Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games



  • Sup Allies,

    Recently sales figures have been released for the UK and Japan and it seems Marvel vs Capcom Infinite didn't set the world on fire sales wise. I've been reading on many other sites people complaining that they weren't interested in the game because of the roster, graphics, poor story mode and many people just saying the game in general is bad.

    Now I got the game and while I totally understand people being upset there's no xmen or fantastic four characters (Dr. Doom really) and that the faces on some of the characters just look plain bad I don't think its a bad game at all. Actually I've enjoyed this game more then I did with MvC3 and haven't have as much fun with a vs game since MvC2 which I consider to be the series high point.

    I guess what I'm getting at is I get it if you don't want to play/purchase a game because of some bad/weird business practices, but I really don't know if I would consider it a bad game just because of that if I think the actual game play is top notch. I felt the same about SF V, probably one of the best street fighter games I've played but many consider it bad because of how it launched and what was and wasn't included.



  • Complainers gonna complain.
    Much like Street Fighter V before it, MvCI is mechanically the best game in it's series, but because of some really bad design decisions in OTHER parts of the game, the consumer sorta writes it off as a whole.

    I'm in the camp of people who recognizes it as a superb fighting game, but is still kinda miffed that a game that started with X-Men: Children of the Atom doesn't include any fucking X-Men.

    tl;dr Disney can go suck a fuck



  • For me it certainly is, I have Activision completely blacklisted for myself, and I do my best not to buy EA games even if I think I might like them as I really don't wish to encourage some of their practices with my money, so yeah for me it is definitively the case.

    For MVCi I honestly don't care much about fighting games to begging with, but the part I care for the most part is the roster and this game's roster is downright depressive so the small chance there was of me getting it is gone.



  • Depends on the customer practices, but there's plenty of repeating patterns with companies like Capcom that I'm always skeptical of everything they release.



  • Really something for everyone themself to decide. I mean I'm pretty open in my hatred for censorship in games, or how some call it, "localization", and I honestly couldn't give less of a fuck how good the game is, I'm not giving a company that butchers someone's elses' creation money for that product, and I don't care about their reason either. If the game is really good outside of the mutilation I might buy a used copy eventually, but those people won't see a single cent from me for it. Star Ocean 5, Tales of Berseria and Tokyo Mirae Sessions are examples for that.

    Then we have the case of DLC, here it depends what the DLC is, I couldn't give a flying toss about costumes and other cosmetical stuff, I'm kind of a purist in character design, especially in a 1st playthrough I just want them how the game gives them to me, I don't even use accessories in JRPGs unless they affect stats. But in case of actual content, new story stuff, new quests etc, that can be a reason for me to skip on a game, at least temporary, whch I did with Resident Evil 7 (I borrowed it from my brother though) and Nioh for example, knowing that complete editions will most likely be released at a later date, which is the case with both.

    In case of MvCI, I played the demo, didn't enjoy it, the selection of characters is rather unappealing, the design of some of them is atrocious, the game will be incomplete at initial release and I wish it would be utterly destryoed by the vastly superior Dragonball FighterZ.


  • Banned

    What you're witnessing is people voting with their wallet.

    A publishers worst nightmare.



  • @El-Shmiablo Given the MCUs absolute dominance in the superhero genre right now you can understand why Disney wouldn't want to advertise the characters for one of their competitiors, blah blah blah business reasons. It sucks when business reasons prevent you from getting a better product, doesn't it.



  • @binarymelon said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    @El-Shmiablo Given the MCUs absolute dominance in the superhero genre right now you can understand why Disney wouldn't want to advertise the characters for one of their competitiors, blah blah blah business reasons. It sucks when business reasons prevent you from getting a better product, doesn't it.

    Boy you really don't have another note to sing do you?

    The lack of cross platform multiplayer has never made/broke a game, but Disney corporate meddling has ruined a great deal many things inside and outside of gaming, past and present.

    Don't try to equate the two.



  • @Torigasa-Reta said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    vastly superior Dragonball FighterZ.

