Game developers that take feedback to heart?

[YUPPIE]

When you look at how Riot Games has cultivated an environment of sycophants and where the only things they will see and hear are what they want while ignoring almost everything constructive, I'm wondering if there's a game developer or studio that does the opposite.

Just to clarify this isn't just Riot Game's thing. There are so many game developers like Bioware and such that just block out anything they don't want to hear.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Perhaps, depending on your definition, Runescape would count, as they have ingame polls where players can vote whether or not a feature should be added. 99% of the time the players always vote yes (because hardly anyone ever goes to the forums to actually read the indepth debates on the pros or cons of a feature) so the feature is added.

Otherwise, I can't really think of a game developer that really gives all of the features players want.

As far as MMOs go, FFXIV is probably better than most when it comes to responding to player feedback, but there are still A LOT of things that they haven't budged on.

[bledgor]

When you look at how Riot Games has cultivated an environment of sycophants and where the only things they will see and hear are what they want while ignoring almost everything constructive, I'm wondering if there's a game developer or studio that does the opposite.

Just to clarify this isn't just Riot Game's thing. There are so many game developers like Bioware and such that just block out anything they don't want to hear.

Short of small indie companies with smaller player bases no.

[starstationprofm]

Why would Developers listen to forum feedback? 90% of any playerbase doesn't actually give it, so you could be dealing with the 10% that is loudest and has no idea what it's saying.

There are better ways to develop and balance a game, such as winrates, popularity of a class/champion/hero, etc.

[Edge-]

Why would Developers listen to forum feedback? 90% of any playerbase doesn't actually give it, so you could be dealing with the 10% that is loudest and has no idea what it's saying.

There are better ways to develop and balance a game, such as winrates, popularity of a class/champion/hero, etc.

One isn't terribly useful with the other, though. Designing around metrics ignores all the human elements of game design (there are a lot of those since games are like, made by humans) and designing around feedback ignores the wealth of data to present that feedback in context.

Both are necessary, you look at the feedback and compare it to your data. You see something weird in the data and you look for player discussions to find out why it might look how it does.

Even then you'll never get everything "right", error and failure is a part of game design for better or worse.

[LordVargK]

Amplitude studios. Creators of the Endless universe (Endless Legend, Endless Space 1&2, Dungeon of the Endless) and newest game, Humankind. Their entire development process focusses on community interaction and includes streams, open betas, active forums, feedback forms, polls and much more. They call it "Open Dev".

Apart from them... Larian Studios (Divinity Series and BG3) often asks for feedback with beta sessions and is open in communicating their development process.

Blue Byte (mainly ANNO series nowadays, but formerly SETTLERS series as well) as a part of Ubisoft maintains websites for each of their ongoing games, with active community managers, streams regularly on twitch and exchanges ideas with their community frequently (e.g letting the community decide the next content patches).

That's just a few bigger ones I know of. There are probably many more, not to mention the myriads of indie game devs that rely heavily on the community to perfect their games.

[qwerty123456]

Aside from money stuff it seems like Mihoyo takes player feedback to heart.

[Sangris]

For MMOs I'd say FF14 devs.
Another game whose devs really try to listen to fans is Super Smash Bros. They really try their best to give the fans what they want (especially when it comes to 3rd party characters).

[Coolthulhu]

Larian, Beamdog... that's all that comes to mind when it comes to active ones.
Some of the big ones such as ZOS do listen to a point, but integrate most of the feedback in their aggressive and predatory monetization schemes, so I find them undeserving. Same goes for small indie devs who listen to feedback up until the point they gather enough notoriety to turn into sellouts and/or give in to aggressive and predatory schemes are even more undeserving, especially since when that's the case the feedback turns to "get rid of the monetization shit" - feedback that's invariably and unsurprisingly ignored.

