Please Please Please.....!!
DO THIS MORE OFTEN....!!
You are one of the few guys talking some sense about the gaming world and not just making a mockery out of it.
Keep up the good work..
Can this be done as a weekly ?? :P
John, Brendan and Tom get you up to speed on the latest news for Battlefield 4, Fez and the latest Diablo III death in Quote for Truth.
Please Please Please.....!!
DO THIS MORE OFTEN....!!
You are one of the few guys talking some sense about the gaming world and not just making a mockery out of it.
Keep up the good work..
Can this be done as a weekly ?? :P
Easy way to fix the Fez problem: Handout free vouchers for the inevitable Steam version for Xbox customers.
I feel bad for the gamers who bought Fez and have to deal with this bug. But, do not blame Microsoft for your mistakes. Game should not have bugs in them in the first place. The fact that they give you a free patch is generous enough.
Don't see a problem with guy dying from playing games too much, if he's too dumb to realize that he's damaging his health, the world is better place without him.
But really calling it anyone else's fault than his parents or himself, is wrong. If you say it's company's fault, it's same as saying it's their fault for mass killing and stuff (as media tried to pin before on games stuff like that (those guys who stole tank, that guy who killed bunch of people and was Doom fan, people that committed suicide and were FF7 fans etc.). What about other few million people that play the same game and weren't stupid enough to do something like that? Correct me if I'm wrong but Diablo 3 has/had over 5 million players, and less than 10 died from gaming, so it's definitely not Blizzard's fault for death of those who died.
I will not be spending much more time with D3, loot driven gameplay has its limits when you never get any good drops.
Played through it once, tried to play a second time but got bored pretty quickly... probably at some point later I might try a different class but the game is pretty short and boring story so it will probably be awhile.
This is not as good as D2, they killed Starcraft 2 with online always stuff as well, pre-ordered that played once through and has sat ever since.
Won't be as excited for Blizzard releases anymore but this is a trend in all gaming, less content more commercialized and it is probably the fault of gamers who refuse to hold any line, including me as I should not have bought this game, was not a good deal at all for $60, I won't be doing that again.
Anyways there will be those thrilled with this even after a year so it does not matter and if there is not, Blizzard will just right it off as any other reason than the auctions and full time online, it could not be that.
Gaming in general is going in the wrong direction if you ask me which is a shame.
I heard that if you don't import a save in ME3 you get longer introductions for everyone to make up for not having played the first two.
stop showing terrible videos over the pod cast....man alive we dont want jerky battlefield gameplay vids or witch showing glitches.
Thanks John, Brendan and Tom, you guy's are one of those few who make me proud to be called a gamer. Keep on seeking the truth about game addiction, as a person who has the potential for game addiction, it is important to me that this be brought forward. I have also experienced the negative affects of drug addiction through my younger brother, and some of the similarities are striking. Not to say they are all the same though, but in the end, the effects of both addictions can be in be just as destructive. It saddens me that gamer's are so cold, it reminds me of the article I read on Ign's website about the game "the binding of Isaac", and how the articles writer showed a lac of desire to relay that the game does not reflect the true bible story.
Look I know I am going to get bashed for being a christian and talking about this issue at all, but the viciousness and hatefulness shown by the gamer's who made comments on others comments, about how the game was personally offensive to them and they refused to play was repulsive. Then a following article, persude the subject of pollitical correctness, and Ign article writer flipped the bird to all those who where offended and told them that they had no right to declare that they had been offended by what developers put into their games. This is where I feel our society has gone down a dark path, not to say that we should be regulating everything, but that the compassion and true concern about others well being, and feelings should be taken into account when creating a game. Though I do realize it's hard not to offend someone, I do feel, just as I do about the game addiction problems people have, that the developers have a duty to their consumers to provide a game that's not only good, but also tries to show respect to those of us who have say a different world view. As well as a concern about the safety of those who may have addictive compulsions to non-stop game playing. Once again I thank you for this great discussion and fully support what you guy's do here, keep up with the good work.
Maybe developers should put warnings on loading screens like Metal Gear Solid 4 but that is as far as it needs to go. Brendan, your defense was over-dramatic, and yes I AM being unsympathetic.
