Jimquisition: Friends

[Jimothy Sterling]

Friends

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

Watch Video

 

[TheScottishFella]

Hmm that's a fair point actually, I'm pretty sure a while back there was an article explaining the technical reasons for a limit to friend numbers, but I believe the reason is long outdated. To be fair though it's a non issue for myself as I rarely add friends of people I don't know, so there's that

Thank god for you Jim

 

[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.

 

[Blade_125]

I guess it's a sign my age that I see no reason to have more friends than I wuld actualy regularly speak to or play games with. I have 6 friends on the playstation network believe.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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.

 

[WildFire15]

A limit of a 100 friends is a bit pointless when I can't think of an outstanding reason why it shouldn't just be unlimited, but did it really need an entire video dedicated to it?

 

[linkmastr001]

I don't see the reason for the limit... not that I ever exceed 5... but yea, in their system I don't see how the limit could affect them. On your console, sure, but I can't see a friends list of 100,000 taking more space then most save files these days...

Also, people hated the gloves? I LOVE THE GLOVES!

 

[fwiffo]

I think steam has a friends limit as well. Maybe these people should talk to facebook/twitter about how to manage friends lists?

 

[leviadragon99]

Yeah... well defiantly holding onto outdated practices is a bad habit of more than just the games industry...

 

[Kuomon]

I'm curious to know what (and if there is) a technical reason why it was coded that way originally. Considering how hard all three companies are fighting for market space I think it's weird they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to add a new feature, so I'm sure their engineers had to have had some say in keeping the limit.

As for the people saying they don't care because they don't have than many friends, or because they couldn't keep up with all of the people they have made friends with, I think you're confusing personal need with Jim's point that there is no good reason to have the limit in terms of optimizing the console (unless, as I mentioned earlier, there is a technical reason behind it).

 

[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.

Ok, while I agree that the 100 friend limit is utterly arbitrary, I still think it's equally pointless to have like 10,000 friends on your list when you're probably not even going to communicate with half or even a third of them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I guess it's a problem for all them famous folk out there, I really couldn't give a damn.

I have at best 7 or so friends on PSN, and I hardly get in contact with them, though that's all on me.

And those gloves would be okay if only they were leather. Standard fabric gloves just sorta weird me out. Maybe due to me fobia of static electricity.

 

[2fish]

Jim this episode will count as the control episode. Now we must innovate and try other hand covering items until we find ones that work for you but increase the viewer limit. I think oven mitts would be the next logical step for a test episode. It may also serve as your break in move to become a chief chef.

Me and my 3-7 friends laugh at your issues we?laugh? between the sobs.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

A free asshole-throat-slitting service? Sign me u-oh, wait, I have no such pretentious friends. Sorry, Jim.
Just as well, he probably has more than 100 people on it already.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I agree with whoever said that no one has 100 friends they keep up with, play with or even talk to. I'm not exactly the most sociable person so I only ever talk to about 2 people on, say, Steam. But even if you are a really sociable person, you aren't gonna game and chat to 100 people.

You should be able to add as many people as you want, but it's not exactly a deal breaker for a gaming platform.

A limit of a 100 friends is a bit pointless when I can't think of an outstanding reason why it should just be unlimited, but did it really need an entire video dedicated to it?

It's another one of those ranting episodes, where we agree with pretty much everything he's saying even if there is nothing enlightening being presented.

 

[lord.jeff]

What are the other outdated practices that the friend limit is a sign of?

 

[Remus]

I have no friends. But I have comfy gloves. Guess we can't have everything.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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.

Ok, while I agree that the 100 friend limit is utterly arbitrary, I still think it's equally pointless to have like 10,000 friends on your list when you're probably not even going to communicate with half or even a third of them.

10,000 may be extravagant, but we should at least be able to agree that, like my genitalia, 100 is small and inefficient in a world of such expansive social communication. If you're a member of an online gaming forum, you can easily hit that limit.

It's the fact that it's 100, and only due to a sheer lack of imagination, that drives my problem with this whole thing.