[Cracked]

The problem with this wish is that a developer really has to think deep about the feedback they are getting. Just doing what the players are telling you is almost assuredly way to destroy your game. And I'd rather the developers spend their time realizing their vision than second guessing and diluting it by spending days thinking in depth about offhand feedback.

[Azerate]

Perhaps, depending on your definition, Runescape would count, as they have ingame polls where players can vote whether or not a feature should be added. 99% of the time the players always vote yes (because hardly anyone ever goes to the forums to actually read the indepth debates on the pros or cons of a feature) so the feature is added.

Otherwise, I can't really think of a game developer that really gives all of the features players want.

As far as MMOs go, FFXIV is probably better than most when it comes to responding to player feedback, but there are still A LOT of things that they haven't budged on.

To be fair, the game updates proposed are often changed multiple times based on some on-line discussions on reddit before they get polled in OSRS, but yeah, people basically vote yes to everything.

Also, as someone who played Runescape in 2004-2009 I have to add that OSRS isn't like that because Jagex are some friendly dudes who just went and did that to be nice. They resorted to that model because they completely tanked their original game due to their infinite incompetence, which still shows to this day in various aspects of the upkeep of the game. They did not willingly start asking players if they want something or not, they were forced to do it. Maybe if they were better devs in the first place, and actually had some kind of customer support (hint: there is none in osrs still to this day) they wouldn't have to resort to that.

[XDurionX]

Any developer that listens to its customers all the time will fail eventually. Majority of gamers are idiots that know nothing about game design.

[VinceVega]

I don't think the forums are actually representing what the people want.

Nearly every forum i ever was on was mostly threads of the same people creating an infinite echo-chamber thinking everyone thinks their way.

Like wow story for example: People who are not reading/participating in forums... are actually quite allright with it. Same with class design. Well at least everyone i talked to ingame/RL. No proof. But still. MMO-Champion has not enough people to be really representativ anyway.

There are games with quite a large participation in stuff like that like crowdfunding games. Larian Studios with BG3 (no matter what you think of it, i am incredibly disapointed, cannot say that enough) or Owlcat Games both crowdunded their next entries and they are quite... open to suggestions and try to implement stuff if it is feasible.

[DesoPL]

You shitting right? None developer does that, because... "Players don't know what they really want" Like some CEO said, probably from EA.

[Mysterymask]

Since maybe 2 of ya'll play fighting games I'd like to introduce you to "The Developers Backyard"

https://www.arcsystemworks.jp/guiltygear/db/en/

Since GG Strive has been a HUGE change they did step up their feedback game. One thing I actually like is they highlighted a lot of questions and simply told them "No this isn't the direction we are going for"

[Aliven]

You shitting right? None developer does that, because... "Players don't know what they really want" Like some CEO said, probably from EA.

I would like to elaborate on that.

Players truly dont know what they want but they are great to point things that are off or they dont like in game. Which is great feedback.

If players feels miserable and that is exactly the feeling you wanted then great! Job done. However, if it is Mario game then something need to change (not what players want).

Thats why constructive feedback is the best. It points at a problem, explain why person see it as a problem. If devs agree they can look for solution (propably something else that player suggested, they dont know exactly how many moving parts can contribute for said problem).

[D3athsting]

You shitting right? None developer does that, because... "Players don't know what they really want" Like some CEO said, probably from EA.

Wasn't JAB who said "you think you do but you don't" ?

[Kumorii]

Isn't "taking feedback to heart" just "They do changes I agree with/have voiced"?
At least that's my experience of how it's used more times than not.

Taking feedback to heart doesn't necessarily mean doing what the person who provided the feedback wants. It basically just means you listen and consider it... and that's really hard for any community or dev to prove that they do unless they do some coverage of them going over feedbacks in meetings and such. If that's not provided it will just boils down to each and everyone's belief. Either you believe they do, or you don't. It's not like communication would matter either, I mean when blizzard communicate plenty just claim they are lying anyway. This goes for any developer X person doesn't like ofc.

In short, "taking feedback to heart" means a lot and nothing at the same time. Every developer listens to feedback...

[lagiacrux]

Isn't "taking feedback to heart" just "They do changes I agree with"?
At least that's my experience of how it's used more times than not.

ding ding ding! we have a winner!

dev does something i like --> good dev, listens to feedback
dev does something i dont like --> bad dev, doesnt listen to feedback

people have no clue HOW to give feedback anyway. 99% is, "this sucks", "this is bad" and "why are the devs not fixing this obvious thing i dont like".

[exochaft]

Why would Developers listen to forum feedback? 90% of any playerbase doesn't actually give it, so you could be dealing with the 10% that is loudest and has no idea what it's saying.

There are better ways to develop and balance a game, such as winrates, popularity of a class/champion/hero, etc.

The amount giving feedback is likely much smaller than that. I mentioned in other threads that the direction of WoW can absolutely be attributed to feedback, but it's a very niche crowd that provides feedback in most cases. While I still have hardcore raiding mentality about some things, I understand what those who don't care about hardcore raiding (or raiding at all) want to some degree, because I play with those people all the time. When I've done beta/PTR testing and provided tons of feedback, the subjective issues I tend to make several points in my responses if space allows: how I view it, and how others with different game styles and interests would view it. I tend to lead towards the average person subjective unless it can accommodate both extremes, but that's the kind of feedback that's valuable so the subjective opinion isn't just one-sided.

Despite the niche feedback, it's better than having no feedback. If people think forums are echo chambers of like-minded people, developers can be just as insulated in their own development bubble. Something that the player sees as an obvious issue or flaw could easily be missed by the dev, either because they're stuck in a micro/macro level of thinking, or it's just not something they typically look at or experience. Even like-minded people with the same goals can attack a game from different avenues, each finding their own issues/bugs that the other did not. Furthermore, you can run into "developer-created issues" that they get hung up on that will not really be issues in practice, but it's the result of being stuck in a developer bubble for so long.

The optimal solution is taking feedback with a grain of salt, also while publicizing game development intent/goals/etc. Back in the MoP expansion for WoW, we used to get Watercooler blue posts about systems that would explain what they are, why they exist, how they work, what their goals are, etc. In current WoW, there's barely anything. One of my greatest frustrations with the Shadowlands beta testing was that there wasn't enough communication from the devs concerning what their goals were for testing certain phases, what they were looking for, how things were supposed to work, etc. While many people just like to mess around on the beta just to see the content ahead of time, I try to take it a bit seriously (while still messing around, of course)... but it's hard to focus my feedback if there's no clear direction from the devs as to what they want feedback on. I've gotten to the point where I have a system of how I tackle testing, especially in terms of what aspects I focus on as it's impossible for one person to test absolutely everything in a meaningful way. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm an oddity when it comes to these beta/PTR testing phases, so Blizz probably gets a bunch of random, unfocused feedback that could have more relevancy or helpfulness if some proper direction was given.

I know I'm talking about WoW a lot, but it's a good example of how communication between the devs and the players was once at a much better place, and now is in shambles. I think the concept of "taking feedback to heart" has fundamentally changes for a game like WoW over time, where it once could've been taken at face value as a positive thing but has devolved into a cynical/lip-service statement. Giving the benefit of the doubt concerning this sort of statement as it applies to WoW: the problem is that people are testing less and less, and the feedback the developers get is smaller, more unfocused, and from players of an even more extreme niche. I'd almost expect the lip-service intent would almost be a good thing to some degree, but it goes nowhere in terms of solving the fundamental problem of the severe lack of communication between the developers and the players.

To quickly touch on the infamous statement of "You think you do, but you don't"... the lesson to learn from this statement is that it's true and false at the same time, and it applies to both the players and the devs. The devs are not always right, and neither are the players. The whole point of communication between the devs and the players is to clear up intentions and combine the feedback of both parties to create a superior experience.