Jimquisition: Friends

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Poor people who can't be Jim's friend :(

Nice veiled crack at the bible, btw. Thank god for you.

Jimothy Sterling:

Imp Emissary:

Jimothy Sterling:
Remember, I addressed the "pettiness" of the complaint in the video. This isn't just about friend lists -- the friends thing is merely the baseline example of how formulaic and outdated game companies are allowing themselves to be. Those complaining that this video is "just" about friend lists are kind of missing the clearly stated point.

On topic then; How manty other things do you think the games industry is still doing "just because"?

My guess is some where between 155-1005.

You could always watch roughly 50% of my Escapist videos to date for a nice selection. :-)

Jim. Where do you think I got that figure from? I have been watching your show since it first came on the Escapist.

The show, and you have only gotten better. :D

I think you're using the friends list for something other than it was intended. It was designed so you can keep in contact with friends you want to play games with. For the vast majority of users 100 is probably enough to fill that need. You seem to have a different need from what MS/Sony/etc are trying to solve. Its like bitching about your dishwasher not being good for cleaning your laundry. Both are just specialized tools designed to fill a particular need.

And where we say "friends", we could say "chest-high walls"...

Tangentially, it could be argued that the optimal number of "friends" anyone can have is around 150, and it'd have some merit if that was the reason argued by the industry when implementing these limitations... At least that's something you can debate on.

But, then again, let's cut them some slack, there is way too many generic shovelware that needs to be shit out for the Wii-U, they can't really be expected tackle these issues! :P

Where do I sign up for this insurance? Does it cover internet wankers? I did just buy a Wii U after all, so there's a lot of trolls who would not be missed by anyone if their throats were mysteriously slit...

Anyway, the friends list thing. 100 is kind of a small limit, but I've never cared because I tread it as a friends list, not a random people who like me but I don't know who they are list (my problem would be why do I want all these random people's Miiverse posts and online/offline notifications getting in the way of stuff I care about). I haven't had any problem yet with the follow feature on Wii U either (although I am only following 2 people so far), but that one having a 200 limit is stupid. 200 is two times more than the paltry 100 friends but still too small considering that there's no good reason for it. Yeah, I don't want anywhere close to 100 friends myself, but other people being able to have more friends doesn't hurt me in any way either so it's not like I'm against it. Fix it, Nintendo! Fix it, Sony! Fix it, Microsoft! You killed Xbox Live support for the original Xbox years ago, you no longer have a compatibility issue.

It's interesting that many comments posted in this thread assume that just because they don't have 100 friends that there is no way ANYONE would have 100 friends. We must remember that our own personal situation is not necessarily reflective of others. Furthermore, there are those outgoing individuals and people in public arenas (for example, Jim Sterling) that could easily have a need for such a large friend's list because they have a large following and need to maintain social links in order to maintain their own publicity. While I myself don't have anywhere near as many people to put on a friend's list, I do know that not everyone in gaming is a unsociable recluse or a shy introvert. Such people could easily push the limits of the 100 limit friend's list.

Another thing is that the concept of "friend" on the Internet has a very, very loose meaning compared to how the concept is regarded in real-life social interactions. Often on the Internet, "interesting person", "casual acquaintance", or "momentary associate" is enough to garner "friendship" status. Often, just someone you played a game with once and had a lot of fun playing with them is enough to obtain "friend" status. However, in real-life, obtaining the status of "friend" generally takes a long-term social interaction in which there is a build-up of trust, sharing, companionship, and emotional support. There's much more weight in the concept of friend in real-life, and because of the time and effort required, most people are likely to not have 100 real-life friends. But, because on the Internet, friendship has such loose regard and restriction, it is not usual for someone to develop a list of 100+ "friends", even though they only associate with those people briefly, compared to the much longer term basis of real-life friendships. Furthermore, Internet friendships tend to be brief, but not everyone makes the effort to prune their "friend's" list unless they absolutely have to (although, this could be a rationale for a limited size "friend's" list, to force pruning at SOME point); so, it's not unusual to have a grown list of dormant "friends".

I guess ultimately where I am going with all this is that people shouldn't assume that just because they themselves do not have a large "friend's" list, they shouldn't assume that it is not true of others. Public figures and high extroverted persons (yes, they do exist even in gaming) can easily develop large "friend's" lists. Further, the loose regard of the concept of friendship on the Internet can easily lead to extremely large "friend's" lists, even if those "friend's" are only a very brief association, because people quickly associate someone as "friend" and don't always prune their lists of dormant "friends".

Of course, the ultimate question, as several have voiced, is whether there is a real technical reason that the "friend's" list has to be of finite extent. If there is a technical reason, such as storage requirements, then it is reasonable that there should be a fixed size; however, the limit should be in proper proportion to the capacity of current technology, not technology of 10-15 years ago when a limit of 100 made more sense for reasons of technical limitations.

I see this video as being less about the friends aspect, which people are focusing upon, and more about the bullshit people in the industry will do just to follow their competitors.
Why 100? Because they did it and it worked.

This is a problem I've never even heard of. I have like... 6 friends on steam, one of whom lives under the same roof I do. I would be annoyed if I received friend requests from across the globe from people I've never met.

Still, it's true that there's no reason to put an arbitrary limit on such things. That would be like putting a hard limit on how many applications you install in an OS, instead of letting it just utilize the hardware it's on to the fullest.

mjc0961:
Where do I sign up for this insurance? Does it cover internet wankers? I did just buy a Wii U after all, so there's a lot of trolls who would not be missed by anyone if their throats were mysteriously slit...

Oh god, you spent money on that? seriously why would you do such a terri- OH GOD HE HAS A KNIFE SAVE ME!!!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist, on topic now, I have to admit, I didn't even know there was a limit to the friends list. Back in the days of yore, when a friends list really was just used for networking with real life friends because the idea of playing games online still got you labelled as a basement dwelling nerd with no life, an arbitrary limit to prevent server stress made sense. Nowadays it's like Hollywood and any other big business, still too scared to admit that their outdated practices and policies just won't survive this bright new world, and so they bury their heads in the sand, refuse to change, and will get left behind as soon as someone not afraid to change comes along.

A lot of Jim's potential friends seem to be terminally ill - it says "Expires in 26 days" under their names. This is a matter of life an death, people! Can't Nintendo grant these dying people one last wish of online friendship in their remaining days?

Sound wisdom my friend and fine example of englishmanamericanness.... yea well your amazingness was too great for little old england i guess and it does rain here and unholy amount.

I think facebook has different statuses for celebrities, brands, groups etc. So for example, the facebook page for Minecraft probably has a much larger friend limit then the facebook page for Acer...or your mum.

Though in Acer's case it's probably less that they don't have a greater limit, and more that nobody likes their terrible laptops.

Been said a few times, but I don't agree with Jim here. I think the PR will say that people need to friend only people they personally know. And I doubt many can name 100+ people, by name, along with what they're known for, birthdays, etc.

And I don't see why raising the friend limit would be such an innovation. I do agree that companies shouldn't stick too much with old tradition, but I think Jim also used once the phrase "If it's not broken, don't fix it" in another context. I guess the solution would be to do something like re-evaluate whether a certain practice still makes sense in this age and what changing the practice would do. (Laziness trumps philosophy)

I wasn't even aware this was a thing. I had anywhere between 250-300 friends on xfire back in the day and my GW friend's list was almost always more or less full. So if the limit is 100 it needs to be higher.

Well apparently the friends limit on Steam is about 300 or so, not including facebook. Not unlimited but still three times more.

I'd think with more twitter and facebook integration that companies would take the hint that we will add anyone we can.

Jimothy Sterling:
Friendships are precious things that allow us to get through this horrific maelstrom we bitterly call life.

Fair warning, Mr. Sterling: You may have a reasonable point somewhere in there, but every time you go off on a Christophobic rant I stop watching your video.

