Gelding the Lily

It often seems to me that gamers as a group -- how can I put this delicately? -- thrive on complaint. Beyond all barriers of socio-economic considerations, class, ethnicity, education and other factors, it is whining which unites us. And whining. Did I mention belly-aching?

I trust my point is not too obscure here.

We carp about anything under the sun, and sarcasm is naturally the weapon of choice. A well-timed, witty whack at a weak and witless wuss is one of the great joys of modern online gaming (as is alliteration, but I was going to leave that unsaid). However, all other discussions about personal habits, intellect, in-game performance and sexual preferences dwindle to insignificance when the Great Topic is breached, the one that renders all other discussions wan and lethargic... you know of what I speak.

Corporations.

Now, I'm a liberal, and as such I am naturally opposed to corporations. We all know that they manipulate governments, foment wars for natural resources and delight in spoiling natural landscapes with vast, putrid seas of pollutants.

Naturally, we don't care about that stuff. I mean, come on. We're gamers. We consume on average thirty times our own body weight in junk food during one raiding session. And the outdoors? Unless our parents and/or spouses drag us there, we'd never know it existed.

No, what really ticks us off are that these corporations (namely the likes of Sony Online Entertainment and Blizzard) want to make money. Off of us! Oh, the humanity! Those bastards!

Now, I'm a fan of irony. It proves that either the universe is an inherently funny place of that humans have an inherently silly sense of humor. Either way, it works. But the thought of us scampering around their game worlds seeking the in-game equivalent of gold, jewels and physical power are denigrating the companies that produce and maintain the services with which to do so. And they, in turn, collect real-world wealth... you see where this is going.

It seems to me that the relationship between game company and consumer is a consensual one, a contract which the gamer can leave at his discretion. And with as many games as there are, surely there must be someplace one might go to be happy, some company worthy of at least some respect.

For myself, I'm a Sony man. I happen to enjoy their suite of games (Vanguard, The Matrix Online, Planetside, Star Wars Galaxies, EverQuest, EverQuest II), and I enjoy the player community. There is, however, a great deal of carping and complaining about Sony and their intent to screw up their games. The traditional support of this argument is the series of changes made to the game Star Wars Galaxies. I won't go into details here -- if you don't know what this argument entails, Google it.

Personally, I agree that the changes made to that game were detrimental, and it certainly spoiled gameplay for me. I left SWG shortly after, and it took over a year before I would go back. Even now, I play it very rarely, even though a great deal was done to improve the game. I certainly don't agree with Sony's decision, but I do understand it.

One of the delicious things about Star Wars Galaxies was it sophistication. It made characters unique, flexible and often thoroughly surprising. The game was gutted, however, to "improve the new player experience" and capture more players who might be daunted by the complexity. From this standpoint, the decision makes sense. When a company produces a product such as toothpaste or floor wax, it must continue to sell units in order for the product to remain viable. The online gaming community and economics are different.

When a game is released, it tends to gain an audience quickly, and the number of units sold peaks quickly. If the game is a good one with appeal, it will hope to retain that number of subscribers over a long period. However, as time goes on that number invariably drops... new games are produced, real life takes people away, and gamers who have reached their goals for their characters may simply stop subscribing without new content.

This means that the company must produce new material for its games merely to maintain its existing player base. Further, to increase the popularity of a game (a difficult thing to do), the company must identify and resolve what is felt to be the chief drawback to the game's success. There will always be those of us who "liked it back when", but we are (sadly) not the ones that the company aims to please with these changes.

Ultimately, however, the influx of new players benefit us in two important ways. First, of course, we have a bigger and richer community in which to enjoy our experience. Secondly, with a larger subscriber base it pays for the company to produce more and better content to make "our game" more competitive.

So perhaps we can cut those coprporations a little break.

The bastards.