Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm listening to a podcast where the topic is (surprise suprise) PlayStations Live Service initiative. The host says "Sony really has to listen to their community when it comes to these games. You're community are your most die hard players so you have to make them happy or your game is toast." The two other co-hosts nod like brainless drones.

Everyone agrees this is complete BS right?

"Communities" are a fraction of 1% of the player base. Communities consist of the hardest of the hardcore. They're frequently toxic and spend all their time on the game they're complaining about. These people are insane.

I first learned about this when I joined the Fortnite subreddit back in late 2017. Two topics made me realize how unintelligent "communities" actually are.

Epic added SBMM and removed glider redeploy.

First, the subreddit didn't want SBMM when the skill gap was starting to become a problem. Every SBMM post was shot with downvotes and everyone ridiculing the OP.

The second was with glider redeploy and the rate of 3rd partying in the game. The community loved glider redeploy because it allowed high skill player to notch high kill games.

I hear this "listen to the community" sentiment everywhere and it sounds nice if you're not paying attention. Listening is a pro social buzzword, as is community. In reality, game communities are freaks and game developers should only listen to them using very specific parameters.

This is understood by NeoGAF yes?

(This is what Google gave me when I searched Game Community)

 

[Three]

The "Game community" aren't game designers but ultimately they are the customer who decides to spend cash and time on the product so yes by all means listen to the community but "the community" isn't one guy on a forum or a couple of diehard fans. At the end of the day if you're a good product manager you should know what is best for your product to try and make the most people happy to spend time/cash on it. Nothing more, nothing less. Listen if it's something you haven't thought of and you believe it's good. Don't listen if it's just a vocal bunch of complainers that the numbers don't agree with.

 

[Kings Field]

It depends. Idiots in the fighting game community cry for nerfs or buffs to a character after only a day or two of a game coming out. This happens a lot with NRS fighting games.

if you take the “whole” community into account, 99% of them will never play at a high level and have no clue what needs to be nerfed or buffed.

The other 1% will figure out the “meta” and usually be able to tell via frame data over the course of a games life. However, they’re even starting to knee jerk into giving out day 1 tier lists and express their opinions for clicks or clout.

Look at MK9, people thought Sonya Blade was mid tier until the last appearance at EVO when sonic fox won the tournament with her and made people look like fools and that was 6 years after the game came out.

Listening to the community is usually “ok” for most games, but listening to the community for fighting games seems to fuck up the whole system.

 

[Hollowpoint5557]

Dance with the one who brought you.

The die-hards made you, the die-hards can break you. They may be a small % overall but look no further than Twitter to see just how the vocal minority can shift narratives and public perceptions. Don't piss off your loyal base.

 

[T-0800]

Something something faster horse.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Dance with the one who brought you.

The die-hards made you, the die-hards can break you. They may be a small % overall but look no further than Twitter to see just how the vocal minority can shift narratives and public perceptions. Don't piss off your loyal base.

It's Wolves + Rabbits.

The wolf wants to eat 100 rabbits a day.

That's awful for the ecosystem as soon there will be no rabbits left.

Create an ecosystem where rabbits multiply and the wolves will be happy eating 1 or 2 a day.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Sometimes the communities don't even know what they want.

 

[Danjin44]

For ONCE I actually agree with you, 99% of the time the so called "fans" dont know what the fuck they want.....they complain for sake of complaining.

I became fan of devs like Vanillaware and FROM not because they make the games I want but I like the games they make.

 

[Zannegan]

It's not that black and white.

If you asked fans to actually design the games, you'd just get iterative, derivitive sequels. It's up to game designers to create mechanics and content that the fans didn't even know they wanted.

On the other hand, persistently ignoring the desires of your core fanbase to try to chase trends (especially monetization trends) is foolish and usually results in poor returns as well as the loss of goodwill.

