Topic

I like somersaulting...

Glitch is fun, my character is fun and I like making her jump because her hair goes up in the air and it's delightful. And sometimes when I make her jump I can't help but exclaim "weeeeeee" and I really wish I could get her to somersault in mid air. I know it's not handy for anything but it'd just be lovely. If she shouted "Weeeeee!" herself that'd be hilarious too but mostly I'd just like her to somersault or maybe pirouette in midair?!

Schmoo :)

Posted 2 years ago by Schmoo Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • +1 Somersaults and back-flips. :)
    Posted 2 years ago by bluto Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 and diving in water with a little "ploop"
    Posted 2 years ago by Mabs Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree - I love the hair motion. Somersaults would be *glorious.*
    Posted 2 years ago by Atalanta Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Both somersaults and the diving are great ideas!
    Posted 2 years ago by Logrus Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You like 'em! And, maybe you like shopping? How would you feel about purchasing (at a very modest price, of course) additional animation states for your avatars for real money?
    Posted 2 years ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • .50 and I'd say maybe. depends on whether I'm paying a monthly fee or not. at 15$ a month I wouldn't be happy about paying for animations. If it's free-to play maybe .50 would be ok.
    Posted 2 years ago by Tarod Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Glorious" is totally the word!

    Hmm immediately have reservations about having to pay money for this - partly because I'm all about the free love and partly because I'm not sure I'd pay for something which seems trivial in terms of my overall experience. I'd have to be convinced it would really enhance my experience. (Difficult balance I know.)

    Perhaps you could have animated states if EITHER you retain a heightened mood level for a good period of time OR you pay for constant delight levels that give you additional animation...?

    (Keeping a close eye out for any jobs for people who can spew out ideas like this alongside community hosting.)
    Posted 2 years ago by Schmoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I LOVED the ponytail waving--it was such a tiny but wonderful thing.

    I would like hair that waves constantly, as if beset by a tiny wind. And I would pay or pay extra for that--you know, something I could put on for the day, like a fancy shirt. And I want a supermodel hair toss gesture, but I don't want to pay for that, that should just come along with the tushy scratch.
    Posted 2 years ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Stoot: My thoughts on micro transactions are that they are great although i think i would be cool if you could get them with currants even if the price is ridiculously high. At any rate i would probably still go for the cheap real money alternative because it's faster and easier!

    Another cool thing would be if one or two new animations were achievement rewards (and other things as well, i just like achievement rewards even if they are pointless), like you get a random somersault animation while jumping if you get a "jumped 100 000 times" achievement.
    Posted 2 years ago by Logrus Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I
    Posted 2 years ago by leah Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i wouldn't want to pay for extra animation states, mostly because that would mean that other people would have to pay for me to see them animated and i think that would detract from my experience. i would like every player, paid or not, to have a wide range of expressive capability.

    and plus it seems like paying for just moving around, which would let the game down a bit.

    on the other hand ..

    paying for different appearance .. clothes, "races" .. that's different. i could definitely see paying for those. like paying to have an orc head or to be a robot. that would be cool. i'd definitely pay to be a robot.

    paying to do do neat jumps seems sort of lame in comparison for some reason. i can't entirely put my finger on why though.

    if the orcs and robots had unique looking jumps, that would be cool to tho.

    basically: paying $$ to be an orc capable of dash-charge-jumping feels better than just paying to be a regular player capable of somersaulting. if ye follow.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've posted similar comments in another thread, but they're applicable here too. I don't think anyone should be able to gain any advantage through paying real money. When it comes to something like somersaulting, it depends on how it works. If the somersault is purely an animation (but acts exactly like a standard jump) then fine. If, however, a somersault allows a player to jump further, or higher, or for longer, then I don't feel it is acceptable to benefit someone because they have money. If they are paying to look great then fine, but not to gain an unfair benefit.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • agreed. no one should be able to dominate simply because they have disposable income. but aesthetic microtransactions? as someone else said, i guess it depends on whether there is a monthly charge. no sub + small micros for aesthetic "upgrades" == good.
    Posted 2 years ago by Mabs Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Um, I think TinySpeck is a company, and they need to make money.