It's like putting a warning label on an alcoholic beverage (something else that companies want people to get addicted to). That's all that needs to be done, it is always a choice after that. As long as the person is made aware by the company and realizes that there is potential for harm then the blame rests SOLELY on the idiot who decided not to eat, sleep, hydrate, etcetera.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure there are warnings in the manual that tell you to take a break every two hours or so. I do feel bad for the kid, but only because of his addiction and inability to control himself.
Everyone says "let the stupid die" or something like that, as if we're living in the Middle Ages, where defective babies were abandoned for the wolves, etc. I don't think most posters here realize how cruel and unforgiving the world would be if we actually lived by these tenets. In fact, I'd risk that, with most here being hardcore gamer nerds, they wouldn't even be here alive to make these comments if we lived that way.
That said, I wont argue that we should be free to play games, but when addictive aspects of the gaming experience start being exploited to a certain point, then I think it isn't unreasonable to at least discuss if certain games shouldn't be somewhat restricted in their development or sold with some sort of warning label.
I was very much on the side FOR addictive games, to the extent that I called it natural selection that this guy died. After listening to you guys talk about it though you actually make a lot of sense. Much like gambling, free-to-play games with their micro transactions and rewarding players for obscene amounts of play time is deliberately taking advantage of people with addictive personalities. So much to the extent that the free-to-play business model as we know it just can't work without exploiting the few "whales" that play it obsessively.
While that's a sad perverse way to build a business, I would not want any regulation that caps gameplay time. I don't really see how that would work. The cap would have to be significantly low to deter addictive personalities from being exploited. This has 2 problems. a) It punishes everyone and sets a dangerous precedent where the government can dictate how much time we're allowed to spend on our hobby, which could extend to any and all leisure activities. b) It does absolutely nothing to substantively help people with addictive personalities. It just pushes them to go play games without a cap. How are you even going to enforce a cap on all games? Wouldn't that require all games to have internet connection?
I don't think there's really anything the developers can do or can be regulated to do that would help these people. All you can do is prevent them from exploiting it, which has consequences for everyone. The real solution is teaching everyone that addiction is a real problem that you should seek help for, and providing the counselling and psychiatric help to those that need it. The more people are aware of this as unhealthy the less stigma there is against getting help for it. We live in a society, and gamers community specifically, that encourages macho bragging rights to those that engage in unhealthy obsessive habits for long periods of time. That needs to stop.
At the risk of being labled "unempathetic". I cannot agree that devs deliberately try to cause and expliot game addiction. No matter how much you like and invest yourself in a game there is always the exit game option, there is always an off switch. You can stop playing any time. The decision not to and the negative consequences of that decision are yours and yours alone. I'm sorry the guy is dead and that he did not get the help he clearly needed but it is not in any way the fault of the game.
Arguing that the "weak" (as the social Darwinists of the GS comment boards deem them) should just flounder in addictions they often have little understanding of/control over is callous, irresponsible, and naive. At different points in history, there has been little public awareness regarding, for instance, the dangerous addictive potential of intravenous morphine use, smoking cigarettes, or even eating fast food everyday. Their dangers become issues of "common sense" only after years of loud public debate and consideration. The same SHOULD go for gaming addiction in general. The slow, often subtle degeneration of social skills, physical health, and mental well-being that arise from 6-hour-a-day WOW/Diablo/COD/etc. sessions often go unchecked; short of killing yourself from negligence, these are not necessarily issues of common sense.
Though restrictive legislation is rarely an effective way of curbing our unhealthy habits (IMHO, at least), having open discussions and raising awareness on these issues certainly IS. This is not to justify any strict restrictions on gamers; it is merely to suggest that we keep the dialogue open so that the dangers surrounding gaming addiction can be brought to light and addressed openly and honestly--by both developers and gamers.
To simply ignore the issue--and let the "weak" flounder in their addictions--is a step backward for the gaming community at large.
Keep up the healthy discussion Gamespot!
It's freedom of choice, freedom to do as we please as people. It's a human right to not have someone else tell me how I should spend my time and money, nor should you. It's the same argument that fast food companies make their product taste good and appealing with salt, sugar and fat. It tastes good, people buy it and eat it.
