> It's nice to compete with friends and show to your network what you and your friends are up to.
I've never understood this mindset in gaming. Maybe I'm just showing myself as an introverted curmudgeon, but I only game when I'm not programming, and I just game to try to unwind. Being forced to do something 'social' when I just want to relax is just annoying to me personally.
I'm not saying I hate other people (I do), or that I don't want to ever be social (I don't), but social situations -- while often fun -- do require more mental energy than just shooting bad guys, or scoring goals, or whatever else the game has you doing.
Maybe I'm very unrepresentative of the gaming market at large, but I don't understand why numerous gaming companies (Sony and Microsoft have both headed down this path) want to cram social aspects into games. I'm not sure what they think the business case for that decision is. I assume they think it'll make games something more essential to day-to-day life than they currently are, by connecting games to the people you love, but that just makes me want to play games less.
You have a valid point there, but you certainly can play by yourself and hopefully there is a way to opt-out or silent game update after integration.
make games something more essential to day-to-day life than they currently are, by connecting games to the people you love
Certainly. For example, friend quizzes on Facebook.
I don't know what game makes sense to people. I try to be open-minded and play as many type genres as possible, whether it is FPS, MMRPG or puzzles. Disclaimer: I love minecraft.
The only problem with my social network is that most people in my FB circle don't play games. Even if they do they don't play the games I play... That's always an unsolvable problem. Another problem is I don't want to download a 10GB game. We'd have to wait for super-awesome-cloud-gaming-infrastructure to deliver that to us. We are still early in that direction.
If you look at the size of Twitch.tv and lots of game-related subreddits, it's obvious that "social gaming" is a very big market with a lot of potential money to be made.
Why is what you want the only thing that is worth doing? What about the people who do care that their mom topped their previous score in [they care]Ville?
Let's see, one involves spamming people who don't care, the other only involves people who do.. [shit]Ville spam games aren't social gaming, they are anti-social gaming.
Not to mention, what is the context of this discussion? Rift. What does Rift have to do with [shit]Ville spam games? Fuck all.
Long term relationship because gaming can only happen at slow social speeds rather than fast individual speeds. That means more milking subscription money out.
Playing thru the Halflife story / drama with your friends sounds superficially interesting. Then you realize you can only go as fast as your slowest friends. Then you realize they want $15/month for six months while it plays out for everyone. Um, no thanks.
I've never understood this mindset in gaming. Maybe I'm just showing myself as an introverted curmudgeon, but I only game when I'm not programming, and I just game to try to unwind. Being forced to do something 'social' when I just want to relax is just annoying to me personally.
I'm not saying I hate other people (I do), or that I don't want to ever be social (I don't), but social situations -- while often fun -- do require more mental energy than just shooting bad guys, or scoring goals, or whatever else the game has you doing.
Maybe I'm very unrepresentative of the gaming market at large, but I don't understand why numerous gaming companies (Sony and Microsoft have both headed down this path) want to cram social aspects into games. I'm not sure what they think the business case for that decision is. I assume they think it'll make games something more essential to day-to-day life than they currently are, by connecting games to the people you love, but that just makes me want to play games less.