Current Developer Attitudes - Developers vs Gamers?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I think part of it is that developing games takes a lot more time, money and effort than older games and the consumers don't want to pay more. The publishers/developers need that money if they want to continue making games so they pry it out of consumer hands by ways we hate (DRM, DLC etc).

Not to mention gamers today are a lot more picky and will yell and scream if they aren't satisfied. Compare Pokemon to L4D, different place, different people, different weapons/pokemon, same core mechanics. One is perfectly fine rehashing the same thing while the other was hated before it was even released. Not to mention that devs/pubs know that gamers will buy it like a crack addict, but I think they would be more worried that the addicts complaining will affect the casual browser so they want to shut them up. With more expensive games they need more sales, and even if they have the gamer sales they still need the extras from casuals. Things like paid reviews won't fool anyone in the gaming culture, but it will fool people who aren't and they depend on those undecided consumers.

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.

zellosoli:
within the last few months in the gaming world Ive noticed a current trend among some developers that have reacted to criticism by (as I see it) attacking the general market, usually with insults, belittlement and just telling them that really their opinion doesn't matter (we make it and if you don't like it, your the one with the problem).
I first noticed it with developer Vector Cell responding to criticism about their game AMY, then with EA/Biowere/ME3 debacle and finally with Phil Fish, maker of FEZ (although that was more of a tantrum I think but I think it relates)

what I'm wondering is where did this whole attitude of what I see as Developers vs Gamers stem from? did it happen just suddenly and if so where? or was it gradual with changing upper management culture or whatever

also those are some examples that Ive noticed, if there are more examples that prove or disprove my statements let me know

Mostly the backlash stems from the fact that technically the person you are reaching isn't the person who was calling the shots on the deadline. Most games don't get finished or polished to anything approaching a finished product because of accountants. If you draw a line all the way back to the primary cause of nearly all the problems in the industry. The accountants hold the most blame. They have been given WAY too much power over the creative process.

They destroy a game by forcing it to be released too soon, with too many money grabs. The consumers backlash, usually at the programmers. And the programmers freak because they didn't have much of any control over things in that department. It was just an accountant. Saying, "We need our money by this day. To hell if the game is finished or not."

Phlakes:
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 bitch 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.

I dunno, I think it's because people keep buying recycled games at full price, and then paying for the day one DLC, and all sorts of other fun things.

Not all devs/publishers make statements that anger fans and cause a "US vs THEM" atmosphere, but it's not hard to see why this occurs.

Say a dev or a publisher makes a really outlandish statement that angers the fans. All I can think is, "Well, I guess they can really say anything, people will still buy hundreds of thousands of copies- if not millions".

Would you respect people that behaved as the consumers of video games do? Those who would pay for a product, complain heavily about it (perhaps justifiably)- but then go back and buy another product from that same person.

(Yes, a corporate entity is a natural entity. NOOO, SUBWAYYYYY)

They don't have to respect gamers, because gamers seem to forget about their bad experiences upon sight of a new shiny toy.

Of course, not everyone behaves as such- but enough do.

It's also a case of "Squeaky Wheel Getting the Oil/Grease" (or whatever the proverb is).

I was reading a snippet about forum communities and a lot boils down to the 90-10-1 % division (although it should really be 89-10-1 but anyway). The breakdown is that for a given community, forums, games, what have you, an average split is 90% would be passive (just reads posts, plays games), 10% would be active in posting a couple a day, and 1% would be posting more than 5-20 times the previous group's.

Same thing for complaining, people who have a bone to pick with a given feature would be complaining, yet chances are, the vast majority would be OK with it, or they aren't aware of it, since it doesn't impact their game. Or they like it and are too busy having fun with said feature to post about it. So you end up with a game's forum community where 90% are complaining, but they comprise less than 10% of your actual gamer population.

Who should the devs listen to? If you say "We hear you, complainers, but the larger player group says they're ok/not ok with the feature, opposite what you want", the complainers would just, well, complain more. If you cater to the complainers, you potentially ruin the game for everyone else.

And of course, someone earlier mentioned, there's a ton of decisions that gets made behind the curtains, that, if you were aware of them, would make you realize why some features are the way they are. But a lot of players just don't care, and behave as if the developers are out to kill the gamer's first-born. Or worse yet, and this occurs far too often, they misinterpret the decision and end up shooting from the hip on their complaining.

A common occurrence is the "This game is not what I think it should be, therefore it sucks, 1/10!" behaviour that has been going around. A good rule of thumb is when reading about a game, TEMPER YOUR EXPECTATIONS. Remember, you are often reading what the PR/Marketing department is giving out, of course they want the game to SOUND good! And when the game is released, rate it for what it is, not what you think it should be!

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 bitch 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.

Baldr:
When a bunch of gamers start complaining about stuff they don't have the full story or grasp of, then of course we're going to bump heads.

The problem is, developers don't have that luxury.

At the end of the day, gamers are still your customers. It doesn't matter how wrong they are. It doesn't matter how obnoxious they get. It doesn't matter how much crap they send your way.

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

You don't have to agree with them, and you don't need to take their suggestions/preferences to heart. You do not get to talk back, though.

This is true in ANY industry. If you're working at a restaurant and a customer demands a free desert because his water wasn't cold enough. You give him a free dessert. You don't sit there and argue with him about it. And you certainly don't insult him or demean him. It doesn't matter that it was a stupid complaint. You don't do it.

Spitting matches with customers will NEVER end well for you. EVER. Even if you manage to shout them down (extremely unlikely), you will lose them as a customer. AND you'll lose about half the people they tell the story to. That's a lot of revenue lost just so you can vent your spleen.

The worst part is, dealing with upset gamers should be easy. Just ignore them! You never see them face to face. You never have them complaining to you directly. You just see them on forums. Just ignore it!

I worked for 6 years as a McDonald's Manager in high school and undergrad. I dealt with the absolute worst customers you can imagine. And these weren't distant anonymous avatars, these were red-faced, shouting, angry, in-my-face people. And for six years, I never lost my composure. I never once raised my voice, or argued with a single customer. The result was a 96% customer recovery rate, significantly higher than any other manager in the store. I may not know game development, but I know customer service.

If I can do that in what is one of the worst jobs in the country, game developers should at least be able to ignore complaints.

You will never gain anything by arguing with customers. So don't do it. It's not fair. But it's the truth.

LordOfInsanity:
Funny thing is, some people seem to act like this doesn't happen in any of the other mediums. Movie makers, book writers, tv show creators, etc. all act the same depending on who's who. The only problem is that gaming is one of the more expensive mediums, a game costing $60+, while a book costs roughly $10, movies ranging between $10-$30(depending on if you buy snacks), and all that.

So of course we have some small groups of gamers that feel harsh to the maker side, and then a small group of makers attack back at the gamers.

Sadly, it's the flow of money that makes all these bad attitudes.

the cost would be a very strong factor to be sure,but for things like comic books and movies which don't cost that much, there seems to be almost a never ending supply of vocal friction between viewer and creator, and so far it seems to be seen as "part of the territory" associated with the fandom. so wouldn't the cost of participation be just part of the attitudes we see now?

Slayer_2:

zellosoli:
within the last few months in the gaming world Ive noticed a current trend among some developers that have reacted to criticism by (as I see it) attacking the general market, usually with insults, belittlement and just telling them that really their opinion doesn't matter (we make it and if you don't like it, your the one with the problem).
I first noticed it with developer Vector Cell responding to criticism about their game AMY, then with EA/Biowere/ME3 debacle and finally with Phil Fish, maker of FEZ (although that was more of a tantrum I think but I think it relates)

what I'm wondering is where did this whole attitude of what I see as Developers vs Gamers stem from? did it happen just suddenly and if so where? or was it gradual with changing upper management culture or whatever

also those are some examples that Ive noticed, if there are more examples that prove or disprove my statements let me know

Question, have you ever made a game or mod and released it to the general public?

Personally, no. I am an acquaintance with a few people who want to get into the industry but myself, I have not, I'm actually trying to get into the Illustration biz

zellosoli:
Personally, no. I am an acquaintance with a few people who want to get into the industry but myself, I have not, I'm actually trying to get into the Illustration biz

Ahhh, well, it's like arguing with a woman, you can't win either way. Seriously, though, there is ALWAYS some crowd unhappy. Make it more realistic? The hardcore fans might like it, but noobs will complain. Balance an overpowered item? Users of said item complain, others are happy. It's really lose/lose for the developers most of the time, which is why it's good for them to take fan "criticism" with a few kilos of salt.

I get the feeling that the Us vs Them mentality regarding gamers and developers is rather one-sided. While it's easy to find evidence of gamers adopting this view (look no further than than the absolute paddling Bioware's recieved of late), I haven't seen much to suggest that devs have any kind of disrespect for their community.

Publishers yes, but that's more in a business-like way than anything else. To pretty much all game publishers, gamers are just a subset of consumers, and consumers are just their source of revenue. This is not un-ideal: EA/Activision/Ubisoft etc. don't hate gamers, they just see them as a market to provide a service to in exchange for money, no different from any other company or corporation.

It's slightly more ambiguous with developers, but I imagine most of them are good sports. It's safe to say even the most jaded developer is at least trying to create a quality product and does care about how it is percieved. Just don't be surprised if they come out in endorsement of their publishers ideals, since ultimately, their loyalty is to their pay-check.

Basically the gamer side has become quite the whiny

Crono1973:

Phlakes:
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 bitch 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.

Slayer_2:

zellosoli:
Personally, no. I am an acquaintance with a few people who want to get into the industry but myself, I have not, I'm actually trying to get into the Illustration biz

Ahhh, well, it's like arguing with a woman, you can't win either way. Seriously, though, there is ALWAYS some crowd unhappy. Make it more realistic? The hardcore fans might like it, but noobs will complain. Balance an overpowered item? Users of said item complain, others are happy. It's really lose/lose for the developers most of the time, which is why it's good for them to take fan "criticism" with a few kilos of salt.

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?

Awexsome:
"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."

Awexsome:
Basically the gamer side has become quite the whiny

Crono1973:

Phlakes:
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 bitch 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.

The customer may not always be right but if they spend the better part of a hundred dollars on a game they damn well have a right to be heard.

Death threats and hate mail are a little overboard but forum raging and metabombing are perfectly valid. Unless you just like being a silent little yes man who takes whatever a publisher wants to dish out, regardless if it is good or not?

And the mass effect three thing, a lot of people LOVED the game, but think the last ten minutes are horrible, not many say that it makes it the worst thing of all time.

zellosoli:
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.

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.

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?

Dexter111:
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.

BreakfastMan:
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.

Ye well, they have the furthest reach and the biggest marketing campaigns in the industry with that franchise and they're mainly targeting the young console crowd for which not playing Call of Duty at their school seems to be akin to social suicide.
But I personally believe in the market selfregulating itself at some point. Activision has already lost Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero for overdoing it, at some point they will likely fall big with this too. Beginning of a new console cycle seems like as good a point as any.

I also haven't said that there aren't any people out there buying any of those but they should expect both verbal/PR as well as financial backlash if they don't fix the issues people are complaining about over a longer period of time.

And honestly, have you looked into one of these Call of Duty topics or news lately?http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.373274-Poll-How-would-you-react-to-the-Call-Of-Duty-fanchise-being-cancelled-suddenly
If you read some of the articles on PCGamer.com for instance it's like talking about the Anti-Christ.

On the other hand most KickStarter projects seem to feature "Linux" as a platform, don't use any DRM and offer Steam optionally and a lot of people seem to be happy and voting with their wallets.
I think the strong reaction when a project tried to offer "Exclusive" content (even though everyone backing would already get it anyway) is rather telling what people actually think about that business practice for one if you check the comments:
http://gamepolitics.com/2012/04/14/shadowrun-returns-backers-reject-exclusive-content
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLjCglq2bAg
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns/posts/207508

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.

Draech:

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.

ablac:

Draech:

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.

Draech:

ablac:

Draech:

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.

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:

xDarc:
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 bitch 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.

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.

Krantos:

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

Kahunaburger:

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.

Krantos:

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.

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.

Draech:

ablac:

Draech:

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.

tippy2k2:
What is comes down to is this: The developers games are literally their babies.

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

ablac:

Draech:

ablac:
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.

Draech:

ablac:

Draech:

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.

And yet it is still your Ass that will meet the curb if you piss off enough customers. Funny how that works.

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?

Monoochrom:

Draech:

ablac:
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.

And yet it is still your Ass that will meet the curb if you piss off enough customers. Funny how that works.

Do I have to point out again that I dont deal with the customers?
We make the game within the framework the publisher sets up. This is why the publisher will drop us the second we do something he doesn't want. We Deal with the publisher. He deal with getting the product we made for him out there.

Draech:

Monoochrom:

Draech:
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.

And yet it is still your Ass that will meet the curb if you piss off enough customers. Funny how that works.

Do I have to point out again that I dont deal with the customers?
We make the game within the framework the publisher sets up. This is why the publisher will drop us the second we do something he doesn't want. We Deal with the publisher. He deal with getting the product we made for him out there.

Doesn't matter. Customers pay the Publisher and the Publisher pays you. You can be as a oblivious to it as you like, but the Publisher is ultimately the Customers bitch, that makes you less then a bitch, you are the last person that gets to say anything.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here