|
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.
|
(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.)
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.
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...)
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! :)
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.
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.
I can't help but wonder if it's all about DLC.
...and I can't help but pass on this.
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.