Diminutive Diatribes: The Power of Goodwill

            With net neutrality being an issue at the moment, I'm reminded of the simple statements of Nash Bozard who said that, without goodwill, we will abandon a company the instant we are able.  He was referring to the abysmal business practices of ISPs and how they have frustrated and abused their customers to the points where the instant they are not needed, their customers will toss them aside.  Well, it's the same with game companies.

Shouldn't game companies do the same?

            Goodwill is kind of an essential thing in this era of gaming, where prices are higher, income is lower, and the options are much larger.  In the 80s and 90s, you had only a few options for play, namely Nintendo, Sega, PC, or perhaps a third party console like the Turbo Grafx.  But now, we have dozens of digital distribution websites, 3 major consoles, 3 backlogs of consoles from the previous generations, and not to mention handhelds.  There are literally hundreds if not thousands of games being released every month, in some way shape or form.  So, with that many options, you have to hold onto your fans with as much vigor as you can muster, not push them away or squeeze them dry with shady business tactics.  Because a fan whom you have treated well will stick with you through thick and thin.  They'll forgive a few botched experiments, so long as you let them know you respect and care about their business.

The options we have here are staggering.

            A good example of this is Nintendo.  Nintendo has made several unusual choices in gaming in the last decade or so.  They released the Gamecube with a distinctly child-like/toyish design, they made motion control a core part of the Wii and the Wii U is meant to emulate tablet gaming.  These experimentations might push away core fans if not for the simple fact that 90% of the time, when you buy a Nintendo game, you know you buy quality.  Nintendo may not french kiss all their fans and they've made their share of mistakes, but in the age of buggy launches, early access, and outright scams via Kickstarter or Steam, it's refreshing to pick up a Mario or Zelda game and know that 1) it will work right out of the box, no patches necessary, 2) it will be a high quality experience, regardless of any experimentation, and 3) it will be accessible by almost anyone.  Fans love Nintendo because they continue to give them quality, even if the games themselves sometimes seem to repeat.  More than that, Nintendo has also generated a pseudo culture around itself, where it appears friendly, offering fans rewards via the Nintendo Club and basically making themselves seem approachable.

You bought a Nintendo game?  Come on up and pick your reward!

            On the other hand, let's look at Steam, of late.  Steam used to be a great example of a company that understood and generated goodwill with its customers.  They have frequent sales of their games and until about 2011-2012, the products released on Steam were of proven quality.  They could have bugs or patches, but they were still strong, enjoyable games that were well worth the money.  However, recently, Steam has started to become unstable.  They have released a glut of shovelware titles onto their marketplace, which, with this new influx of trash, has become harder to navigate to find the quality items, their early access releases have no quality control so a game can be for sale at full price that is effectively broken or released as a scam to take money, and their attempt at getting new, innovative products through Greenlight has been a rather depressing failure, with some games being inspiring, such as Octodad, Bunny Must Die, or La-Mulana, while other releases have been appalling disasters, such as Guise of the Wolf which is laughably bad in every way and Kingdom Rush, which was so bugged upon release that it was unwinnable past level 3.  Worse, when you start abusing your customers like this, policies that you've implemented that weren't a big deal before start becoming more apparent.  The sometimes intrusive, sometimes not DRM Steam uses to both protect your games, but also monitor you, the no refund policy under most circumstances, and the abusable comment and review systems are only a few.  When compared to GoG, which will offer refunds if your game does not work, which frequently gives out free, classic games, and which still uses a high level of quality control, coupled with DRM free titles, Steam starts to seem less and less reliable.  And if they continue, they may lose many of their regular customers to GoG, Desura, or Green Man Gaming.

Oh, Steam...what have you been letting into your inner circle?

