Current Developer Attitudes - Developers vs Gamers?

[Krantos]

"The customer is always right" is a lie. Sometimes the customer is a fucking idiot and should be told off since they deserve it.

You've never worked in a customer service industry, have you? If you had, you'd understand that saying doesn't mean the customer is literally always right. It means that you never argue with the customer. They may be wrong. They may be completely off their rocker. They may be a complete asshole.

But you. NEVER. ARGUE. With. Them.

The reason is simple: You can't win. Even when you do. If you win the argument, you still lose the customer. If you lose the argument, you lose the customer.

Not arguing with the customer isn't about who's wrong or right. It's about not losing any potential sales. That's why, from a business standpoint, "The customer is always right."

 

[Slayer_2]

oh that I understand, Its like that with any industry with customers. It just looks like some of the dev teams seem to be losing their cool in the face of criticism for their or other dev's games. whats stirred my curiosity is that it seems to have become a lot more outspoken in recently in a tide of news and what not, so what changed? what was the trigger if this was always a present notion?

I dunno, maybe they are, and I wouldn't blame them. These recent "outrages" would make me lose my cool. Maybe they've decided they've had enough shit, hopefully.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, and I know I am going against the grain with this opinion, and I know some people will think me to be a corporate shill after this, but I think this is, in part, the fault of gamers. We all know gamers can be whiny, demanding jerk-offs who complain if the tiniest thing is changed in their favorite franchise. Been going on for years now (the earliest occurrence that I can immediately recall was in 2003, with the release of LoZ: Wind Waker). And some devs are getting sick of it. They see us as the enemy, because that is what many of us have made ourselves out to be. So, some are airing their frustrations. Is it justified? No, but it is understandable.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, it's rather simple... treat your customers with respect and do good things for them (Valve, CDProjekt, Paradox Interactive etc.) and they'll be loyal fans, spread the word about your products and continue to give you their $$$.
Especially CDProjekt seems to excel at this often with their DRM-free service, having sworn off DRM forever:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/03/10/cd_project_red_no_more_drm_ever
And even when their customers complained about them once, they listened and reacted, in this case stopped to send out Legal Threats to people:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/12/splendid-cd-projekt-to-stop-legal-threats/

On the other hand you have the EAs, Activisions (and sometimes UbiSofts) that pack their products full of DRM even with the Always-On variety where you lose your game or progress when the Internet gives in, "Online Passes", Day-1 DLCs, obviously trying to gouge their consumers and not even hiding it, shortening development time on their titles to fit into 1 or 2 year dev cycles, all the while not listening to any sort of feedback and continuing to increase their efforts to do all that while trying to take away ever more consumer rights by the way of Legal Mumbo Jumbo in EULAs and TOSs that would often not even stand up in a court as well as arguing that they don't own the product they just bought or can't resell it/share it with friends and so on...

Now guess which ones people will complain about?

You know what? Your entire point seems to fall apart when you notice the popularity of the Modern Warfare franchise. I mean, they are still loyal fans, spread the word about the product, and give Activision the cash, despite Activision being a "bad" company.

 

[veloper]

Devs and publishers both should be HAPPY with all the feedback they're receiving from customers, no matter how negative, because it tells them why their game didn't sell, or if the PR-machine did it's job, why their next project won't land them pre-orders.

The only challenge here is figuring out which signals are coming from customers and fans.
May be less of an issue for big AAA titles aimed at everyone, but for niche appeal there will always be people who had false expectations and even some detractors.
In Escapist terms, a JRPG dev doesn't need input from Yahtzee, but from weaboo enthousiasts. When there's an uproar on these boards against Bioware, they may be losing many old customers.

Sure it may be negative publicity, but it's negative publicity after the pre-orders and the important first week of sales. Even with all the official reviews in game mags praising the game, the players still have a mind of their own when they're actually playing the game and they may remember their disappointment for the next time.
Much better than publishers thinking, oh it didn't sell because it's not a shooter.

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

 

[veloper]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Interesting discussion.
The devs will prolly not be allowed to make the next game for the publisher and lose their jobs, if their game flops though. There may be second chances, but there are limits.

We are still the customers, only there is a big delay before the developers get kicked out on the streets.

 

[Simonism451]

I think what it once more boils down to is the question of whether or not games are "art" or a "service".
Case in point:

Developers have no obligation to consumers? Developers do not like being told their efforts are shit? Developers have a right to defend themselves?

