What if everybody stopped giving feedback or caring?

[Michael Jackson]

I think of Blizzard in its good days (Diablo 1, Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft 1, WoW 1) and how back then giving feedback for games and even beta and alpha testing was much more internalized inside the company.

This excludes Starcraft 1, which was originally just a Warcraft 2 reskin, and which once presented at one of the then game shows, looked like shit compared to what was coming from other devs, yet once reworked still turned out into the legendary gem it is today.

So I'm thinking, what if for the next 2 expansions we would all not give feedback anymore, and just let devs make their own decisions?
Do you think the devs of today are capable of creating greatness without the (often warranted) negative backlash from the players?

[Raisei]

There is "giving constructive feedback" and there is "being a hater that wants to convince other people to hate".

The first is useful for the devs, the second is just attention seeking by nitpicking every little detail you hate and making a big fuss about it. The negative threads in this forum (of which many you started yourself Michael/Gonfer so this blatant try of justifycation is quite obvious) usually gravitate a LOT more to the second with peope randomly picking things to complain about even if they have little to no information.

[Accendor]

I think of Blizzard in its good days (Diablo 1, Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft 1, WoW 1) and how back then giving feedback for games and even beta and alpha testing was much more internalized inside the company.

This excludes Starcraft 1, which was originally just a Warcraft 2 reskin, and which once presented at one of the then game shows, looked like shit compared to what was coming from other devs, yet once reworked still turned out into the legendary gem it is today.

So I'm thinking, what if for the next 2 expansions we would all not give feedback anymore, and just let devs make their own decisions?
Do you think the devs of today are capable of creating greatness without the (often warranted) negative backlash from the players?

No, they are not able to, I sm very sure of that.

[Monolithi]

Sure, devs are more than able to create content without any feedback.
And there will always be those who will be satisfied how it turns out.
And there will always be those who wont be satisfied at all.
And there will be always those inbetween.

[Kayze]

They already get feedback from every action you make in game, in their internal analytics.

But could they make greatness? Maybe. A lot of great games start from minimal feedback. Blizzard's issue is their constant chase for growth at expense of their quality. It favors penny pinching, stats-driven "gameplay". They paid for that with BFA, here's hoping they have reason to fight for gameplay this time.

Also, negative feedback is useful, as long as it's actually constructive and not just some incel regurgitating the hate they get from their "fuck you Blizzard" echo chamber groups.

[Soon-TM]

So I'm thinking, what if for the next 2 expansions we would all not give feedback anymore, and just let devs make their own decisions?

Devs already did that, ignoring all player feedback, even from world class players. And BfA happened.

[Louz]

I think of Blizzard in its good days (Diablo 1, Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft 1, WoW 1) and how back then giving feedback for games and even beta and alpha testing was much more internalized inside the company.

This excludes Starcraft 1, which was originally just a Warcraft 2 reskin, and which once presented at one of the then game shows, looked like shit compared to what was coming from other devs, yet once reworked still turned out into the legendary gem it is today.

So I'm thinking, what if for the next 2 expansions we would all not give feedback anymore, and just let devs make their own decisions?
Do you think the devs of today are capable of creating greatness without the (often warranted) negative backlash from the players?

Yeah, blame it on the players, not the corporate greed.

[Vestik]

We can agree with this.

[Michael Jackson]

Yeah, blame it on the players, not the corporate greed.

where the fuck did i blame anyone?

[Gasparde]

What if everybody stopped giving feedback

The game's development cycle would be about 1% faster - because that's seemingly all the time they've spent on feedback in the past.
Looking forward to Shadowlands possibly changing that for the first time ever... but seeing their stubbornness on topic like the GCD... I highly doubt it.

[Mirishka]

There is "giving constructive feedback" and there is "being a hater that wants to convince other people to hate".

The first is useful for the devs, the second is just attention seeking by nitpicking every little detail you hate and making a big fuss about it. The negative threads in this forum (of which many you started yourself Michael/Gonfer so this blatant try of justifycation is quite obvious) usually gravitate a LOT more to the second with peope randomly picking things to complain about even if they have little to no information.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Milfshaked]

I think it is a false assumption that Blizzard still has the capabilities to make good games by themselves. As you seem to note yourself, there is a common thread that every good Blizzard game was made in the past, while all their recent creations have been bad. While the theory that player feedback = bad could theoretically apply to WoWs expansion, that would still not explain stuff like Diablo 3, HotS or WC3R, where player feedback did not play a large part. It appears far more reasonable to draw the conclusion that general incompetence among Blizzard developers or demands from higher ups is the primary cause of bad quality.

