Game developers, don't think the public is a bank, okay?

Editor's note: Teide Kelly (Tadhg Kelly) is a game industry consultant and freelance designer, and he is also the founder of the excellent design blog what Games Are.

For the internet, everyone has a cognitive disconnection, which can be described as "I support the destruction of everything in the world, it can bring about a more democratic or more equal way of doing things, unless it hinders me." "From drinking to cleaning windows, everything is exactly the same: we want everyone in the world to adapt to something more novel than we do, but it will be different when it comes to us." To our surprise, our industry is no longer what it used to be. Indeed, I was shocked.

Even in a future-oriented industry like games, similar things are happening. For example, two news reports this week highlight how badly many game developers are dealing with changes, at least to me. The two messages were frontier developments's abrupt decision to stop the development of a core function of the promise of Elite: Danger (Elite:dangerous), and the valve forced to introduce rules that would require developers to stop fooling early Acess: A user who pays to qualify for advanced testing.

Of course, the game industry has long been in the forefront of the field of public financing. Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Steam early acess, even "My World" (Minecraft) for PayPal use is such an example, and the most sensational areas of the news are from the game industry (Ouya game Machine, Star Citizen, etc.-although game developers often seem to have little understanding of what they mean. The crowd means getting everyone involved. The most crucial lesson of all is to go to the masses, call on the support of the community and money, call on everyone to join you and support you, and finally promise to pay them back. Whether it's a card game or a whole set of games consoles, the deal is much more than just raising money. This is a tribal movement.

And I find that many game practitioners don't seem to understand that. They understood the first part very well, that is, Kickstarter's last successful campaign might be able to get millions of dollars, and the studio could be on the road to success. But when it comes to fulfilling the meaning of the other half of the fundraising, they shirk it.

Some people have such concerns, such as getting the community involved in the design and destroying their vision. This worry is understandable, after all, the committee design mechanism rarely produces good results, which will allow you to sell your soul. However, I think that the community around the game is not really trying to get involved in the design. They chose to support the game makers because they made the game look cool. That is, they believe that game makers can make great games, but at the same time their views can be heard and they will be very happy. "Cancer like Dragons" (that Dragon, cancer no one wants the developer to change the storyline, they want to be involved in the feeling (interest: I have briefly developed this game with the "cancer-like dragon" Developer, and I feel absolutely selfish that you should support them. ）

But I think the bigger problem is that many developers are far from the age of how to deal with public relations. Game development is usually a fairly safe industry. What happens in the industry is in two different worlds from what happens in the fan community, and the two worlds intersect only when you specify a situation that is often manageable. Game makers are often used to talking to audiences through interpreters such as journalists, podcast anchors, YouTube video bloggers or other intermediaries. In fact, game makers are accustomed to such public relations insulation, which can isolate the real people and display their best image in front of the media, fans and communities.

And in their world, developers/studios are accustomed to viewing their money as a bank investment. All professional investments tend to have a sense of adventure, a "Hey guys, we're all betting on this" feeling. Any game project funded by a publisher or investor satisfies only half of the public's commitment, and it is understandable that it will eventually have to cut functionality, make compromises, revise plans, and change direction in the process. We professionals generally understand that life is like this. We see the contract between ourselves and the money as a promise to create something that is not exactly the same as what is described in the desired scene.

The problem is that the sponsors are not professional investors. They are amateurs, and they have nothing to do with business because they invest in love and faith. They are loyal fans, supporters and ultimately a marketing channel. But when we think of them as banks, when we mercilessly tell them "this is just a PR issue" with the change statement, we are wrong. When we get their sponsorship and disappear for a year, and we end up with a far cry from commitment, we're the one who made the mistake. Nothing else. It can be said that we are blackmailing them.

There has always been a moral doubt in the game industry. There are many skilled workers in all types of games, and developers earn as much as they can, only to make ends meet. This kind of work is just a part of the industry, and we've all done it for at least a while. What I'm worried about is that many of us are basically taking the same attitude when it comes to the masses: the only thing that counts is getting a check, and then it's just "how to do It".

It's really hard to understand? The way to treat a community (or any community based on social networks) is to treat the participants as living people, rather than hiding behind a PR person or disappearing. I don't mean to offend PR friends--The best PR people I've worked with are talking about the importance of making sound and speaking honestly, and they're actively discouraging clients from treating the public with the media. But the client did the same.

There may be an age factor in this regard. I've noticed that many of the younger independent developers seem more willing to talk to people (one of my favorites is my friend Maik Busser Mike Bithell) and are more willing to avoid the urge to cheat. They have the courage to admit their faults, they know that a little fault, the media will not tread on their bodies cheered, fans will not be in front of their graves to blame ("play the Door" of the group of people may be like this, but I am talking about the ordinary person). They just want to be treated as supporters, not spoiled children.

With the continuous progress of the industry, and the development of the public, I sincerely hope that the game industry will not be isolated from the audience far away. No one will ask developers and publishers to change their plans based on the fans ' votes (or whatever), much less ask to play in the game. Their only requirement is that if there is a problem, if it doesn't work out, they need to understand the process transparently.

Some people may still feel hurt or betrayed, but in the long run, I think the developer who is talking to fans will buy his account again and again. And those who are tricks will be labeled, and may be doomed.