Editorial: The “diminishing” fallacy

by Dan on August 2, 2010

I often don’t feel gamers have realistic expectations about this hobby, and this weekend, I found another shining example. Stand by for personal opinion.

I mentioned Blur on Twitter this weekend, complaining about high-level players hanging out in low-level lobbies and creaming the newbies — surely a sense of fair play would stop people from beating up on the younglings, right? Take some personal responsibilty and don’t be, as I called it, a douchebag. That led someone to comment that I shouldn’t be mocking anybody in the game’s “small, diminishing” community online — the insulting, unfounded suggestion being, you know, be thankful anybody is still playing your rapidly dying game.

Full lobby = Happy gamers

Small? Diminishing? What? Every time I log on to either 360 or PS3, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people online, happily racing away. So I turned on my Xbox 360 right then and there, fired up Blur, and on Sunday afternoon, found 1,013 drivers in the multiplayer lobby.

For reference, the number of people do you need to play Blur online, technically, is just two. The number of  people can you race with at one time in Blur is 20 (a console first), and those races are hilarious chaos. How many people were actually on at the moment of that flawed assumption? Fifty times more than you need to have the definitive Blur multiplayer experience. In fact, that’s 994 more drivers than I can even compete with in a race. I am absolutely not disappointed in that.

So when I Tweeted that number and questioned the “small” comment, I got three responses — all of which were some variation on “well, compared to Modern Warfare 2 and Halo, it’s small.”

Okay…but why are you comparing it to MW2 and Halo, since those examples are completely irrelevant? Those communities are unrelated. Compared to the critical and financial success of Titanic, The King of Kong is small — but I did not expect it to rake in billions of dollars. I did think it was a great film, and one I’ve watched more often and enjoyed more than Titanic, to be honest. Different films come with different expectations. So do people, for that matter — there’s only one Michael Jordan, and the rest of us are not lousy simply because he’s awesome.

Gamers, you cannot judge everything on one sole pinnacle example. Halo and MW2 and Gears of War are blockbusters, and different rules apply; those games have different expectations, both from the audience that play them and the people who made them. So to suggest that a game like Blur — and it could just as easily be any other game, like Hydro Thunder Hurricane or Puzzle Quest or even Steel Battalion — has an online audience that is “diminishing” because a handful of blockbuster games are more popular in pure player count, well, that’s very flawed logic at best and downright irresponsible at worst. It’s also more than a little arrogant — what, a game can’t succeed unless you play it?

I demand more players! MORE!

I’m going to invoke a mantra that a lot of gamers like to bring up: quality over quantity. When I sign in for multiplayer on any game, I just want a good time. As long as there are enough people online in Blur for me to have a satisfying race — generally 10 or 20 people, for my tastes — I don’t really care how many other people are logged on, because I’m not racing them right now. It’s great when I can choose from several lobbies, but why do I care about the people I am not racing? It’s like suggesting that you can’t have fun in a four-player game of Monopoly unless there are five or six other games going on simultaneously in the same room — that’s just stupid. When I play Blur, I want a handful of drivers looking for competition, like me. From Sunday afternoon’s quick glimpse, finding those drivers was clearly not a problem.

Still, I was curious. Before I left for work this morning — 8:30am Pacific — I fired up both the 360 and the PS3 to see how many people were playing Blur. Player count in the Xbox 360 lobbies: 773. I was expecting a lot less — I mean, Monday morning, right? So I switched over to PS3 and found…1,097. That’s even more than I found on Sunday afternoon.

Diminishing my ass.

But that’s not the point. The point is that each game has its own community with its own multiplayer expectations, and you can’t mix them up because they are different beasts entirely. As long as the game you play has enough players to meet your expectations online, nothing else matters.

  • http://twitter.com/Cynnthetic Cynn Smith

    Fantastic piece here. There's plenty of fluctuation that can be tracked between relative content releases that will show you slices of community health. There's almost nothing to be gained from comparisons cross content though. Technically MW2 is dying as well because of FarmVille popularity right?

  • http://twitter.com/litrock Matt

    I find this idea of all or nothing blockbuster or failure completely against what we stand for as gamers. We like niche products in a culture that has long represented doing your own thing in the face of difficulty (and sometimes ridicule). That gamers would become part of the problem saddens me. The fact is, as gaming continues to grow, especially in the console space, there are going to be more and more niche communities. There are PC games that have thrived for YEARS with only a few dozen hardcore, dedicated players. This aren't dead communities, but worthwhile expressions of the idea that if you want to play something, it'll be there for you.

