Endless Archive is bad for physical, mental, and familial health

Braffin

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when the group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

I agree, it shouldn't be the only way to get rewards/scores. Didn't want to defend EA with my statement, as they are basically introducing an endless slog to the game.

On a sidenote: The whole genre of mmo is basically exploiting addiction-based behaviour (think about FOMO for example). And it's not alone in doing so. Most modern games use this mechanics to maximize profit.

A disgusting business model imo, but at least a completely optional for the individual player.

Lugaldu

Braffin wrote: »

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

I'm not sure if it's really true that companies have no responsibility when it comes to what they offer. I can still remember there being cigarette commercials on TV when I was a child - they haven't been around for a long time now for a reason. Of course, for many things the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, but promoting an offer (creating the desire to have or do this or that) that can have harmful effects should not be taken lightly.

Braffin

Lugaldu wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

I'm not sure if it's really true that companies have no responsibility when it comes to what they offer. I can still remember there being cigarette commercials on TV when I was a child - they haven't been around for a long time now for a reason. Of course, for many things the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, but promoting an offer (creating the desire to have or do this or that) that can have harmful effects should not be taken lightly.

Wouldn't it be wise then to prohibit the potentially harmful offer instead of the promotion?

maboleth

Dojohoda wrote: »

I have tried it on pts approximately 10 times. While there is an element of fun, it's not something that I would want to do for hours. There's no elderscrolls-esque adventure. It is a sweaty button masher in which you have to start over if you make 3 mistakes.

And that's, hands down, my biggest regret about EA. I thought we were about to explore the depths (make it as excavating), maybe even get some dwemer stuff and learn about some forgotten ancient relict or artifact. Or even a race, lore wise.

But no, it's basically Arena No3.

And I could accept another arena, sure, why not - it fits the Necrom chapter, but WHY do you reset the arena state every single time? Make a continue option for non-leaderboard people.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. We may not be able to say two hours is fine but 4 hours is too much or whatever. But unlimited is an easy line to draw as allowing too much.

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

We don't overserve people at bars. It's not any different than that. Entertainment is not a necessity.

Beyond that, there's a massive difference between a company punishing people for engaging in healthy behavior (e.g. taking breaks) and disallowing unhealthy behavior. Allowing breaks is not the same thing as banning.

karthrag_inak

Add save spots - open portals to each cycle completed, allow groups to move directly to the highest level that both group mates have completed if they wish, or any cycle below there, or start at the beginning.

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. We may not be able to say two hours is fine but 4 hours is too much or whatever. But unlimited is an easy line to draw as allowing too much.

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

We don't overserve people at bars. It's not any different than that. Entertainment is not a necessity.

Beyond that, there's a massive difference between a company punishing people for engaging in healthy behavior (e.g. taking breaks) and disallowing unhealthy behavior. Allowing breaks is not the same thing as banning.

We don't overserve people at bars? Sry, but I doubt that's correct. In most of europe we definitely do, at the very least 2 times a week. 🤣

And I don't see how a video game could ever be used to punish healthy behaviour. Only an addict could feel themselves punished by anything related to entertainment.

I'd nonetheless vote for a "save" function for EA btw to make this content less of an unfun slog. Being able to start at a specific arc would be even better, if fun is the goal.

So yeah, EA is definitely in dire need of changes, but it's surely not harmful in any way.

If people can't control themselves regarding any specific X, this can't be solved by working on X but by working on those people. And that's definitely not the job of entertainment.

Bushido2513

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Correct the cases of such things are obvious and cannot be denied. That being said there are many choices in gaming that allow you to push your personal limits and at the same time know your personal limits. I believe people have already put in x amount of long hours and lived to post.

There are unhealthy people in gaming that practice unhealthy habits as I've posted before.

What's the difference in someone that comes home each day, logs on after work and doesn't log off till they are exhausted, goes to work, rinses and repeats? Are we ok as long as the health issues just can't immediately and directly be linked to the content?

Bushido2513

RaptorRodeoGod wrote: »

How often would anybody go to see 10 hour movies, in theaters, where the only interesting parts start at 8 hours in? 🤔

Example doesn't apply here exactly. I'll give another one. How often have you seen someone be able to drive for the same amount of longer without being as upset as long as they stay in motion?

People will stay in a hamster wheel longer if you provide enough distraction along the way.

Bushido2513

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. Being punished for taking breaks is a bit too far and is an easy line to draw, even if it's harder to tell when a gamer has played too much.

Punished in what way?

Bushido2513

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

I agree. Not only they exclude a large demographic (people with families and jobs), it's also super unhealthy even for those who have free time to invest. I don't want to see something like this happen to an ESO player.

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

But the people that have this issue wouldn't stop themselves. They would just do another run with another group, go farm something, play different content, etc.

The entire game promotes rewards for as long as you can or choose to sit at the controller. Supporting that over archive is a similar argument to saying it's ok if you do harm yourself as long as it can't be linked back to specific content or rewards all at once.


If people really wanted this game to promote player health there would be mandatory breaks in all sessions after x hour mark.

So are we putting this all on archive while not addressing the existing state of the game that allows for an unhealthy lifestyle already?

PrincessOfThieves

Bushido2513 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. Being punished for taking breaks is a bit too far and is an easy line to draw, even if it's harder to tell when a gamer has played too much.

Punished in what way?

You have to start over, there's no way to save progress/restart from checkpoint unlike Maelstrom, Vateshran etc. And no way to skip earlier stages, either.

PrincessOfThieves

Bushido2513 wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

I agree. Not only they exclude a large demographic (people with families and jobs), it's also super unhealthy even for those who have free time to invest. I don't want to see something like this happen to an ESO player.

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

But the people that have this issue wouldn't stop themselves. They would just do another run with another group, go farm something, play different content, etc.

The entire game promotes rewards for as long as you can or choose to sit at the controller. Supporting that over archive is a similar argument to saying it's ok if you do harm yourself as long as it can't be linked back to specific content or rewards all at once.


If people really wanted this game to promote player health there would be mandatory breaks in all sessions after x hour mark.

So are we putting this all on archive while not addressing the existing state of the game that allows for an unhealthy lifestyle already?

There is a difference between having an opportunity to grind endlessly and not being able to get to the good stuff (challenging areas/rewards) without playing for hours nonstop. The way it is designed now, people with limited playtime would not get anywhere and nolife gamers would be encouraged to sit and play with no breaks.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. We may not be able to say two hours is fine but 4 hours is too much or whatever. But unlimited is an easy line to draw as allowing too much.

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

We don't overserve people at bars. It's not any different than that. Entertainment is not a necessity.

Beyond that, there's a massive difference between a company punishing people for engaging in healthy behavior (e.g. taking breaks) and disallowing unhealthy behavior. Allowing breaks is not the same thing as banning.

We don't overserve people at bars? Sry, but I doubt that's correct. In most of europe we definitely do, at the very least 2 times a week. 🤣

And I don't see how a video game could ever be used to punish healthy behaviour. Only an addict could feel themselves punished by anything related to entertainment.

I'd nonetheless vote for a "save" function for EA btw to make this content less of an unfun slog. Being able to start at a specific arc would be even better, if fun is the goal.

So yeah, EA is definitely in dire need of changes, but it's surely not harmful in any way.

If people can't control themselves regarding any specific X, this can't be solved by working on X but by working on those people. And that's definitely not the job of entertainment.

I can't speak to your country. But cutting off service in bars has literally saved lives here and is a normal thing. It also doesn't stop any one sensible from enjoying alcohol.

It's absolutely the job of entertainment to try to limit it's harmful design, where reasonable. Designers are the ones responsible for their designs. Just as individuals are responsible for using those designs responsibly. Irresponsible design is bad. The goal should be to ensure everyone can enjoy the entertainment reasonably with some small measures for safety where it's possible, for more extreme circumstances.