            Now, let's look at one of the worst.  EA.  EA has frequently screwed over its customers with DRM through online passes, released buggy games, such as Simcity, which was unplayable offline at all and unplayable online for the first few weeks, and forced players to register with their online service Origin if they want access to EA's games.  These kinds of policies push consumers away and have been lampooned by people far wittier than me(See Yahtzee Croshaw or Jim Sterling.)  The sad truth is that EA doesn't value its customers.  Apologists might argue otherwise, but EA sees them as a way of making a quick profit and will do anything to get more money, such as including micro-transactions in a full price game, forcing DRM to try and shut out pirates, and releasing games too early in order to gain some quick profits.  They may be pretty big, but EA has also dealt with a lot of controversy.  Lawsuits over Battlefield 4, the outcry and hilarious media disaster that was Simcity, piracy STILL happening despite their best efforts to force consumers to prove their loyalty, etc.  If these continue, EA will lose customers...they've already been losing customers.  A franchise players love will only care a company so far.

Need I say more about EA?

            My point with this is to try and emphasize the obvious.  If a company abuses its customers, even if the abuse is something as minor as releasing a buggy game that lacks polish, then they are risking losing them.  You have to engender goodwill in your consumers if you want them to be loyal.  Elder Scrolls fans have cried foul of Bethesda on many occasions because of the bugs, but mostly forgive the series because of how deep, enjoyable, and moddable it is.  Elder Scrolls Online has pushed that, requiring a sixty dollar commitment, a fifteen dollar further commitment if they want to play the game at all after buying it, and the option of using real money to buy things like horses.  They have cast aside a lot of goodwill there.  Likewise, Konami and Kojima productions are risking reprisal when Metal Gear Solid 5 gets released due to their $40 demo sold under the title, Metal Gear Solid 5 Ground Zeroes.  Sales may be strong now, but the internet remembers...the internet remembers and it does not always forgive.

75 dollar entry fee...was Elder Scrolls Online worth it?  Goodwill, wasted, needlessly.

            Even companies like Nintendo need to be aware of how they COULD be engendering more goodwill.  Mother fans would bow down and welcome their new god, Nintendo, if they announced the release of Mother 3.  RPG fans the world over and nostalgia buffs would flock to the Wii U if cult hits like Rygar, Terranigma, and other titles would grace the Virtual Console.  And Nintendo isn't above mistakes either...the Retro Remix games they have released is dangling dangerously close to cash in, with links to the Virtual Console to buy the full version of the sample game that you can play.

I've got my eye on you, Nintendo...

            In the age of dwindling sales, game companies need, more than ever, to be willing to bow their heads, take a little bit of a pay cut here and there, and say to their fans, "Thank you for sticking with us."  The truth is, we don't have as much money, but we do have more games and more options for buying and playing them.  Hell, it's at the point where we don't even need to pay games, since something like Hearthstone or Loadout are free to play with no required buy in.

100% free to play.

            So, what can companies do to let gamers know they care?  Well, first, they can be straight with them.  Be honest if you're having problems.  Don't hide it and push your buggy game onto the market.  Say you need more time...say it might not be up to snuff...gamers will respect you more for being honest than for trying to pretend things are okay when they're clearly not. 

A little honesty might have made this less painful, Gearbox...

            Next, companies can talk to gamers like people.  Communicate not corporation to consumer, but gamer to gamer or developer to gamer.  One thing Kickstarter does well is it allows the creators of games to directly talk with and engage their fans in updates and comments.  It wouldn't be that hard to implement for anyone who's bought a game digitally.  No cryptic salesman bull crap, but just talk like a normal person.  Hell, even a regular podcast would do wonders for PR. 

            Another good way to engender goodwill is freebies that aren't just being held back or that aren't just shovelware.  Think about what would happen if Sega gave a Steam gift code to one of their titles on Steam, like Beyond Oasis, Vectorman, or the Sonic games, with each new purchase of a current game.  Fans might not use them...but they might.  They'd remember that a good game was given to them, even if it was old.  And what does that cost Sega?  Nothing.  It's a digital game made years ago.  There's no real overhead.  Extras in game packages that AREN'T collector's editions also work well with this.  Soundtracks, figurines, posters, anything that makes a gamer feel like they're getting more than their money's worth is smart and a good way to engender goodwill.

Still awesome years later, an easy way to earn kudos points with gamers.  Give it to them for free.