In Sony's case, they've built their reputation on single player games, so the hosts of that podcast have a point. There's something to be said for staying in your lane, or at least not neglecting what you're good at while you try to expand into new areas. And while live service games CAN pay off big, but they fizzle out more often than not, sometimes before they ever launch (see Hyenas).

 

[RavageX]

I'm going to use Saint's Row as an example of why you should listen to the "community" or fans.

The general buzz is that the first 2 Saint Row games told a pretty decent story, mixed with crazy gameplay. GTA clone yes, but in good ways. Janky but fun. Well they got away from the story and focused on the wacky. Ok, most fans were still on board (they lost me with it as it kept going).

The reboot. The pretty much the entire "community" or fans of the series said, "No, we don't want this." and they (devs) stuck to their guns and got cocky about it too. Well, look what happened.

I'm not saying you should listen to everything, for example the "fans" that constantly create elaborate relationships for the characters, write fanfiction and all that....let them keep their own imagination. But if you have your ENTIRE fanbase being vocal about something, it's a good idea to take a step back and look at the overall picture.

 

[CoreyFlawless]

Yes and no. You kinda have to be careful. Could have this small hardcore group. They can help or hurt it overall wanting it to be or play this way.

 

[killatopak]

Most of these devs never play their own games especially live service ones where a patch can completely shift the meta. Once you require devs to play maybe an hour or two, there’s no need to read about community demands because you’re already part of them. You understand their pain.

Which is why people praise FFXIV. The devs actually play their game. In fact, they’re at such a high level that they had to nerf some of the bosses because their in-house raid team did so well they thought the difficulty was fine. Their game director actually plays at a high level that he immediately understands player woes and enacts changes as soon as possible.

I can divide player community in two. High level and low level. Low level makes up most of the community while high level makes up a few percentage at most. An additional part may be added if the game has e-sports as that’s a separate balance issue. Okay, now that we got that out of the way, I can tell you, you can’t balance these three out simultaneously. Most devs tend to do ebbs and flows patch by patch, giving power to one over the other but stretching it to a longer period you can typically find that they balance each other out. That spices things up in gaas games as they’re never stagnant.

 

[rabbity-thing]

I'm going to use Saint's Row as an example of why you should listen to the "community" or fans.

The general buzz is that the first 2 Saint Row games told a pretty decent story, mixed with crazy gameplay. GTA clone yes, but in good ways. Janky but fun. Well they got away from the story and focused on the wacky. Ok, most fans were still on board (they lost me with it as it kept going).

The reboot. The pretty much the entire "community" or fans of the series said, "No, we don't want this." and they (devs) stuck to their guns and got cocky about it too. Well, look what happened.

I'm not saying you should listen to everything, for example the "fans" that constantly create elaborate relationships for the characters, write fanfiction and all that....let them keep their own imagination. But if you have your ENTIRE fanbase being vocal about something, it's a good idea to take a step back and look at the overall picture.

Interesting example considering the two best Saints Row games (III and IV) were almost a parody of what the fans of the first 2 would have wanted. And they were hugely successful. The last installment, which did something similar, was a failure. It's almost as though the only real lesson to follow isn't about pleasing die hards or pleasing newcomers but is instead to simply make good games.

 

[Pejo]

This is why I like (most) modern JP game designers. I don't know who they are, they aren't posting hot takes and social opinions on Twitter (that I know of). Just make the game you and your team are going to make and if it's done well, it will find its audience.

More on topic, I think live service/ongoing update games should absolutely respect their communities and try to do right by them, but not just listen to whatever the fuck they say. Often times the most dedicated community members are the most unhinged, so there's a correlation there to be aware of.

 

[Loomy]

Community = customers

And no. You don't always have to listen to them.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Its somewhere in the middle. No, you should not blindly listen to fan feedback, especially from die-hard fans which tend to be unhinged and lack any understanding of what is like to be a more casual player. As you point out they are not game designers and can't see the bigger picture in the game and what mechanic affects what.