    Somehow, it seems to work on PuzzlePirates that you can work your ass off and earn the points you need, or you can take the shortcut and pay real money. And people DO, to have fancy clothes, for example. I think that's similar to the flourishes being discussed here.

    I don't know the business model for Glitch. But I'll cast a vote for the PP model, where you can pay or you can spend the time to earn the needed points.
    Posted 2 years ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Good point by Clare.

    I would say that if the alternatives were for product placement/advertising in the world, or having to pay for a few things then I'd prefer the paying option.

    The thing that worries me about it is that I've played many games where once you've gotten over the initial excitement, and if you're not willing to pay for further features, the game rapidly loses its appeal and experiences become same-y.

    I know TinySpeck need to earn some dough but its tragic when online gaming companies start to put all their efforts into the dough-making aspects of a game and start to neglect the rest of it. It really puts me off as the joy deteriorates.

    Yes they need to earn but Glitch, as it is, has a feel that the team are doing it for the love of it and I LOVE THIS!
    Posted 2 years ago by Schmoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would be really annoyed if there were two approaches to getting the same item. The items that can be bought, and the items that can be worked towards need to be kept entirely separate, otherwise all the fun of the game is removed. Why should someone be able to get an item that I have spent days working towards, just because they have money to burn. That is completely unfair.

    Also, all items/clothing should have level restrictions on them. If you're going to spend money on items, then you should at least have to work to get to a high enough level to buy them.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Yes they need to earn but Glitch, as it is, has a feel that the team are doing it for the love of it and I LOVE THIS!"

    TinySpeck has raised 5 million dollars in funding which i'm sure they would rather re-coup than not : ]

    1] i don't want to play a game that is riddled with ads. user generated or not. because over time it encourages the game to be built around the advertisers' needs rather than the players' needs. if the players are the direct revenue generators, the more the game will be built around them and the better the game will be for them. and by them i mean us.

    2] i'd rather have pay artists directly for cool designs they create.

    3] i don't particularly like the idea that everything can be purchased with currants if you spend hours and days and weeks grinding - because i think that would encourage hours and days and weeks of grinding, which is probably psychologically dysfunctional and soul killing or something.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • plus, i don't want people buying glitch houses on eBay because someone has hired a bunch of people in china to grind for days on end to make items that can be sold for money to buy houses so that people can undercut the "glitch price" by some percentage. or to create a 3rd party speculative housing market charging inflationary prices that the developers and artists don't profit from. or some other farming based scheme that hasn't been implemented in WoW or even imagined yet.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I dislike the idea of placing a 'currants' price and a 'real money' price even more than I do the idea of having a 'real money price' and a 'quest completion/way of unlocking in-game' price.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmm some very good points - especially the ones about having to grind away to get somewhere. It's pants when you have to do that and you completely lose the love of the game.

    I'm gonna back out of this one and say that I don't have enough experience to be able to even begin to guess at getting the balance right...good luck TinySpeck!

    p.s. re somersaulting/jumping/animation... can we have an animation for when you jump and pass another player in the air? Like you spin around each other or maybe bump into one another depending on your trajectories :)
    Posted 2 years ago by Schmoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i wrote a whole big thing in response to TGDT's completely unfair definition of fairness ;) but then it got all long and rambly, so i'm gonna try to make a long story short(ish):

    like clare, i'm also a fan of the puzzle pirates "work your ass off and earn the points you need, or you can take the shortcut and pay real money" model. kingdom of loathing uses this model too, and i got hooked on that game because it offers the option to participate equally depending on whether you have more time or money at any given time.

