Game Changers - Do they need actual player input before making changes?

NienNunb
85 posts Member
edited July 2016
Other EA games have a panel of actual players that play the game that they consult before rolling out changes. Perhaps something similar is needed here? Discuss.

Replies

  • Options
    Absolutely. This game is spiraling out of control with "fix" after "fix", with seemingly little consideration as to how it impacts the various stakeholders.
  • tRRRey
    2782 posts Member
    Options
    Because they know that people will keep spending money even if the game is broken
    https://swgoh.gg/u/trey 66/
    Make Zader Great Again!
  • Options
    Money money money that is all they care about
  • NienNunb
    85 posts Member
    Options
    I'm sure the devs also have personal pride in this game and its not just about $$$
  • Options
    tRRRey wrote: »
    Because they know that people will keep spending money even if the game is broken

    Yep
  • Wildcats1203
    781 posts Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    The more they break the game the more people spend. You would think the precrafting debacle combined with the insanely bad raid reward system would cause people to stop spending, but instead they put scanners in shipments for $10 and somehow convince people that the solution to the horrible system is to spend money.
    Post edited by attrimap on
  • Pokebreaker
    734 posts Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    The more they break the game the more people spend. You would think the precrafting debacle combined with the insanely bad raid reward system would cause people to stop spending, but instead they put scanners in shipments for $10 and somehow convince people that the solution to the horrible system is to spend money.

    It always made me wonder if developers in certain fields intentionally broke aspects of the programs; just so they can force community feedback, fix the problem, and are made to look as though they listen to the customers. This of course builds confidence and good faith in the consumer, making them more likely to conduct favorable actions in the future.

    Granted, it's always easier to give more to people than to take away. So starting off harsh gives them more room to ease up later, rather than make everything easy from the start, realize it's took easy, then implement restrictions.

    That's a conspiracy theory of course, but my suspicions date back to the early days of Android Rooting mods.
    Post edited by attrimap on
Sign In or Register to comment.