It’s not about trust, of course they don’t deserve trust. It’s about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can’t just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.
In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That’s the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.
If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”.
By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”.
By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never “learn it”, they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
They don’t care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It’s a business.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
And that’s perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.
if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
Thats exactly my point. If everybody just “forgives” them right away, then they got away with trying. Then they have no reason not to try a different approach later.
What would be needed for this cycle to stop is to actually show them that it does not benefit them and they have a lasting negative effect on their business just for trying.
And in a mid-budget game like this, player goodwill is a part of the numbers. This is not (yet?) a big brand like CoD or something that people will buy and support no matter what. They have to keep their community together or they do not have a business.
(That does not mean that people cannot review however they want of course, I am just putting my thoughts out there.)
They have a legal responsibility towards investors, they only moved back because refunds started happening, they didn’t give a crap about the reviews, they had made their money already… Until that got taken away from them.
they only moved back because refunds started happening,
Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.
Negative reviews by themselves don’t do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community’s mood (especially to other gamers in the community).
they had made their money already
Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.
It seems a bit petty. It’s a small company with 100 employees trying to make a game, and a deal with Sony probably gave them the investment to do that. 7 years of development cost a lot of money.
No matter the size of the company, if they adopt anti-consumers practices (directly or indirectly) why should they be rewarded for it? They signed the contract knowing that was part of it.
Nobody is rewarding them for signing a deal with Sony. People are rewarding them for making a really fun game for a reasonable very consumer friendly price point. I can’t think of a newly released game, that’s perfectly ethical. Even Larian signed a deal with Hasbro to make Baldurs Gate 3.
Just don’t forget to give the game a positive review now that Sony backpedalled. That way we can be ready for next time.
Emmm not really. They haven’t regained trust by simply backpedalling on a very stupid decision.
It’s not about trust, of course they don’t deserve trust. It’s about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can’t just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.
In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That’s the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.
If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.
I disagree.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never “learn it”, they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
They don’t care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It’s a business.
And that’s perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.
Thats exactly my point. If everybody just “forgives” them right away, then they got away with trying. Then they have no reason not to try a different approach later. What would be needed for this cycle to stop is to actually show them that it does not benefit them and they have a lasting negative effect on their business just for trying.
And in a mid-budget game like this, player goodwill is a part of the numbers. This is not (yet?) a big brand like CoD or something that people will buy and support no matter what. They have to keep their community together or they do not have a business.
(That does not mean that people cannot review however they want of course, I am just putting my thoughts out there.)
They have a legal responsibility towards investors, they only moved back because refunds started happening, they didn’t give a crap about the reviews, they had made their money already… Until that got taken away from them.
Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.
Negative reviews by themselves don’t do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community’s mood (especially to other gamers in the community).
Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.
Negative reviews do discourage other people to buy the game. So saying they don’t do much, is half wrong
And the people who were going to spend extra money aren’t the ones who would have asked for a refund in the first place.
This again? They don’t have a legal responsibility, it’s just if the CEO isn’t making investors money, he could get ousted.
Especially if this much backslash (and extraordinary steam refunds) was needed for them to reevaluate their choices
Good idea. Then they know backpeddling works, and thus any initial decision has no consequences.
You must be a genius!
Arrowhead deserves a second chance. It’s a great game.
Arrowhead are the ones who signed a contract with Sony in the first place, they deserve zero sympathy.
It seems a bit petty. It’s a small company with 100 employees trying to make a game, and a deal with Sony probably gave them the investment to do that. 7 years of development cost a lot of money.
It is.
No matter the size of the company, if they adopt anti-consumers practices (directly or indirectly) why should they be rewarded for it? They signed the contract knowing that was part of it.
Nobody is rewarding them for signing a deal with Sony. People are rewarding them for making a really fun game for a reasonable very consumer friendly price point. I can’t think of a newly released game, that’s perfectly ethical. Even Larian signed a deal with Hasbro to make Baldurs Gate 3.
Indie games: am I a joke to you?
If you give them money or good reviews even though they spat in your face, what do you think the lesson is?
They spat in my face!?