            Probably the best way to make gamers love you?  Listen to them and give them what they want.  Not in terms of game design I mean, since then we'd get more and more Call of Duty Clones, but for example, many Konami fans miss Suikoden or the Metroidvania style Castlevania games.  So, give them one.  If you can't make a new Suikoden game, for whatever reason, make the older ones more accessible.  Suikoden 2 is STILL awaiting release on the PSN...if it had been released 4 years ago, when the service was getting going, Konami would have been heaped with praise.  Now, we're just praying it doesn't get cancelled.  And these games?  Yeah, you might take a little loss on them at first, but think about all the people you will hold onto because you said, "We listen and we care."

C'mon, Konami, stop dragging your feet...

            The smaller things a game company can do to generate more goodwill is to not take advantage of the goodwill they've already got.  See, goodwill is like money in a bank.  It accrues interest the longer you have it and don't spend it.  If you keep getting goodwill, or even if you just don't abuse that goodwill, it will deliver in spades.  So, don't release buggy games if possible.  Don't force DRM.  Don't make on disc DLC.  Don't hold back content so you can release it AS DLC.  If you just release a game and put your all into it, you'll earn goodwill...and even if you don't, you won't squander it by abusing your consumers.

            I just wanted to write this up to remind people that sometimes, you need to play the long game.  Goodwill is like an investment.  You won't see an immediate return on it, but if you want to retire...it's a good thing to have.  It will keep making money even if you start to stumble or lose your way because you have respected and stood by your fans and they will, in turn, stand by you.  Companies need to take note, before it's too late.  You might make your money now, but sooner rather than later, your fans will abandon you when a new company, one that respects or at least doesn't abuse its players as much, joins the scene.  If you don't get people who will stand with you...then you'll have no one to help you when it all comes crashing down.

Not even great Galactus can do it alone...

            Woe to him that is alone when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up.

                                                                                                - Ecclesiastes 4:10

What's in a name? Go for something original!

            One pervading practice in the game's industry that really ticks me off is naming schemes.  Names that have numbers which discount sequels, side stories or the like, names that are meant to be a reboot for a series, despite it having a dozen previous entries, names of games completely unrelated to a series...the list goes on.  My big question is, why?  What's in a name?  If the game is something original, go for something original.  If the game is part of a series, make sure it has its proper place either chronologically or spiritually.  Don't use a name just to sell game.  Just don't. 

Chronologically confused?  Blame terrible naming conventions!

            Because if you try to sell a game using a name and that game isn't worthy of the name, all the fans you'll win with the name will hate your game.

            There are dozens of good examples for this practice.  While DMC was meant to be a reboot of Devil May Cry, it probably would have faired better with Devil May Cry fans if it wasn't given that name.  While the tone of the game is darker than the original series and the character a bit more petulant and angsty, the gameplay is solid and enjoyable.  The level design and aesthetic are unique and the story, while a bit topical, has some interesting nuances.  However, many people who grew up with the silver haired devil killer, Dante, and his brother, Vergil, cried foul of the game for its drastic tonal and character shift.  If the game had been called something different like "Purgatory" or "Angels and Demons" then fans of Devil May Cry would probably have loved the game as a wholly separate entity from their beloved series. 

Top is Devil May Cry 4, bottom is DMC.  Notice the similarities and difference.

These games both look fun, both look like they play similarly...so did you really need to alienate Devil May Cry fans with the new look when they'd probably love the game if it was named something differently?

            Name value is not brand loyalty like it was before the internet.  Before the rise of the internet, people had to rely on names to sell games.  Final Fantasy sold because it was Final Fantasy.  Now, Final Fantasy doesn't sell, not because of drastic changes to the name, but because fans no longer have to rely on the name to see the gameplay.  They have the internet.  They can choose for themselves.  And with the rise of games which blatantly gouge the players for money, like Final Fantasy: All the Bravest or three Final Fantasy 13 games which don't feel like Final Fantasy games at all, they tend to be more angered by the use of the name than prone to buy into it.  When fans of a series see that series bastardized, they are less likely to invest in it because it is not what they want and it actively insults, in their minds, the accomplishments of previous entries.  Bringing it back to Devil May Cray, the game DMC was already receiving a ton of press for its visuals, combat, and because it was being created by Ninja Theory.  It didn't need the Devil May Cry name to sell units.  If anything, the name hurt sales.

This looks like a fun take on old school Final Fantasy.  But the name isn't enough...fans are smarter than that.  When they learned this game was full of price gouging pay to play mechanics, they realized this was anything BUT Final Fantasy.

            And despite how utterly simple this kind of logic is, many people fail to realize that original IP CAN survive and that it doesn't need to cling to other titles.  An example:  Bioshock could have called itself System Shock 3, since it was clearly a spiritual sequel, but it was different enough that they went with a different name for a different premise, preserving the System Shock series for fans while introducing a new game to the public.  It worked.  Bioshock is getting ready to release a third game in its series this year, with no signs of stopping yet.  Darksiders also received critical success even though it was an original IP.  It may have borrowed heavily from the Legend of Zelda and a few other games, but it wasn't called "The Legend of War."  You do not need to use someone else's name to sell a game.  Bayonetta wasn't called Devil May Cry 5, even though it could have been since the combat and mythology were very similar and it's director made the first Devil May Cry.  And Bayonetta was a critical darling, making a huge splash with Devil May Cry fans because of how fun and insane the game was despite it not involving their favorite devil killer.  You don't need to piggyback success from other games if you have a solid product.

Darksiders was an original IP with an original name that made enough money to have a sequel.  Original IP CAN survive!

            More than just original IP having the power to survive though, game companies need to be aware of fan backlash.  The game Turok is a perfect example.  People were hoping to sell a bland, generic shooter, where the player is a space marine on a planet of pirates and dinosaurs using the name Turok, because it had had a successful comic run and was a cult classic on the Nintendo 64.  People balked at Turok, panning it and refusing to buy the game.  The original Turok featured a time traveling Native American who fought off dinosaurs with alien weaponry, spiritual powers, and who dealt with aliens and it became a cult classic, even earning a sequel on the N64.  But the Turok game released in 2009?  That game was as bland and cookie cutter as they come and earned the ire of Turok fans for dashing their hopes of a true sequel.

Compare for yourself.  This is Turok 2008.  Can you tell this apart from any other generic shooter on the market?

This is Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.  Cyborg dinosaurs.  Now can you understand why fans hated the 2008 game?

            Hope is one of the cogs of the game industry that keeps it moving forward.  Players hope for sequels or ports, or re-releases of their favorite games.  So much so that they write in, phone in, petition, and go out of their way for game companies to notice that they have interest.  There is a surge of hope every time there is a chance for a Mother game to be released abroad, but it has yet to be realized.  The Mother fanbase is very loyal and devoted to the Mother/Earthbound series.  Now, imagine if an RPG that was just a bland fantasy fare took on the Mother name, which grounded itself in contemporary society with offbeat humor and a strange story?  The fans would go nuts, boycotting the game and crying foul against the company that made it.  So...why is it that game companies keep using names that will more than likely hurt their products?

The Earthbound/Mother series.  If another game took the name and tried to pass it off as a sequel and it didn't look or play VERY similarly to this one, the fans would boycott it en mass.  If they didn't just burn it, that is.

            Well, there are a number of reasons, though none of them are very good.  The first is the design by committee rule.  This is where a game is created strictly by the books, an uninspired, generic, waste of space that never attempts to challenge the player's thinking processes or their skill as a gamer.  Design by committee is not as uncommon as it needs to be and it even goes down to a name.  The committee has to decide what name will sell, even if they know their game is utterly generic.  If it's a movie licensed game, they use the movie's name, so fans of the movie know to pick it up, even if they may not enjoy the game once they've purchased it.  Otherwise, the committee may look at the rights they currently own and which games might fit into the mold, regardless of their original forms.  Syndicate was originally a tactical espionage RPG set in the far future, however it was re-released as a generic first-person shooter with only tangential connections to the original.  A committee looked at what properties they owned, slapped it on their game, and put a thin coat of paint on the surface to disguise it as that property.

This is Syndicate

This game is NAMED Syndicate, but is just another generic design by committee shooter.  Fans were pissed.

