Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
March 18, 2010
 
Majesco Profits, Revenues Slide In Fiscal Q1
 
New Turtle Rock Studios Game In The Works
 
Lucid Attracts $8M On Strong Sales Of Multi-GPU Chip
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
March 18, 2010
 
arrow Interview: The Shape of God of War III [1]
 
arrow Free To Play Games, Meet The Virtual IOU [15]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, February 2010 [5]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
March 18, 2010
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Sr. AI Engineer
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Server Engineer
 
Trion San Diego
Director of Localization
 
ArenaNet
Senior - Level Technical Artist
 
Riot Games
Technical Director - Game
 
Edge of Reality
Flash UI Programmer
 
EA Redwood Shores
Outsourcing Modeler/Reviewer - Character & Object/Environment
 
Treyarch / Activision
UI Artist
spacer
Blogs

  Infinity Ward - You're Doing It Wrong
by Justin Kranzl on 10/21/09 08:03:00 am   Featured Blogs
15 comments
Share RSS
 
 
  Posted 10/21/09 08:03:00 am
 

Publishers and developers would do well to heed the current woes Infinity Ward is enduring with the PC community and take away some learnings from it. Here's some observations to that effect:

1. Rumour control

When you're sitting on what many tip to be the biggest game of the year, there's bound to be plenty of stakeholders with a view on an appropriate comms strategy for the product. But not too many would agree allowing negative rumours to fester and propagate is a good idea.

IW has been reasonably vigilant in this regard up until lately, assiduously "smashing" more prominent rumours before they got traction. Then suddenly they vanished off the earth when rumours specific to the PC version started flying about.

Item 1: A retail catalogue listed the PC version as coming out later than the "global" launch of the game (November 10th). IW's community manager/creative strategist Robert Bowling gave the distinct impression his hands were tied, communicating via Twitter to tell followers he was waiting on official word. Official word...that the game was still coming out on time? The message only served to cause further speculation until Bowling was able to confirm - 10 days later - the PC version would not be delayed.   

Item 2: Bowling issues a interview to a community podcast advising a major inclusion - the IWNET service. He adds dedicated servers - a long time fixture for PC online FPS gamers - will be done away with. Once again the internet starts melting from irate gamers anxious about the fate of MW2 on "their" platform.

This occurred last weekend, and it's easy to underestimate the effect with which this move affects the PC gaming population. Good crisis management hinges not only on being able to have a plan, but sometimes also being seen to have a plan.

 Instead, up until a few hours ago there had been no official statement from Infinity Ward nor Activision, no confirmation from IW the comments were actually Bowling's, and no clarification of their import. The first "close to official" response to the furore came from an alleged direct Twitter message from Bowling to a member of the community saying the petition was being taken seriously.

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Modern Warfare 2 - as close to a "sure thing" as we have this year, or a game which will struggle to pay the bills - allowing damaging speculation and rumour to persist without a prompt, professional response is damaging to your brand, to your product, and to your relationship with the people you profess to have as your customers.

Doubtless there would have been constraints surrounding the flow of information, but that's what a sound pre-plan is for: to ensure an orderly dissemination of info in such a way that damaging speculation is kept to a minimum.

 

2. Twitter is good, but it's not a substitute for *everything*

Infinity Ward's not a fan of tradition PR, as stated in Bowling's comments made at the time IW founder Grant Collier departed for a special project role at Activision:

"With our Community focused efforts expanding even further in the future, that PR-type position is no longer required at IW, as we’ll be spearheading more tangible, personal means of getting information out to our players...Essentially, this means we plan on doing much less of the traditional PR that ends up being a one way street"

This is well and good - the community manager role now is a critical part of the marketing mix for any game with aspirations of building a lasting online audience. However it needs to be seen working in sync with existing PR efforts - in this case those of Activision.

There's no denying the efficacy of twitter as an ad-hoc engagement tool for a community manager, but when it starts becoming the official source of record for pivotal announcements or the "go to" channel for official information - that path is fraught with danger.

Which brings us to:

 

3. Present a unified front

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick is manna from heaven for games press looking for a villain. He's a terrific wartime general - uncompromising, results-oriented, and quotable. His executive persona in his current role suits the current economic climate, while in times of plenty would likely play havoc with his HR department.

However polarising a figure he may be, and as entertaining an idea as it may seem at the time, it's probably not a great idea to mock the CEO of your corporate owner with a captive media audience, as Infinity Ward did in their MW2 multiplayer hands-on event in Los Angeles.

Along with subsequent (and widely published) quotes from IW founder and co-head Vince Zampella that Activision were very reluctant to embrace the "Modern Warfare" direction Infinity Ward wanted to head in, it paints a picture of discord and distracts focus away from the star of the show - the game.

While disagreements on direction are expected, these are discussions that should be kept internal when you have a monster title being launched in a month or two. Infinity Ward need Activision's support just as Activision needs the quality product IW will deliver. If there's a breakdown in trust between the two entities, it should be resolved behind closed doors.

The theme of unity extends to dialogue with media. IW should be vigilant in guarding against irresponsible media coverage which seeks to exploit their product to engage in traffic generating exercises at their expense. It doesn't take much looking to find high profile games outlets trading on the oldest of chestnuts - platform wars - and in doing so causing a greater divide between PC and console camps. The catalyst for the latest spate is comments from Infinity Ward's representatives, and it's a poor move to allow it unchecked without clarification or correction.

Fragmenting this market doesn't do IW or Activision any favours in the long run. Rival's fortunes may wax and wane, but with PC gamers being notoriously partisan, all platform alienation accomplishes is resentment and a resolve to go to the 'opposition' - sooner or later.

 

4. Take your customers seriously - know their values and who they are

You can't embark on a (laudable) endeavour to focus your communications strategy around community and then expect to make unilateral decisions without serious repercussions. The IWNET move by Infinity Ward is the kind that will need community support to prosper.

I'm not saying IW is thinking PC owners threats to walk away from the game are hot air, but their rationale for introducing the product is being dissected and torn apart as I type this by countless PC gamers online.  Even worse, comments made by Zampella and fellow IW head Jason West essentially palm off the concerns being expressed by the PC community.

The issue at stake is this: for a major new shift to be introduced successfully you need to be able to demonstrate real benefits to the end user. Blizzard is still navigating these treacherous waters with its move to cut out LAN functionality from StarCraft II - but at least their stated rationale makes sense, even if some PC gamers chose to dig their heels in. Blizzard explained their position, provided the reasoning, and provided effective boundaries for the discussion.

In contrast, Infinity Ward's stated benefits of their proposed system leave them open to a lot more questioning. Claims have been made which paint the company in a bad light - especially admissions on the level of cheating within the game - but then users are expected to take a leap of faith in a new vision which in the absence of proof to the contrary runs a strong risk of playing in real, bandwidth terms worse than the existing ones.

Even more dubious - the charge by one of the founders that the criticism is commercially motivated by some operators. Even if this is true - it suggests IW aren't taking the concerns of actual gamers seriously because they could be shills. 

IW know their audience, yet appear to be ignoring the likely consequences of taking rash action in favour of a predetermined course. Game franchises who trade heavily on community engagement need to be seen to be collaborative and accountable on major moves within their products. Having to justify a vision you have slaved long and hard for might be utterly galling if you're an insider who has helped build it, but if you wish to take the community route and enjoy its benefits, the driving force behind it is trust based on the notion of consultation.

 

5. Consistency

This is what it all adds up to. Infinity Ward's dialogue with gamers and media over the past few weeks or so - a critical period - is best described as whimsical and capricious. It's been stunning to observe it in action, akin to a slow-motion trainwreck.

IW's free pass and goodwill - the perception that the heavy hand of Activision controls the message - seems to have been dissolved amongst the cryptic twitter messages and delayed explanations. Perhaps this is the byproduct of trying to control the message too much. I can't help feeling if IW have been given this much free rein they might as well institute regular, consistent channels of information for everyone - preferably in addition to twitter and blog posts.

Possibly the worst possible outcome of what has transpired to date is for the current damage being dealt to Infinity Ward's brand from one section of their market to be forgotten when Modern Warfare 2 starts sending sales records tumbling. In that lies the seeds of complacency and a gradual demise.

Rather, IW should embrace the opportunity to learn more about their customer's values - all of them - and take some PC-specific cues from the likes of Valve and Blizzard (to name two). They should ignore the more vitriolic extremes and instead focus on making sure the silent majority - the masses who read, play but do not comment online - feel their concerns aren't being ridden over, roughshod. Community engagement does not have to equate to surrending control of your creative vision - but it does require a sound plan and the flexibility to listen to all your stakeholders.

 
 
Comments

Geoffrey Rowland
profile image
I can't believe they are charging $59.99 for the PC version - seems like most PC versions these days hover in the $39.99 range.

Trent Polack
profile image
You made some solid points for the most part. Then I got to point four and just said: Ugh.

Chris Remo
profile image
Why ugh? What is your issue with his comments?

(Edit: Based on past comments you've made about PC gamers and PC gaming, it's not surprising that your reaction would be that, but I'm curious about the actual reasons in this case.)

Eric Adams
profile image
Good points Justin. I agree with Geoffrey, that premium pricing for the PC sku is a lost opportunity. MW2 is a title that can help rejuvenate the PC platform for gaming, but the price point is a turn off. I also believe the the single player campaign is nearly the same length as version 1. I was hoping and expecting (from the griping with version 1.0) that IW would craft a deeper experience.

Theshigen Navalingam
profile image
Good article. Infinity Ward needs to re look how they handle these things. No dedicated server = no sales for me.

Trent Polack
profile image
I'm giving Infinity-Ward the benefit of the doubt. They're not some one-off developer working on a multiplatform title; they're originally a pretty great PC developer that has made a transition to consoles over the years. I don't think they'd put work into a system that would totally screw over PC gamers.

I'm also not a huge fan of the PC gaming "server culture." It's such an archaic way of finding games that, for the most part, no developer has bothered to screw with in years. I'd be interested to see how the PC matchmaking system works out; I think it could be a good thing. The thing I disliked about Call of Duty 4 on PC was how hard it was to find a server that actually just let me play the game's multiplayer without a bunch of absurd little mods/tunings.

Rohit Nirmal
profile image
Bawww, options.

Alfe Clemencio
profile image
So here's a question. If you're going to match up people with the same skill level, how is stuff like killcam supposed to help people learn how to play better? Won't that just keep people around the same levels all the time?

Ethan Verrall
profile image
I would give them the benefit of the doubt, if they were actually trying to change it to something new, instead they are merely using the console experience, which at least to me, is quite lacking compared to the PC.

Some of the Flaws in the Console Experience:

1. No community building, with the dedicated server browser experience, FPS players who play on a regular basis tend to stick to the same servers, they get to know everyone on the server, it becomes a place of friends, much akin to going to the same bar over and over again. Sure some of these people you eventually add to your friends, but generally not for quite a while. On the console, because you are always playing with different people, this experience can never occur.

2. No dedicated server means that there is always someone that is the server, luckily the game doesn't crash when that person leaves now, but even the pause could be aggravating if multiple people were to drop one after another and happened to each become the server (sure the consoles have to deal with this, but since PC users don't, why force this potential experience on them). Not to mention the fairness of it (casual fps players could probably care less I understand).

2. Forced to use their server settings, no way to have 'admins' monitor the server and kick/ban aggravating players, or cheaters. (Extremely useful on any game that has a friendly fire option...)


Joe Woynillowicz
profile image
In my opinion pulling the dedicated servers may actually help save PC gaming to be honest. I don't think people are looking at a lot of the facts here. I mean PC games are heavily pirated, look at COD4: Modern Warfare for instance, and it has been making a lot of companies want to do console only releases and completely ignore the PC. This ruins PC gaming.

Now this part is speculation but with IWNet I am guessing they have a nice security structure in place using a key to register an account almost like how you would with an MMO. This way the piracy issue is negated in the case of multiplayer because you will need a valid account. This would likely cause many of the would-be pirates to purchase their copies instead. Bravo! :)

Peter
profile image
@Joe, I understand what you are saying, but I fail to se the relevance to the lack of dedicated servers? L4D for instance have dedicated servers and unique accounts. IW could easily do the same now MW2 is connected to Steam.

Are Bee
profile image
Joe Woynillowicz ladies and gentlemen, Advocating removing core multiplayer features in order to fight piracy and save PC gaming from itself. They have other avenues for doing so, steamworks for one which they are actually using, with no speculation required. By their own admission, the PC version did very well, but any % of piracy is money you're they're not seeing and they have a right to defend their product I suppose.

As for Trent Polack's comments, it's true. Dedicated servers often have alot of strange rules and are often playing some subset of the game. But is that worth removing all public custom games, lowering the player counts, having to deal with the mine-field of hardware differences when deciding who hosts
and various other issues a matchmaking system introduces? Enough PC gamers don't think so, enough to sign a petition about it.

The article is critical in the right places. He's critical of IW's decision making and handelling of this issue, not the issue itself. And instead of seeking the opinions of PC gamers about what they inteded to do in order to reach a comprimise or feature parity while retaining the benefits of both, they've basically failed to realise the core differences between the platforms that makes playing peer to peer an undesireable option on PC.

Kenneth Johnson
profile image
Joe Woynillowicz - IW.net has nothing to do with piracy as IW has already stated. The fact that they are using the Steam tools on day 0 will have more to do with stopping piracy than matchmaking and the lack of dedicated servers.

You make another mistake by assuming that PC gamers are a charity case when they aren't. If Activison didn't believe that the game would help their bottom line, they wouldn't release it. CoD4: MW sold more than 2 million copies on the PC. People are going to pirate no matter what the key to combating piracy is to release a game that makes it easier to participate and offers a better experience. It sucks people steal but they will steal no matter what. We need to make the experience better for actual consumers so they want to continue to buy games and make it easier for them to enjoy the games they have purchased.

Anthony Clay
profile image
@Eric & Geoffrey - I was a bit put off by the $59.99 at first - but I literally thought "my circle is gonna have a dedicated server to play this hot new game on! And besides, it's Infinity Ward, it has to be good!". But the news of them dropping dedicated servers put me off. Even if the game were $50, I'd be put off. But at the current price, I'm being told to take a new game with *fewer* features, a premium price, and that I should like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all about DLC.

...and I can't help but pass on this.

Joe Woynillowicz
profile image
Well as I said it was my opinion guessing on one of the main reasons, as if you allow dedicated servers there *will* be hacked versions and ways around having to authenticate properly. I know that IW has stated it isn't due to piracy but I'm just skeptical of what any company PR says, especially when it is in regards to putting out a fire.

Also note I did not claim that the article was not good I found it extremely well written and critical of the right points. I would love to see dedicated servers as the guys that I game with are serious COD fans that have always had a dedicated server running with stats, etc. So this actually directly affects our play. I just thought I would add in a point that really wasn't touched on in the article.


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment