The way developers/publishers monetize their games makes thier communities toxic.
Microtransactions caused gamers to become toxic? Not the normalization of racism within the game community that's been around since xbox live was still on the OG xbox? Not the willful ignorance present in the gaming community whenever devs actually talk about the nitty gritty? Not the treatment of the medium as a boy's club? Not the ridiculous justifications gamers come up with to justify the community's toxicity like blaming it or MTs?The way developers/publishers monetize their games makes thier communities toxic.
This GAF thread just goes on to prove the OPs point.
Reading into the posts to construct an argument thats wasnt made? Check.
Randomly launching into non sequitor rants about unrelated business models? Check.
Butthurt lashing out? Check.
Reading the tweets as uncharitably as possible? Check and mate.
I just wish people could generally be more enthusiastic and positive about games generally. So often these days it seems like when a game gets it 90% right, the conversation revolves almost entirely around the 10% that people have an issue with.
Relentless negativity isn't an endearing trait, especially when its often expressed in a hostile and aggressive tone. The key thing isn't that complaint or criticism is bad per se, its just that if its how you most often express yourself, its alienating.
Ive worked in the gaming industry since I was 24 years old (38 now), and I have to say that actually being a part of the industry, in various ways, has given me such a massive appreciation for making video games. It is a grueling, painful, stressful, beautiful experience. Like a Dark Souls/Bloodborne game, but real life. When you push through and complete a game youre proud of, theres nothing like the high you get.
So much blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifices get put into making games for people to enjoy. Well, we hope they enjoy the games we make. It sucks when you spend countless hours, weeks, months, years, and the game still falls short for various reasons. There are so many moving parts in making games that you cant plan for everything, but you try to mitigate massive setbacks as best you can. You try to avoid cutting content as best you can, avoid overreaching and under-delivering.
No one sets out to make a garbage game. Thats not why we got into the industry. We dont do it to scam, deceive, or nickel and dime you. Lord knows there are probably better ways to do that than making video games.
No, we got into the industry because every single one of us played a game in our youth, and fell in love with it enough to say, You know, it would be amazing if I could make my own game one day, and we collaborated with other like minded folks and tried our damnedest to make something wed love as much as that game that set us on that path so many moons ago, and hope that our fans will get that same thrill.
Its obvious we dont always succeed, but we certainly wont stop trying to be better if were blessed with another shot at it. Basically, we just love making video games. Its awesome, and soul crushing, but damn I cant imagine many other things Id rather be doing.
The way developers/publishers monetize their games makes thier communities toxic.
I seem to recall a lot of "flaming", "trolling", shitposting and generally bad behavior existing LONG LONG before games as a service rolled around.
No Man's Sky is probably the most extreme version due to the dev keeping internal development secret and allowing expectations to soar, and had one of the the nastiest fan reactions because of the "downgrade".
This is something I've been pretty guilty of myself and have come to learn to let go of, or at least try. It's been a sobering realization to come to and reflect upon, and I try to recognize when I might be encroaching on that territory.Next time you don't like a game, maybe consider just... moving on? What is the value of helping spread hate and toxicity? If more people accepted that it's okay to dislike a game and move on, rather than doubling down on harassment, things would be more open. If you are posting extremely negative things about a game you don't like, even with good intentions, you are contributing to this ethos. Being critical and explaining why you don't like something is fine. Dwelling on it, calling out the dev, or just talking shit is not. Let's be honest: dwelling on something you don't like also isn't healthy. Spend your time on what matters instead.
The reaction was hostile and overblown. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: Sean Murray really did make direct claims about his game that turned out to be false. When he was asked to comment on this, he chose not to, and instead said nothing. Despite talking to the game's community prior to release.
It wasn't "keeping internal development secret" that allowed fan expectations to soar. It was their own marketing and PR efforts.
No Man's Sky is probably the most extreme version due to the dev keeping internal development secret and allowing expectations to soar, and had one of the the nastiest fan reactions because of the "downgrade".
Hardcore gamer types think they know shit about game design because they play a lot of games the same way internet pseudo-smark types think they know shit about booking because they watched a lot of wrestling.
When I have people playtest my games I make changes based on what they do, not on what they say. There is too much contention with developer vs player expectations. Players may not know exactly what they want but they can express problems through frustrations of interacting with the game. Players shouldn't worry about the smoke and mirrors; at the end of the day it doesn't matter what engine is used, what tricks the developers used or who made what. The only thing that matters is that the end product.
The way developers/publishers monetize their games makes thier communities toxic.
�� Meow‏ @retroremakes 9h9 hours ago
Replying to @retroremakes
So I sort of took some time out from games for a while - most of the 90's really.
It was quite a culture shock in many ways. What I still feel I came back to, and took part in, was a culture that had shifted a gear.
I've seen *a lot* of retconning post 2014 and a lot of doubling down on games being some idyllic place that got corrupted and naw.
Huge hairy bollocks, that. Go back to the mags from 83, same horseshit is still present.
Difference is, even if I bought every mag one month in 83, I'd only see two or three iceberg of shit opinions once a month, if that.
Until you reach a point where some magazines are encouraging shit opinions -- inviting them, even.
I stopped buying C&VG because it was content to swim in shit and pay people for sending in shit.
Especially in the UK we see a lot of this period as a golden age and when it's good, it is - tremendously so. There was huge shite too!
And the shite was bad, inviting people not to have opinions so much as to tear things, people, down. Monthly.
I'm not for a second blaming games journalism here - with or without it, we'd have got here because the internet happened.
Maybe don't tell this on Twitter if it's this long...?
Last paragraph here is confusing. The thing about play-testing seems to be suggesting that players don't know what they want in games or what is annoying them, while the conclusion is that players shouldn't concern themselves with the technical workings of a game.
It reads as if players play-testing can't/shouldn't express themselves because they don't understand the technical workings of games. But I'd imagine their feedback on their experience needn't be about that. If I were asked about my experience of a game it'd be about the quality of the game design, not the game tech. And that's the kind of feedback you seem to be talking about--in particular, frustrations with the design.
I get bristling at people talking tech who don't know tech but...
I think there is an experience-expression gap of some indeterminate size. I think we do create our opinions in self-"expression" alongside actually getting at our experience. It is an act of trying to understand ourselves, which, I agree, isn't entirely true to the experience and as such is an act of self-creation, to some indeterminate degree.
I also think that a game designer is going to have more of an idea of the sorts of experience they can prepare and can turn things around such as to defy the way the player sees the problem and the solution to it.
Those are two senses in which I think it is true that a player "may not know what they want."
I don't think either of these things mean that players have no potentially valuable insight into problems in game design and what they'd rather have happen in the game.
Obviously they probably cannot see all the ramifications of their proposals or how they might cause frustration themselves, but I don't think this means they can't be constructive.
Why not?
Because the entire point behind twitter is the character limit (which was considered ridiculously small even back when it was first created). Twitter is geared towards quick little messages, not essays. You shouldn't need to post 36 different times in order to say one thing, no matter how well you say it. It would've been more appropriate to make a blog post somewhere and then use twitter to link to the blog.
Wow that was a bunch of bs. Thanks for sharing.snip
Next time you don't like a game, maybe consider just... moving on? What is the value of helping spread hate and toxicity? If more people accepted that it's okay to dislike a game and move on, rather than doubling down on harassment, things would be more open. If you are posting extremely negative things about a game you don't like, even with good intentions, you are contributing to this ethos. Being critical and explaining why you don't like something is fine. Dwelling on it, calling out the dev, or just talking shit is not. Let's be honest: dwelling on something you don't like also isn't healthy. Spend your time on what matters instead.
I think it's on a case by case basis. I am still upset about changes to Roadhog in Overwatch. Why? I bought the whole game for that guy. Blizzard basically deleted a game I loved. Why wouldn't I be upset and "toxic"?
Or consider Hearthstone. People invest a lot of time and money into that game. I've put a few hundred in. So when decisions are made, I am involved. I can't just walk off and say "well I will just go play something else", because that is walking away from an investment.
Edit: that said, I appreciate the explanatory angle Blizzard has been taking. I just wish they would bring back Roadhog and Dreadsteed.
But if you think sonic 06 is shitty, and you wanna talk about why sonic 06 is shitty 10 years from now because you were a dumb 13 year old at that might have been your first moment of disappoint because you spent your own money on that shit game. You have every right to do that and its fine.
Well maybe they shouldn't of put such horrible anti consumer crap in their full price game.
You can't be shitty to your customer then complain when you rightly get called out on it.
Are you new to the internet or just astoundingly ignorant?The way developers/publishers monetize their games makes thier communities toxic.
Tearing apart a design director for decisions that were very likely outside of his control or even desires, however...Well maybe they shouldn't of put such horrible anti consumer crap in their full price game.
You can't be shitty to your customer then complain when you rightly get called out on it.
I mean, I can't say I've ever seen people get up in arms about the actual methods used to make a game. Where is that happening?
People get upset about content or business practices (ie microtransactions) all the time. But development methods? Where is that happening?
I dunno, isn't like 99% of this due to the fact that game developers don't tell the general gaming public how hard this stuff is? If no one ever spreads the information about how costly it is to implement multiplayer or switch engines, why would you expect the average joe to realize how damn hard/expensive it is?
I swear some of you have obviously never seen gamers go crazy outside of DowngradegateThis is the kind of bullshit that riles people up.
The developers and publishers say hey... eat Shit..
players say... but we dont want to eat shit..
Devs/Pubs say: but you LIKE shit so Eat it.
Players say: THis is bullshit!
Twitter: See this is why we aren't candid with players.. because they dont like to eat shit.
Instead of Being honest with the player base from the start. They lie to our faces and expect us to accept bullshit for no reason.
If they were just honest then we could atleast accept the truth. No first they have to lie to us where the explaination does not fit reality, then after days, weeks, months... the truth comes out.
I swear some of you have obviously never seen gamers go crazy outside of Downgradegate
I think it's on a case by case basis. I am still upset about changes to Roadhog in Overwatch. Why? I bought the whole game for that guy. Blizzard basically deleted a game I loved. Why wouldn't I be upset and "toxic"?
Or consider Hearthstone. People invest a lot of time and money into that game. I've put a few hundred in. So when decisions are made, I am involved. I can't just walk off and say "well I will just go play something else", because that is walking away from an investment.
Edit: that said, I appreciate the explanatory angle Blizzard has been taking. I just wish they would bring back Roadhog and Dreadsteed.