So as you may have seen the developers of Ooblets have, as a Brit might say, 'ballsed up' their PR and, in turn, a major part of their marketing; the developers (well, one developer, but the other isn't exactly doing nothing or even anything to stop any more damage) are and have been insulting their userbase, responding snarkily to otherwise innocent comments, and overall making a right royal mess of things. This, unfortunately, is not as rare an occurrence in the gaming industry as it really should be, and it's definitely more common here than in, say, the film industry or even the often-toxic drama-filled music industry.
But why is this the case? Well, you could say that it's just because gamers are inherently toxic, but I personally think it goes deeper than that. In my eyes, as someone who has actually studied business to a pretty high level, the gaming community simply does not place as much importance onto the 'business' side of the 'gaming business' as it really should. If it's not seen as something tertiary to the 'important' (i.e. technical) parts of game development then it's likely to be actively looked down upon as something that is inherently inferior or, worse, 'easier'. Let me explain by showing three key examples of quotes that I've heard before explaining what I think those quotes mean:
"Why should a game developer need to do PR?"
This was asked of me in the thread surrounding the whole Ooblets controversy. Now, I'm not here to rag on the person who asked that because I can fully see that it was a question made in complete honesty; that's not the issue here. The issue, to me, is that the gaming community is such that a question like that even had to be asked. Would one, for instance, ask why developers had to do art or music for their game? Would a developer such as the ones from Ooblets see those aspects of the game as so trivial that they could completely fuck them up and not see the issue? I highly doubt it, and that's despite the fact that, just like PR, they are just as tertiary to the actual 'game' part of game development.
And that leads on to the greater phenomenon here, and that's how PR, marketing, and other less 'defined' parts of business are most commonly seen as less important overall than they actually are in reality. It's something that manifests itself in many, many areas; the consistent confusion from 'hardcore gamers' shown towards Call of Duty's (and other games similar to it's) success and the subsequent fallacy of "well it must just be a good game, then," being a quite significant example. Another example is the rather heavy focus that people place on sales when it comes to debates on quality; if a controversial game gets high sales then the response is not "that's good news for all those who worked on the game!" it's "lol fuck the haters eat some croooowww."
"Why can't Reggie just be honest for once?"
Back when Reggie was the head of NoA a comment such as this would pretty much always be posted at least once whenever a thread was made about something he had said. Usually it would be in response to something rather innocuous that Reggie said but there would also be many times where it would simply be in response to an answer given by Reggie that the person themselves didn't personally agree with. The sentiment surrounding comments such as those, that PR should be 'honest' above all, is often shared whenever company spokespeople make comments that aim to avoid 'controversy'. It points to a greater trend in my eyes, and that's the idea that it's more acceptable to tell 'business people' how to do their jobs or how well they're doing their jobs ('lazy marketers' is something I've seen come up quite a few times) than it is for developers.
I know it's a touchy subject but when it comes to some of the recent controversies about developers saying their games aren't 'political' I find that the fact that the people making those comments are people with jobs, obligations, and responsibilities is often ignored. Is it a horribly unfortunate situation that big companies like that are forced to come across as politically neutral? Yes, 100%, but the people making those statements are simply doing the job they've been given and they're, in my eyes, just as worthy of empathy as any other person struggling at a lower level of 'the ladder'.
"The Epic Games Store is good because it's dismantling Steam's monopoly!"
Now I do not wish for this to be another Epic Games Store thread, but I felt that this was a great example of what I mean when I say that the 'business' of gaming is often shrouded in either ignorance or disdain. Jason Schreier, someone who has done a lot of good work when it comes to exposing bullshit practices and helping developers, used that as reasoning for why he felt that Epic Games' acquisition of numerous exclusives is a good thing. There's a good argument for why that's wrong on a consumer-level but on a business level it would, honestly, get a big fat 'cross' if it were given as an answer in even a high-school grade business paper. That's because a monopolistic company is one that has some level of exclusive access to a significant share of the market it's in (e.g. the internet companies in many places throughout America are monopolies); it is literally hold a monopoly if the only thing stopping other companies in your market from meeting or succeeding you is healthy competition. As such using the term in the context of Steam (which holds a significant share but no forced exclusivity) is fundamentally ignorant of what the term means in reality.
That might seem like pedantry, and in some ways it is, but to me it points to a greater lack of care throughout many parts of the non-business gaming industry when it comes to using terms from business and economics. To many people, including Schreier, the term "Monopoly" isn't a highly technical term with entire governmental departments aimed at avoiding unnecessary instances of it, it's a term that can be used for any business which has a majority share of the market no matter how they got there and no matter what the actual market is like. The assumption imo is that terms like that are 'just business' and is, therefore, something that 'anyone can do (or use)'; people just think that they know what they're talking about either because they don't know that they're wrong or that they believe 'business' is much less complicated than it actually is.
Final Remarks and Questions
Thank you for reading if you've got this far! I won't put a TL:DR for the entire thing but my main point is basically that I feel that the 'business' side of gaming is often viewed through either ignorant or cynical lenses when it is as important, if not more so, than the 'technical' side of gaming. I feel that discussions overall could be a lot better if we took this into account when it comes to discussions. Even if it's a simple case of "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" or "am I hating on the wrong thing here?"
But anyway, to avoid this being just a rant have some questions. Please try and explain your reasoning behind your answers :)
- Do you agree with my points or not?
- Are there any other examples you can give that can add to mine?
- If you do agree, why do you think it's the case?
But why is this the case? Well, you could say that it's just because gamers are inherently toxic, but I personally think it goes deeper than that. In my eyes, as someone who has actually studied business to a pretty high level, the gaming community simply does not place as much importance onto the 'business' side of the 'gaming business' as it really should. If it's not seen as something tertiary to the 'important' (i.e. technical) parts of game development then it's likely to be actively looked down upon as something that is inherently inferior or, worse, 'easier'. Let me explain by showing three key examples of quotes that I've heard before explaining what I think those quotes mean:
"Why should a game developer need to do PR?"
This was asked of me in the thread surrounding the whole Ooblets controversy. Now, I'm not here to rag on the person who asked that because I can fully see that it was a question made in complete honesty; that's not the issue here. The issue, to me, is that the gaming community is such that a question like that even had to be asked. Would one, for instance, ask why developers had to do art or music for their game? Would a developer such as the ones from Ooblets see those aspects of the game as so trivial that they could completely fuck them up and not see the issue? I highly doubt it, and that's despite the fact that, just like PR, they are just as tertiary to the actual 'game' part of game development.
And that leads on to the greater phenomenon here, and that's how PR, marketing, and other less 'defined' parts of business are most commonly seen as less important overall than they actually are in reality. It's something that manifests itself in many, many areas; the consistent confusion from 'hardcore gamers' shown towards Call of Duty's (and other games similar to it's) success and the subsequent fallacy of "well it must just be a good game, then," being a quite significant example. Another example is the rather heavy focus that people place on sales when it comes to debates on quality; if a controversial game gets high sales then the response is not "that's good news for all those who worked on the game!" it's "lol fuck the haters eat some croooowww."
"Why can't Reggie just be honest for once?"
Back when Reggie was the head of NoA a comment such as this would pretty much always be posted at least once whenever a thread was made about something he had said. Usually it would be in response to something rather innocuous that Reggie said but there would also be many times where it would simply be in response to an answer given by Reggie that the person themselves didn't personally agree with. The sentiment surrounding comments such as those, that PR should be 'honest' above all, is often shared whenever company spokespeople make comments that aim to avoid 'controversy'. It points to a greater trend in my eyes, and that's the idea that it's more acceptable to tell 'business people' how to do their jobs or how well they're doing their jobs ('lazy marketers' is something I've seen come up quite a few times) than it is for developers.
I know it's a touchy subject but when it comes to some of the recent controversies about developers saying their games aren't 'political' I find that the fact that the people making those comments are people with jobs, obligations, and responsibilities is often ignored. Is it a horribly unfortunate situation that big companies like that are forced to come across as politically neutral? Yes, 100%, but the people making those statements are simply doing the job they've been given and they're, in my eyes, just as worthy of empathy as any other person struggling at a lower level of 'the ladder'.
"The Epic Games Store is good because it's dismantling Steam's monopoly!"
Now I do not wish for this to be another Epic Games Store thread, but I felt that this was a great example of what I mean when I say that the 'business' of gaming is often shrouded in either ignorance or disdain. Jason Schreier, someone who has done a lot of good work when it comes to exposing bullshit practices and helping developers, used that as reasoning for why he felt that Epic Games' acquisition of numerous exclusives is a good thing. There's a good argument for why that's wrong on a consumer-level but on a business level it would, honestly, get a big fat 'cross' if it were given as an answer in even a high-school grade business paper. That's because a monopolistic company is one that has some level of exclusive access to a significant share of the market it's in (e.g. the internet companies in many places throughout America are monopolies); it is literally hold a monopoly if the only thing stopping other companies in your market from meeting or succeeding you is healthy competition. As such using the term in the context of Steam (which holds a significant share but no forced exclusivity) is fundamentally ignorant of what the term means in reality.
That might seem like pedantry, and in some ways it is, but to me it points to a greater lack of care throughout many parts of the non-business gaming industry when it comes to using terms from business and economics. To many people, including Schreier, the term "Monopoly" isn't a highly technical term with entire governmental departments aimed at avoiding unnecessary instances of it, it's a term that can be used for any business which has a majority share of the market no matter how they got there and no matter what the actual market is like. The assumption imo is that terms like that are 'just business' and is, therefore, something that 'anyone can do (or use)'; people just think that they know what they're talking about either because they don't know that they're wrong or that they believe 'business' is much less complicated than it actually is.
Final Remarks and Questions
Thank you for reading if you've got this far! I won't put a TL:DR for the entire thing but my main point is basically that I feel that the 'business' side of gaming is often viewed through either ignorant or cynical lenses when it is as important, if not more so, than the 'technical' side of gaming. I feel that discussions overall could be a lot better if we took this into account when it comes to discussions. Even if it's a simple case of "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" or "am I hating on the wrong thing here?"
But anyway, to avoid this being just a rant have some questions. Please try and explain your reasoning behind your answers :)
- Do you agree with my points or not?
- Are there any other examples you can give that can add to mine?
- If you do agree, why do you think it's the case?
Last edited:
