Poll: Adult gamers: Would you pay extra to not have to play online with children?

[OldGus]

In fact, I have never actually heard that much bad stuff but then again I have ps3 and I feel that there are more mature people on PSN

No offense (and somewhat joking,) but I don't think its because there are more mature people, but rather because there are less people.

On another note, I just realized something I would gladly pay money for, even though it would be more of a game idea than a networking idea... Something where I could reliably play with only my friends, especially the ones I know in real life, and maybe bots. Or at the very, very least, play with my friends on the same team as me when I play online.
On that note... it would be interesting to see Ubisoft design some bots for the online multiplayer... actually, instead of continuing the sentence, I think I'll stop there. There are a lot of different ways it could be done, or ways it could be vastly improved or made more interesting, but just that much? That's enough. If they could research real player strategies applied in game (the people who run around the whole level as fast as they can killing anything they think is an enemy because more kills means more points vs. the people who carefully plan and try to out NPC everyone else because more carefully planned and skillfully done kills means more points per kill) and apply that to the bots, hey, that would make it amazing.

 

[unoleian]

It's called the mute button.
Then, if the game is intelligently made and griefing comes into play, you have the boot option.

I'm not paying money to do something I can do for free with the click of a button.

Also, captcha

SERIOUSLY?!

 

[octafish]

I kind of do. I have a PC and I'd estimate the average age of an online PC gamer to be about 28 in Australia, there are certainly a lot more older gamers than teenagers.

 

[s0p0g]

you mean, no-one under the age of 25 or somewhere around that?

must be heaven... ^^

 

[Johnson294]

No, there's very few annoying kids on PSN, and if there are, I just mute. Also, kids are usually worse, making it easier.

 

[Faux Furry]

There already is a Family section of XBox Live that children stray from, so why bother paying more money for something which will just go as neglected as what is already in place?
For most games, age isn't much of an issue if it matters at all. If some child combos me into oblivion in a (usually T-rated) fighting game, it just means that I really am in serious need of improving my skills.

Besides, most games have the option to boot co-op partners, anyway. If a co-op partner is too young for the M-rated game that I happen to be playing, he or she will have to find a new playmate post-haste.

 

[Anti-Robot Man]

I just mute anyone who annoys me, or just stick to party chat, or mute the tv altogether and listen to a podcast (which is a disadvantage while playing but I'd rather listen to something I enjoy).

Adults can be just as rude and annoying as children, probably more so in some cases, but the sheer shrillness of young Americans is particularly hard on my ears.

Would I pay for such a service? I'd be tempted, but I can't see it working that effectively.

 

[Raddra]

While the ideas is tempting, in action i've seen a lot of bad players who are 18+

 

[dex-dex]

I just turned 21
and I don't play online anyway and if I do I don't listen to them.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I would certainly say yes, if it was possible to extend the scope to general Douche-Baggery.

Alas, it is not to be, therefore, I just hope with all my might on a regular basis that my team match-ups give me at least two other player that CARE about playing smart... and fairly quietly...

Also, just a short rant to those who don't like camping:
1) Camping is generally what an actual soldier would do, if he was smart. You find a place to set up shop, and kill until it's compromised, then you move on.
2) Why go through the effort of running your ass all over the map only to have your spawn-point overtaken and be flanked then fragged eighty times in a row because you're focusing on the enemies that SHOULD be in front of you?
3)Why spend time running towards an enemy that already grasps this concept, and has killed you several times, when you (and hopefully your team) could hole up in one area, not dieing at all, and have your targets come to YOU?

Seriously, camping is one of the best game-play strategies there is. My best kill-streak ever was 18, and I was all alone in a large clearing, wide open, but I still killed every player on the enemy team 3 times before dieing. And this was in the first five minutes of the game.

Anywho, I'm done with my rant. Bottom line, and what led me to my rant in the first place is this: If it was possible to screen out EVERY stupid player in a game, leaving only those who aren't screeching into the mic, and are actually playing strategically, then hell's yes I'd pay for it.
Until then, however, we're all out of luck.

On another note. Most fun I've ever had in an online game: Every single player on both teams was camping, and every single player either had a sniper, or a scoped weapon. By the end of the game, my team only won by a hundred points and neither team had more than 2500. It was like a Mexican standoff, so amazing

 

[mexicola]

While I would welcome the screening out of juvenile elements, no I wouldn't pay money for it. Plus I don't have an xbox, so yeah.

 

[l3o2828]

Nah, i could just mute the little shits if they get on my nerves, or just ignore them entirely.

 

[buggy65]

Every 1 in 50 or so games I feel the need to mess with the kids for my own amusement. They annoy me and I troll them. Fair trade.

 

[MeatsOfEvil]

It sounds appealing...but it could never work. All this does is lump the poor together with the annoying, while the rich enjoy their own lobbies. With no safeguards against rich, annoying kids simply buying into those lobbies... maybe I'm just over-thinking it lol.

 

[Jzolr0708]

I like the assumption that all people under 18 are the issue. I've met just as many assholes that are adults as there are kids. And it's not possible to keep underage kid's out. They can't keep 17 year olds out of Liquer stores, how are they going to keep random anonymous people from lying.

 

[FalloutJack]

Not really. There's no guarantee that the adults won't be twats as well.

 

[Grotch Willis]

5$ a month? Great. You know the majority of people would actually do that? Kinda unfair on the kids who are good team players, who now have a significantly reduced playerbase to face off against. Especially in games that are declining in popularity- it would not be fair that being under a certain age meant access to less fun in-game.

Screw the kids, they have no right playing m rated games in the first place. letting children play m rated games in the first place, Thats just bad parenting plain and simple.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

This assuming the average adult player is any better behaved.

And no, as the mute button is free.

this

are you retarded?

maturity =/= age

there is this fancy thing called a mute, and there is this fancy thing called not being a bias dick.

i don't have a bias toward asians because they all play games 24/7 until they die from lack of food, do i? i don't immediately boot them from the room based on the fact they are so LEET i can't win?

online multiplayer is special for everyone, fucking deal with it.