Punishing people for taking breaks in content that literally never ends is not responsible design. It's not fun. And it encourages addictive behavior and punishes healthy behavior, which is the opposite of how it should be, imo.

spartaxoxo

Bushido2513 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. Being punished for taking breaks is a bit too far and is an easy line to draw, even if it's harder to tell when a gamer has played too much.

Punished in what way?

The game doesn't save your lives/progress. So, people who take breaks have to start over and miss out on better loot. Whereas people who play until they lose all of their lives are rewarded.

They say it's for the leaderboard, but they can just do like Maelstrom and remove you from leaderboard consideration.

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. We may not be able to say two hours is fine but 4 hours is too much or whatever. But unlimited is an easy line to draw as allowing too much.

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

We don't overserve people at bars. It's not any different than that. Entertainment is not a necessity.

Beyond that, there's a massive difference between a company punishing people for engaging in healthy behavior (e.g. taking breaks) and disallowing unhealthy behavior. Allowing breaks is not the same thing as banning.

We don't overserve people at bars? Sry, but I doubt that's correct. In most of europe we definitely do, at the very least 2 times a week. 🤣

And I don't see how a video game could ever be used to punish healthy behaviour. Only an addict could feel themselves punished by anything related to entertainment.

I'd nonetheless vote for a "save" function for EA btw to make this content less of an unfun slog. Being able to start at a specific arc would be even better, if fun is the goal.

So yeah, EA is definitely in dire need of changes, but it's surely not harmful in any way.

If people can't control themselves regarding any specific X, this can't be solved by working on X but by working on those people. And that's definitely not the job of entertainment.

I can't speak to your country. But cutting off service in bars has literally saved lives here and is a normal thing. It also doesn't stop any one sensible from enjoying alcohol.

It's absolutely the job of entertainment to try to limit it's harmful design, where reasonable. Designers are the ones responsible for their designs. Just as individuals are responsible for using those designs responsibly. Irresponsible design is bad. The goal should be to ensure everyone can enjoy the entertainment reasonably with some small measures for safety where it's possible, for more extreme circumstances.

Punishing people for taking breaks in content that literally never ends is not responsible design. It's not fun. And it encourages addictive behavior and punishes healthy behavior, which is the opposite of how it should be, imo.

Yeah, some campaign regarding responsible drinking wouldn't be bad in my country either. Won't happen in the foreseeable future tho.

On topic: I still don't see the punishment you're talking about. Sure, if you grind longer, you'll end up with more stuff. That's natural. EA isn't an exception to this rule, but also isn't bringing anything new to the game in this regard. Of course it's an exceptional grindy (and imo lazy) game design they're introducing, but harmful? I don't think so.

It's at least not more dangerous regarding addictive behaviour than any in-game event (time-gated rewards), trading or any other activity without inherent end. All of these things can be overdone and thus will be overdone by some individuals.

That said: I'm as "happy" with EA as most others, and if your measures to secure health are only the implementation of a save-function and the ability to start at higher arcs I'm fine with that, even if I prefer to stick with a speech more appropriate for entertainment: With EA they clearly fail to proper entertain their "intended audience".
But I don't think it's more unhealthy than any other form of possible grind. And it's not punishing to prevent saving but simply unlogical and unnecessary (as the according leaderboard isn't skill-centered anyways due to lack of standardization).

Lugaldu

Braffin wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

I'm not sure if it's really true that companies have no responsibility when it comes to what they offer. I can still remember there being cigarette commercials on TV when I was a child - they haven't been around for a long time now for a reason. Of course, for many things the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, but promoting an offer (creating the desire to have or do this or that) that can have harmful effects should not be taken lightly.

Wouldn't it be wise then to prohibit the potentially harmful offer instead of the promotion?

This is drifting off-topic, but of course there are enough lobbies that urgently want to maintain unhealthy things... But people shouldn't encourage it even further.

Bushido2513

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. Being punished for taking breaks is a bit too far and is an easy line to draw, even if it's harder to tell when a gamer has played too much.

Punished in what way?

You have to start over, there's no way to save progress/restart from checkpoint unlike Maelstrom, Vateshran etc. And no way to skip earlier stages, either.

So wait, and please excuse any ignorance but

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

I can certainly understand limitations on certain entertainment aspects of life because it's easy to quantify in some cases when something is more dangerous at a certain threshold. This is just not one of those cases that can be easily summed up as bad at xyz point or not.

I say this as someone who played computer games for days at the age of 21 too, but content that promotes non-stop gaming for days is, in my opinion, also one of the "dangerous entertainment activities". If you want to stay awake for 2-3 days in a row, you can't do it without aids, even if you're 21, which is unhealthy in itself. And there have been repeated cases of people dying of cardiac arrest, heart attack, thrombosis or something similar after playing PC games for days. Non-stop PC gaming for days is not a “safe” entertainment and people who do that have usually already lost control and are already addicted.

Yup. Absolutely. Being punished for taking breaks is a bit too far and is an easy line to draw, even if it's harder to tell when a gamer has played too much.

Punished in what way?

You have to start over, there's no way to save progress/restart from checkpoint unlike Maelstrom, Vateshran etc. And no way to skip earlier stages, either.

Oh so you mean a long break but you can still go to the bathroom or wait to enter the next portal etc right?

Bushido2513

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

I agree. Not only they exclude a large demographic (people with families and jobs), it's also super unhealthy even for those who have free time to invest. I don't want to see something like this happen to an ESO player.

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

But the people that have this issue wouldn't stop themselves. They would just do another run with another group, go farm something, play different content, etc.

The entire game promotes rewards for as long as you can or choose to sit at the controller. Supporting that over archive is a similar argument to saying it's ok if you do harm yourself as long as it can't be linked back to specific content or rewards all at once.


If people really wanted this game to promote player health there would be mandatory breaks in all sessions after x hour mark.

So are we putting this all on archive while not addressing the existing state of the game that allows for an unhealthy lifestyle already?

There is a difference between having an opportunity to grind endlessly and not being able to get to the good stuff (challenging areas/rewards) without playing for hours nonstop. The way it is designed now, people with limited playtime would not get anywhere and nolife gamers would be encouraged to sit and play with no breaks.

I mean you're right, but the game has always favored the person that is willing or able to commit the most time in general no? I get that archive is just blatant about it but how can we spotlight that and not also examine all the mechanisms already in the game to keep you playing till exhaustion?

I say this as a person that did play till exhaustion at times. Sure I had a choice but my point is that removing choice doesn't ultimately make much difference if someone is going to nolife the game.

In terms of rewards though is it such a bad thing to have some content that favors high play time for those that were going to already choose this?

I'm not against adding save points, etc but as a responsible adult I'd rather have the choice to engage in this different type of content or not and self also I prefer to see content that caters to players who want to be a bit more extreme with the idea that they will also self regulate hopefully.

Ardriel

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

I agree. Not only they exclude a large demographic (people with families and jobs), it's also super unhealthy even for those who have free time to invest. I don't want to see something like this happen to an ESO player.

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

So those are very serious objections. I really hope ZOS doesn't ignore the feedback here for a change and revises the concept of the archive. At least the possibility to save progress should be given. There is no way that the game motivates people to play 10 hours or more at a stretch without a break. This is indeed harmful to health and irresponsible.

RaptorRodeoGod

Ardriel wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

I agree. Not only they exclude a large demographic (people with families and jobs), it's also super unhealthy even for those who have free time to invest. I don't want to see something like this happen to an ESO player.

Braffin wrote: »

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

True, but they also shouldn't encourage harmful things. Before this, most hardcore achievements in ESO could be done by playing in 2 hour sessions (that's what most progs do, 2 hours 2-3 times per week). That is not unreasonable, especially when group is taking breaks. But playing for 4+ hours nonstop is simply unhealthy for anyone, and when it's the only way to get rewards/scores, some people will do it.

So those are very serious objections. I really hope ZOS doesn't ignore the feedback here for a change and revises the concept of the archive. At least the possibility to save progress should be given. There is no way that the game motivates people to play 10 hours or more at a stretch without a break. This is indeed harmful to health and irresponsible.

I think irresponsible hits it directly on the nose.

I think at the very least they need to make a way to take a break, and pick up from where you left off. I'm not even gonna try suggesting how they should do it though, because they literally always ignore players suggestions for improvement, and try to have the same outcome done in their own way.

Bushido2513

Lugaldu wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Yeah, of course it's not healthy to play a game indefinitely or even support these (probably addictive) behaviour by using various stimulants.

On the other side it's not a company's responsibility to provide a healthy living to myself. It's mine.

I don't think prohibiting people to act nonsensical is a reasonable approach.

I'm not sure if it's really true that companies have no responsibility when it comes to what they offer. I can still remember there being cigarette commercials on TV when I was a child - they haven't been around for a long time now for a reason. Of course, for many things the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual, but promoting an offer (creating the desire to have or do this or that) that can have harmful effects should not be taken lightly.

Wouldn't it be wise then to prohibit the potentially harmful offer instead of the promotion?

This is drifting off-topic, but of course there are enough lobbies that urgently want to maintain unhealthy things... But people shouldn't encourage it even further.

As a person who has played this game for years in both healthy and unhealthy ways I can say that with encouragement or not, this game can't really get me to do anything I don't choose to do. If someone is facing an issue where the game can make them do things they don't want then that's a completely different issue outside of this game.

I can tell you right now that they could put 500 million gold 30 hours into the archive and I wouldn't even care to attempt it because my time and life just aren't worth the exchange. If someone else doesn't see it that way I feel I'd have to respect that as their choice.

Lugaldu

Bushido2513 wrote: »

As a person who has played this game for years in both healthy and unhealthy ways I can say that with encouragement or not, this game can't really get me to do anything I don't choose to do. If someone is facing an issue where the game can make them do things they don't want then that's a completely different issue outside of this game.

I can tell you right now that they could put 500 million gold 30 hours into the archive and I wouldn't even care to attempt it because my time and life just aren't worth the exchange. If someone else doesn't see it that way I feel I'd have to respect that as their choice.

Maybe you and I are (nowadays) able to control our gaming activities, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who can't. And if there really was an incentive like the fictive example you gave, I'm absolutely sure that people - especially younger, inexperienced people - would do it and not think about their lives for a minute. Simply because they do not have the mental maturity and foresight.

spartaxoxo

Braffin wrote: »

It's at least not more dangerous regarding addictive behaviour than any in-game event (time-gated rewards), trading or any other activity without inherent end. All of these things can be overdone and thus will be overdone by some individuals.

Yeah, it is. Because those other activities do not actively punish me if I stop. If I use the bathroom, I am not setback hours of play. For events, for example, let's say I need to stretch my legs and have already picked up 2/3 items from the delve daily. I will only need 1 more item. The progress isn't reset. So there's no real reason for me to prioritize getting that third item over taking that break.

Punishing people for taking a break encourages them to push themselves to play "just a little longer, " and for addicts that's a very dangerous impulse. Other activities in this game don't encourage that because you don't lose any progress for stopping, have limits on how much you can do (e.g. only 50 daily quests a day), or at least have a clear end point. While this game could be played without end, it's not incentivized to do so by rewarding the player for refusing to stop and punishing them for stopping. And thus even though unhealthy play isn't prevented entirely, it is subtly discouraged.

Bushido2513

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

As a person who has played this game for years in both healthy and unhealthy ways I can say that with encouragement or not, this game can't really get me to do anything I don't choose to do. If someone is facing an issue where the game can make them do things they don't want then that's a completely different issue outside of this game.

I can tell you right now that they could put 500 million gold 30 hours into the archive and I wouldn't even care to attempt it because my time and life just aren't worth the exchange. If someone else doesn't see it that way I feel I'd have to respect that as their choice.

Maybe you and I are (nowadays) able to control our gaming activities, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who can't. And if there really was an incentive like the fictive example you gave, I'm absolutely sure that people - especially younger, inexperienced people - would do it and not think about their lives for a minute. Simply because they do not have the mental maturity and foresight.

But I think that's the point of growing up and experiencing good and bad things. Someone might take it too far for sure but I also remember we when I played maelstrom arena for a full weekend to get my first clear and how it's a memory that nobody can take from me. Was it unhealthy to do so, probably, but I still like having the story to tell and then I moved on to other things.

If we try to make everything safer then we also run the risk of not letting players gain certain experiences including deciding to make their own decisions about such things. The maturity and foresight is gained though good and bad learning experiences.

Trying to protect someone in this one instance of life is a bandaid at the cost of artistic vision and player choice if they have issues that make susceptible to addictive situations like these.

Also as I've already said a few times, this game currently more than encourages over indulging. There are no warnings about playtime while having several mechanisms to keep you engaged for as long as possible.

Bushido2513

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

It's at least not more dangerous regarding addictive behaviour than any in-game event (time-gated rewards), trading or any other activity without inherent end. All of these things can be overdone and thus will be overdone by some individuals.

Yeah, it is. Because those other activities do not actively punish me if I stop. If I use the bathroom, I am not setback hours of play. For events, for example, let's say I need to stretch my legs and have already picked up 2/3 items from the delve daily. I will only need 1 more item. The progress isn't reset. So there's no real reason for me to prioritize getting that third item over taking that break.

Punishing people for taking a break encourages them to push themselves to play "just a little longer, " and for addicts that's a very dangerous impulse. Other activities in this game don't encourage that because you don't lose any progress for stopping, have limits on how much you can do (e.g. only 50 daily quests a day), or at least have a clear end point. While this game could be played without end, it's not incentivized to do so by rewarding the player for refusing to stop and punishing them for stopping. And thus even though unhealthy play isn't prevented entirely, it is subtly discouraged.

Only problem is that you're trying to differentiate an all you can eat buffet from an eating contest. Both can be dangerous it's just one gets you over time and the other just tells you that you're going to have to straight up take the hit to be a part of it.

Same effect, just variation in timeframe.

FantasticFreddie

Bushido2513 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

It's at least not more dangerous regarding addictive behaviour than any in-game event (time-gated rewards), trading or any other activity without inherent end. All of these things can be overdone and thus will be overdone by some individuals.

Yeah, it is. Because those other activities do not actively punish me if I stop. If I use the bathroom, I am not setback hours of play. For events, for example, let's say I need to stretch my legs and have already picked up 2/3 items from the delve daily. I will only need 1 more item. The progress isn't reset. So there's no real reason for me to prioritize getting that third item over taking that break.

Punishing people for taking a break encourages them to push themselves to play "just a little longer, " and for addicts that's a very dangerous impulse. Other activities in this game don't encourage that because you don't lose any progress for stopping, have limits on how much you can do (e.g. only 50 daily quests a day), or at least have a clear end point. While this game could be played without end, it's not incentivized to do so by rewarding the player for refusing to stop and punishing them for stopping. And thus even though unhealthy play isn't prevented entirely, it is subtly discouraged.

Only problem is that you're trying to differentiate an all you can eat buffet from an eating contest. Both can be dangerous it's just one gets you over time and the other just tells you that you're going to have to straight up take the hit to be a part of it.

Same effect, just variation in timeframe.

?????
No! No, a buffet is not the same as an eating contest. Christ on a bike this is a bad analogy.

A buffet: a wide variety of items, of which you can eat as much or as little as you chose of each, and leave whenever you want.

Any sort of eating contest: competative sport where you are literally eating 1 kind of food as fast as possible and trying not to puke.

I take my mother to a sunday brunch buffet for her birthday every year, we eat a small portion each of pur favorite thing, buy a single fancy drink, and enjoy a leisurely breakfast while looking out at the waterfall.

I would not take my mother to participate in an eating contest for her birthday.

spartaxoxo

Bushido2513 wrote: »

Lugaldu wrote: »

Bushido2513 wrote: »

As a person who has played this game for years in both healthy and unhealthy ways I can say that with encouragement or not, this game can't really get me to do anything I don't choose to do. If someone is facing an issue where the game can make them do things they don't want then that's a completely different issue outside of this game.

I can tell you right now that they could put 500 million gold 30 hours into the archive and I wouldn't even care to attempt it because my time and life just aren't worth the exchange. If someone else doesn't see it that way I feel I'd have to respect that as their choice.

Maybe you and I are (nowadays) able to control our gaming activities, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who can't. And if there really was an incentive like the fictive example you gave, I'm absolutely sure that people - especially younger, inexperienced people - would do it and not think about their lives for a minute. Simply because they do not have the mental maturity and foresight.

But I think that's the point of growing up and experiencing good and bad things. Someone might take it too far for sure but I also remember we when I played maelstrom arena for a full weekend to get my first clear and how it's a memory that nobody can take from me. Was it unhealthy to do so, probably, but I still like having the story to tell and then I moved on to other things.

If we try to make everything safer then we also run the risk of not letting players gain certain experiences including deciding to make their own decisions about such things. The maturity and foresight is gained though good and bad learning experiences.

Trying to protect someone in this one instance of life is a bandaid at the cost of artistic vision and player choice if they have issues that make susceptible to addictive situations like these.

Also as I've already said a few times, this game currently more than encourages over indulging. There are no warnings about playtime while having several mechanisms to keep you engaged for as long as possible.

Maelstrom Arena literally lets you save your progress. You CAN choose to keep doing it, but you're not forced to begin the arena all over again. All it would take is the same exact design that Maelstrom has to encourage people to take breaks. That's it. If they don't take advantage of it from there, that's on them. Some will be because they have a serious problem, others will be in your situation. Regardless, they will no longer be punished for tackling Endless in a healthy manner with breaks. Nobody should be sitting in place for 12 hours straight. It is literally dangerous.

edit
Even in your eating contest example, they aren't held every day at the same place. Nobody is encouraged to do it without stop. Those events are actually pretty brief and have a clear end point.

Braffin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

It's at least not more dangerous regarding addictive behaviour than any in-game event (time-gated rewards), trading or any other activity without inherent end. All of these things can be overdone and thus will be overdone by some individuals.

Yeah, it is. Because those other activities do not actively punish me if I stop. If I use the bathroom, I am not setback hours of play. For events, for example, let's say I need to stretch my legs and have already picked up 2/3 items from the delve daily. I will only need 1 more item. The progress isn't reset. So there's no real reason for me to prioritize getting that third item over taking that break.

Punishing people for taking a break encourages them to push themselves to play "just a little longer, " and for addicts that's a very dangerous impulse. Other activities in this game don't encourage that because you don't lose any progress for stopping, have limits on how much you can do (e.g. only 50 daily quests a day), or at least have a clear end point. While this game could be played without end, it's not incentivized to do so by rewarding the player for refusing to stop and punishing them for stopping. And thus even though unhealthy play isn't prevented entirely, it is subtly discouraged.

You're wrong, but I see that your opinion is already carved in stone and any further discussion is pointless.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'll never accept a company parenting my behaviour. That's against the definition of myself as adult human being.

abeodesee

if you log out in EA with same party, and then later log back in would surely solve problems i think, thus a save progess function nothing wrong with it i think