            Another good reason is the ability to hide a game's flaws from the public.  In the internet age, nothing is secret.  However, some developers have managed to keep the darker parts of their games' pasts out of the spotlight and give off an image of confidence and polish.  An excellent example of this is Aliens: Colonial Marines.  This game was released to abysmal scores by most, citing numerous graphical glitches, terrible AI and story, and a lack of focus on the Aliens license.  This was due to numerous delays, issues, and developer Gearbox having to start from scratch after a developer they outsourced it to threw out much of their work.   But, by creating an impressive E3 demo, they were able to pull off the illusion of everything being alright.  The demo showcased the Aliens using flanking maneuvers, their environments, and even climbing on the walls or hiding in vents to get people, showing off dynamic AI.  There were also several powerful character moments, where the player jovially flips off one of his marine comrades who is checking on him to see if he's alive.  And what got fans most excited was the ability to use a number of weapons, like the smart gun and power loader, from the Aliens movie.  However, few of these promised features made it into the actual game, and those that did were horribly butchered.  However, because of the illusion of a good game, the name was actually able to move some units before the truth was leaked.  Perhaps not enough units, but in cases like this, some is better than none.

This is the Aliens: Colonial Marines demo.  Yeah, that flame thrower power loader?  Doesn't exist in the real game.  This was just made to hide the poor production of the real thing.

            Press seems to be the biggest reason for these name decisions.  How do we take an utterly generic game and make it stand out, both on the internet and in gaming culture?  Give it a name people will recognize!  This logic is horribly flawed and usually results in fan backlash, like with Turok, however some companies don't care.  Some games are so play by numbers, uninspired, or just plain bad that they need the press to get people to even know their game exists.  This is how shovelware can sometimes reach some success on the market.  A company knows their game is bad, but they have to push it out to try and recoup some of their money, so they use a license they already own to drum up press and some people will be convinced by the media blitz to purchase the game.  Or they will just be morbidly curious as to how butchered their beloved franchise can be.  For some games and some companies, any press, even if they cry foul of the name of your game, is worthwhile.

            One of the saddest reasons for these naming schemes are corporate ignorance or mandate.  Often times, corporations seem to take an almost child-like glee in showing how out of touch they are with their consumers.  Capcom's continual use of on disc DLC or EA's online pass systems are proof of that.  So, some games may be given a name from a series or called a reboot simply because their corporate overlords say that's how it has to be.  They don't take into account the fan reaction, or if they do they don't care, thinking the games will sell well regardless.  This is why, in my opinion, all the decision making at a corporation, at least one involved in game development, should offer final say on certain decisions to the developers actually working on the product.  Maybe the corporation shouldn't create another bland Syndicate or Turok and, instead, just let the developers name their game something unique.  Even if it's bad or uninspired, it at least no longer has to compare to the standards of much better games before it.  By the standards of an original IP, maybe it won't seem as bad and can actually have a chance, rather than being dead on arrival.

Capcom: Pissing fans off with corporate BS since 2007

            There are other, more minor reasons, but they all fall into the same lines.  Before we wrap up, however, I just want to encourage gamers and developers to use their brains when thinking about the names of video games.  Not just sequels either.  When it comes to sequels, reboots, remakes, or what have you, use the resources available to you and do research before you plonk down $60.  Maybe wait a week until after a game is released and check out videos of it online to get an idea for story and gameplay or read a review.  Use your brain.  That also extends to general naming schemes in games as well.  What we haven't talked about are some of the esoteric or bland names in video games.  Fracture, Bullet Storm, Quantum Theory, Sina Mora, Nier, and so many others use names that ultimately tell little to nothing about their game beyond a broad, general idea.  Fracture, you can move earth or break stuff, possibly?  Bullet Storm, you shoot bullets?  Quantum theory...physics?  Sina Mora...I don't even know.  Nier...I know it's the protagonist's name but that tells me nothing about the game.

I love Suikoden.  It's a fantastic RPG series.  But look at that name...does it tell you ANYTHING about the game at all?  Names need to excite, not confuse players.  It needs to make them WANT to play.

            Look, naming is not as difficult as you might think.  If you're not going to use an already existing series, then think about what your story has involved in it, what you want fans to know about it and the best way to convey that to them in the minimal amount of effort.  Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner 2 Raidou Kuzunoha vs King Abbadon?  That's a bit too long.  It gives a lot of information, but really, Devil Summoner 2 would have said all it needed.  You summon demons to fight for you and this is the sequel.  Try to get across a feel for your game with the title as well as certain character details.  For example, the three games from Operation Rainfall: Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, Pandora's Tower.  Think about what those names tell you.  Xenoblade Chronicles.  It's a story that has become something of a legend that has spiritual ties to previous games from the Xeno series and you wield a powerful sword.  The Last Story: This game focuses heavily on story and it is of such importance that it is the last one, meaning the last tale of a dying man, the last tale of a dying world, or the final chapter in someone's life.  This kind of title is beautifully ambiguous, allowing the imagination to sell the game for you.  Finally, Pandora's Tower.  This immediately invokes images of a forbidden tower which you are tasked to explore, drawing parallels to the Greek myth of Pandora's box with the fairy tale implication of towers as places of imprisonment that need to be surmounted by heroes.  All of those titles only use two words but the imagination of gamers sells them on only a premise.  Even a simple, ambiguous title can be pretty effective.  Halo, for example.  Religious warriors?  Death and rebirth?  God?  Halo may be a pretty bland fare, featuring space marines fighting a religious cult of aliens, but the title invokes a number of images in one's mind that the uninitiated might be taken in by.  And the game actually delivers on some of those images, which makes the title appropriate and not just deceptive.

The name is a bit too on the nose...sure it tells us what the game is about, but needs to leave more to the imagination

These game names set the imagination on fire with possibility.  THIS is how naming games should be

            These kinds of rules go for subtitles to games as well.  Numerous sequelized properties use subtitles to differentiate or whet the appetites of gamers.  Some can be spot on, but with a bit of dramatic flair.  Dragon Quest 5: Hand of the Heavenly Bride.  Immediately we know what we're getting.  A Dragon Quest game and all that entails, but now we know something about the story.  It will prominently feature marriage, perhaps not the player's but marriage in general, it will deal with destiny or heavenly powers, and it will involve the groom of said bride.  Titles like that set the imagination on fire.  Or how about Dead Rising 2: Off the Record.  Again, you know what you're getting.  Zombie killing whacky/serious fun.  But the title indicates that it is non canon, meaning it is a different take on what is already known.  This can easily sell certain players.

Even with established game series, a good subtitle is worth a lot.  Sentinels of the Starry Skies.  That gets me pumped for what's to come.

            My point is this.  Game developers.  Corporations.  Use your brains.  If you're creating a game, think about what the name you want to give it will mean and try to tailor it to so that it captures the imaginations of gamers.  A name of a character or a name of a species...if it doesn't have flair to it, it can be the death knell of a new property.  Don't try to put an already established name on something bland or unrelated.  Gamers will notice and they will be angry.  Do not use a game's name to entice players, then hide the fact that your product is garbage.  This will only erode a gamer's faith in your company and make them less likely to support you.  And finally, don't just slap any old name onto a game.  If a game is a movie license or a sequel, I know that sometimes there's no other option, but for an original IP...every original IP tries to do something with what they've got.  So think about what you're trying to do, the mood, the feelings, the desires you're trying to get across, and incorporate that into your naming.  It will make a difference.

            Gamers, this one also goes out to you.  Recognize what a game's name might mean.  The good ones which set your imagination ablaze and the bland ones which you forget almost as soon as you read them.  And use your resources.  The internet, word of mouth, your own eyes...don't buy into a game just because of a name.  It's fine to take an interest in a game because of the name, but it needs more than just the name supporting it.

            Games industry, put thought into what you name your games.  If it's original, give it something suiting the mood and style of the game.  If it's a sequel, a subtitle that tells us what to expect might be nice.  And if it's bland and uninspired, own up to it at least and try to make it work for you.  Don't use someone else's good name to sell a shoddy product.

            In the end, what's in a name?  Quite a lot, it would seem.