Don't try to restrict human rights to meet an agenda and personal crusade that "people don't know how to control themselves, we should do it for them". If you feel that way, I suggest you exam your morals. Those people who make those addictive games sleep just fine at night because they developed a good product that people wanted to use money on, those who make a poor product that makes no money...I'm sure they are kicking themselves.
It's hard to explain but there really is a difference to the military shooters from franchise to franchise. Each game has it's own set of 'game rules" which drastically change the type of play style/strategy. I am a fan of shooter's, not just military but all shooter's in general and I can instantly tell when I play each game from another that they feel different. Call of duty is more run an gun with a lone wolf arcade feel, medal of honor is a slower stiffer feeling game (it also sucks), and battlefield has a Team focused sandox feel. I grew up playing shooter's, doom was the first game i bought for PC, it was amazing, unreal was my first 3D FPS. I have played alot of shooter's in my day and just cause they look similar doesn't mean they are the same, take quake and unreal for example. To a novice they look like the same game at first glance but ask a veteran of those series and they can break down the fine details that make them soo different from each other. Same goes for fighting games, King of fighters is similar to street fighter but any fighting game fan will tell you that they have completely different mechanics that drastically change the way they play. Now granted medal of honor does look similar to battlefield but when you break down the game to it's details it is a very different game. Battlefield is better XD
It's the person's choice to play their games the way they want, it they make the decision that cost them their lives it's their own fault and not video game developers. It's just how gun's don't kill people, stupid people who make poor decisions kill people.
Maybe putting advertising in the loading screens, "You have been playing for too long go outside and breath some fresh air" etc.etc. I saw things like "Don't pirate our game or your system will blow up" (Divine divinity for example :P) so why not this kind of message?
The developers have no responsibility to the consumer whatsoever. They provide a product. It is the consumer's choice to buy it. None of their products are essential or in any way even remotely needed for you to go on living your life. They do not make you waste away your life playing the game to the point of killing yourself that is a personal choice.
And as for the DLC. It is their product and as long as people are willing to pay for it, they will keep making large amounts of money from it. They have no obligation to provide it in their initial copy of the game as it is their product and at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of people are going to buy it, and then go buy the DLC as soon as it comes out. Sure it sucks but there are allot of things that are not exactly fair in life.
In the end if you were in their position would you really give up a potential source of income just to satisfy customers who complain and complain but still end up buying the DLC?
And as for the play cap for Diablo 3: No. Nobody made him play the game for 2 days straight without food or water that was his own choice. It would be like trying to tell a building owner to shorten his building because somebody jumped off of it and killed themselves. Because in liberal america we do not believe the individual to be at fault. It has to be the larger corporation or the medium that he used to kill himself at fault. It is not the developers of Diablo 3 who are at fault. It is the guys fault hands down. If you want to look at someone else to blame look to his parents and blame them for raising such an idiot and not teaching him to be an asset to mankind instead of a waste that ends up dying in his own filth because he couldn't get up from the game.
Bottom line, quit complaining. If you don't like what developers do with their product. DO NOT BUY IT.
The answer to "What Blizzard should have done" in regards to the addictive nature of Diablo 3 is something they actually TRIED to do in the original World of Warcraft beta. In addition to "rest XP" they had "fatigue XP." After eight hours of consecutive play, XP gain was halved, and the affliction took some time to go away. The beta-testers and fans strongly protested this limitation. In D3, this would have translated to a reduction in loot and encourage people to put away the game for another day. Quite simply, this means no one is EXPLOITING the addictive nature of Diablo 3. People ENJOY it for what it is.Personally, D3 was incredibly boring to me, but I do enjoy other similarly addictive games i.e. Guild Wars 2.
