Jimquisition: Friends

[proghead]

Well, who will ever need more than 640KB RAM, right? RIGHT?!?!

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It's a fair point on a technical perspective, but I wonder: why are we allowed a hundred "friends" to begin with? I'm lucky to have six ACTUAL friends on my Steam list! Not, you know, "I met you online and you didn't suck at TF2 and you didn't act like a douchebag, so you get friended" material - ACTUAL friends.

People I talk to every single day. People I've worked with. Family members, in some cases, even. SIGNIFICANT people.

So yes, while I do agree that the Friends list is a fitting metaphor for the lack of innovation in modern gaming, that isn't really what I'd call a glaring issue. Jim is fairly lucky - nay, blessed - to consider that he's forced to deny friend requests because he's hit a software cap I will NEVER in all my life even come remotely close to approaching.

As for companies not being innovative - big shocker, right? Gaming's all about shareholders and profits and Scrooge McDuck money pits, now. Why risk anything if that means your six-figure villa in Baja is at stake? Why risk anything when the industry proves us time and time again that what people "like" is brown, gritty modern military shooters?

The only folks who can risk it are those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Independent devs, for the most part. Young and small upstarts who need to actually innovate to be seen in the grey, formless mass which is the current market.

 

[Toilet]

Is this a thing worth getting upset over? These people are not your actual friends, there is a massive differentiation between a fan and a friend and that is why the following system is there. The odds of you playing games and communicating with these people is nil so whether you make it 100 or 10,000 the difference is completely arbitrary.

I will never be your friend Jim. I follow you on twitter like a fan but I will never be your friend.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Either way, doesn't bother me. I only have 2 friends on PSN, and don't use LIVE. Steam I have maybe 30, but that was mostly from trading (maybe 1/4 - 1/3 are people I actually know or play games with). I can understand other people have lots (especially in clans and things), but at the same time, I can see the limit for those people who just add everyone they see (like people do on Facebook).

 

[ConanThe3rd]

I get the feeling that there's some truth to that stinger given what Podtoid has revealed of Mrs. Sterling...

 

[OniaPL]

...Wait, what was this? I mean, the episodes have been weaker as of late, but now a whole episode about friends list limitations? Really?

For the love of god...

 

[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.

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.

I really don't want to know anything about your genitalia Jim. Anyway, I do agree that the 100 friend limit is arbitrary and more than a little outdated. However, I also fail to see the need to have such extravagant numbers of "friends" either. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a major Internet celebrity and don't play games online. Come to think of it, if I was a major Internet celebrity I'd probably ignore most of those requests on principle.

 

[CoL0sS]

Only 100 ? I rarely use my PS3 for online play, and I don't really add people I don't know, so I never noticed that cap was so low. I can agree that there is no pratcical need for that many friends, but it's ridiculous that neither Nintendo, nor Sony jumped at the opportunity to stand out; even with such a small thing. I suppose innovation is risky and expensive in the eyes of the shareholders, and isn't that a fucking shame.

 

[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.

I really don't want to know anything about your genitalia Jim. Anyway, I do agree that the 100 friend limit is arbitrary and more than a little outdated. However, I also fail to see the need to have such extravagant numbers of "friends" either. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a major Internet celebrity and don't play games online. Come to think of it, if I was a major Internet celebrity I'd probably ignore most of those requests on principle.

We can't all be working class heroes!

 

[GonzoGamer]

They're entering a wold of pain.
You didn't watch your friends die face down in the much so these fucking strumpets,
these fucking hoares, could limit your friends.

This is what happens Nintendo when you fuck a stranger in the ass.

 

[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.

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.

I really don't want to know anything about your genitalia Jim. Anyway, I do agree that the 100 friend limit is arbitrary and more than a little outdated. However, I also fail to see the need to have such extravagant numbers of "friends" either. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm not a major Internet celebrity and don't play games online. Come to think of it, if I was a major Internet celebrity I'd probably ignore most of those requests on principle.

We can't all be working class heroes!

Thank God for you, right?
Incidentally, love the gloves.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

While we're on the subject of arbitrary friend list features, why is it always "all or nothing" when it comes to sharing information with my friends? Everyone has their guilty pleasures, and it would be nice if we could divide our game library into "share" and "don't share."

 

[lazarus1209]

I think the Miiverse actually makes this a bigger problem now than it has been in the past, because I can now peruse users through the many communities - something not really open to PSN or XBLA users (at this moment - I bet they each have their own version on the next machines). The Miiverse opens the user up to more opportunities to make "friends" than they usually do - so it is completely possible to surpass 100.

 

[teh_Canape]

the gloves are classy
yes, they may stay

on a side note, I got a fuckload of steam friends
yet I only ever talk/play with about only 2 of them XD

 

[hickwarrior]

Well, having 100 people be friends to you is quite excessive, there shouldn't be a need to limit the friendslist in an arbitrary way. Unless, like Kuomon said, the tech doesn't support it.

I have one egregious example, but this is from dynasty warriors online, which launched quite a few years ago. In that game, you can't add more than 5 friends and that's it. Why? I haven't the faintest clue. Why is it restricted by even THAT much? What about people that want to add more people to that list?

Now that might have some part in a mechanic in the game that rewards you, but they could've just suspended that for about a day, maybe 2.

This is why we need to know why the arbitrary limit exists. I want to understand that situation, dammit.

BTW, I don't mind the gloves either way. To me, they are just kind of set dressing.

 

[gardian06]

This really does feel like a numbers thing, and realistically tracking a larger number of people is more difficult considering a server ping per instance followed by an update of the information, and then storing that information into active memory.

Still: fucking first world problems "I have to many friends, and they don't all fit on my friends list. I have to remember who they are other ways" Now if you will excuse me I think there is a steam sale going on that might be demanding me to spend $100+ good day.

 

[Legion]

If there are issues in regards to server limits etc. that would be acceptable for the free PSN and Nintendo's equivalent.

Microsoft on the other hand have no excuse when they are charging us £40 a year for the service, while stuffing it to the brim with advertisements. They can afford it, so we shouldn't have to put up with limits such as this. It's what pisses me off so much about Xbox Live. We pay for it, but the actual service is appalling.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

... unless we're talking about Ian "Island Face" Jones, whose head did literally become a small sub-continental landmass that was home to a very lovely couple, originally from Stoke-on-Trent.

Not the proper Stoke-on-Trent, I'm talking about the man called Trent who, for a brief period, hosted the entire city of Stoke up his arse.

Considering I moved to Stoke 2 months ago for University, I am glad that I did not have to see that. At the same time, I am also disappointed I did not.

OT: I'm not quite sure why there needs to be an arbitrary limit to be honest. They might say it's to keep data storage about people's info down or something, but if I can add half the fucking planet on Facebook, follow everyone and their dog on twitter and have them follow me back, then why must my video game console act as the oppressive mother who decides when I have enough friends.

How cunty does that sound? My console is saying I have "enough friends." God, my PS3 is such a ****.

Calumon: But... you can never have too many friends! Saying I can't have any more is being big fat meanies!

Sony: A big fat meanie.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

This really does feel like a numbers thing, and realistically tracking a larger number of people is more difficult considering a server ping per instance followed by an update of the information, and then storing that information into active memory.

Still: fucking first world problems "I have to many friends, and they don't all fit on my friends list. I have to remember who they are other ways" Now if you will excuse me I think there is a steam sale going on that might be demanding me to spend $100+ good day.

You're watching a show about complaints in the videogame industry ... and complaining about first world problems?

Wow.

 

[loa]

Honestly, friendlists are the last things I worry about since online play is the cancer of console gaming anyway.
If I want facebook, I'll go to facebook (spoiler: I don't)
I find the tradition of region locking a million times more irritating.