What do "the people"want and how do we know?
Grammarsalad
Member Posts: 2,582
The tenor if this thread is based on research in behavioral economics that suggests that people may not know (or are for whatever reason unable to report) what exactly they want..here the operational definition (concrete definition that can be measured) of "what the people want" is: "what sells".
Now, I don't claim to be an expert in this field but I'm interesting in having a discussion with someone that knows a little more about it. Also I do recognize that there is an intrinsic benefit to websites like these (from a marketing perspective) in terms of generating demand but thats not the focus of this thread.
my concern is that an observer (possibly including game developers) of these boards may get a skewed impression of "what people want".
So I'm interested in the research. is there any reason to believe that one can reliably determine "what people want"from boards like these? if so, what criteria should we use? Number of posts? Lack of disagreement? Presence of disagreement?
Now, I don't claim to be an expert in this field but I'm interesting in having a discussion with someone that knows a little more about it. Also I do recognize that there is an intrinsic benefit to websites like these (from a marketing perspective) in terms of generating demand but thats not the focus of this thread.
my concern is that an observer (possibly including game developers) of these boards may get a skewed impression of "what people want".
So I'm interested in the research. is there any reason to believe that one can reliably determine "what people want"from boards like these? if so, what criteria should we use? Number of posts? Lack of disagreement? Presence of disagreement?
0
Comments
A lot of people, for example, want the ability to play as a half-ogre. But it's not the job of the developers to let players be half-ogres just because a lot of people want it. There's a lot that goes into determining whether something should be implemented, and when it comes to feature requests, the "why" is much more important than the "what" or the "how".
Why do people want to play as half-ogres? Is it because they just want a higher starting strength score? Is it because they want their character to be more bestial, more similar to the monsters they face? Or is it because they just want more options at character creation? The solution to all of these problems might be different than just adding a half-ogre race; it might mean, building the structure so that the modding community has the ability to create new races at their leisure.
Or it might mean adding half-ogres as a playable race.
"What people want" is a dangerous question to ask, especially when developing a usable product. The important question to ask is, "Why do they want it". If you know why the players want something, you can better address their needs.
"We want bigger stacking of potions, gems, and ammo" might translate to "We're running out of space in our inventory", which doesn't mean increasing the stack limit to 200; it probably means adding ammo belts, potion cases, and gem bags.
"We want more powerful magic items" might translate to "We want more interesting magic items", which could be solved by diversifying the existing magic items to make them more interesting to the player (instead of a +2 two-handed sword, maybe they give you a +1 two-handed sword that also adds +1 AC, for example).
"We want the BG1 paper dolls and animations" might translate to "We don't like the BG2 paper dolls and animations", which actually is best solved by taking the BG1 animations and making them compatible with the BG2 engine.
That's why this board is useful to the developers. It's not so much that they can see what people want; it's that they can see the discussions surrounding those requests, to better understand where the players are coming from.
Sorry, I had to do this ;-P
KISS
&
Don't f*uck up a classic.
Anything extra will be gravy.
Also, to address the "why" presupposes that you already know "what" but one thing at a time.
First let me define a few terms first and work with this example here.
Let us use the term "Utility" to denote the positive effects the consumer will experience from buying the game (I think that's more or less the right term; again, I'm not an economist). Let us suppose further that this suggestion "building the structure so that the modding community has the ability to create new races at their leisure" will contribute to greater overall utility for the player than, for example, adding a bunch of 'sexy' races and classes.
If it were the case that the 'standard' model was correct and the average consumer always maximizes utility then we could stop there. However, there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that we are not the 'rational animals' that this model assumes. We can go over the exact studies if you really want but the short version is that we're pretty messy irrational little creatures. For a quick example, look up "loss aversion" (btw which suggests that the dev's should *NOT* under any circumstances actually take anything out of the game including 'cheats' and 'overpowered items/abilities'...the perceived gains will likely be much less than the perceived loss...just sayin'). Of course, it's so much bigger than mere loss aversion. Luckily this game has a lot going for it. The is an implicit cognitive commitment by most players on these boards--including the time we're spending on the boards and playing the games--that will already contribute to sales but that's already a given so it's not worth worrying about.
Anyway, given our generally irrational nature, we can reasonably (heh) make a distinction between a) what will cause us* (statistically speaking) to purchase the game and b) what would maximize utility for the average player. As much as it pains me to say it, just like in the alphabet a must come before b.
Of course, it is possible that a=b, and b=better structure or something similar but how do we know? Maybe a is drow and half-ogre pc's. It's an empirical question that we simply can't answer with our 'gut'.
So, to repeat the question, How do we know?
* I should have used the term 'them' as it allows a conceptual distinction between 'us' the rational ones and 'them' the 'mob' but this is also an example of our innate irrationality (it is, in a sense, a 'performative contradiction' ... funny aside: we get so offended when our irrational biases are pointed out to us. It's just sooo offensive to be reminded that we are humans rather than robots. lol.
Notice how I framed that? First as 'irrational' then second as 'human rather than robots'. Framing effect at work. We prefer generally to perceive ourselves as rational rather than irrational but often as human rather than a robot even though both distinctions (might be) in some sense the same. We see base human emotion as negative when it leads to irrationality but positive when it opposes cold robotic logic. I could go on but I'm running out of time and you're probably running out of patience.
Now... I don't think you're (necessarily) using the same definition that I'm using above (i.e. "what we will pay for"). I think you're talking more about what we really want. This coincides more or less to my definition of b, that which maximizes utility. Now, I don't want to trivialize this point because it really is a good one. We will scream for X all the livelong day but not buy it or buy it and complain that the product has X rather than Y which we will erroneously believe that we called for in the first place (and why didn't they listen?!?) This (particurlarly the first one where we scream for x but don't buy it) is one of my reasons for starting this thread.
However, this presumes a=b above. And, of course it also assumes that we know what people want. Frankly we don't even know (to my knowledge) that these boards are representative of the 'population' or just a loud minority. Let us assume that this board is representative and that they can suss out b above. What if b=/=a?
There is a very simplistic rioting model (forget the name) that imagines that each person in a potential riot situation will contribute to a riot if x number of other people riot first. We can have two identical groups with a very minor difference (one with successive #'s starting with 0; one the virtually identical but having two 4's and no 3) though that minor difference results in a riot or minor altercation between a few disgruntled individuals. It is possible that half-ogres constitute that minor difference. Rather than a 'riot' (terrible metaphor alert!) of good fun games, the absence of a half-ogre or some other minor detail quashes the whole thing before it gets off the ground. Now, I doubt that such a thing would make a difference but it might.
I've run out of time.
What do we want is also a lot affected by Marketing. And Many game sales will be won just by the players expectation, and not really from what the game will be in the end. It's even more true in the current "pre-order" fashion.
Diablo III is a top selling title. It's Metacritic Review score (Average of various game site reviews) is 88/100.
Yet its Metacritic User Score is 3.9/10. So basically you have a well sold game, acclaimed by lot of reviews, but that the vocal user population says its crap.
It's big can or snarky worms! I think that's why most publisher relies a lot on advertising (when they have the mean to do so). They tease, they show all the stuff that they are almost sure most people will enjoy. For the rest they are on radio-silence. Anything that they are not sure will not be well received is hidden, or vaguely answered if the community is insisting on the matter. That's why many players feel deceived when discovering what the game is really about. Sometimes it's all good, and everyone's happy, and sometimes it's disappointing.
I don't think game companies really know what their targeting audience really want. I think they certainly have smart people showing nice charts and stuff, but in the end and to put it simply
That's why there is so many clones or sequels of popular titles. They just replicate what is currently working.
It's simpler and less risky than trying to get smart with a new game concept that the investors may look on with inquisitive and fearful eyes.
Nowadays some like to build in "behavior" analysis feedback within their game. So they can better understand how the clients play their game, what they spent the most of their time doing etc.
They want to understand what makes us tick. I think there is still lot of time left before a "how to make a successful game that will please the most" magic formula is found.
And it's also constantly evolving. Obviously not only all players want the same thing, and different generations might have completely different interests. Finding a big enough common denominator to make a pleasing game for the most is not easy in that context. Maybe that's why some are trying to sexualize game content. Sex appeal is an easy common denominator. I guess sex sells
And then couldn't log in, and when they could, it wasn't a fantastic, lifechanging experience that felt like the touch of God. So they went from "It will be the greatest achievement since the pyramids" to "It's complete rubbish and Blizzard sucks!"
Note: This also applies to this game. Some people probably expect a fantastic new experience with Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition. 3D graphics, fantastic new spell effects, gameplay finetuned til its smoother than an Italian used car salesman, a new NPC that will blow our minds, constant conversations between partymembers in new quests that will span days of gameplay.
But it won't be, and some people will cry ripoff and call it a waste of time. Or they could just adjust their expectations to "Baldur's Gate, a little better" and have a much better experience when it's released.