I think video games are highly addictive, especially with achievements and trophies added to them as well now, and anyone who doesn't realize they are addictive is blind or in denial. Also yes consumers are being exploited and taken advantage of, DLC is so expensive just for one added little mission or one new vehicle and there's so much of it for a game, and very few designers and publishers come out with an edition that includes all relevant DLC in that edition. Fable 2 and 3, Borderlands, Gears of war Triple Pack, Batman and Star Wars are only a few that have actually sat down and re-released a new edition including all the DLC that designers and publishers withheld when the game was released. That 'DLC" is already finished, it's already in the game in most cases you're just being money hungry. As is the case with Capcom in the case of their multiple versions of Super Street Fighter 4, and Marvel vs Capcom 3. And the case of Namco Bandai with re-release after re-release of the same old DragonBall games. Tired of seeing DB fighting game after fighting game and very little has changed, where is the stand alone action adventure game?
You've already had this planned out in your development line, wait a little longer and release one version unless you have plans for another edition with all of the DLC included, not 4 or 5 versions just adding a couple new characters and stages and a compatibility pack. That's a rip off. And if you're not going to release an edition that has all the DLC then makes packs available on the Marketplace. Another thing is abandonment of a game, GhostBusters the video game came out, all players got were patches and a weak little arcade game Sanctum of Slime. Yes we know GhostBusters is a cash cow, don't make a crappy game either add on some new content to the pre existing version or release another quality game.
No game should ever be released broken. It's that simple but this is the fault of everyone involved. Customers won't wait, they want the game now and so they'll get a broken game and they'll have another reason to bitch. be patient get a perfect game. waiting won't kill you and it will help with over saturation of the market.
While it may or may not (depending on your outlook) be ethical for a company to release a highly addictive game, it's not irresponsible. Irresponsible would be neglecting the everyday things we as humans need to do in order to survive, i.e. eating, sleeping, excercise, etc. Which seems to be what these people are doing when they kill themselves playing.
Brilliant show! Just watched it for the 3rd time. Also, it looks like I have to play Spec Ops: The Line!
Things will never get better for gamers.Big publishers will always find new ways to exploit our weaknesses and if we let them more gamers will die in the future.I recently saw a presentation made by Jesse Schell in witch he talks about addictive games and a very likely and horrible future..Here's the link:
Let me just say that the only cure for game addiction is to remove the game industry, obviously. It is the very thing about these games that we enjoy which makes them so addictive. We could dull the games down and make them inferior, and then clearly people would play them less. Maybe the industry should acknowledge that playing 40 hours straight is not something to be admired or sought after but beyond that what should they really do? Where does personal responsibility come into it? Somebody tell me how Blizzard made Diablo to exploit people and make them play for 40 hours straight. The game is fine to play in spurts, there is nothing which forces you to subvert your life, as opposed to other games like WOW and Animal Crossing (I think) which are pretty much unenjoyable unless you place them at a higher place than the rest of your life. Ultimately it is up to society as a whole to inform these people that this is unhealthy and should be frowned upon. Blame the tobacco companies all you want, the onus is really on society to make the habit unattractive.
Like, like, like, like, like.
Couple without the >>>OF<<< after it, irritating americans get to the point.
5 minutes of useful info comrpessed into 40 minutes.
Constant internet connection sucks for smaller countries who don't get the same treatment as the big countries. And that mainly on consoles, I still use wrong country on my PS3 just because my country is not the PSN country list.
who are these guys? That guy (non-England)comparing Casinos with video game manufacturers is not a smart guy nor rational. His view is what's wrong with society today where it's always someone else's fault. Listen, the goal is to make money for a business. They wouldn't make games if they weren't profitable. If someone is going to play a game for two days straight, that was the guys decision. Do you know what the cause of death is? Can't blame people without knowing what the reason is. Do I feel bad....yes. Am I sad.....yes.
Where do you draw the line with entertainment? How many people die from video games versus alcohol and gun related deaths. Are you guys really serious? These are ridiculous comparisons with no basis in reality.
I did the same thing with Serenity. Then I was like "Wut? There's a series? Oh yeah!" and eventually "Wut? No more episodes?" and became a sad panda.
The amount of DLC;s in the market is the fault of a majority gamers. Activision is using the same game for 5 years they like it, Diablo 3 is using an always online system the accept it, they make DLC's they accept it also. We have to answer our selves is it really the fault of the companies and the media or is it our fault for accepting them and drove the majority of the indystry in the close of collapsing?
Always online DRM will kill this industry if it becomes the rule instead of the exception, the downsides in terms of server downtime, lag, connection issues or internet accessibility are too big to ignore and will alienate paying customers not make pirates actually buy the game.
Basically this will backfire, Diablo 3 only sold so much because of its giant fanbase.
HI sweettalker, this is done on a weekly basis, i wish gameplay podcast was like this, its just trivia gimmiky radio now.
@unikat It 's not the devs fault. But this player who died has also no fault. He's just sick.
"The world is a better place without him?" - You want a world with no people with any mental disorder? I'm feeling sad for you that you have grown up in a liberal world and not in Germany in the mid '30's.
@slayerSS-3 Diablo 3 has a message like this."Take D3 in moderation" or something like that.It's there but some people just ignore it.
@Dawg9000 The difference? Or that the two go hand in hand and feed one another?
No, just no.
From Wikipedia: "Classic hallmarks of addiction include: impaired control over substances/behavior, preoccupation with substance/behavior, continued use despite consequences, and denial."
Pysiological dependence is a chemical addiction, but that's a type of addiction, not a definition of addiction itself.
Thanks for the link
Diablo 3 is most definitely designed to encourage obsessive play. For instance, in one entire play through, I didn't recieve a single legendary or set item drop. The ONLY way anyone is going to ever get an actual full set of set items is if they play absolutely insane amounts of time or use the real money auction house. Compare this to Diablo 2 where I had to make several extra characters just as mules to hold all my extra set items I was saving up.
Obviously they've designed the game to capitalize ($) obsession... and that's irresponsible.
@ck10304 Equilibrium :P
@ArcherRO ''Take D3 in moderation''? That sounds like a prescription from a doctor, like taking the drug but on a daily basis or something like that.
@ArcherRO I didn't knew that, never play D3 but yeah just because you put it there doesn't mean is going to have any effect at all really, you see a lot of ads about dont drink alcohol that is bad same with cigarettes etc etc but people do it anyway, at the end the person have to control itself and decide not the one that is selling the product, is it bad if the developers push you to play more and more?maybe but like I said before is up to you to control yourself. Someone here should ask where were the parents of that boy...the problem is the society not the developers or the game.
@goldenocean I'm glad you brought this up actually, because I think a distinction needs to be made here. There is nothing about the game that makes you play for extended single sessions. Sure the game may make you want to play hundreds of hours to get a set of items, but nothing about the mechanic gives an advantage to people who play for longer sittings. Sure they'll have the better loot in real time, but they've spent the same amount of in-game time to get to their position. It is people's own desires to have the best armor RIGHT NOW that drives them to sit and not move for 40 hours, and this is still their fault. They should be able to get satisfaction out of spreading the 100+ hours of game-time over a year or more but unfortunately many gamers don't comprehend playing a single save file for a year and really taking their time with the game. If you are suggesting that game designers should decrease the hour commitment to achieve "peak level" "100% completion" etc then I disagree with you. Again, it's all about personal choice, temptation is everywhere and we unfortunately must spend most of our lives resisting it but hey that's life.
I'm not suggesting game designers need to reduce the number of overall gameplay hours their game can provide, I'm suggesting that they design their games where everything isn't heavily back end loaded (in game hours terms).
By that, I mean that you get a higher proportion of the rewards being achieveable in short snips of gameplay, and a much lower proportion for excessive gameplay hours. Games can also be designed into more significant levels or "chapters" that are more compatible with shorter game play sessions, rather than the endless treadmill that we often get in games today. It's a lot easier for people to put something down for the day if they don't have 10 "cliffhangers" drawing them to continue playing (uncompleted quests, incomplete equipment, etc).
Otherwise you're just providing incentive for some people's OCD tendencies, which can obviously cause problems.
@ck10304 I agree, while it may or may not (depending on your outlook) be ethical for a company to release a highly addictive game, it's not irresponsible. Irresponsible would be neglecting the everyday things we as humans need to do in order to survive, i.e. eating, sleeping, excercise, etc. Which seems to be what these people are doing when they kill themselves playing.