    i never thought i'd spend any of my limited disposable income on silly stick-figure business when i first started playing kol, but i've probably given them over a hundred bucks over four years because i don't always have the time or inclination to earn/grind for the 8 million meat it costs to get stuff like the annual june content familiar, this year a little dude who drops arcade tokens that let you play stick-figure gauntlet (!) and such. and again, even if i didn't have the time to grind *or* the money to donate, i could buy the game tokens from other players. or i can pay $20 now and buy two of the familiars, one to use (rendering it consumed and unsellable) and one to sell in a year when it's doubled in meat-value. the point is that i have the option, and those choices are a big part of what's kept me not only playing the game for so long but also paying to participate.

    i think having in-game economies like the ones in kol and puzzle pirates doesn't make the game unfair or no fun, but instead offers different options that give people alternative ways to get and stay hooked on the game without feeling like they're missing out on anything if they don't have a surplus of either time or money to throw at the game. but both games also offer trophies as achievements to recognize the time-intensive goals you can't get by throwing money at.

    i will say to be fair though, that i've never given puzzle pirates any money in the three years that i've been a regular, but casual player. but like clare said, it seems to work for them. and even though i may not be personally helping them recoup my share of their $3.5 million of venture funding, just by playing the game i'm contributing my marginal network effect value or whatever... you know, the more pirates = exponentially more fun theory :)
    Posted 2 years ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Routing money to gold farmers

    I don't like it (as a matter of gaming theory), but where there are currants and a user-driven economy, there will be currancy exchanges with earth-government economies. If it's simpler just to send money to Glitch than to make a back-channel deal with a dealer, the money goes to the people I want to support.
    Posted 2 years ago by Peter Verona Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If anyone wants a working example of the in-game economy that I favour, look to MapleStory. No-one can gain an advantage by purchasing, and no-one can purchase with real money, anything that can be obtained in-game or through other methods. It does, however, work really well for them, and people are happy to pay money for better looking clothes or for pets.

    Allowing people to pay real money for something that others work towards in-game is a bad idea - it just undermines the hard work of those willing to put some effort in.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • so people who don't have hours and hours to drop on a video game can't participate, because people with no lives blow them out of the water in terms of gaming power?

    all that leads to us people buying characters on eBay, which sucks.

    what if someone wants to unlock an area or play style without spending the majority of their time parked in front of a computer, grinding?

    some players won't find grinding no-no powders for hours on end fun. they'll mostly want to try new stuff and decorate their house and spend the limited play time they have available exploring and socializing and completing the non grindy official quests.

    I see absolutely nothing wring with their paying a nominal fee to the developers and artists in order to compensate the devs for the work they do making the items they want to use, the realms they want to unlock and explore and the house or avatar they wish to decorate.

    insisting that people "work hard" at glitch is nonsense. plenty of people "work hard" at jobs and raising kids, and forcing them to "work hard" at glitch in order to keep up with development is poppycock.

    so these people will cut deals with farmers on eBay, if in-game purchases aren't possible. plenty of precedent for that this is dumb because the money should really go directly to the artists and developers.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Paying money for gameplay doesn't make a game better, it just spoils it. Suggesting that forcing someone to spend money, because otherwise they have to have no life is ridiculous. You don't have to spend your entire life playing. If you want to fine, if not you have to wait longer for something. Requesting new things all the time is a combination of impatience and a lack of appreciation for the things you do have access to.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If the pay game doesn't make the free game more difficult, bring it on and educate the freebies to get over themselves. Something like somersaulting should be a slam dunk to incorporate into the pay game.
    Posted 2 years ago by Tingly Claus Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "Requesting new things all the time is a combination of impatience and a lack of appreciation for the things you do have access to."

    glitch is a game.

    it used to be that games weren't something you "worked hard" at, they were something you played with friends in order to have fun. maybe WoW and the other online grinder games have changed all that. was it tamogatchi virtual pets? what the heck happened?

    i don't think this is related to genre or length of play, either. none of the long form, paper and pencil RPGs i played growing up felt like 'hard work' either. the original final fantasy RPG video games didn't either, at least not most of the time.

    i never felt like paying for a risk or monopoly board or a settlers of catan expansion set spoiled the game for me.

    charging for a product that has had effort and creativity poured into it is "forcing someone to spend money"? i don't think anyone is at gunpoint here.

    glitch should be about either doing hard work or waiting? that doesn't sound particularly fun or even gamelike to me.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wow, this discussion has really gotten me thinking. This thread really needs to be re-named, although somersaulting probably does best describe how my opinion has changed as I have read each person's perspective. I really appreciate kazatlam's post, it made me look at pay for play in a different light.

