Sunday, July 15, 2012

I TROL U: "Trolling," "Entitlement," and the Industry

Recently, there's been a rather interesting trend that I've noticed in the way game developers and publishers treat their customers. Perhaps not so coincidentally, it coincided with the popularization of internet trolling. Now, I'm not going to pretend that trolls haven't always existed, but in the past year or so it has gotten to be a bit excessive, especially with memes and general *chan culture finding its way into the mainstream via sites like Reddit and Facebook. Trolling has changed as well - it used to simply be things like griefing (think "that one guy who stands still in the hallway as your team tries to push through so you all die a horrible death when an enemy eventually notices").

These days, the most common method of trolling appears to be consistent repetition of intentional logical fallacies or insults with no real basis. It's exceptionally stupid (and in my opinion, not even nearly as entertaining), but it's very widespread these days, especially on any site involving video games. In a way, it should be expected - internet culture has been tied to video game culture for a long time - but it has resulted in some unexpected consequences. For every obvious trolling attempt where someone says "this game sucks, needs more ponies," there's a legitimate complaint that rabid fanboys, or worse, the developers themselves, will write off as "attempted trolling." Overzealous forum moderators like Bioware's infamous Stanley Woo eventually see anyone who isn't licking their organization's boots as a troll, regardless of whether or not their complaint had a point or a well structured argument. This ultimately impacts how companies see their customers as well.


Our first real glimpse at the future of gamer/industry relations was given to us earlier this year. Bioware, already suffering from the underperformance of Star Wars: The Old Republic, was fending off community attacks left and right. Forumgoers would regularly attack SWTOR in every manner imaginable, from critiques on the Hero engine the game used to its stunning resemblance to World of Warcraft (many referred to SWTOR - and still do - as "WoW with lightsabers," and with good reason). Bioware staff were also placed under the crosshairs. Woo was often mocked as a totalitarian moderator, while Chris Priestly and Jennifer Hepler were also under near-constant attack. Eventually, Bioware instituted a policy which stated the following:

"Effective immediately there is a zero tolerance policy on any form of abuse towards staff, moderators or other Community members.
Anyone posting a personal attack on staff, moderators or other Community members will, at the sole discretion of staff or moderators, be banned from the BioWare Social Network without notice and is no longer welcomed."

It seems like a reasonable response, right? Not quite. 

While there were certainly legitimate trolls who did nothing but call Priestly and Hepler fat, there were also a number of people who were silenced for doing things like calling Hepler out on her terrible writing and desire to effectively make gameplay entirely optional (and Hepler's writing really is terrible - have anyone with a background in creative writing read her graphic novel, M.I.T.H.: Operation Smoking Jaguar, and watch them twist their face in agony). Hepler's critics in particular were called "misogynists" who had vagina envy, despite many pointing out the significant flaws in her writing. Since Hepler's writing in Bioware games often focuses on same-sex relationships, critics were swiftly demonized by both Bioware and the gaming media as homophobes who hated women, regardless of what their actual arguments entailed.

The issue came to a head around the time Mass Effect 3 launched, especially with the revelation that Javik, a Prothean squad member, would be day 1 DLC. Bioware insisted that his story was optional, but long time ME fans saw right through it and called it out as a cash grab where content was cut from a game simply to be sold alongside it. In Mass Effect, the Prothean race has been extinct for millenia, and the things they left behind have nothing short of a monumental impact on the game's universe. Consumers who complained often found their posts being edited or outright deleted in response. Many forumgoers saw this and expressed their complete disgust with Bioware's heavy-handed moderation.

Once Mass Effect 3 launched and the ending to the trilogy was revealed, Bioware's forums once again exploded with anger. The ending was nothing short of disastrous, with more plot holes and inconsistencies opened than the game could ever hope to close. To add insult to injury, the game's "epilogue" screen was effectively a pitch for players to buy more DLC.

Yes, this was really the original end screen for Mass Effect 3.

Gamers, including myself, were livid with rage. Not only had many of us watched what we once considered one of the best new IPs of this generation crumble around itself due to poor quest design, cliched writing, and oversimplified gameplay, but now we were being told that it would cost us MORE money to (maybe) fix it. Criticism was fast and furious, birthing the "Retake Mass Effect 3" movement in a matter of days. The only thing more interesting than the community's rapid response was the response of EA/Bioware and the gaming media as a whole.

Instead of shining the spotlight on these consumer movements - many of whom simply wanted Bioware to admit they screwed up and release a rewritten ending - they chose to demonize them. I was told by EA employees that I had no right to complain about the poor quality of the ending because I didn't pay for any of the games since I had worked for EA until a couple of weeks prior, and that I was a "troll" for complaining (this was entirely false, as I bought the N7 Collector's Edition, which was not available via the EA employee store, and had bought all my previous Mass Effect games and merchandise before working there). Bioware stated that redoing the ending would compromise ME3's "artistic integrity," while sites like IGN and Kotaku - both of whom were swimming in EA-sponsored ME3 ads - began talking of how these consumers were simply "entitled" and had no right to demand Bioware cater to their whims.

The problem here is that consumer demands drive the market. It's the very basis of customer loyalty - if a company caters to a consumer and provides them excellent customer service, that consumer is likely to continue buying from them. However, because EA already had our money in hand, somebody in public relations decided it was perfectly ok to call dissenters "trolls" and claim that they represented a minority, rather than mending the wounds and ensuring a loyal following for their next project. In their eyes, ignoring the problem and hoping it went away would be far easier and cheaper than actually putting in the man hours to give them what they wanted. Ultimately, the tactic did not play out in their favor, and Bioware was forced to put together the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut. While this did not resolve every issue with the original ending, it did fix a lot of issues and was generally well-received.

However, the damage was already done for many people. Bioware's handling of the ME3 ending debacle is alarming; it took Bioware far too long as a company to swallow its pride and admit they had made a mistake, much less accept that criticism wasn't simple trolling. I, for one, will never again buy any Bioware product unless their public relations department improves exponentially. I also refuse to visit or even link to IGN or Kotaku for the way they treated their target audience during this time.

It has also brought to light a serious issue with the way the games industry handles public relations: while trolling is in fact more common than ever, developers and publishers are far too eager to simply write off any dissent from their audience as "trolling," whether or not it actually is trolling. Heavy-handed moderation and the system of confirmation bias that has been implemented between publishers, studios, and the gaming media thanks to bonuses and advertising dollars has created an echo chamber where any complaints, valid or otherwise, can be ignored. This is ultimately bad for me, bad for you, bad for gamers, and bad for the industry. If nobody is a critic, gameplay will stagnate, and "innovation" will be a farcical buzzword thrown around by the media to a playerbase that simply doesn't know any better. Once that happens, the hardcore base will disappear, and when the casual base eventually loses interest, the industry will collapse under its own weight, all because those who offered solutions to the problems they faced will have been classified as "trolls."

So, for anyone at EA/Ubisoft/Activision/etc. whoever is reading this, please, I beg you, listen to the trolls once in a while. More often than not, you'll find reasonable arguments where you least expect them, and even if you don't, even broken clocks are right twice a day.

1 comment:

  1. I don't think it's so much that the "trolls" who have a point aren't heard but that they're not heard by the right people. Someone low on the ladder may continually hear a good point. The underling reports this to some other guy. This other guy is not as in touch and misunderstands the situation, and so dictates a bizarre response. Perhaps it's simply too hard for the important, decision making people in companies structured like Bioware to see things from the consumer's standpoint, whether or not anybody else realizes the problem.

    ReplyDelete