BlueTear

According to this page, the average american watches 28 hours of TV a week. I'd guess that number is about the same for most western countries. That site also uses an definition of addiction set forth by a professional, where as the link you posted asked the participants in the survey "Would you consider yourself addicted?". You mean, the statistic would be inaccurate because it doesn't take the 'free' players into account? It would be, due the composition of the respondants, statiscally misrepresentative? ... that last sounds surprisingly familiar.

You can use three year old data and still hit close to the mark. For example, data on the worlds total population is so sketchy three-year old data is more of the norm. But the reason why that survey is outdated, is because the MMOG market as a whole has changed. Let's take a look at the difference in size, using mmogcharts.com. At the end of 2002, the size of the market (with some exceptions) would be totaled to around 1 250 000 players. Today, that figure is: 4 250 000. The first value is about 29% of the latter. Now, using the worlds population as an example, taken from here and then going "back in time" using the same site til we hit 29% of that value, which is X/6 443 255 166 = 0,29... We're a few hundred million people short of two billion. Which would put us at... 1920-1930 or thereabout. If someone asked you about the worlds population and you said two billion, you'd be laughed at. If someone asked you for any demographic statistic of today and you used two billion as a the worlds total population, the statistic would be outdated. It's not so much about the time as it is the large changes since the study was done that renders it outdated. Say the aforementioned demographic would be "Are you poor?" and 3/4 of the respondants came from Uganda, you wouldn't get a nice statistic for the world even in the '30's. Definitely not now. Tell your teacher that the worlds population is two billion and use a study done with 3/4 of the participants in Uganda to back a statistic about the % of poor people in the entire world. Think you'd actually pass? This one. It's more likely to be wrong than not, but I'm interested in hearing how you would disqualify it. I mean, you can hardly whine about age and correct statistical representation in that study while completely ignoring the same things about the one you keep pampering as "evidence".

... which doesn't change that fact that it's outdated and statistically misrepresentative. Nothing you say, no other links anyone else may post except those that lead to a new study reaching across more games is going to change that. It's a not a valid source; It's outdated and statistically misrepresentative. Again; Outdated and statistically misrepresented statistics does *not* count as "evidence". That's a personal opinion of mine, not evidence. I don't try to pass it off as evidence. (And that math really sucks if you hope to hit 10 or thereabout)

QFE. Definitely recommend the last three as they belong togheter and doesn't really require you to read the others.

Seeing as actual explanations based on reality didn't hit home, I'll stick to responding with; No, you don't.

... unless someone changed something when I wasn't paying attention, double-digits starts at 10, as opposed to 9, which is single-digit. Uhm... No. If we agree that 50% is an inaccurate figure for MMORPG's as a whole (although it *was* probably a darn accurate figure for EQ when he made it) because different games will attract different people who are more or less likely to end up in the addicted category, there's no factual evidence that taking these - as well as the changes in the market since 2002 - into account will go above 50%. Or in other words, No; You're presenting the "statistical evidence" that everyother MMORPG player is addicted by by making up a number that says that more than half other players in certain games are addicted. You still don't have any statistical evidence coorelated with realitity that's up to date, or was even accurately describing the market as a whole when it was new. I can - and am - arguing against your "evidence". MMOCharts, which I did link to, aswell as the methology page on related to the nickyee.com link you posted. He managed to cover all the major - american-european markets at any rate - MMOG's of back-then (AFAIK anyway), to a lesser and greater degree. Well, it could be the fact that if I were to say 'you' in real life (which I rarely do, seeing as english isn't my native language) the fact that I would spell it 'u' in MSN in no-way shows that I lack social skills. And have you ever listened to a real conversation, and I mean listened as in what you're actually saying and not what you mean? Anyone who passes through a regular day of social interaction at work, school, whatever, will break grammar rules and no one will notice, because we always do that. A correct verbform is replaced by bodylanguage, or the context. You don't talk grammatically correct even if your social skills are top-of-the-line. ... but that's moving away from the topic. Actually, you gave me an example of how SWG was a waste of time compared to spending the same time on the stockmarket and make money, on page... 3. Look for the post where you called me stupid and self-centred. Agree, of course. Depending on the player, the game may be more stressful than fun. My participation in this thread goes something like (excluding sarcasm); MMORPG's that sharpens your mind. Poor people being smarter Noting that making money isn't everything. Social skills and MMORPG's Me whining over statistics. More there-are-more-things-than-money Me doing even more whining about statistics More there-are-more-things-than-money Now, which of these do I need to see it from an addict's point of view to argue? Three years old statistics where 3/4 of the participants come from a single MMORPG that can in no way be considered typical in type and target audience for the market as a whole (as well as the size of the market today) does not qualify as evidence. As I said, I don't doubt that there are people who are addicted to MMORPG's (but the originial checklist in this thread may not be the most ideal way to figure out, nor some of the ways recommended in some of the other links). But they are nowhere near as common as you'd like to think. (As a sidenote, I'd like to note that I believe RS - due the grinding and easy access system among other factors - is a game where you're more likely to find real addicts than in your "average" MMORPG of today)

How does grammar relate to social skills? Well let's, then. The statistic originates from two survey's. Links to these were posted throughout the Stratics, Lore and Vault MMORPG networks during 2002. Of the respondants, no less than 79% were EQ players. Can we agree that depending on the style of the game, some people will find it more attracting than others? Differences include the game focus (combat, crafting, loot, questing), game layout (is it repetitive, interesting, does it have in-game lore?) and of course fundamental design issues. Such as, well, grinding. RS has the qualities of a game focused on the grindgame (... or was last time I tried it...) where advancing in skills is done by grinding that particular piece of experience. EQ has some of those elements aswell. Other MMORPG's have other focuses; Finishing the characters skill set is relatively fast (although still a grind) and allows quicker - with less time spent - action at the top tiers of the playing field. Now, some people - of a certain type - will prefer different MMORPG's with different focuses. Right? Some will like EQ more than another MMORPG due to elements in the game design. If the players of different MMORPG's can be said to be similar, yet they have some traits that make them play *that* specific game, is a survey with almost 3/4's of the participants origininating from one game really statistically representative? I could make a survey I'd call "Do you like Star Wars?", get 72% of the responses from the SWG forums, then the rest from assorted forums. Would my answers be severly inflated by the fact that I asked on a Star Wars game? Of course they would. Because of the inherent game design, the game is more likely to attract people of a certain type. Just like EQ. Then, there's the fact that the survey is taken from 2002. This means the MMORPG market has yet to see the launch of WoW, SWG or EQ2 as well as several smaller MMORPGs. According to www.mmogcharts.com -> total subscriptions (whom, by the way, lists RS as having more paying subscribers than EQ2(!)), the total amount of players in the MMORPG's he deals with has more than doubled since 2002. That means there are today, as opposed to when that survey was made, more than one million additional people styling themselves as MMORPG players. Even *if* we assume the 50% figure - despite how such a considerable majority of responses originiate from one game - was correct at the time of the survey, it pays no heed to HALF the bloody market of today. That being said, I don't dispute that there are people who are MMORPG addicts, and that they probably do make it into the double digits of %'s. But that survey, and the number you quoted from there, is not indisputable evidence that every other MMORPG player of today is addicted. Wins? At what? Making money? I thought both you and me stated that making money is not neccesarily an endgoal, or something that's even "worth" pursuing? That there are other, better things to do in life, than making? Or did my illiteracy strike again? Stress-relief? That will of course depend largely on the two people we give money to, but I'd say it's safe to say the one who's playing a game he enjoys in is spare time (within reason) will be a lot less stressed than the stockmarket trader. Fun? Even more dependant on the persons involved. Stock market trading can, no doubt, be immensely fun. And so can a game. More what? Stress-relieving? Educating? Money-making? (edit: Fixed some really odd formulations and downright factual (well, mathematical) errors that crept in)

Been using trillian for ages. Probably the fault of someone on these forums. I like it. Keeps me easily connected to all of the chat networks without getting in my face the way MSN keept doing.

What point? That time in a computer game is wasted because you could make money (which you yourself said doesn't neecesarily make an end goal) or Become A Better Person during the same time and oh-how-much-for-the-better-that-would-be? Oh, and somewhere inbetween, you managed to say that poor people who can't afford "distractions" are smarter, using Albert Einstein and the people at your school as evidence of this phenomena. Since you consider me both illiterate and stupid, give me a cliff note version. Although I definitely agree it's not the same thing; A socially inept person in real life is going to be a social inept person on the internet and vice-versa. To say that interacting while not being able to look someone in the eye means you're not practicing social skills is like saying talking on the phone isn't really communicating 'cause you're not looking at them. You are interaction with other intelligent beings. Your using social skills. Not the same skill set as you'd use in a face-to-face encounter, but you're definitely using social skills. Well, apart from noting how unbearably hurt I am by that cleverly veiled insult, statistically speaking, you made that one up even more than the poor-kids-are-smarter comment. Which still lacks a solid foundation. I am not statistically representative. Therefor, that kind of sweeping statement is (still) bound to be incorrect. Define 'nothing'. I play computer games 'cause without stress relief (that's time when I'm not thinking about what *must* be done, but time where I do what I feel like doing at the time) my mental health goes down. I consider keeping myself fairly mentally balanced worth a lot more than nothing. As a result, I will sometimes "sacrifice" useful things for things I enjoy. Yeah, sure, I could've studied french today for six hours instead of hanging out with my friends or playing badminton, and in the end it would probably have made me a Better Person. But what use do I have for french if I one day end up on anti-depressants 'cause somewhere along the way, I forgot to have fun and unwind. What I don't see is that last sentence making any sense ("If you see the flawed logic you're in idiot." Que?), but then again, you did conclude I was illiterate a few posts back, so it could just be that. What do you base that one on? My deragotry comments regarding another posters character? As always, your concern is appreciated. And KRT, I'd just like to point out that your last link is a proven hoax. We all love FACTS.

Ah, right. Since Einstein was poor, obviously, poor people are on an average smarter. Ouch, that hurt. There are better things to do in life than making money. Oh, d̮̩̉̉ja vu... /pet

Hmm... Now that you mention it, I *have* been wearing my sunglasses more often than usual lately. I better go and cancel my Star Wars Galaxies subscription! A succesfull crafter in Star Wars galaxies *will* be using spreadsheets to keep track of prices, stock, supplies and profit. Not sure what the english word is (cost calculus?) but it's pretty much the same thing used to by real companies (I know my old man runs more complicated version of them at any rate). Pure math. As for RTS's being better... The basic principle is the same for most of them; You have the resources, you have the victory. Using the different elements of combat in MMORPG's to your advantage is a bit different. The formula's for calculation the resists on your armour in SWG (it's a dimishing returns formula. Last time, I had to make a spreadsheet) is a lot more math than "I can now build X Pwnagers and hit my enemy". Which could be easily explained by the fact that poor people who aren't "smart" enough to get a schoolarship do not go to your school. So the "poor people" you're going to see are all going to be the ones with schoolarship. Or; Your "poor people" do not make up a statistically representative group of people to make comparisons by.

Funniest thing I've seen in ages :D

"If A equal success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y and Z, with X being work, Y play, and Z keeping your mouth shut." -Albert Einstein "Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." -Friedrich Nietzsche "There are two things a real man likes ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã