Why Is This Forum Section So Toxic?

Currently viewing this thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nodice83

Squire
WBWF&SNWVC
The problem is that over the last 10 or so years, the trend has been for tech companies to believe customers are just a manipulative mass, and that any complaints can be chalked up to the app not being manipulative enough. Taleworlds executives probably don't believe this directly, but as a broad tech industry trend its almost suffocatingly pervasive. Universities have been giving massive grants to game developers for like a decade to research how video game player manipulation works. Everything's about data now and you can't go 2 feet as a coder without seeing someone telling you how effective it is to use user data to subconsciously manipulate your audience rather than ever directly addressing them. And unfortunately its working, because data driven games are by far the most profitable.
I was not familiar with how it works in electronic entertainment companies, but this sure sounds scary... and sad at the same time. Almost like most of us will end up playing games we would barely enjoy.

P.S. Little quote from the link you posted. I know this is a typical grant request style, but still...

"These will show us how businesses can start up and grow to develop a new generation of games with the potential to improve society."

I can smell 'Skynet Fan' a mile of...
 
And unfortunately its working, because data driven games are by far the most profitable.
Or maybe most popular games are data driven by necessity because their communities are too large.
Someone kept posting an article about devs that made changes driven by steam analytics who ignored what players were saying, and managed to screw up their game, both not getting new players and losing their core support. Is this an exception that proves the rule or is this just different stuff happening to different companies?

While I don't care if AAA publishers are evil and hypnotize the masses to steal their money, I'm worried about what sub-AAA companies with decent games I play may be thinking.
In case of Taleworlds, I would assume that a technical guy like Armagan would be hypnotized by data and prefer it to messy interactions with players. Hopefully he will have his repentance video interview when his space game tanks and people are not enthusiastic about the next Mount and Blade.
 
Or maybe most popular games are data driven by necessity because their communities are too large.

That may be the case now that it's the dominant model, but in the early to mid 2010s there were a few risky experiments by some companies which seem to have paid off, despite being way more effort than just reading the forums or whatever they did before. That grant I linked includes the Creative Assembly, who almost immediately put spyware into their games to check what sort of stuff people weren't using, and then removed it.

Back then nobody knew about the spyware, but it caused instant backlash in Rome 2 which they never recovered from. But
now TW: Warhammer is probably their most refined sugar ass game and it gets more concurrent players and DLC purchases than anything they've ever made. Games that "the community likes" on the other hand, like TW: Attila (which was designed almost entirely around player feedback) is their least played modern title.

Another example is Paradox. Johan "tinyface, nochin" Andersson, who designed EU4 and Imperator Rome, has admitted that his main aim with the new titles was to strip off all the dynamic mechanics and turn everything into "click button -> instant small reward" because that is what academia says makes the most playable games. Most people loathe this system, and rightly so, because it is insanely unfun to play and offers no challenge or interesting situations. HOI4 is even worse, its like they've deliberately removed anything that might resemble a dynamic system and replaced it all with static modifiers. However these games make them millions. Everyone knew the latest EU4 DLC would be garbage, and it was, but it sold really well. The playercount of their least dynamic titles is on the incline. Compare that to Imperator Rome, a game they mostly "fixed" by removing all the static crap, and it's one of their least played games along with all their older more dynamic titles.

Bear in mind that the main PR line of Paradox games is that they "listen to the community" and regularly interact with players, but the reality is that their games are essentially built by robots.

tl;dr you arent just a bitter boomer, games do suck now and will continue to suck as long as Data remains a viable way to do business. Only 3rd world indies will save us now.
 
Last edited:

Loyal2Odin

Sergeant
Back to the question asked by OP. Let us begin by defining what toxicity really is:

Toxicity is the quality of being harmful or unpleasant in an insidious way.

What can we make of this?
 
I've just sat and read the Multiplayer Forum section and Jesus Christ guys chill out and stop being so horrible.

Game's not even released yet. Stop insulting the devs. They're making progress (I didn't play for ~~a year and the game's vastly improved). If the game's lack of immediate progress is stressing you out so much, go play something else until it's done. Harrassing and insulting the devs constantly helps nobody, and just alienates the community from the developers. Moreover some of us would like to read the Multiplayer Forum and enjoy what we read, not see endless whining about developer progress and trolling.

I know you're excited for the game to be finished, but guys, chill.

----------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION TO INITIAL QUESTION - Early Access as a concept is bad/confusing. It's a marketing term for a beta which you have paid for. The developers should not have used it here and it has given many the impression that this is a full release when it is clearly not. Players should treat Bannerlord as they would treat a beta, and wait for full release if they are not happy beta testing an incomplete game (I personally do not enjoy beta testing).
because this game at its current development ****in sucks
 

madnessario

Squire
That may be the case now that it's the dominant model, but in the early to mid 2010s there were a few risky experiments by some companies which seem to have paid off, despite being way more effort than just reading the forums or whatever they did before. That grant I linked includes the Creative Assembly, who almost immediately put spyware into their games to check what sort of stuff people weren't using, and then removed it.

Back then nobody knew about the spyware, but it caused instant backlash in Rome 2 which they never recovered from. But
now TW: Warhammer is probably their most refined sugar ass game and it gets more concurrent players and DLC purchases than anything they've ever made. Games that "the community likes" on the other hand, like TW: Attila (which was designed almost entirely around player feedback) is their least played modern title.

Another example is Paradox. Johan "tinyface, nochin" Andersson, who designed EU4 and Imperator Rome, has admitted that his main aim with the new titles was to strip off all the dynamic mechanics and turn everything into "click button -> instant small reward" because that is what academia says makes the most playable games. Most people loathe this system, and rightly so, because it is insanely unfun to play and offers no challenge or interesting situations. HOI4 is even worse, its like they've deliberately removed anything that might resemble a dynamic system and replaced it all with static modifiers. However these games make them millions. Everyone knew the latest EU4 DLC would be garbage, and it was, but it sold really well. The playercount of their least dynamic titles is on the incline. Compare that to Imperator Rome, a game they mostly "fixed" by removing all the static crap, and it's one of their least played games along with all their older more dynamic titles.

Bear in mind that the main PR line of Paradox games is that they "listen to the community" and regularly interact with players, but the reality is that their games are essentially built by robots.

tl;dr you arent just a bitter boomer, games do suck now and will continue to suck as long as Data remains a viable way to do business. Only 3rd world indies will save us now.
Thank you for the insights in the industry.
Unfortunately, I do not see how it can change when this model produces them the most money. Even if it applies in the short-term you can always have new influx of people to "take advantage of".
 

Corsair831

Sergeant
WF&S
Whilst those are some good insights into the industry I don't think it affects the core idea that whilst a lot of the players who hang around here clearly have a vested interest because they spent some money on a beta and they've spent a long time waiting for it, they still should behave with decorum (as they are clearly still not, see forum page today)
 

Corsair831

Sergeant
WF&S
Exactly, some of the devs are doing a good job and the game is really fun, I don't know why you guys have to be so mean all the time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom