Are our standards too high, or too low?

[Kzach]

I've been musing over this subject for awhile now as I've been trawling through various MMO's, looking for my gaming fix and being sorely disappointed with what I've found.

The initial thought occurred to me when I had a Mac vs. PC debate elsewhere online. I was trying to explain that my preference for the Mac is part and parcel of my consumer expectations. To me, personally, a Mac and the Mac OS, are the very bare minimum I expect from a computer and operating system. Windows and other brand computers simply don't meet my minimum requirements.

I tried to explain that, to me, I don't even think very highly of the Mac. I just happen to think much, much, much less of Windows and Sony/HP, Dell, etc. If Apple stopped making computers tomorrow and there was no equivalent or better on the market, I would stop using computers altogether.

Of course, the other party found that hard to believe but it's the plain truth. To my mind, if a product doesn't meet a bare minimum requirement, I will not pay for it. I don't care how ubiquitous it is, I will not pay money for Windows or a PC, and even if given one, would still not use it because it doesn't meet my minimum needs.

Agree or disagree with that, I'm not trying to create a Mac vs. PC argument here, I'm just trying to illustrate the concept of consumer standards and expectations. To put it into a gaming context, the current state of WotC has me in a quandary because their digital content does not meet my minimum requirements. And because they have opened up this digital doorway where updates and improvements to the fundamental system mechanics of 4e occur on a regular basis, I feel there's no value in buying the hard copies of the rules either.

Part of the reason I bring all of this up is that I've long wondered whether the vocal minority on message boards are too critical, or not critical enough. The recent shenanigans with WotC and the Character Builder have highlighted this situation for me as I see both sides arguing back and forth about the relative value of the products in question.

So it got me to thinking: are my standards too high? Or are everyone else's standards too low? Where do YOU draw the line? At what point do you say, "This isn't worth paying for,"? For me, personally, WotC currently falls well short of that line and so they won't be seeing any of my money for probably a long, long time to come.

 

[Dausuul]

To the question of "Are your standards too high?"--I don't think it's possible to answer that without knowing what they are, and what your goals are. What, specifically, about WotC's online offerings doesn't measure up? What is the marginal value of a good gaming experience to you as a consumer, and what goes into making that experience?

I mean, if you're an AD&D player in a lightweight, RP-focused game, it's pretty safe to say DDI doesn't measure up to your standards, and you'd have to lower your standards essentially to zero in order for that to change--being willing to pay money for something of no utility to you.

On the other hand, if you're a dedicated 4E DM with plenty of disposable income, running a combat-heavy campaign with a lot of custom monsters, and your objection is that DDI doesn't do a good enough job of coming up with clever and innovative plot twists, I'd say you might want to ratchet your expectations down a little.

I think the same sort of objection applies in general. Is the vocal message board minority too critical or not critical enough? Well, enough for what? Personally, I'm more interested in the quality of criticism than the amount. Insightful, constructive, well-thought-out criticism is precious to any creative person not blinded by ego, and I'd say there's never enough of that kind of criticism around. When it comes to empty, knee-jerk, sound-bite criticism, pretty much any amount is too much--for me, at least, and I imagine for WotC. Your mileage may and undoubtedly will vary.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I'm not sure 'high' and 'low' standards are useful here. Standards, in this case at least, seem to be a collection of requirements that something either meets or doesn't. For the char builder, I couldn't care less about it being online only because there is wifi everywhere I game. It's reported server issues make it fall under my requirements and so I haven't subscribed yet.

There is no wrong standard when it comes to buying non essential goods.

 

[Dausuul]

There is no wrong standard when it comes to buying non essential goods.

I don't entirely agree with this. People are not always perfectly rational, perfectly informed, and perfectly in tune with their own desires, and it is thus possible for a standard to be wrong if it does not accurately reflect your preferences.

For instance, maybe you think red hair is super-hot and you refuse to date anyone who isn't a natural redhead. In this circumstance it's quite possible, even probable, that you are assigning too much weight to natural hair color and discounting other qualities that would make you happy in a mate. There may be lots of people out there who would be well worth your time to date, but you overlook them because you're too focused on that one characteristic.

Where DDI is concerned, it may be that some people are applying inappropriate standards to meet their real preferences. But there's no way to know that without knowing what those real preferences are.

 

[Janx]

I'm not sure 'high' and 'low' standards are useful here. Standards, in this case at least, seem to be a collection of requirements that something either meets or doesn't. For the char builder, I couldn't care less about it being online only because there is wifi everywhere I game. It's reported server issues make it fall under my requirements and so I haven't subscribed yet.

There is no wrong standard when it comes to buying non essential goods.

I agree with your first paragraph, and Dasuu'ls retort to your second.

In the OP's case, he did mention a point on why he didn't buy 4e paper books, but indicated a reason why he still wouldn't use DDI.

I don't think it's standards, I think it's building a list of reasons against to support his conclusion that he doesn't want to do 4e.

Research exists that this is a common trait in humans. They make a decision in their irrational part of the brain, and then the rational part builds up evidence to support that reason. it doesn't mean they may change their mind, simply that the phenomena exists and we may not be away of doing it.

Case in point, would Kzach really not use a computer if Apple died, and all Mac's stopped working? Are Mac's that superior despite their still not good enough for him? or does he have some irrational bias that makes him a Comput-ist?