    I think I am still of the opinion I was before, just less able to justify it rationally.

    I think you should be able to buy any object in the game, but not be able to purchase learning/kernels/wisdom. Acquisition of Farrah hair or power objects like golden axes should follow as it does (most of the time) in RL: if you can pay for it, it's yours. If I, at Level Four, want to purchase entry into a Lifestyle of the Glitch and Famous, ok then. But application of your purchased power objects needs to be paired with experience, which can only be purchased with time.

    If players clamor to pay money to avoid "grinding", i.e., to avoid playing the game, then there is something off somewhere. I know that one player's grinding is easily another player's delightful journey of learning, and I have no idea how to strike a balance in that.
    I also understand the tyranny of feeling like you are "behind" in play, which mostly comes from what you see other players having/doing (like julian and his fancy fancy house *sulk*), but ye gods I want the experience of play to be as valuable as the experience of having cool stuff in Glitch. Making experience something you can't buy communicates that the game creators consider it important, I think. But that also entails making that time spent as awesome as possible (just knock that out for us, kthanks!).
    Posted 2 years ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "If players clamor to pay money to avoid "grinding", i.e., to avoid playing the game, then there is something off somewhere."

    no no no ... see, here is the critical mistake.

    grinding != "playing the game".

    grinding = "overplaying the game"

    or not even playing at all, but doing the same thing over and over in order to progress in xp or gp.

    doing all the quests, decorating your house, engaging in the occasional auction, dressing your character up and exploring every nook and cranny of the game world is *not* grinding.

    grinding is finding an economic/xp soft point in the game and exploiting it mercilessly through repeated action over long time frames [hours, days].

    the critical mistake is assuming that "playing the game" should require "hard work" and "grinding" and "repeated action" or else you're somehow not playing hard enough.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • yeah, i think striatic's point about grinding vs. playing is key here. and those freakonomics guys could probably say this better but i think it's basically all about incentives. what incentives is the game giving people to play the game, or grind, or pay money to the game, or buy characters on ebay?

    if ppl are buying blinged out accounts on ebay, it's because there's something in the game that a) creates incentives to get really high-level characters with good gear, but b) doesn't offer a way for a player to get access to this stuff without spending a LOT of time playing the game and/or grinding. there's no way to translate the real-dollar 'willing to pay' value within the structure of the game, so you've basically just created an incentive to buy accounts on ebay.

    again, the thing i like about the kol/puzzle pirates examples is that they offer a way to access the in-game economy with real money, by purchasing Mr. Accessories (which are themselves items that give good bonuses to your character and which are always tradable back to the game for the Item of the Month) or doubloons (which you can use to gain access to the ability to play poker 7 days a week or sail a boat or lead a crew or whatever). the games also offer a market that allows players to trade their Mr. As or doubloons to other players for the basic currency of the game (meat/pieces of eight).

    this in-game economy lets the players be active in determining the value of in-game labor. so instead of feeling like 'it is so unfair that i spent 20 hours producing these fancy somersault-shoes and joebob over there just threw a few bucks at the game and my time is worth so much more than that grrr arr!', you'd be a more active participant in setting the in-game value of your labor.

    after all, there's already an implicit relationship between an in-game economy and real-money economy because of the time it takes to get currants. so offering a way to officially integrate these two economies so people can translate their real money into virtual money seems only fair to me.

    and this setup also gives people an incentive to send money to the devs, instead of the sweatshop-currant-farmers via ebay. although to be fair, these kinds of auctions are against ebay policy and regularly get shut down, and i think world of warcraft, where this happens most, is kind of an edge case and hopefully not too comparable to glitch.
    Posted 2 years ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think I have much insight to add here, I was mostly hoping for a +1 on my Lifestyles of the "Glitch" and Famous pun.
    Posted 2 years ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WoW is a bit of an edge case but i could see glitch actually being more susceptible to these approaches, without even having 3rd party auction or farming services. this is because you'll be able to buy stuff directly in glitch.

    so say i want to buy a house, and the only official way to purchase a house is TGDT's "fair", "hard work" method. i go and buy one of the 'real money only' decorative fashion objects and trade it for items to sell for currants to buy a house. so i've just bought a house with real money, while enabling the crazy grindy time consumption of the person giving me currants in exchange for a virtual bauble. how wholesome.

    or, more likely, i'm invited to the game by a friend who has been playing for a while and has lots of surplus wealth. they give me money for a house. done.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Buying game stuff would make me feel... part of a privileged class, and I would thereafter feel troubled. I can afford to pay whatever price the devs decide to put on game stuff, but would feel tainted somehow by the fact that I'm about to retire from full-time work with tons of cash, so I should somehow be entitled to a better, richer (pun not intended) experience than those who aren't in as privileged a position? That would feel wrong somehow.

    OK how about this: if we can buy our way into excellence in the game, how about if we're expected to give something back as a result? Some additional questing required before we're "virtuous enough" to use/apply the items/skills we've purchased? And perhaps that questing would involve doing something for other players, or the common good.

    And then I want to suggest a track to become an in-game philanthropist. That's my ultimate calling, I think.
    Posted 2 years ago by Eleanor Rigby Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ER's post is very interesting. I also have a gut feeling that I don't like the idea of people coming in and throwing down cash for currents. cosmetic things sure I don't mind unless I'm starting off naked or something ridiculous like that.

    Random idea would be to limit purchases of currents to a small amount per day. keeps people coming back, steady income flow and doesn't let people go nuts with over inflation. still don't like the cash for currents idea though.
    I think I'd prefer running two styles of payment: free+ micro-transactions for cosmetic stuff and housing upgrades, and a per month version say 10-15$ and I get all that stuff built in.
    If it's a free game I'm playing I'll always go well it's just pixels and I could spend that money elsewhere and talk myself out of buying it. 15$ a month I can factor it in my budget and set it for auto-pay. don't have to be an accountant to play the game.

    With all that said I think I'd be ok with ER's idea if it was quest based+all the players got a benefit. for example if you want to buy a 10000 currents with cash, the quest would be to donate 100 fancy sammichs, or maybe beers, could have a version of "buying the house a round" and after you do that everyone in the game gets a beer in their mail and the option of buying currents opens up as a one time option. if you want to buy more you do another quest.

    Lost track of my grammar in there I'm sure so sorry about the typos.
    Posted 2 years ago by Tarod Subscriber! | Permalink
  • has anyone has suggested "cash for currants"? more like "cash for selected game items".

    personally i don't think glitch should let people buy, say, ingredients with money, nor should you be able to buy disposable one time use items with money. it makes more sense to only allow real cash payment for lasting items like clothes, tools, houses etc.

    charging real money for virtual sammiches is a bit ridiculous considering their relative value and how quickly they are consumed.

    i guess you could take the tools you buy with real money and then sell them for currants to buy ingredients, but i don't see the point of doing that if you could just buy the thing the ingredients ultimately make.

    unless you wanted XP from making to advance on a certain leaderboard, in which case why not grind from the start instead of blowing real money on something you could have gained XP by making for free?

    "I think I'd prefer running two styles of payment: free+ micro-transactions for cosmetic stuff and housing upgrades, and a per month version say 10-15$ and I get all that stuff built in."

    that would work. i like the pay per month option, for the completists.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "personally i don't think glitch should let people buy, say, ingredients with money, nor should you be able to buy disposable one time use items with money. it makes more sense to only allow real cash payment for lasting items like clothes, tools, houses etc."

