- Dec 19, 2020
- 441
- 1,553
That's backwards logic though when you consider typical game development. They literally pay completely random people to give their thoughts on naming schemes they want to use in games to see what comes across best to a wide audience. Some (kind of outdated now I think) pay people (typically companies that then have people) to playtest their games. Nowadays you have may have (assuming it's not a PR move) alpha/beta's given out for free where the entire point is for the developers to gain feedback to make their game better - not a single cent paid by the consumer, yes the developer wants their feedback.Anyone can complain about anything, but if you aren't supporting the game financially, I don't know why you'd expect the developer to listen to you, and then what is the point in complaining?
(Obligatory for the record, because I am sure I will be called a BC fanboy or something: I was a low-level Patron of BC although I dropped my support long ago, and I am in no way defending him - I think he is incompetent at best, scamming people at worst, and he would never get any more support from me in the future. This entire thing has been a disaster and he bears the blame - but since I stopped giving him money years back I wouldn't expect him to care about my opinion.)
I'd actually say from experience of seeing it happen in many games, if you've paid / are actively paying (subscription) then your feedback is actually worse less because you're telling the developer you will pay anyway. They won't start listening to feedback until a sizable chunk of their paying customers leave because then they have to listen and put in the work to try and get them back.