Gaming, yes. It’s fun, right? Well, if you are following carefully about all the ins and outs about gaming, I think you can point out one thing about virtual gaming and “serious gamers” in particular. For some games, there exists a degree of complexity that essentially eliminates many potential participants. The differences between PC gaming, console gaming, and mobile gaming provide a good analytical point. Console gaming is more difficult to access than mobile gaming, so the demographic of such gamers is correspondingly narrower. Likewise with PC gaming, where you can assume due to the technical complexities of building a high-end PC, can be an even narrower demographic than console gaming.
Amidst the discussion of PC gaming, those games that encompass large and complicated virtual worlds, such as World of Warcraft, can have even narrower demographics. But, in my opinion, a notable example of an online game, technically a virtual “toy”, that is most complicated and limiting of them all? Second Life.
20190803/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
I first learned about Second Life through a Blender plugin that helps you build custom 3D models for this system. And that says it. In the MMORPG world, there are only a few game players who do spend time messing around with 3D graphics directly, and most never touch it. Here, we’re talking a world where messing with 3D graphics is considered more normal. And, on top of that, there is a relatively complicated system of finance and commerce inside the game, with users playing a direct role in running the virtual businesses, rather than simply using them from the consumer standpoint. Admittably, with all the tenets of what can be done in the Second Life world, the real world demographic must be very narrow.
Now, in the “See also,” there is one example of something similar, but based around simpler technologies and not as demanding of creativity of those involved. The result? It appears to be significantly more popular and more widely adopted.
20190803/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeet
So, yes, with that discussion, let me discuss some of my own thoughts. If you are building up a game (or “toy” for that matter) that is getting increasingly complex, and you are starting to worry that it might pass a technical complexity point where you’d be loosing potential participants, what can you do to keep the complexity in check? The big thing I am thinking is trying to avoid complex virtual manipulation. 2D graphical user interfaces are proven to be very easy to use. But, the moment you add the third dimension and expect users to be manipulating objects directly within it, that scares away many potential participants. This even holds firm regardless of the mainstreaming of the more advanced technologies that make 3D manipulation easier. The problem, as is seems, is that mainstream computer users simply don’t prefer that manipulation technology. There’s just something that still “clumbsy” about it like the light pen versus the mouse.
So, suffice it to say, rule #1 that is pretty much set in stone for now is that for your game to be accessible, it must not involve direct 3D manipulation in any way. On top of that, even 3D graphics can be a potential scare factor due to the implication of more complicated, more serious gaming.
Yeah, yeah, I know, the geek inside me is saying “Come on, that’s boring!” But yes, the truth is that many people are only willing to entertain a maximum degree of excitement in their games.
The other thing, about virtual currencies. Like I was saying, the simplest thing is a “consumer” currency model, with a basic means for earning and spending. But, I digress, and admittably there are a lot of accountants in today’s economy, so for that reason, it is perhaps more acceptable to entertain a more complicated virtual currency, and you’ll still be able to invite a lot of participants to the table. Besides, this still works out well with the requirement for 2D manipulation.