That also doesn't mean you should just shut your eyes and ears and pretend anything the fanbase says doesn't matter, i've seen companies going down this path and it almost never works out well. Ultimately these costumers are still the ones playing your game, if many players say your game is too grindy, that X class is completely unviable, then you likely should review those aspects of it. Though those last ones are usually accompanied by a pinch of corporate greed.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

When it comes to feedback for gameplay mechanics (for example shooters), devs should always be weary about what to adjust. If it's an outright broken thing like dual 1887s thats one thing. But for all the small tweaks to guns people give feedback on it's their personal bias and IMO they are hoping their fav gun gets boosted.

I use ARs and LMGs in COD games. Of course I'll say boost em all up, while nerfing SMG, shotgun and snipers guns.

 

[X-Wing]

I'm listening to a podcast where the topic is (surprise suprise) PlayStations Live Service initiative. The host says "Sony really has to listen to their community when it comes to these games. You're community are your most die hard players so you have to make them happy or your game is toast." The two other co-hosts nod like brainless drones.

Everyone agrees this is complete BS right?

"Communities" are a fraction of 1% of the player base. Communities consist of the hardest of the hardcore. They're frequently toxic and spend all their time on the game they're complaining about. These people are insane.

I first learned about this when I joined the Fortnite subreddit back in late 2017. Two topics made me realize how unintelligent "communities" actually are.

Epic added SBMM and removed glider redeploy.

First, the subreddit didn't want SBMM when the skill gap was starting to become a problem. Every SBMM post was shot with downvotes and everyone ridiculing the OP.

The second was with glider redeploy and the rate of 3rd partying in the game. The community loved glider redeploy because it allowed high skill player to notch high kill games.

I hear this "listen to the community" sentiment everywhere and it sounds nice if you're not paying attention. Listening is a pro social buzzword, as is community. In reality, game communities are freaks and game developers should only listen to them using very specific parameters.

This is understood by NeoGAF yes?

(This is what Google gave me when I searched Game Community)

I can smell the room in the picture.

 

[Aces High]

There's a trend in Hollywood to piss off your core audience as much as possible in order to get free social media mind share.

Video games are not there yet, but you can see some studios are already testing the waters.

 

[Klosshufvud]

I think listening to communities only applies to developers that are incompetent and without vision. So probably most of them. But for the upper elite of game devs, they don't really need to.

 

[cormack12]

Most players who don't whinge online just want a fun, fair game. Most people online want games tweaking to suit the smaller, enthusiast/extreme playerbase.

There are instances where listening to the community is a good idea like Diablo IV and Battlefield specific vehicle complaints. Ultimately I feel like the whole 'player feedback' is still as hit and miss as QA or focus group testing. Ironically they need a much more diverse range of players to create more balance.

The thing is this isn't new. TCM mods lived and died by engaging with their communities and adapting the game for the better, by players who had an interest in making the game better, and didn't push changes that benefitted themselves/their player style

 

[Hudo]

The community is fucking garbage most of the time. Just make the game you want to fucking make. Most of the games that are still revered to this day were made without community input. Fans don't really know why they like the thing they like and their input is usually straight up trash.

 

[TexMex]

If I were proficient in game design I wouldn’t be part of the community. Developers need to listen to themselves more and twitter mobs less.

 

[EDMIX]

I'm listening to a podcast where the topic is (surprise suprise) PlayStations Live Service initiative. The host says "Sony really has to listen to their community when it comes to these games. You're community are your most die hard players so you have to make them happy or your game is toast." The two other co-hosts nod like brainless drones.

Everyone agrees this is complete BS right?

"Communities" are a fraction of 1% of the player base. Communities consist of the hardest of the hardcore. They're frequently toxic and spend all their time on the game they're complaining about. These people are insane.

I first learned about this when I joined the Fortnite subreddit back in late 2017. Two topics made me realize how unintelligent "communities" actually are.

Epic added SBMM and removed glider redeploy.