    That's not really the point of this piece, I suppose, but I find it upsetting that gamers who should know better would go out of their way to pick fights and ridicule other games. Just because you like the top three games that win the numbers games in terms of sales or players doesn't equate to earning the right to be a twat about it. Gaming has never been about that exclusionary caste system, and I hope it doesn't start now.

  • Ender42y

    This is a great example of how a portion of the internet is so far up its own ass it can't tell truth from truthiness. All games start dieing x weeks after launch just because their is so much to play that everyone moves on after they get what they want out it: fun. I found MW2 boring after a few months and haven't touched it since the first DLC pack. By their logic the MW2 community is “diminishing”, but no one cares because their are so many thousands of players still there to fill my place that no one can even tell I'm gone. Not everything can hold a candle up to the “Halos” of this console generation so why try?

  • http://twitter.com/Zeb364 Bryce Zubriski

    I agree with almost everything you say here. The only point you made that I thought was a bit off track was that your fine with just enough players to race against. I need a few different decent sized lobbies to truly enjoy myself because that way I can switch it up from time to time getting new opponents and new challenges.

  • http://twitter.com/zigs00 Edd

    Compared to World of Warcraft, MW2 has barely anyone playing it online. Therefore, World of Warcraft must be the best game ever created and the only one game worth playing.

    All other games are WoW wannabes.

  • spiralgray

    Dan, you really have to learn to ignore the frothing fanboys. They are idiots, they will likely always be idiots, and no amount of logic is going to get them to change their minds.

  • http://twitter.com/pedgarcia Paulo Garcia

    I've been playing Blur almost everyday and I never had problems finding at least 10 players. Lately, 20 is a rule.
    Even the less populated modes, like the Hardcore Race (without powerups) has a lot of players. I tried it for the first time yesterday afternoon (wait!! it was holiday here in Canada!) and I didn't have problems finding a full lobby there.

    It is really unfair trying to judge a game comparing them with MW2 or Halo. Even XBox Arcade games like Battlefield 1943 have plenty of gamers to play with.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/CKQ73CZHQAEEMMJ4Q23IHV2OFE Amy

    Dan, I agree with you 100%. However, I worry that you take the snarky trollish comments on Twitter, comment pages and elsewhere on the 'net way too seriously. They were simply trying to annoy you and provoke a response, and they got what they wanted.

    The people who whine and gripe and snark all over everything online are a very vocal but very tiny minority of gamers. Most of us are just happily playing the games we enjoy (as you demonstrated with the Blur numbers) and could really care less what the pathetic fanboys have to say.

  • JeyNyce

    I wonder if these are the same people who believe in the “console wars”, sigh. Dan, they just wanted to get under your skin with their comments. Even gaming communities have a few apples in them.

  • http://twitter.com/Hellhog Christian Sutter

    Honestly, I see 1,000 people online as a small community. I don't compare it to the Xbox LIVE Top 3 games because those games have enormous amounts of gamers. There is a huge jump on the curve for those games. 1,000 is small though. It is enough to find a match to play, but in many games, when only 1,000 people are online, matchmaking can suffer. I've seen it before, such as the Medal of Honor Beta. Last time I played there were 1,000 online with 500 in each gametype. I couldn't find a match with enough people to play in one of the two gametypes.

    Of course, if you have no problem getting full lobbies, then there are plenty of people online for your needs. If Blur steadies at 1,000 then it isn't diminishing anymore. Of course the number of people will vary based on the times.

  • baeleth

    I can't agree more. I can see how there is probably a point where a lower overall number of players online could affect matchmaking, but it doesn't sound like that point has been reached yet. Blur seems like a game that is fun enough to keep a stable community for a while. That's far more than can be said for a good number of online games.

  • http://twitter.com/holyheadshot Chris Maeurer

    Fantastic points, and I point to the gaming communities as flourishing support for your argument. How many of us have heard podcasts and garnished our friends lists with people we have 'met' in those forums, simply because we know those people will follow the honor code when gaming online? Especially more so than the random people met in an online match? Had it not been for my friend's list, I would have long ago abandoned TF2, and the L4D games(sorry, PC gamer here, no XBL tag).

Previous post:

Next post: