Bullshit.
The article is partly right, in that existing customers will resist change and hate it before eventually realising that they like it, but that doesn't mean that the wonderful innovation you've just come up with would be accepted if someone else had thought of it. Some ideas are just not that good.
I really detest this egotistical crap that we've seen in recent years, where it's the customers' fault if your product doesn't sell.
The article is partly right, in that existing customers will resist change and hate it before eventually realising that they like it, but that doesn't mean that the wonderful innovation you've just come up with would be accepted if someone else had thought of it. Some ideas are just not that good.
I really detest this egotistical crap that we've seen in recent years, where it's the customers' fault if your product doesn't sell.
I do not think it is as easy as that. The article makes it sound like customers should be ignored and doing so will always lead to a better product. What if you take a wrong turn and end up with a product that is simply not attractive, just for the sake of doing something the company wants to do. Even the general mass will ignore a product if it is far enough from what they are looking for in a product.
dragonbird said:
It is a very interesting subject matter. And in reality you nailed it. The reality is in part, down to so many customers wanting the same thing. I mean come on, you can't swing a dead cat around a gamestore without hitting an FPS.
This is why we are seeing so much stagnation in so many games now. So little innovation happening. However, the other significant part of this, is that it is easy for producers to knock out the same stuff with improved graphics. That is the part that does not get highlighted. They are lazy, miserly, and controlling. It suits them to hire people to reuse the same material, and just reskin it. And say "people want this", when they want you to want it.
The game industry is like any other industries that attract the attention of big business, being taken over by the big money egos, and the marketers. Music, movies, even sport, are all being subjected to negative effects of this.
If a designer does what he thinks is right, and his customers don't like the results, then it's his fault for either not being aligned to their needs or for not communicating his vision to them.
If he bases his design on what his customers ask for, and ends up with a weak product, then it's his fault for handing over design decisions to someone else.
Either way, it's the company's fault. You don't get to put the blame on the customer for the fact that you don't understand them.
If he bases his design on what his customers ask for, and ends up with a weak product, then it's his fault for handing over design decisions to someone else.
Either way, it's the company's fault. You don't get to put the blame on the customer for the fact that you don't understand them.
Good grief, this article is such pandering crap. People didn't dislike xbone because it was "too new, too scary", it seemed like an awful product, and part of that was the seriously poorly handled PR fiasco created by MS.
I like how these pop psychologists have sound bites for anything they ever want to validate as true- if the market positively reacts to something new, then it's because "people are adventurous, they like to try new things!", or if not, then it's "people don't like change, ho hum". There just aren't any blanket rules because what's black today might be white tomorrow.
I think timing and luck factor a lot into how well a new product is received, but it's also true that some things are just veritable turds, i.e. no amount of good timing of good luck can or will help them.
I like how these pop psychologists have sound bites for anything they ever want to validate as true- if the market positively reacts to something new, then it's because "people are adventurous, they like to try new things!", or if not, then it's "people don't like change, ho hum". There just aren't any blanket rules because what's black today might be white tomorrow.
I think timing and luck factor a lot into how well a new product is received, but it's also true that some things are just veritable turds, i.e. no amount of good timing of good luck can or will help them.
They seem to be forgetting that change is not always a good thing. You can have a new console being very different and unique, but that alone does not make it a great experience. There is also the issue of consumer rights, maybe what Microsoft tried to offer is the future, but it does mean owning a license rather than a game.
Does anyone find it funny by the way that Microsoft is aping Sony as much as they can currently?
Does anyone find it funny by the way that Microsoft is aping Sony as much as they can currently?
I think that this kind of "innovation" that MS tried to pull off with XBone only works when You ease Your costumers into it. You can't just cut it with a knife and say "This is how it's going to be!".
I don't think They would have got so much sh*t, if those "features" were included as an option for people who are willing to try them out.
Forcing Your ideas on others never ends well.
I don't think They would have got so much sh*t, if those "features" were included as an option for people who are willing to try them out.
Forcing Your ideas on others never ends well.
Jesse Schell, the prominent WHO?
So a nobody passing as a console expert blurting out names he doesn't understand, like "psychology" which has little to do with the human mind (and more with behavior), pretends to explain why everybody's wrong and companies should dictate our future, regardless of what we want/need, because otherwise these companies won't sell their expensive pieces of garbage. Great.
What a load of ignorant shit. In the age of information everybody is an expert and they babble pseudo science and pseudo knowledge in digital tabloids. Why did we all read this?
Don't waste your time and move on. Lock thread?
So a nobody passing as a console expert blurting out names he doesn't understand, like "psychology" which has little to do with the human mind (and more with behavior), pretends to explain why everybody's wrong and companies should dictate our future, regardless of what we want/need, because otherwise these companies won't sell their expensive pieces of garbage. Great.
What a load of ignorant shit. In the age of information everybody is an expert and they babble pseudo science and pseudo knowledge in digital tabloids. Why did we all read this?
Don't waste your time and move on. Lock thread?
We don't usually lock threads unless there is no decent and orderly discussion to be had on a subject.
Jesse Schell is not some know-nothing with a blog. He's a prof at CMU Entertainment Technology Center and a leading voice for "transformational games" -- games meant to change how a student, or just anybody, sees the world or uses technology.
But forward thinkers sometimes think that because they've made it to first base, they've as good as scored. And they take a careless lead and get picked off.
In this case, I think he's forgotten that customers use computers to get things done, not to use computers to have a new experience of using a computer. And he's most definitely forgotten that customers do not use computers for the purpose of allowing monopolist corporations to intrude upon their personal space.
Here is a presentation more representative of Jesse Schell's thinking: still kind of scary, but far more informative than that stinker of an interview:
When Games Invade Real Life
Jesse Schell is not some know-nothing with a blog. He's a prof at CMU Entertainment Technology Center and a leading voice for "transformational games" -- games meant to change how a student, or just anybody, sees the world or uses technology.
But forward thinkers sometimes think that because they've made it to first base, they've as good as scored. And they take a careless lead and get picked off.
In this case, I think he's forgotten that customers use computers to get things done, not to use computers to have a new experience of using a computer. And he's most definitely forgotten that customers do not use computers for the purpose of allowing monopolist corporations to intrude upon their personal space.
Here is a presentation more representative of Jesse Schell's thinking: still kind of scary, but far more informative than that stinker of an interview:
When Games Invade Real Life
OK maybe I spoke out of outrage. Such bold statements. These game designers should inform themselves better about human behavior and technology (which has been with us since before homo sapiens), before going out pretending to know how everything works. Makes you wonder what these guys learn/teach at their game design courses.
Also what pissed me off is the general attitude of defending companies vs. realizing the original purpose of, for example, games. Like you suggested, we don't play games because they represent the latest in surveillance technology and crowd control. We play because they are (well, in some cases) a fine form of entertainment. Same for older technology: we need clothes and shoes to adapt and survive, we don't wear them because this particular new weave is considered to be awesome at the nanoscopic level and now we have to finance the huge investment of a new textile company.
I simply don't see where this discussion is going. The original article is inflamatory, and we're obviously just going to vent out in here. But well, maybe we need that every once in a while
Edit: I'll watch the video in a bit and comment when I have some spare time.
Also what pissed me off is the general attitude of defending companies vs. realizing the original purpose of, for example, games. Like you suggested, we don't play games because they represent the latest in surveillance technology and crowd control. We play because they are (well, in some cases) a fine form of entertainment. Same for older technology: we need clothes and shoes to adapt and survive, we don't wear them because this particular new weave is considered to be awesome at the nanoscopic level and now we have to finance the huge investment of a new textile company.
I simply don't see where this discussion is going. The original article is inflamatory, and we're obviously just going to vent out in here. But well, maybe we need that every once in a while
Edit: I'll watch the video in a bit and comment when I have some spare time.
Smintheus said:
This is true, and gamers are among the worst, possibly exceeded only by governments. But that is not really his point. His point is that customers often do not want innovation, and if you take what your customers do not want too seriously, you will not create new things.
But the example he chose was a stupefyingly bad one. Sometimes the reason why customers reject an innovation is not because it is too unfamiliar and they do not understand it; sometimes it is because they understand it too well, see through the hidden purpose of the so-called innovation, and reject it knowingly and righteously.
Couldn't be bothered to read the article when I saw the reaction to it, but does he really talk about customers rejection innovation? This is the same industry that has a product with zero innovation and only slight re-skinning be a bestseller every single year...? The same thing is happening to more titles than just an illfunctioning codpiece too (FIFA for example, to take one from the sports genre).