First, the subreddit didn't want SBMM when the skill gap was starting to become a problem. Every SBMM post was shot with downvotes and everyone ridiculing the OP.

The second was with glider redeploy and the rate of 3rd partying in the game. The community loved glider redeploy because it allowed high skill player to notch high kill games.

I hear this "listen to the community" sentiment everywhere and it sounds nice if you're not paying attention. Listening is a pro social buzzword, as is community. In reality, game communities are freaks and game developers should only listen to them using very specific parameters.

This is understood by NeoGAF yes?

(This is what Google gave me when I searched Game Community)

99% of the time the so called "fans" dont know what the fuck they want.....they complain for sake of complaining.

truth

As an artist I don't subscribe to the idea that someone being a fan of any of my work particularly gives me any responsibility to then alter my work based on what they're actually asking.

(I don't do commissioned work so the idea of somebody having an opinion of what I create means very little in regards to the future creations that I make)

I do my best with great integrity to create based on what I truly feel and what my real desire is for that concept.

So I don't really think outside influence should ever affect the actual designer creative approach of any artist in regards to a fans demand or something.

I often find this very strange inside of gaming because I think people take the functionality and the technological idea behind it a little too far in their demands they start making it sound like them purchasing the game has now given this idea that they're owed a seat at it's Future design.

Art to me has always been to take it or leave it idea, that somebody supporting an artist's work is simply them paying money for what that artist created it is not them buying into the future of everything they will create like a board member or something weird like this.

 

[Danjin44]

truth

As an artist I don't subscribe to the idea that someone being a fan of any of my work particularly gives me any responsibility to then alter my work based on what they're actually asking.

(I don't do commissioned work so the idea of somebody having an opinion of what I create means very little in regards to the future creations that I make)

I do my best with great integrity to create based on what I truly feel and what my real desire is for that concept.

So I don't really think outside influence should ever affect the actual designer creative approach of any artist in regards to a fans demand or something.

I often find this very strange inside of gaming because I think people take the functionality and the technological idea behind it a little too far in their demands they start making it sound like them purchasing the game has now given this idea that they're owed a seat at it's Future design.

Art to me has always been to take it or leave it idea, that somebody supporting an artist's work is simply them paying money for what that artist created it is not them buying into the future of everything they will create like a board member or something weird like this.

One of the developer’s job is to prevent gamers ruin the game for themselves because gamers have the ability suck all the fun out games they play if you are not careful.

 

[mrmustard]

If you have a small game that only the die hard fanboys keep alive the statement is true

But in case of the Sony GaaS it's bullshit. The die hard 'Fuck GaaS, give me more of my precious singleplayer cinematics' forum dwellers are the minority. The vast majoritiy of the console players are casuals and casuals don't give feedback or live in forums. They don't have prejudices against GaaS. If some influencers hype it up and there is enough marketing, they will play it.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Blindly listening to community? Cant think of a worse idea

Collecting feedback from the community in order to make your product better when it aligns with their own views and makes sense? Isnt that how Baldurs Gate 3 was made?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Blindly listening to community? Cant think of a worse idea

Collecting feedback from the community in order to make your product better when it aligns with their own views and makes sense? Isnt that how Baldurs Gate 3 was made?

Baldurs Gate 3, Grim Dawn, Factorio, Beamng, many great games were and are being made that way.

 

[Mung]

As Henry Ford once said, 'if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses'.

 

[Guilty_AI]

As Henry Ford once said, 'if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses'.

Thats sort of what we got in the end tho.

 

[Aces High]

As Henry Ford once said, 'if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses'.

That's a strange argument given the fact that entire video game genres like MOBAs and battle royale originate from community mods.

Blizzard leaders were active Everquest players. Jeff Kaplan was unhappy with the direction of his favourite game and so he started his own MMORPG called World of Warcraft.

 

[rofif]

Customer is usually wrong, stupid and wouldn't know how to make a good game.
If customers were deciding, Death Stranding would be a shooter and tlou2 would be another happy go lucky joel+ellie adventure like the first game without pushing the medium

 

[pennythoughts]

I selected the first option but there is a bit of nuance to it. A game like Dota 2 for example is known for having the skill curve of a brick wall. Its developer, Icefrog, is one of the most celebrated guys in the PC arena. Most of his balance decisons are made around professional level play, sometimes doing things like nerfing a hero with a poor winrate in public games because of its extreme impact in top level play. Your average player complaining in a forum seems unlikely to have any reach but top level players do.

 

[Shifty1897]

Yes and no.
Game design is not something you listen to the community on.
Business and profit models are something you probably want the community's input on, since they're the ones buying and evangelizing the product, unless you like reversing course and issuing apology statements on X.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Yes and no.
Game design is not something you listen to the community on.
Business and profit models are something you probably want the community's input on, since they're the ones buying and evangelizing the product, unless you like reversing course and issuing apology statements on X.

i'd also add that listening to community input for QoL matters is also a must.

 

[DJ12]

They should take the KFC route.

 

[nkarafo]

It's stupid if you hear everything they say and accept all of their demands.

It's stupid to ignore them completely or do the exact opposite of what they demand.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[yurinka]

It's true that the have to listen to their community, and what their potential customers need or like. This doesn't they should do what a tiny vocal minority says in gaming outlets, forums or social media. It means to take note about what it's said but most importantly to take note of the market trends and what works with each type of player.

In the Sony Live services case, they saw most top AAA games in userbase and revenue are online MP live services, and that the market has been trending to there during years, and seems it will continue doing it. And that revenue from game sales will continue slowly decreasing being replaced by addons (DLC/IAP/passes) revenue.

So they decided to continue increasing their investment in their very successful non-GaaS while also increasing -way more- their investment on GaaS to cover a -for them- new additional market which now represents the majority of the market. Same happens with them expanding to PC or mobile. They need extra revenue sources because every new generations AAA games become way more expensive to make but sales and pricing remain pretty much the same and that the market of the type of games they did in the past is limited specially in console/PS. So they try also to reach new types of games, players, genres and platforms.

In this case Sony already explained these things, but maybe should do it more frequently and openly and in a "for dummies" language, so a huge portion of the ones who complain about it would get it.

Same goes when some players ask for some game design changes via patches. Players demand all kind of conflicting things, so whatever they do will go against the tastes of someone. So what they do mostly is to focus on what the in-game metrics and market data says it works, and on top of that they also include some highly requested things that they think won't break the game and require a reasonable (not too high) amount of work. They also sometimes know something would be great and that players want it, but sometimes require too much work/budget and prefer to save it for a future sequel or DLC.

Regarding character or weapon balancing, sometimes players think something needs nerfs or buffs. But what they know is that certain character that is too bad for competitive play maybe it's a favorite or very good character in newbye/entry players for when they are learning the game, or that the character that is top tier for top players is too complex for the entry level players.

Companies sometimes make tweaks thinking about competitive top players, but quite often they do it where most of their players are, and specially where they lose most of their active players. And traditionally the competitive players only represent a tiny portion of their player and revenue population and revenue, and the big majority of players are in the lower levels. So quite often companies focus more on casual/low level players.

In most cases, companies do their actions because a reasonable reason, with tons of factual market and in-game metrics to back them, and most (uninformed) players complain because don't know or understand them. In most cases, being more open and transparent helps the player understand these things and complain much less. But in many cases some info can't be shared because it's confidential, would help their direct competition, could help their PR image if certain important decision later gets tweaked, changed, delayed or dropped, etc.

 

[Gojiira]

For game design 100%
BUT I can give s very specific example of when the community NEEDS to be listened to and thats Bethesdas handling of Fallouts Setting, Lore and Factions which they have gotten wrong at every opportunity. Way too many retcons, and way to little care paid, and thats a fact, no arguments.
This the only instance I can think of where the community has a generally better grasp.

 

[Skifi28]

Worked great for Saints Row. Who the fuck cares what your customers want? Do your own thing and enjoy success.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

As a whole, I'd say let the game maker have freedom to make the kind of game they want. Not every game has to be a COD Clone or Fortnite Fake. Thats on them to create and live and die by the type of game and setting they want to make.

But feedback is important for gameplay, bug squashing, and devs should not try to be clever. If something in gaming works well, dont be a rebel and try to be different.

For example, if a studio makes a shooter just make Aim be LT and Shoot be RT. Thats common. The COD controller set up is a solid lay out since their first games on console. All shooters IMO should copy their layout at its core then use other buttons to do unique things COD doesn't do. Dont be a rebel and make Aim RT and Shoot LT. Same goes for racing games. Keep it Brake LT and Gas RT.

During the 360 gen when tons of shooters came out, many had stupid gamepad button layouts even though COD had already been on the market for ages.

 

[KiteGr]

You have to know what the community wants. Not listen to them.

 

[Ar¢tos]

In the case of Destiny, they should really listen to the community.

The game is bleeding players because of devs decisions.
Ridiculous Nerfs in pve that nobody asked for that render exotic armor pieces completely useless, players asking for years for the cap of the main currency to be increased and devs response is to remove the secondary currency that was fine and had no cap, just to force players to farm more.
Players asking constantly for Nightfalls to be strikes and devs keep making them Heists that take forever just to extend playtime.

The playerbase has never been so low as it is now.
Some Playlists start a player solo and only near the end of the activity another player joins (2 players in a 3 player activity).

Older players are fed up and new players are confused because another stupid decision was to remove the main campaign from the game and replace it with a 10 step MMORPG style quest that drops players in a social space in the end and they are left clueless about what to do next with zero explanation of the game systems (upgrades, stats, etc).

And it's all because devs constantly ignore the community.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Eiji Aonuma said it best:

“Don’t give players exactly what they are asking for or what they expect. Give them something they never knew they wanted.”

Wise words.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Basically PlayStation the community doesn’t want Sony to focus on GaaS, which offends OP.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Eiji Aonuma said it best:

“Don’t give players exactly what they are asking for or what they expect. Give them something they never knew they wanted.”

Wise words.

Unfortunately this phrase is only valid if the developer isn't retarded.

 

[Danjin44]

Unfortunately this phrase is only valid if the developer isn't retarded.

if you enjoyed dev’s past works and you trust them then you wouldn't mind see them do what they want.

I never thought Vanillaware make a game like 13 Sentinels but I’m SUPER GLAD they did.

Most of the time it’s developers making the games I want but instead I enjoy what they make.

 

[BlackTron]

The best kind of game designer is creating and updating their game with vision, clarity and purpose. They know the reasons for their decisions and don't care about the discourse -they know their game is better for it and the end will do better for it. If you don't have all that, listening to your fans is better than flailing in the darkness, but it's not the final answer, it's a cheat/hint to help get you back on track to making your own damn game.

The worst is making changes just because someone complained as a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe if you make enough tweaks dictated by the Trial by Committee, you'll end up with a perfectly balanced game...some day.

 

[roxya]

The best kind of game designer is creating and updating their game with vision, clarity and purpose. They know the reasons for their decisions and don't care about the discourse -they know their game is better for it and the end will do better for it. If you don't have all that, listening to your fans is better than flailing in the darkness, but it's not the final answer, it's a cheat/hint to help get you back on track to making your own damn game.

The worst is making changes just because someone complained as a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe if you make enough tweaks dictated by the Trial by Committee, you'll end up with a perfectly balanced game...some day.

This is exactly how I feel about it, you've put it well. It goes for many other subjects like movies/TV but also software development.

 

[MikeM]

Given all the layoffs and some really terrible releases, it seems the problem is listening to the suits. Always has been tho.