Well la dee fucking da- what makes developers so god damn special?

In the real world, I work for a bank- I won't say which bank- but suffice to say that people do NOTHING but ***** and moan about the service all day long, the product, threaten to boycott, write complaints in which they completely make things up on the spot, etc.

Could you IMAGINE if Bank of America told all those people they foreclosed on to go fuck themselves? They'd say, we didn't force you to buy a home.

Rivers of blood would flow through the streets.

The attitude that developers owe consumers nothing is juvenile and bad for business. Developers need to get over themselves and understand that their job does not put them above the bullshit that rest of the working world has to deal with.

You just compared a bank to videogame development, the process of managing money to creating an entertaining and ideally artistic form of expression, loans in the worth of thousands of dollars to a sixty dollar at max purchase.

 

[Kahunaburger]

whether or not games are "art" or a "service"

Underlined: the problem with this statement.

Regardless of whether we consider games to conform to a nebulous "art" definition, they are generally sold as products.

You. Do. Not. Get. To. Argue. With. Your. Customers.

 

[Simonism451]

whether or not games are "art" or a "service"

Underlined: the problem with this statement.

Regardless of whether we consider games to conform to a nebulous "art" definition, they are generally sold as products.

You. Do. Not. Get. To. Argue. With. Your. Customers.

So you argue that if enough people complained about it, Bioware should remove the homosexual relationship options from Dragon Age 2?
I think what you fail to see is that if "the customer is king" mentality was really adopted by the games industry, the majority of games we (or at least I) love today would not even exist, because, let's face it, the biggest and most profitable gaming series of all time is Call of Duty.

 

[zombieshark6666]

They're used to having kids as customers, even though the parents would pay. The gamer demographic is much older now, and people can recognize when a game is too short, buggy, badly balanced, etc. so they get attacked more frequently. It's like a toy maker realizing all of a sudden that he has a business and that people will hold him accountable. Game develoeprs are like Peter Griffin.

See Yahtzee, Total Biscuit, Giant Bomb, etc.

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Thought you meant that and I doubted myself thinking no one could actually have issue with it. We buy their games. That money finances them through either success resulting in funding from a publisher or if they are independent (valve included) it goes straight to them. We pay their salaries. This is not limited to those kickstarted things and I cant understand how you dont see that. I was not saying the customer is always right because that is and isnt true in certain ways but thats a seperate discussion, as the two statements are wholly unrelated. We are their customers and we decide if they make money or not, they do not laugh it up when a game bombs because they know they will not be successful in future (or at least as much). I was saying that, as their paying customers, they owe us repsect and should understand that we are not a given. Your argument is above all, pointless and nitpicky.

 

[Something Amyss]

What is comes down to is this: The developers games are literally their babies.

That's great, but remember when developers were actually professionals?

 

[Technocrat]

Maybe a problem with game development being sold to people as a lifestyle instead of as a vocation. There really isn't any real obvious benefit to society from game development other than keeping people off the streets I suppose.

Hang on, what on earth are you doing on a website entirely devoted to computer games?

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Thought you meant that and I doubted myself thinking no one could actually have issue with it. We buy their games. That money finances them through either success resulting in funding from a publisher or if they are independent (valve included) it goes straight to them. We pay their salaries. This is not limited to those kickstarted things and I cant understand how you dont see that. I was not saying the customer is always right because that is and isnt true in certain ways but thats a seperate discussion, as the two statements are wholly unrelated. We are their customers and we decide if they make money or not, they do not laugh it up when a game bombs because they know they will not be successful in future (or at least as much). I was saying that, as their paying customers, they owe us repsect and should understand that we are not a given. Your argument is above all, pointless and nitpicky.

I have been helping making games for Danish sites for about a year now Most of the work I have done is been holiday related games for TV stations kids section. I dont get paid per use/sale.

The developers dont get paid per sale (well technically there are instances where they do, but like me the norm is a monthly paycheck). They get new contracts if their games do well, sometimes. Other times they dont. Wether or not you get a contract again has more to do with your relationship with your publisher than it has to do with sale. Publisher know that there are more factors in sales than quality, and it is the publisher who answers to the customer. Not me.

To go "I pay your salary!" to a developer is just as stupid as doing it to a teacher in a public school. And oversimplification of a system.

So your trying to tell me that if a game sells poorly then the devs will still get funding? What planet do you live on? We are talking about devs of mainstream games, not to belittle your work, rather than you yourself.What I said earlier still holds Your teacher analogy is spot on in that we also pay the salaries of teachers through tax. Aside from that they have no similarities. One we choose to buy the other we are forced to fund. If a dev comes and attacks gamers for criticising them when we pay their salary, which we do, showing no respect then they are out of order. Gamers pay their salary, they should treat us with bloody respect.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Maybe a problem with game development being sold to people as a lifestyle instead of as a vocation. There really isn't any real obvious benefit to society from game development other than keeping people off the streets I suppose.

Hang on, what on earth are you doing on a website entirely devoted to computer games?

Dunno, guess I'm representing the minority of people who don't want a career in "the industry."

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Thought you meant that and I doubted myself thinking no one could actually have issue with it. We buy their games. That money finances them through either success resulting in funding from a publisher or if they are independent (valve included) it goes straight to them. We pay their salaries. This is not limited to those kickstarted things and I cant understand how you dont see that. I was not saying the customer is always right because that is and isnt true in certain ways but thats a seperate discussion, as the two statements are wholly unrelated. We are their customers and we decide if they make money or not, they do not laugh it up when a game bombs because they know they will not be successful in future (or at least as much). I was saying that, as their paying customers, they owe us repsect and should understand that we are not a given. Your argument is above all, pointless and nitpicky.

I have been helping making games for Danish sites for about a year now Most of the work I have done is been holiday related games for TV stations kids section. I dont get paid per use/sale.

The developers dont get paid per sale (well technically there are instances where they do, but like me the norm is a monthly paycheck). They get new contracts if their games do well, sometimes. Other times they dont. Wether or not you get a contract again has more to do with your relationship with your publisher than it has to do with sale. Publisher know that there are more factors in sales than quality, and it is the publisher who answers to the customer. Not me.

To go "I pay your salary!" to a developer is just as stupid as doing it to a teacher in a public school. And oversimplification of a system.

So your trying to tell me that if a game sells poorly then the devs will still get funding? What planet do you live on? We are talking about devs of mainstream games, not to belittle your work, rather than you yourself.What I said earlier still holds Your teacher analogy is spot on in that we also pay the salaries of teachers through tax. Aside from that they have no similarities. One we choose to buy the other we are forced to fund. If a dev comes and attacks gamers for criticising them when we pay their salary, which we do, showing no respect then they are out of order. Gamers pay their salary, they should treat us with bloody respect.

No.

I am saying that I still get paid if the game sells poorly. Thats the thing about working on a product that takes sometimes years to make and you are paid on a monthly basis. No matter how the game sell. I already got my money. So no you dont pay my salary.

I swear to god. I stated that I was not talking about you but of mainstream developers. You are not, this is fact not a derogative. I foyu cannot see that then you cannot read.

 

[ablac]

A good deal of arrogance and the idea that its theri 'art' and thus if you dont like their design choices then you are simply at fault. Developers dont seem to realise who pays their salaries.

If you think you do....

Then there is a large amount of irony at work here.

What do you mean? Even if our money does not go to them directly it is the cause of thier salary. I do not see any irony in that.

You dont pay their salaries. The publishers do. You pay their salaries in kickstarter maybe, but not othervise. They get paid no matter if the game gets sold or not, as long as it gets made.

It is this stupid sentence people use "I Pay your salary". No you dont. It is among the fallacies of "the customer is always right". Its an over simplification and simply not true.

Thought you meant that and I doubted myself thinking no one could actually have issue with it. We buy their games. That money finances them through either success resulting in funding from a publisher or if they are independent (valve included) it goes straight to them. We pay their salaries. This is not limited to those kickstarted things and I cant understand how you dont see that. I was not saying the customer is always right because that is and isnt true in certain ways but thats a seperate discussion, as the two statements are wholly unrelated. We are their customers and we decide if they make money or not, they do not laugh it up when a game bombs because they know they will not be successful in future (or at least as much). I was saying that, as their paying customers, they owe us repsect and should understand that we are not a given. Your argument is above all, pointless and nitpicky.

I have been helping making games for Danish sites for about a year now Most of the work I have done is been holiday related games for TV stations kids section. I dont get paid per use/sale.

The developers dont get paid per sale (well technically there are instances where they do, but like me the norm is a monthly paycheck). They get new contracts if their games do well, sometimes. Other times they dont. Wether or not you get a contract again has more to do with your relationship with your publisher than it has to do with sale. Publisher know that there are more factors in sales than quality, and it is the publisher who answers to the customer. Not me.

To go "I pay your salary!" to a developer is just as stupid as doing it to a teacher in a public school. And oversimplification of a system.

So your trying to tell me that if a game sells poorly then the devs will still get funding? What planet do you live on? We are talking about devs of mainstream games, not to belittle your work, rather than you yourself.What I said earlier still holds Your teacher analogy is spot on in that we also pay the salaries of teachers through tax. Aside from that they have no similarities. One we choose to buy the other we are forced to fund. If a dev comes and attacks gamers for criticising them when we pay their salary, which we do, showing no respect then they are out of order. Gamers pay their salary, they should treat us with bloody respect.

No.

I am saying that I still get paid if the game sells poorly. Thats the thing about working on a product that takes sometimes years to make and you are paid on a monthly basis. No matter how the game sell. I already got my money. So no you dont pay my salary.

I swear to god. I stated that I was not talking about you but of mainstream developers. You are not, this is fact not a derogative. I foyu cannot see that then you cannot read.

And you cannot understand that the developer doesn't get paid per copy sold. Welcome to a business that doesn't pay like waiting tables.

You know that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we buy their games and that good sales reflect in high funding and thus wages. That is fact,it is logic and it shows that we pay their wages. We are where the money comes from.

 

[Epona]

Basically the gamer side has become quite the whiny

Are you serious? Look at all the shit gamers put devs through, you can't for a second make them out to be victims here. Developers create and try to protect content and gamers pirate it, zero-bomb it, threaten to boycott the developer for whatever reason, send hate mail, etc.

If they're getting defensive, they have every right to.

Funny how you don't mention that gamers BUY it. If gamers weren't buying the games and were instead pirating them, it wouldn't long take before that developer couldn't afford to make more games for people to ***** about. Honestly, do you really believe that most of the people bitching about ME3 or the PS3 version of Skyrim, pirated those games?

Moral is: If people are bitching about your game, the earned that right when they bought it.

"The customer is always right" is a lie. Sometimes the customer is a fucking idiot and should be told off since they deserve it.

And the gamers (customers) are not a very rational crowd to please. Piracy is one of the many factors put into it. The ME3 overreaction is one of the latest worst culprits. Bioware makes an objectively very good game, technically sound, years in the making, 10 minutes make it the worst thing off all time.

Death threats, hate mail, forum raging, metabombing away.

It's still a minority (although I'm not inclined to believe that the retake movement was just a minority of those types) that acts that way but it's still a large enough portion to have enough voice to be heard and forced to be acknowledged.

I never said the customer is always right, just the buying the game opens up the right to complain.

 

[Vegosiux]

I am saying that I still get paid if the game sells poorly. Thats the thing about working on a product that takes sometimes years to make and you are paid on a monthly basis. No matter how the game sell. I already got my money. So no you dont pay my salary.

Well, two things.

First, dude, we get it. You work hard on your projects and you don't like criticism, because you take pride in your work. That's all good and fair, a perfectly human attitude. But you don't get to tell your customer to piss off, because chances are, that's exactly what they will do. And when they do, that means less money for future projects. Sure you may have gotten paid for the game you developed already (duh), but if less money flows in, you might not get paid (as much) when the next one comes around.

And you have to accept that it doesn't matter how hard you worked on something if the customer is not satisfied, you have to suck it up. You don't get to stomp your feet and tell them they're being an ungrateful fuck, you don't get to do that even if that's precisely what they are. Because it's not your work that sells the games, it's not your work that brings the money in, it's the PR. It's the advertisements, and it's the company reputation, and you do not want to jeopardize that because your pride is hurt. It's all good and well that you take pride in your work, but what you do is not what brings in sales.

Second, no, customers don't "play your salary", just like "we" don't pay cops and teachers. But the difference between the two is, as was told, that we have to pay taxes, but we don't have to buy games. And as I said above, if enough people decide not to buy, you have less available funds for future projects. Which can mean anything from lack of cutting edge equipment to lower pay, but usually a mix of the possibilites.

Oh and guess what? I think it's an absolute disgrace that it's PR and all that nonsense that makes sales happen. I'd rather see good stuff speak for itself. But, to my dismay, the world just doesn't work that way.