On topic: This seems to be another area where consoles deviate from PCs for no other reason than because they can - along with things like proprietary 200%-markup hard disks and ads-on-the-dashboard. The Wii U sort of puts a cap on the whole affair - Nintendo had six years to learn from its predecessors' mistakes, and what did it do? The same thing all over again. Bad N. Bad. Being a generation behind graphically doesn't mean you have to be a generation behind functionally, too.

You like your two dollar gloves don't you Squidward?

who the hell has 100 friends on a console? The most I ever had on xbox live was 5. Honestly, the only people who I think are affected by this are the same kind of facebook friendwhores with over a thousand friends who just get off on showing other people how many friends they have.

I think the friend limit should be 10 so that people might stop abusing the term "friend" to mean "people I've not exchanged ten words with and don't give a shit about". Not only would increasing the friend limit hardly qualify as innovative, it wouldn't even affect 99% of the player base. While I would agree that the industry is stagnating in a lot of ways, I don't think this is an example of that stagnation. A bad example on which to base your argument, although I have a feeling this was more of an apology video explaining why you haven't added your fans as friends.

This friends number thing seems to be a famous people problem. I have 10 friends that I play games with regularly. I see no reason to add random people I come across.

Your outfit is nice, probably the third best thing about the show.

I think the first is the topics.

Second being you?

I think that works.

I can see your forearms above your gloves. I'm wondering where the sleeves of your shirt end.

Anyways Jim, I don't think this video is as topical or incisive as your other recent attempts, but it was still a fun watch. My opinion of you has skyrocketed of late and this won't put a dent in that.

As for the content - putting aside my never playing games online and having long since lost the ability to make friends with avatars - I don't really understand the friend limit in the first place. It seems to fly in the face of form for the industry to try and impose some kind of moral (moral? maybe 'social') standard or expectation on it's users. "We think you're all shallow to have thousands of friends whom you've never met on facebook so we're going to place a limit on how many you can have here", I don't get it. Generally their moves are calculated to foster addiction and encourage repeat customer'ship. Weird!

Furthermore, I'm intrigued to know the reasoning behind Microsoft doing it with the original xBox (bless it), maybe it was more to do with the quality of most people's connections back then, or just the service that they could provide. Facebook wasn't out back then but I'm pretty sure myspace was...

Ahem!

Alright, so the industry is comprehensively underhanded. It turns out that Solution Alpha for all challenges in mutli-million user gaming is the path of least resistance. Kinda funny how close to my big problem with gaming that is - 'path of least resistance' = 'streamlining' = 'casual appeal' = Shit Sequels.

In summary; interesting enough video, but complaining about the gaming decision makers disrespecting their users or just going about things in a wacky and ultimately sinister/negative manner is not as incisive, or really as relevant, as some of your other more recent videos.

This is an interesting point that I've never thought of... that doesn't affect me. =(

I wish I could be like Jim at the end, showing my massive friends list to my mother.

*obligatory Forever Alone*

Jimothy Sterling:
Snip

I heard that PS3 has steam, couldnt that possible work as a temporary work-around? Youknow, extra friendlist and group-making tools.

If you have a PS3... And have the same problem on the PS3.

gardian06:

Jimothy Sterling:
Remember, I addressed the "pettiness" of the complaint in the video. This isn't just about friend lists -- the friends thing is merely the baseline example of how formulaic and outdated game companies are allowing themselves to be. Those complaining that this video is "just" about friend lists are kind of missing the clearly stated point.

you do realize that by basing the forefront of the argument on a what many would consider to be a non issue then it is more likely to be struck with a massive reducto-ad-absurdum targeting your base pillar, and thereby making the entire point just seem absurd. If you were to have started off by mentioning the part about Hulu, Netflix and used that as the base of your argument, and then moved on to discussing the friends list thing. Then it would have been less likely for such attacks to be as pervasive. but were it felt that the rest/majority of your poinient are argument was more or less in passing, and the limitation of the friends list seemed to be the core it feels like it is the only point being stated.