    My point that there shouldn't be multiple ways to get things still stands (in my mind anyway). That isn't to say that I don't mind people paying money for things. I just don't want to feel undermined if I choose not to pay money for things. I therefore feel that paying real money for clothes, and possibly houses, is acceptable. Tools on the other hand, should be bought with currants. It would be wrong to force someone to pay money to use a skill.

    "OK how about this: if we can buy our way into excellence in the game, how about if we're expected to give something back as a result? Some additional questing required before we're "virtuous enough" to use/apply the items/skills we've purchased?"

    If a system is brought in in which skills are bought with real money, something which I'm not a fan of, then this would be great. In that instance, I also feel it would be appropriate to make the bought skill a limited-time skill. It would then be possible to 'earn' the skill through gameplay, and have it for life, or 'buy' the skill, but have to keep paying money in order to keep using it.

    "It used to be that games weren't something you "worked hard" at, they were something you played with friends in order to have fun."

    Perhaps 'hard work' isn't the best phrase. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to 'effort' or 'actually giving a toss'. I completely agree that "doing all the quests, decorating your house, engaging in the occasional auction, dressing your character up and exploring every nook and cranny of the game world is *not* grinding." Indeed it isn't, and the rewards for doing the former should be much greater than the rewards for those who merely grind (or those who fork out cash). Reward those who take an interest in the game with things to keep them interested. Neither grinding nor buying into the game should be heavily rewarded.
    Posted 2 years ago by TGDT Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You aren't actually undermined. It's whether you let it affect your emotions or how you handle it once it does. Although, that's for adult players.
    Posted 2 years ago by Tingly Claus Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Great complicated thread. Wish we could all have done this over pizza and drinks.

    I like the idea of getting, by various means, non-functional but fun things like somersaults and antlers.

    I don't like the idea of people being able to *invisibly* buy their way to functional success with cash. If we can tell the trustifarians from the bootstrappers then there can develop social appreciation for someone having gotten that fancy whatever the hard way. Maybe bought things have a price tag hangin' off 'em like Minnie Pearl's hat?

    I do like the idea of there being some micropayment moneychutes that pour into the Tiny Speck office which allow people to get something of *entertainment* value but not *competitive* value. For example, special animations or music. It would be cool if Tiny Speck could make a little money off of someone wanting to be an in-game performer and run around putting on little shows (or painting pictures or what have you...).
    Posted 2 years ago by MetaGrrrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hepsibah: exactly what i want
    Posted 2 years ago by Alex Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The game isn't built for competition. If you don't start from Day 1 and/or can't play 20 hours a day, you're doomed. DOOMED, I say! That eventual vast majority can only hope to enjoy the 500,000-way tie for #1 in streets visited. If it gets them around what they find to be drudgery and it keeps the company solvent, selling anything works for me.

    And now a word from the Fair Antler Trade (F.A.T.)
    Posted 2 years ago by Tingly Claus Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that's a fair trade for antlers.
    Posted 2 years ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I do like the idea of there being some micropayment moneychutes that pour into the Tiny Speck office which allow people to get something of *entertainment* value but not *competitive* value."

    how exactly do you differentiate the two in this game?

    i mean there is XP based leaderboards but if this game ever becomes popular with .. i dunno .. millions of people, there will be no way to meaningfully compete against lists like that, so those will only be relevant for an "elite" group of players probably exploiting game mechanics to the maximum extent possible - to a point where buying functional gear would have no impact on the "competition"

    so what is the real competition? how awesome your house is compared to your friends'? how cool you look? but house decoration and avatar accessories are all "non-functional" things. there are plenty of "non-functional" things that form the very basis for social competition in the everyday world - keeping up with the joneses, whatnot.

    and why care about how other people choose to advance through a video game? personally, i don't care if someone wants to buy a house with money instead 'earning' it by wasting hours of their day clicking cows [ www.facebook.com/apps/appli... ].

    i mean there's little to no skill involved in playing games like glitch, which is good it means the game is accessible to a wider range of people which is good for the overall social landscape .. but for me it puts to rest any idea of real competition, because the only significant competition is over who has the most time to burn.
    Posted 2 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink