The Customer (Or The Player) Isn't Always Right.

In fact, they might just be dead ass wrong.

 

This article changed my life.

 

Granted, I don't work in customer service anymore, but I did once, and I'm sure some of you guys did or do, and all of us are customers in one way or another. More specifically, all of us who play games are 'customers' for the developers, and us developers have 'customers' who are the players. It's a general rule for us as game designers to try to cater to what the players might want out of a game and try to make our games to that standard; after all, nobody wants to make a ty game.

 

However, when is this principle wrong? When is it counterproductive? A few points from that article are relevant because one, sometimes 'customers' (the player) can make the 'employer' (the developer) unhappy with incessant, and sometimes mutually exclusive demands (one player says this, the other says that, and sometimes the same dude says two different things that clash), and point two, some 'customers' are 'bad', or more specifically, they don't know what the Frick they're talking about and it just messes up your job as a developer.

 

Obviously I am not suggesting we throw up the middle finger at the player as an excuse to make a bad game (and I am not suggesting that game making directly parallels a business). We want to make games that people can play, right? Then yes, make your game playable, and enjoyable! But what is the point where you can't afford to cater to your players as a developer without sacrificing something? 

I work in retail; specifically electronics and entertainment. And i agree with this 100%. Frequently, when it comes to electronics, I find people want something that simply doesn't exist. They heard about something (usually from a brother-in-law) that does X, Y, and Z, even though doing X renders Y unnecessary and Z impossible. Or, they get mad when you say device A simply can't do X, Y or Z, even though their brother-in-law said it could. (And he has a computer in his office, so he *knows*.)

There was one guy who would come into the store when we had limited-quantity items in the weekly ad (clearance items or special offers on things manufacturers only ever shipped out a handful at a time). Which is fine, but he would come in on a Thursday, when the ad had been running since Sunday, which means the limited-quantity item was gone and we wouldn't get any more, and we couldn't issue a raincheck. Most people would ask if we had them, but shrug it off if we didn't (doesn't hurt to ask). This guy, though, would demand the item, and when we told him it was physically impossible, he would demand something much more expensive for the price of the clearance item. One day, after ranting at myself and a coworker (I had to slip away since I knew I was seconds from smashing the guy's face into the ipad case) one of my managers showed up and started dressing him down like an angry parent. Thankfully, the guy never showed up again.

What I hope people take from this isn't to disregard the customer/player and make something that only appeals to yourself (one reason why people hate RM games) but to disregard those which are plainly stupid and give careful consideration to well thought-out suggestions and complaints.

there is another saying that is very true:


1% of the customers create 99% of the supporter workload...

Perhaps I will jump into this discussion.

I sometimes have to remind people about the difference in opinions and game design best practices. I think I even did something like that on these forums... Anyway - often when there is a question about something related to game design, the answer will be either arbitrary or objective. 

People have their opinions - to each their own. The problem when asking PLAYERS about game design is usually that they have no clue about game design and will state something completely insane. For example "I don't want you to nerf any characters, but I want balance in the game". That is impossible - if something is too strong, even buffing everything around it will by default making this one aspect weaker. It will also create power creep and a huge load of work with changing all the aspects of the game. 

Additionally when it comes to creative media like movies, games, etc. The customer does NOT know what he/she wants UNTIL they get it. That's just the nature of creative media. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You cannot tell if something will be beautiful until you see it. 

Additionally we face the problem of biased choices. There are people who like something that is hated by others. Some people play a game to relax while others pursue competitive mastery in games. One person will launch a treadmill game because they just don't want to think anymore, while someone else will launch a heavily taxing game to challenge his mental abilities. You cannot make a game that will satisfy everybody. 