eh i like ya jim
but i have to agree with his guy, that's just basic forming an essay correctly.
i believe what your saying, but when you throw your actual point in at the end after all that passionate nagging, it kinda seems just tacked on. to make it seem like your point isn't as small and personal as it might be, and just there to justify putting an episode around it.

a rare miss Jim. I see your over all point, and even on diablo 3 I think I'd only need about a 100 friends lol.
For a system? far less. I mean who uses a system for a mmo.

oh if your gonna keep the gloves can you get some kind of brand on them? your pic.

fyi Jim if you have a bigger point to make, just make the bigger point. you don't have to prove how clever you are Jim. We know promise.

I should be able to use the Friends system to add many many people for different games; some of my friends don't like this game so they wont play it with me and others don't like that game. I should be able to have a System that allows me to play with random People and follow those with which i had a good Experience. Not everyone of which would be necessarily my Friend as it where and why would anyone assume to be able to assess who and why i would declare a "Friend".

In Reality, i have a lot of Aquaintances and few good Friends. I couldn't even keep up with all of them if i had 100 Friends. But i'd like to use the Friends system to get together with the People that play this game and then the other Game.

About the intro bit, People who laugh at you for buying new shit: I am one of those People.
We have quite a fast technology cycle already and if throw many at a Company with questionable Business politics despite not really needing their Product, you deserve to be laughed at.

Bought new Iphone5? Why? Is the old one broken? If that's the Case, why not buy any other Phone instead that thing which is apparently far too flimsy for a device that you should be able to carry around whereever you go. And if the old one is perfectly fine, do you really need the new Functions bad enough to warrant the Money you throw at the company?

That goes for every Phone and pretty much everything. I'm constantly annoyed at the buildquality of many modern devices and People who are ready to buy replacements whenever the Company says so aren't really helping the Case.

So, Mr. Quisition, Jim, you're welcome to try and slit my throat. But be warned that a human throat might be too sturdy for modern cheapo knives to slit.

canadamus_prime:
Ok I have to ask, if you could have 10,000 friends how many of those would you actually keep up with? I mean really? Like maybe 10. 20 at most. I'm surprised if you keep up with all 100 that you've got. Having more "friends" is mostly for bragging rights, it's not as though you keep in touch with all of them or even most of them.

Let's be honest. When it comes to gaming platforms, "friend" basically means "somebody who I enjoy playing games with." It doesn't necessarily mean you want to get to know each and every one of them personally. And that's more or less how I treat my gaming friends lists - much the same way a philanderer keeps a little black book of booty calls. Sometimes I just want to somebody to play Left 4 Dead with at 2am and have some fun. I'm not much of a multiplayer gamer, and I don't even know exactly how many friends I have on my Steam account, although I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 100 (and that was a mere statement of fact, not a boast). Yes, there are only a few people on that list I have actually gotten to know, but mostly I just use my friends list as a jumping off point - I can see who's online, and I can jump straight into a game safe in the knowledge that at least one or two people in that game are people I'm going to have fun playing with (or against).

Jimothy Sterling:

canadamus_prime:
Ok I have to ask, if you could have 10,000 friends how many of those would you actually keep up with? I mean really? Like maybe 10. 20 at most. I'm surprised if you keep up with all 100 that you've got. Having more "friends" is mostly for bragging rights, it's not as though you keep in touch with all of them or even most of them.

If you have that many friends, maybe you're popular enough that the 10,000 would like to keep up with YOU. In my case, maybe I won't have a close relationship with everyone on my list, but I still feel bad that I can't add them all. It's not nice having to reject requests, and I think anybody who ends up joining big communities online will feel the same way.

So you want live services to act like another twitter or facebook? Aren't these already on consoles? Your request seems very journalism-centric. The live services were designed to replace the sitting in a room and playing together and they are rounded enough to support larger events like tournments and simulate LAN parties. The common man's needs are already being fulfilled, and as there plenty of platforms from bloggers and their fanbases already available, I don't see the need to appropriate another system that was never designed for it in the first place.

Sterling is right on the subject but... This episode was sort of a letdown, that didn't feel like a strong subject to tackle...

CAPTCHA:

Jimothy Sterling:

canadamus_prime:
Ok I have to ask, if you could have 10,000 friends how many of those would you actually keep up with? I mean really? Like maybe 10. 20 at most. I'm surprised if you keep up with all 100 that you've got. Having more "friends" is mostly for bragging rights, it's not as though you keep in touch with all of them or even most of them.

If you have that many friends, maybe you're popular enough that the 10,000 would like to keep up with YOU. In my case, maybe I won't have a close relationship with everyone on my list, but I still feel bad that I can't add them all. It's not nice having to reject requests, and I think anybody who ends up joining big communities online will feel the same way.

So you want live services to act like another twitter or facebook? Aren't these already on consoles? Your request seems very journalism-centric. The live services were designed to replace the sitting in a room and playing together and they are rounded enough to support larger events like tournments and simulate LAN parties. The common man's needs are already being fulfilled, and as there plenty of platforms from bloggers and their fanbases already available, I don't see the need to appropriate another system that was never designed for it in the first place.

I agree with Captcha, the idea of PSN, Xbox Live, etc is to simulate the LIVING ROOM, the arcade feeling is already fulfilled by simply playing with a complete stranger for the duration of a game; and even in social networks I feel most of us add a lot of people we aren't really friends with.
I deleted my Facebook account over a year ago, for instance, because suddenly I saw myself in a sea of "happy birthday Marcello" people whom i barely knew and wouldn't even say hello to me in a common day, but somehow felt the urge to congratulate me (and each other) all the time over Facebook, I realized I didn't know most of those people enough to call them COLLEAGUES, let alone FRIENDS: the other day (last Saturday in fact) I was having dinner with my girlfriend and this guy who frequented the same college I did shows up, we didn't say hello, we didn't nod to each other, nothing, I don't even know his fucking name, but I remember having him added on my Facebook account, how WRONG is that?! I currently have Twitter and Instagram, and I deny people from following me like a fucktard, I don't want another tangled mess, I know very well the people I like and the really like me, and I will follow them ONLY. In XBox/PSN I tend to extend that only as far as to include the handful of people I usually play with.

orangeapples:
This friends number thing seems to be a famous people problem. I have 10 friends that I play games with regularly. I see no reason to add random people I come across.

I'm not famous and I've got 116 people on Steam. Roughly half is from my TF2 clan, as it's nice to be able to get in touch with the people I play with as well as admins when people are being dicks on the servers and I need them to dole out a permaban. Then I've got a bunch of people I play Arma 2 with from Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Then there's some real life friends and a bunch of people I've just hit it off with over the years.

You don't need to be famous to have more than 100 people on your friends list. Just sociable and member of various communities.

Edit: Aside from that: all you people who only have 5-10 friends, why are you against upping the limits? How would it in any case hamper your enjoyment of anything that Jim or others could add more than 100 people? Why do you care how others use the friends system? Can nobody enjoy it their way, just because you enjoy it a different way?

geizr:

[...]
Of course, the ultimate question, as several have voiced, is whether there is a real technical reason that the "friend's" list has to be of finite extent. If there is a technical reason, such as storage requirements, then it is reasonable that there should be a fixed size; however, the limit should be in proper proportion to the capacity of current technology, not technology of 10-15 years ago when a limit of 100 made more sense for reasons of technical limitations.

The limit is there because that enables them to cut cost and to predict and scale the hardware needed for the friends
service.

In this age of social networking via so many mediums, it seems unbelieveably limiting to only have 100 friends maximum. I wouldn't have 100 unless I start making friends online and during online play at a torrential pace, but I see Jim's point. The strain on resources to provide an unlimited friends list cannot be that taxing, and there are many more of us under 100 friends than Jim Sterling's needing perhaps a few thousand to add everyone. I am absolutely sure that if you looked at the number of unused friend slots still available, they could accomodate the needs of the people with or desiring a large list of friends.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here