count. And the predators are outnumbered by normal (if unexciting) online people by thousands to every one.
5. As for those who run off – sometimes leaving spouses and children – to meet the love of their life, that is a somewhat different topic, and one I’m less interested in. As in real life, that is the most intense sort of relationship, and the most dependent on physical knowledge of some duration.
That, too, though, is no different from people throughout the ages who have travelled to distant parts to marry someone they have never met irl, and the success or failure of such ventures is doubtless roughly equal, whether they originate from online relationships, lengthy correspondence, arranged marriages to perpetuate dynasties, or mail-order brides.
coco