    I mean, what are we talking about here? DBFZ is pretty casual as far as anime fighters go.

    @Art But are people voting for the right reasons?

    @binarymelon Yeah, nah. Disney are being incredibly asinine about this whole thing. They are only hurting themselves and their products. If they were really out to do hurt the enemy, they wouldn't be doing shit like bringing Wolverine back.
    And it does totally suck. Its almost like when Sony said they wanted to do cross-platform play last gen and Microsoft said no.
    ;)



  • That's the thing about the "gaming community", there's never a middle-ground, a game is either great or trash, and once the narrative starts to pick up steam one way or another, it becomes very difficult to turn it around.

    We saw that with Mass Effect Andromeda's facial animations. The game had other issues, sure, but once the memes started the negativity around the game became unstoppable. Same with MvCI: ugly Chun-Li / no X-Men, and that was it. Shadow of Mordor's micro-transactions fiasco have apparently doomed the game already (this one should still do pretty well sales-wise). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not justified in some cases. But people just love taking sides and being for or against something, there has to be good guys and bad guys and there's no fun to be had in having measured discussions it seems.

    Having said that, in the case of MvCI, I think you're looking at the problem the wrong way. You're wondering why people chose to not buy the game and whether their reasons were justified. As if by default everyone should be expected to buy it. I'm sure that's the case for some people, MvC fans were probably all in when they first heard about the game and later changed their mind after being disappointed. Those are the people you'll read online and they'll give the impression that every single person not buying the game is doing it for those reasons.

    But the reality is, the majority of people who didn't buy the game never had the intention to buy it in the first place. The mass-market was simply never interested in this game.

    The problem isn't "People aren't buying it for the wrong reasons." but "There are no good reasons to buy it."

    The videogame market is getting increasingly competitive and if you're not best in class, you just don't make it anymore. Being an "ok" game isn't enough, you have to be great, especially if your competition is.

    Why would you buy Battleborn or Lawbreakers when there's Overwatch? Why would you buy Agents of Mayhem when it's not really better than Saints Row? Why would you buy MvCI when there's Injustice 2? We can argue that these games aren't exactly the same, but for the majority of consumers, they are the same.

    There's simply no compelling reason to buy MvCI, it fails at the most important factor for a fighting game in the eyes of the mass-market: the roster and the visuals. From there, it's always going to be a tough sell when there's so many better games around.



  • @TheMarcV I feel like the title of this topic is misleading. Spreading word of mouth isn't a bad customer practice. It's a healthy one. A bunch of pissed off customers Day 1 trying to return their games or get Steam Refunds and such when they suddenly realize all the things wrong with the game is much worse for everyone involved. It's fine if you still like the game, but the bad word of mouth around it and poor sales reflect the awful decisions made during development and state of the final product. In no way is any of this the customer's fault.

    @Axel said:

    That's the thing about the "gaming community", there's never a middle-ground, a game is either great or trash, and once the narrative starts to pick up steam one way or another, it becomes very difficult to turn it around.

    I disagree with that sentiment completely. It might feel that way to people, but really that's just because the middle of the road games tend to just get discussed less, less hype and less gripe. Most people know already whether they want those games or not, and there's nothing inherently wrong with them worth discussing so they fly even further under the radar for all but the people already interested in them. Agree with the rest of your post though. Worded all that better than I could've.



  • I would think most people are smart enough to voice their opinions correctly. If someone takes issue with a game solely based on something such as business practices, then they will usually not call the game out as a "bad one". For those that do, they are usually just doing so to emphasise their dislike towards it, so just ignore them, especially if it's those voting with their wallets because they obviously haven't even played it, and their opinion on the games actual quality means nothing to me in those cases.



  • @Mbun Yeah that's true, middling games just disappear from the public eye instantly (which is possibly even worse than being discussed negatively).

    I just feel that a lot of games get a label attached to them in most major gaming circles, which sticks to them forever.

    So you get the eternal darlings with seemingly zero flaw, like The Witcher 3, and the bad games you shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, like Mass Effect Andromeda. And those labels, especially the negative ones, tend to be impossible to shake off. It starts with legitimate criticism but as time goes by, public opinion simply solidifies into "Bad game". At this point, you wouldn't even know why it's bad anymore, it just is. Any redeemable qualities the game has are ignored.

    Again I'm talking about certain gaming circles like Reddit, Neogaf, etc. Maybe I'm exaggerating but I often get this impression.



  • @Axel said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    @Mbun Yeah that's true, middling games just disappear from the public eye instantly (which is possibly even worse than being discussed negatively).

    I just feel that a lot of games get a label attached to them in most major gaming circles, which sticks to them forever.

    So you get the eternal darlings with seemingly zero flaw, like The Witcher 3, and the bad games you shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, like Mass Effect Andromeda. And those labels, especially the negative ones, tend to be impossible to shake off. It starts with legitimate criticism but as time goes by, public opinion simply solidifies into "Bad game". At this point, you wouldn't even know why it's bad anymore, it just is. Any redeemable qualities the game has are ignored.

    Again I'm talking about certain gaming circles like Reddit, Neogaf, etc. Maybe I'm exaggerating but I often get this impression.

    It depends on the game, sometimes it's not necessarily the label it received but a single mis-step in it's marketing, or sheer lack of marketing.

    Just look at Lawbreakers, the constant cringeworthy advertising that game got and the way it was presented at events turned people off. And then the beta ran poorly on console (Despite the PS4 version having more players than PC in the end) and then the results are as we currently know them to be.

    No matter how humble that could've made that dev team or any apology from Cliff I don't think it would've changed those first impressions.

    Sure that's not to say we're not partially responsible sometimes like with Battleborn/Overwatch (I actually preferred BB over OW, YEAH I SAID IT!) but the comparisons are hard to ignore, the timing was bad, and gearbox was already developing a bad reputation prior to that game, so it was a perfect storm of disappointment all around.

    But yeah, again to the entire thread for me it depends on the company, some have burned me so many times that I won't touch their games unless someone bought it for me as a gift, I received it as a review copy (This no longer happens), or it was otherwise free from my previous job, or I got it used from gamestop so 9 times out of 10 it's probably being returned for a full refund anyway and the company who made it doesn't see a dime from the sale either way.



  • The vast amount of other good games makes it easy to write off other games. Why would people buy a game that has good gameplay, but lacks many other things and does several things they dont like, when they can buy a game that has good gameplay, has other stuff they like and doesnt do the things they dislike?

    The gameplay in MvC:I is indeed good, but so is the gameplay in Guilty Gear and Tekken 7. Guilty Gear looks much better in my opinion and has characters I like much more, so why would I choose MvC:I over it ever?

    I've been there a half decade ago with Soul Calibur 5, the gameplay was the best the series had been in ages but people really wanted a better story mode and more single player content and they're allowed to want it



  • @Axel said:

    So you get the eternal darlings with seemingly zero flaw, like The Witcher 3

    Maybe you could've thought of a better example, because I heard plenty of complaints about Witcher 3 around launch, even from people who liked it. Stuff like "meh combat", "have to loot EVERYTHING", "Geralt's Hair Physics slow the game down", "too many things to do per area", etc.



  • @Mbun said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    "too many things to do per area"

    Who on earth would complain about something like that, especially when the Witcher has really well balanced levelling, where you can do as much or as little side content as you want.



  • @Hazz3r said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    @Mbun said in Do Bad Customer Practices Make it Easier to Write off Good Games:

    "too many things to do per area"

    Who on earth would complain about something like that, especially when the Witcher has really well balanced levelling, where you can do as much or as little side content as you want.

    It can be daunting and cause a feeling of being overwhelmed, regardless of how much the player intends to do. Too much choice does exist and a game does need to find a balance.



  • @Hazz3r said:

    Who on earth would complain about something like that

    Never heard of Open World Fatigue?



  • @Hazz3r No that's a valid complaint, especially when it's tedious stuff and not marked on the map or something.