[Tarba]

I think of Blizzard in its good days (Diablo 1, Warcraft 2 and 3, Starcraft 1, WoW 1) and how back then giving feedback for games and even beta and alpha testing was much more internalized inside the company.

This excludes Starcraft 1, which was originally just a Warcraft 2 reskin, and which once presented at one of the then game shows, looked like shit compared to what was coming from other devs, yet once reworked still turned out into the legendary gem it is today.

So I'm thinking, what if for the next 2 expansions we would all not give feedback anymore, and just let devs make their own decisions?
Do you think the devs of today are capable of creating greatness without the (often warranted) negative backlash from the players?

They don't care about negative feedback or 2/3 patches later once they added something else retarded. So how "not giving feedback" will help anyone? You want more island expeditions and warfronts?

[Mirishka]

I think it is a false assumption that Blizzard still has the capabilities to make good games by themselves. As you seem to note yourself, there is a common thread that every good Blizzard game was made in the past, while all their recent creations have been bad. While the theory that player feedback = bad could theoretically apply to WoWs expansion, that would still not explain stuff like Diablo 3, HotS or WC3R, where player feedback did not play a large part. It appears far more reasonable to draw the conclusion that general incompetence among Blizzard developers or demands from higher ups is the primary cause of bad quality.

The problem with your argument is that its *almost entirely subjective which of their games are 'bad'.

(*WC3R aside, that game released in an inexcusably poor state)

But plenty of people enjoyed D3, especially as patches and expansions were added, and I've seen very few people go out of their way to run down HOTS. Its not a game that I would consider a classic by any stretch, but its perfectly serviceable as an entry-level MOBA.

And Overwatch - another 'recent' Blizzard game by the measure of games you've listed - is highly regarded among gamers and critics alike.

[Brostin]

I really really don't understand how exactly Blizzard decides what feedback to use, because they have made some really bad decisions based on feedback whilst ignoring glaring numbers issues. It has been like this since TBC at least though, some examples:
MM hunter was really bursty while levelling, Blizzard insisted it was just because people weren't max level. Moaning ensued so they nerfed it anyway, making it basically the weakest hunter spec till T6.
Resto Shaman Earth Shield was pretty strong in PVP. Blizzard gave it a cooldown meaning that Shamans already lacking tank healing in PVE got even worse.

In Legion AND BFA alpha and betas many players raised that Guardian Druid threat was weak. It was ignored both times and eventually buffed after far too long a wait.
Also Guardian in Legion, many players raised how they were far too tanky. This was addressed by nerfing Guardian. During Nighthold. When the set bonuses mostly cancelled out the nerfs.

Another good one in Legion was people moaning about Havoc DH AOE being too strong. Blizzard came out saying that's because AOE is their niche. Then nerfed their AOE, whilst completely ignoring their subpar single target damage. I wouldn't dispute their AOE being strong, it's just a very strange way to deal with things.

I think the most likely explanation I think of for Blizzard's janky implementation of feedback is that they only use feedback that is in line with their current "vision" for where the game is going.

Like I don't understand why tank threat was nerfed after setting a precedent with your DPS players that they don't need to worry about threat in the slightest. I thought we had accepted that most players are doing PUG stuff so why make like hard for PUG tanks? At the very least put the threat modifier on taunt back FFS, currently if you level in dungeons certain tanks cannot hold threat off certain specs.

[Milfshaked]

The problem with your argument is that its *almost entirely subjective which of their games are 'bad'.

I would not say such things are entirely subjective. There are plenty of metrics you can measure.

Overwatch is probably the most successful game from "modern" Blizzard, but even Overwatch is suffering from bad long term player retention. D3 as you bring up performed so poorly with player retention that they stopped making expansions after the first. If that is not customers saying they are not liking the product, I do not know what is. If you cant even keep a sequel in one of the most popular franchises of all times profitable, it is not a good sign.

A game being good or bad is not really subjective. What is subjective is if you liked the game or not. You can dislike an objectively good game and you can like an objectively bad game.