Jimquisition: Friends

[teh_gunslinger]

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?

 

[deffel2000]

[...]
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.

 

[themind]

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.

 

[Flames66]

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.

If he started with the less petty sounding gripes, he wouldn't receive as much hate in the comments and wouldn't have the opportunity to deliver as many pungent put downs and caustic counters. It is interaction with the community that makes internet celebrities so much more authentic than others, and saying things that make people want to respond is a marvelous way to achieve it.

 

[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.

A joke about the antiquity of the Bible is hardly a "Christophobic rant." Might wanna toughen up there, my friend.

 

[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.

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.

It's the *platform holders* that want their services to rival things like Twitter and Facebook. Microsoft's E3 performance revealed it wants the Xbox to be *the* center of our entertainment and networking, but the Xbox division is woefully unequipped to do that at this current stage. The 100 friend limit is simply the tip of the iceberg.

 

[RJ 17]

I've only got about 40 people on my friends list...half of them are never on, half of what's left are people I honestly don't know how/why I friended them, and the last 10 are people I actually know and play with.

I understand the overall message of saying that you shouldn't stick to something just because that's how it's always been done, but as to the point with friends list speciically...I don't know about everyone else, but as I said, half my list is random jerk offs that friended me because we had a good run on a Left 4 Dead campaign...I can only imagine someone as "famous" as Jim might have a full list...but how many of those people does he actually know and play with? :3

 

[Jenvas1306]

I doubt that this is a problem for a majority of people, but I understand the premise.
First of all, you could allways dense in your friends-list to people you actually play with, that probably saves the problem and I think is understandable for those with whom you have no contact for a month or so.
Secondary, if the limit of 100 is to prevent widespread spamming, why not have a system to unlock a larger friendslist for those who really need it. Something that minimizes the risk of abuse.

Maybe this is not the best example for the message of not sticking to a system cause everyone does it...

 

[sneakypenguin]

100 is pretty tiny, and yes you can fill one up pretty quickly even if your not "popular". Playing 4-5 online games and suddenly thats only about 20 ppl on your list per game (not much) now assuming ppl game pretty hardcore at 4 hours a day online, suddenly its mathmatically probable that you wont even have enough online with the game you chose to even field a full team. Now they want these consoles to be hubs of social and media consumption and 100 becomes even smaller and pointless.

you won't be besties with all your friends list but thats not what a friends list is for in this gaming sphere. You use it to keep track of ppl you liked playing with across multiple games, or to field full custom games with people you know. Or just allow people to keep track of you.

100 just makes 0 sense any way you slice 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.

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).

Ok let me rephrase that, are you really going to be playing with all 10,000 (hyperbole) "friends" on your list? Are you going to get around to playing with all of them even once? I don't think so. While I admit that having such a limit is more than a little arbitrary and backwards, but you have to be honest with yourself, do you really need to have all that many friends on your list? Maybe it's just me, but I hate getting friend requests from random people I don't know and have never had so much as a conversation with, and that's here on the Escapist, I can't imagine taking my consoles online and getting random friend requests there.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

ITT: Jim and some blind follower not knowing the difference between a friend and a person he has talked to/met/saw him once.

EDIT:
Maybe Jim actually just wants that people can subscribe to him and follow him like on Twitter?
Tho I think that limiting anything is stupid, I really don't see any rational reason for having over 100 friends. I don't know why no company made it so that good people are rewarded while bad are punished. If you get reported a lot, your friend list shrinks to only 20, if you get commended a lot for being nice, friendly, forgiving... your friend list capacity increases to 200, maybe even 500...

And for the problem that Jim has (he won't keep up with his 10k "friends", but he is popular so the 10k want to keep up with him), add a subscription option. They can stalk.

 

[girzwald]

I'm quite shocked the brilliant Jim of the Jimquisition couldn't come up with the most obvious answer why there is a 100 friend limit. Data storage. 100 was probably just a good benchmark because nobody, nobody has that many actual friends. Was it just too obvious so you overlooked it, or were you just leaving it out so you could scream at the big game companies with some sort of righteous indignation? While I highly suspect they could afford it, Jim, I really doubt they want to pay for you to have 10,000+ "friends" and everyone else who plays Xbox, PSN, etc to do so as well. You complain to us about whining about petty stuff. Take some of your own advice. Save your 100 friend slots for actual friends and people you want/need to keep in contact with.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Well, the gloves do give a much more authoritarian presentation of you, and they fit the red/black theme in place. Can't really speak to the 100 friend limit, as I'm not much of an online multiplayer, and am fairly happy with the 22 friends I have on PSN at the moment.

 

[Mel Theofficegamergirl]

loved the glove rant at the end, and the bit about how your mum has no friends.

As for the friend limit, I agree that it's completely stupid, but I have a theory as to why they do this. You know, like not everyone games online, and people have to purchase the ability to use features like facebook and twitter on their consoles right? Maybe they have that limit so more people will purchase those services. . .Which is stupid. That's what a computer is for.

 

[Akimoto]

Personally I can think of something else that bugs me more - EULA.

I took the time to read Apple's EULA and discovered that they no longer took responsibility for any of their apps. Furthermore, game EULA and consoles often state that we, the paying, honest customer, only bought the right to use it. Why is it not mine to own? Why are games and related consoles treated differently from, say, cars? Or my pet fish? Or my books?

Jim, save us!

 

[Ashley Blalock]

When it comes to things like video my X-Box 360 does feel downright antiqued compared to something like my little Roku box. By the time I can fire up the X-Box, dig around for the right menu, the right app, and then search for a program I could have been watching Netflix, Hulu Plus, an Amazon video on the Roku because it's always on and no crazy navigation to get to your entertainment destination. The home button on the Roku box makes it so much quicker to change from something like Hulu to Netflix.

The only thing that bothers me about the gloves is that I keep thinking Jim doesn't want to leave any finger prints when he ends up killing someone.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's a non-issue for me on consoles (I own a Wii, 360, and PS3. I only have 3 friends. All of them are on the 360 and I could really just delete them all since we don't interact anyway). If Steam did that, it would be a problem. I know I have at least 80, and that number grows as I add regulars who play on my clan's TF2 servers. So yeah, that would suck because I do communicate with the majority of those people (not regularly on an individual level, but from time to time to pass along info or provide assistance). So I could see people who play online a lot on consoles having a problem like that with the restriction.

 

[Urh]

Ok let me rephrase that, are you really going to be playing with all 10,000 (hyperbole) "friends" on your list? Are you going to get around to playing with all of them even once? I don't think so. While I admit that having such a limit is more than a little arbitrary and backwards, but you have to be honest with yourself, do you really need to have all that many friends on your list? Maybe it's just me, but I hate getting friend requests from random people I don't know and have never had so much as a conversation with, and that's here on the Escapist, I can't imagine taking my consoles online and getting random friend requests there.

Every one of my Steam friends are people I've played with at least once, more often than not I've played with them multiple times before sending/receiving a request. While I don't explicitly *need* every single one of them, I keep them around nonetheless - having a decent-sized pool of people I like to play with means it's more likely somebody's going to be online if I ever get a hankering for some multiplayer. Everybody's definition of a decent-sized friend list is going to vary, primarily depending on how many different games one plays, and how often. I don't want to have to worry about an arbitrary limit the next time I think "Hmmm, this guy's pretty cool. I think I might want to play with him some more." List management should ultimately be the end-user's prerogative (and some people will have more discipline than others in this regard).

And finally, rejecting friend requests barely rates as a bother to me. The fly buzzing around in my room right now rates as a bigger annoyance.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

yeah, I suppose particularly for the press and journalists that is a bit different. Might get annoying if you have that many contacts.
I don't have more than 10 friends in any platform, so it doesn't affect me much...
In any case, an episode on this?? REALLY?
I can tell you had an issue filling it up with content too when you started reading out your denied friend list.... really informative.....

I get that underlying problem of companies acting in a certain way simply because its the way it's done. Conformism, and lack of a propositive attitude. That could have been a more interesting subject...
As it stands, very weak episode Jim.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok let me rephrase that, are you really going to be playing with all 10,000 (hyperbole) "friends" on your list? Are you going to get around to playing with all of them even once? I don't think so. While I admit that having such a limit is more than a little arbitrary and backwards, but you have to be honest with yourself, do you really need to have all that many friends on your list? Maybe it's just me, but I hate getting friend requests from random people I don't know and have never had so much as a conversation with, and that's here on the Escapist, I can't imagine taking my consoles online and getting random friend requests there.

Every one of my Steam friends are people I've played with at least once, more often than not I've played with them multiple times before sending/receiving a request. While I don't explicitly *need* every single one of them, I keep them around nonetheless - having a decent-sized pool of people I like to play with means it's more likely somebody's going to be online if I ever get a hankering for some multiplayer. Everybody's definition of a decent-sized friend list is going to vary, primarily depending on how many different games one plays, and how often. I don't want to have to worry about an arbitrary limit the next time I think "Hmmm, this guy's pretty cool. I think I might want to play with him some more." List management should ultimately be the end-user's prerogative (and some people will have more discipline than others in this regard).

And finally, rejecting friend requests barely rates as a bother to me. The fly buzzing around in my room right now rates as a bigger annoyance.

It is for that reason that I'll agree that having such an arbitrary limit is stupid, but I'll never understand the need to have a billion (hyperbole) friends on your list. Then again, like Yahtzee, I don't like to play online multiplayer so there ya go.