Uh, huh?

My opinion:

I keep hearing people talk about this topic, and I can't believe it is a serious discussion. If there is a game where everyone wins, how is it even a game (especially examining the history of games). This even worse than giving out valueless achievements in video games to make player feel accomplished.

You don't change a generation of losers into winners by making them automatic winners. Imagine if military personnel were instructed this way. They don't have to train, they don't have to work hard to build themselves up, because they will automatically win the war. Let a war happen, they will get whooped. And if children in youth sports are being trained this way, you can bet in the future the military will be trained this way.

Old games used to provide more of a challenge, and most "gamers" today quit as soon as they run into a puzzle or problem that proves frustrating to solve. Imagine how the next generation will be.

This is another degradation of society.

Please tell me that no one here agrees with this, I mean, you are a game developer...

P.S. I guess this is like an infinite way tie?

Wait, no, you still have to compete for a tie. smh.

I wonder if this attitude ( every one wins ) is why so many kids believe "if you try you can succeed at anything" - and when reality sinks in, they end up eating anti depressant pills like candy their entire adult life.

"Everybody win" culture. In America? I'm surprised.

The (maybe...ok surely) stereotypical image I have of Americans is more like : "There can only be one winner! And it's not you!" Isn't the entrepreneur spirit something very "american"? I can't imagine a entrepreneur having the thoughts of "everybody win". I mean "Amurica fuck yeah!", right? ^^'

Sorry for this, and let's get back to the topic.

The article nailed it. Making everybody winning is equal everybody losing. And I don't think it's a good way of living, at all.

But, I understand that the extreme in the other way is equally wrong. Pushing someone (especially the kids) to always win no matter the consequences is not good for them, I think. It reminds me of the japanese or chinese studient who have an insane amount of pressure because they have to win. No matter the cost. I saw picture of chinese studying in a library perfused with energizer of whatever this was. Horrible.

Game and competition aren't the same thing. If you are talking about single-player games, yes for many of them all the players are eventually supposed to get to the end, which is one kind of winning. You aren't winning against other people, you are winning against all the times you failed levels or battles or whatever on the way there. So there's both losing and winning there, but because the winning comes last it overwrites the losing in people's minds. And that's the way it's supposed to be. Games are a form of entertainment, and just like movies and novels their deep-down purpose is making the audience feel thing they want to feel, and pay to feel. People generally will pay to feel challenge followed by success. Too-easy success sells, but not as well as the challenging kind. Some kinds of failure, like tragedies and unhappy-ending stories, sell to the audience which likes that kind of thing, which is somewhat smaller than the audience that likes happy endings, but definitely out there buying things. What people won't by is a sense of incompletion; that's abundant in real life, and humans don't particularly like that feeling anyway. So for single-player games players generally expect and like a game they can get to the end of. Which for single-player games is the same as saying a game that everyone can win, if they put in the time.

Creating content less than 10% of players will see is wasted effort.

I deeply dislike Blizzards way of thinking here. If 90% of the players don't see a certain dungeon and endboss, and the resulting rewards just on other characters, then it means that 90% of the players are motivated to achieve something, while 10% of the players are bored because they have seen everything the game has to offer.

Also, if x% of these 90% at some time realize that they lack something to achieve XY, be it time, dedication, skill or money, does it really has to lead to frustration and leaving? I don't believe people are so incapable to survive a reality-check and admit that there are other players who can do things they can't, and that it is impossible to still have fun in a game, even if you are proven to not be the best.

Warm-up for my rant completed, time to stop here.

Creating content less than 10% of players will see is wasted effort.

I deeply dislike Blizzards way of thinking here. If 90% of the players don't see a certain dungeon and endboss, and the resulting rewards just on other characters, then it means that 90% of the players are motivated to achieve something, while 10% of the players are bored because they have seen everything the game has to offer.

Also, if x% of these 90% at some time realize that they lack something to achieve XY, be it time, dedication, skill or money, does it really has to lead to frustration and leaving? I don't believe people are so incapable to survive a reality-check and admit that there are other players who can do things they can't, and that it is impossible to still have fun in a game, even if you are proven to not be the best.

Warm-up for my rant completed, time to stop here.

I'm not sure you're taking time into account properly here. When they say 90% of players don't see a particular piece of content, that means that in the player's entire lifespan as a player of an MMO they didn't ever see that content. That's not the same as being motivated to see it. Instead it means that either they were unable to see it despite being motivated to do so, or they weren't motivated enough to tackle the associated requirements, or they were busy doing something more motivating, or they never knew it was there.

1. This has been a rampint issue in the USA, your just finding out now?

2. lets give everyone "participation points" for how much they intteract on a forum, they may get more or less on who agrees with them, but we all get points for just posting, the more we post, the more "status" we have? sound familiar?

3. Things usually go from military > civilain life

4. the reward of playing a game should be the experince of the game, not some artifical badge or something, yet it works, hence achievements.

5. The generation whos weened on this will likelly just get hit harder when they get out of school.