Consider the PC vs. Mac:
they both can write papers and surf the net (with pretty much the exact same software and interface)
the interface differences are superficial (somebody has no doubt written shell to mimic one or the other)
Mac's according to legend, are more reliable (fewer virus threats, hardware consistency)
PCs are more prevalent (cheaper, so more were bought)

That's it in a nutshell, with hopefully minimal bias by myself. If Kzach barely tolerates a Mac, given how few differences there really are, he's got a hidden set of expectations or requirements).

In my world, I don't have a choice. I use computers every day to do my job. And my job, for a very long time, has been the promotion of computers to solve problems (I write software, and for 13 years, I worked for a computer company). That may be my bias. The first computers I used were Apples, including the very first Mac. I have one in my closet, it runs OS7. But Macs are pricey, and PCs are good enough to play games, write papers, surf the net, and write programs to solve business problems (including the cost for servers, and deploying clients to the staff to use those programs).

To my eye, Kzach hates computers or has some unspoken expectation of them that may be unrealistic, and thus they will fail to measure up. I'm OK if he hates computers (and really, what does my feelings on his feelings matter). Probably, because it's a pure emotional response that can be acknowledged as such. i hate green beans, eggs and mushrooms. Since you know I'm not rational about it, it doesn't have to fire your "let me persuade you" circuit.

Conversely, if Kzach has some unspoken expectation that the computer may never live up to, we get into a wierd debating mode. Because my brain is trying to fathon what his logical argument is, because he's presenting himself as if he has one.

I'm using Kzach and his mention of Computers as an example, not as a debating point on how he actually feels (or doesn't feel).

My point is, when somebody says I don't like X for A, B, and C reasons, that doesn't mean there isn't an emotional driver for not liking X, and A, B and C are just excuses to rationalize the decision.

And for the record, I don't like Grean Beans, Eggs or Mushrooms because they taste bad. And Eggs smell bad. And Mushrooms just creep me out.

 

[Sunseeker]

"we", not being a collective, have a wide variety of standards.

I'd say my standards for D&D are fairly low.

Can I build a character in an hour or less?

Will my character be fairly balanced with others of the same style?
(damage, tank, heals, ect..)

Can I enjoy the game with friends?

Can I play the game twice without it getting repetitive?

For the most part, those answers are "yes". Reason being, I probably take D&D a lot more liberally than most, I'm not a rules lawyer, and none of my friends are. If I can wave my hand while gaming and "do something" that is balanced within the context of the game, then I'm happy.

For me, D&D is about having fun, as long as at the end of every session, I had fun, then I don't really care about the quality, the logic, or the overall design of the game. Obviously, it worked. I'm happy.

To this day, there have only been three things that have left me feeling unhappy at the end of the day.
1: The "soloer". That one guy who has built their character in such a manner as to not need the party. Roles and suggested groups exist in 4e to mitigate this problem, but it always happens. Sometimes it's 'cause they're a friend of the DM, soemtimes they ARE the DM, sometimes they're just a power-player who doesn't understand "group play".
2: "oldschool" players. Though I rarely run into them, when I do, it's generally because their buddy has convinced them to try the latest edition, and they WONT shut up about how horrid it is. "back in such and such we could do this!" "when I played 20 years ago, we didn't have that!" Then of course, because they don't bother to learn the game, they do poorly, feel worse, complain louder, and then are the poorest sports I've ever seen.
-Note: if you're willing to try, and ignore what you don't like long enough to enjoy the game, you're not in this group.
3: politics/religion. it pops up, I don't mind the odd joke, even if it's in poor taste, but some people REALLY just take it too far.

And none of those things stem from the game itsself. Certainly you could blame "changing the game" as the cause for the 2nd one. But I still think that your attitude is yours to choose, NOT a result of the game.


My philosophy can effectivly be summed up as "At the end of the day, do I feel good, or bad?/did I have fun?" And this can be applied to everything from cars to food to D&D and computers. Sure, I've got low standards. But "fun" is my key word there. I can have fun with anything, but I'll readily admit that some things are much LESS fun than others.

If I had to make a claim about D&Ders in general, on this forum at least, I would say the "vocal minority's" standards are too high.

 

[Thasmodious]

I agree with Janx. Not to harp on some kind of Mac vs PC debate, but its a silly example. There is simply not a situation where a Mac meets some bare minimum requirements that a PC does not, unless those requirements are an Apple logo and Steve Jobs blessing. Both are capable of the same basic and advanced operations. Hidden criteria make it difficult to assess whether standards are too high or low.

Without knowing what the "minimum" standards are kzach expects from digital gaming offerings, the question can't really be answered. But the conclusion that the paper offerings are not sufficient because minor tweaks are distributed digitally seems like a faulty one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In my opinion, if you don't like Apple or Windows, you should try Linux!

Not being happy with the options you have could mean you're not looking hard enough.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know If I can speak to a particular person's (or even "our") standards as too high or low, in such broad generalization. That assumes there's an objective measure of standards, rather than a set of personal preferences which are not objectively better or worse than another set.

Me, I don't much like the flavor of coffee, and will usually avoid coffee-flavored food or drink. That's not a high standard, just a personal taste.

I do see a whole lot of what I tend to think of as instances where standards are too... seemingly arbitrarily inflexible or specific. There's a whole lot of perfect* being the enemy of good.




*meaning, "matching my own personal specifications perfectly"

 

[nedjer]

Macs are bought and interpreted by buyers as lifestyle capital. As illustrated by this week's Techradar post. Mac buyers would weep if they could see what their $1000 delivers compared to PC performance.

Question is . . . are premium RPGs also a form of lifestyle capital?