Now, this is not to say to disregard player input. Players usually highlight the problems they encounter and things they want. The trick is in analyzing the feedback and figuring out "what is causing the player to have this experience" instead of bluntly implementing what they say. For example, if the player says "The game just feels unresponsive" we check the controls, but if the input is fine - perhaps its some kind of mechanic we put in the game that caused it to feel that way. For example - we added a dodge move, but it cannot be used mid-actions. Only when running or perfectly still. By simply allowing the command to break the attacks, we make the game responsive again. 

I would continue more about this, but Curia lacks the time. x.X Maybe some other time. 

I always follow this adage: Make what you want, and others will follow. If you write fanfiction, other people will read it eventually. If you make a huge series with a vast history, someone will read it. Heck, I've played some of the weirdest, crappiest games ever made simply because it was new and had an interesting concept.

It's also important to remember, that unless you're talking about a game that is made as a new release in an already established product line, or a game that needs to sell a lot in order to cover production costs, it's completely reasonable for a person to make the game primarily for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the masses.

Most authors, while very happy if people like their stories, aren't going to write a draft or outline of a story based purely on what they think readers are going to enjoy. More often than not, they're telling stories they enjoy.

Games aren't all that different.

While it's true that there are many game-play elements where quality can be quantified based on what most people find to be functional, and based on a purpose-based perspective (how good does this game-play element work in accordance to the goal I've set out for myself), there are also tons of elements that can't, and where you'll find large gamer demographics with completely different ideas of what constitutes an interesting game.

For this reason, in indie development, it is more often than not more constructive to ask "what do I want to make, and what kind of people am I aiming this game at", then thinking "I need to listen to the demands of any random person who claims they'd play my game if I only did X, Y and Z".

At the end of the day, if what you need in order to play my game, is something I wouldn't enjoy having in it, I'm not going to add it, and I don't need you to play it.

I don't need you to play it, because game production isn't costing me anything at this point except time, and I know perfectly well what kind of audience I am aiming for. If you don't fit the bill, then chances are you aren't my target audience, and since you haven't done anything to contribute to the production of my game, you have no inalienable right to play it either.

(by "you", I am of course speaking generally)

Don't take this to mean that I don't take suggestions, as I do so all the time. However, there is a difference between taking suggestions and rolling with it, at times, and the idea that a person somehow needs to consider every single piece of complaint they receive and make changes to their product. That's a completely facile sentiment.

And, as I tried to say earlier, there is a difference between somebody pointing out grammar mistakes, graphical glitches etc, from people saying "I don't like random encounters", or "I don't like stealth games" and so forth.

The former is reasonable, and is reasonable to address regardless of taste. The latter however, is completely a matter of taste, and if you don't like the general components of a given game, chances are you aren't the intended target audience, and therefore need to find another prospective game to play.

As an indie developer, you're not trying to appease suits or emulate successful games.

You're here to make the kind of game you want to make.

Sometimes, game developers have to decide when to listen and when not to.  I feel good customer service is about making your customers feel as if you care, that you listen to their feelings, thoughts and opinions.  I mean, we are all human and prone to make mistakes.  Have you ever had a fight when you 'win', a relationship might be hurt as a result, that's important to remember.  Capcom 'listened' to Resident Evil fans desire for the series to return to be scary, but they released RE6, which only had a tiny section that could be considered scary.  A lot of fans were disappointed, they had to practically give it away.  This is the importance of listening, especially if lots of people say the same thing.  There is no clear cut answer, sadly.  Just remember you as an indie developer has something that professions do not: freedom, being unknown, so use that to your advantage. 

If you are trying to produce commercial games, it is important to listen to what potential customers might buy.  Companies that don't listen, or companies that try to throw in everything and the kitchen sink both fail.    The former make products that nobody wants, the latter never really release a finished product.

Ideally, a commercial developer would know what qualities customers are willing to pay for versus what qualities customers will say they want.  A customer might say "Yeah, I like having multiple endings," but the developer might find out that the customer is more willing to buy the game if, say, the graphics were improved, or voice-overs added.

Basically, commercial developers need to focus on what will make customers actually part with their money for their game.  

Now, if you're not trying to make a game commercial then, as the developer, you have the luxury of picking and choosing what you want in the game.  Worst case, nobody else plays your game.    Of course if you want other people to play it, it's still important to take into consideration playtester feedback.  

I think when making something commercial, particularly if the game is your main livelihood, customer/player wants are far more important than they are when making a non-commercial game.

A lesson (that I learned the hard way) far too few people have learned or are learning is that you just can't please EVERYONE. If you try, not only will you fail EVERY SINGLE TIME, you'll end up pleasing NO ONE... including yourself. And what's the point if YOU'RE not having fun? They call it PLAYING a game for a reason! :D   Great article, OP. :)

This. Even though I have my game listed as commercial, I'm making what I want. Why? The game is still costing me little but time, and all paid assets I'm using at the moment I've already paid for. I figure maybe someone will buy it, or maybe not. I also have a day job so not like I need this game to sell well to pay my bills. Or, maybe I'll change my mind and make the game non-commercial even in the end. The point is, I'm making what I want to make and having fun while doing it, and that I think is what is important here.

it is true that some customers are not worth it. However, this idea isn't terribly relevant, as the situation in the gaming world (AAA mostly), is the exact opposite. The developers believe they are always right, and are perfectly happy to screw the gamers over. For example: being forced to use unity after steam for any ubisoft game, dlc being made out of previously planned content, pretty much anything EA does, game exclusivity for consoles, and many more.

If you haven't watched the Jimquisition on the escapist channel on youtube, there's a good place to start for the state of the gaming industry. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheEscapistMagazine/videos

So yes, some customers can be bad for buisness, and need to be ignored, but for the most part the problem is with the developers. So I wouldn't worry about the whole consumers being wrong thing for now, unless they have played your game and the vast majority are in concensus.

Actually, I have the general impression that this problem is less with Developers (the guys who make the game) and more with Publishers/Producers (the guys who pay for development and have their expectations of profit margins and release dates set in stone).

To listen or not to listen, that is the question... :D

I agree with Diretooth, Eschaton and Caitlin, because 1) for every one who dislikes your stuff 10 others will like it and the rest of the world will not care anyway, 2) as a hobbyist and/or indie you're not supposed to do what has already been done, and often ad nauseum, 3) a creator is supposed to be free and therefore to make choices (creating is deciding, to simplify), which implies he/she has to admit being wrong sometimes (experience is the best teacher basically).

Do not expect doing a great game by listening to everyone but do not expect doing a bad game by listening to noone: do it first, see what it comes from it afterwards; in the meanwhile, test it as often as needed and you'll feel if something's wrong somewhere – in different words: producing a disaster is probably as difficult as it is to create a masterpiece, and I believe the latter is mainly a matter of luck.

Once you've understood you can't take account of all opinions, you've done half of the journey – I didn't say it was the easiest one, though...

Completely true, I simply rolled them into one as they are becoming too connected (EA buying out everyone and their mothers for example), though there are plenty of cases where the two are separate.

In the end you've gotta do what works for YOU! If you're not happy then no one's gonna be happy! :p

It sounds to me like a lot of what's being discussed here is the two extremes - listening and immediately applying customer feedback vs doing whatever you want without much consideration for any feedback. And, quite frankly, they're both bad practices that would harm or potentially ruin your project. The solution isn't to gravitate to either extreme, but to learn how to filter information and ideas.

You most definitely should consider the feedback you get when it comes to your project, but only in the context of what you're able to accomplish. If the suggestion for multiple endings is something you see often, you should consider it even if it adds a little extra development time. Likewise, if you've spent hours upon hours on a crafting system but you read that players don't use it, maybe you should reconsider having it in your project and spend that development time on polish and shine.

Ultimately, your project ought to be a happy mix of things that you love/enjoy and things that make your players happy. :)