Intelligent Systems' PR and Fans' Faith/Trust in Heroes and Company

[Mercakete]

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Well, consumers have a huge right to voice their opinions since it is their money that the artist is taking; consumers are not patronizing artists out of charity. Also, the fact that consumers care enough to voice their opinion is a good thing so the artist does not have to guess what the consumers like; it does not take a marketing genius to browse through social media and fan forums and then sell what players want. Artists can make whatever the hell they want if they are not dependent on consumers for a living, but if they want consumers to buy it, they have to appeal to the consumers. There is no such thing as a free lunch and that applies to the artist too; if the artist is not producing something that is lunch worthy, then they deserve to starve just like everyone else.

With that said, Intelligent Systems is listening to the the majority of their consumers, otherwise they would not be releasing so many alts in the first place. On the other hand, I think they could have done it in a better way that pleases the minority of their consumers too.

"Voicing your opinion" is different from telling the artists (the fact that they sell their art does not make it not art) that they should or should not make subjective choices as though said choices were objective. The intellectual property does not belong to the consumer, and so the consumer does not have the right to tell the one who does hold the right what to do with said product. The consumer pays for what the artist chooses to make. As for the consumer's rights, they have the right to abstain from buying and enjoying said product. That's about where the rights of a consumer end. Unless something is copywritten to you, you don't have a say in how it's made, and rightfully so. If a company asks for feedback, then that's their prerogative, and they reserve the right to listen to or ignore whoever they want. There's a point when constructive criticism and helpful suggestions become opinionated demands, and people become unduly entitled, and when you start using language like "x company should do this" rather than "I would enjoy it if x company did this" or "I think that it would be financially beneficial to x company if they did this" you have crossed that line.

But even regardless of this specific situation, people should (being objective not subjective here) be considerate of other people before they say anything. It's just that "the successful" are often de-humanized since we don't often run into them in our day-to-day lives, and start viewing them as "people who give us stuff but don't have a face" and forget that they have feelings. Speaking as an artist myself, we put a lot of passion and heart into what we do, and when people start telling us what we "should have done" with our work when we're the ones who put all the effort into it, it's offensive. Worse, it can be downright heartbreaking when you put something out there, hoping that people will like it, and then all people can do is talk it down and complain. The rare times when I get to see the creators of products talking to their audiences, I can see that same passion and hope clearly. It's like a parent who worked very hard to afford a gift for his or her beloved child, hoping to make him or her smile. I can only imagine the pain they must feel when that child can only complain, and throws a temper tantrum because it wasn't exactly the way they wanted. People can be so petty and heartless, not thinking about how hard the companies work for them. And some people can only look at the financial side of things, and completely ignore the human heart, which is what propelled these artists in the first place. It's always there, in everything that has been made, even if numbers are also there. Both are important, but I'd argue that between them, it's more important to be considerate than to be accurate in assessing what will sell. Compassion makes the world better on the whole, and for more and more people the more people practice it. What good is it to be right about what a company could do to improve its sales if you're not even on that company's financial strategy team?

Also, it's clear to me that our goals are different. I'm looking at what is objectively correct in how people should treat one another. You're looking at what will potentially earn this company more money.

20 hours ago, Hilda said:

Not sure who this is directed towards, but there is a difference between talking something down and sharing/voicing your opinion on a product because it has some flaws in your eyes.

Besides anything that has a price tag on it isnt anymore Art its a product that needs to meet demand and supply.

The above addresses some of what you said, too (such as if someone is or isn't art, and the difference in how to voice your opinion vs telling someone that something is objectively wrong), but to answer your question, I was speaking to whoever read it, not to anyone in particular, as this is (from what I've seen) a wide-spread problem.

Everyone thinks their opinion is worth attacking people over anymore, and don't even think about how it affects those people. I would love it if IS looked at what I thought, and if they decided that I had some good ideas to implement, but I know that I don't have the right to tell them how to run their business, so I don't, even if (and it's quite possible) I've used "should" language for subjective things in the past, which I shouldn't have done. It's not my product, so I can't say what should or should not be done about it. I can only say what I would like. On the same point of IS looking at my feedback, if they do, I want to make sure I'm treating them with respect, which is why I need to be careful about how I word things. People can voice their thoughts and ideas, even if they do so disrespectfully and harshly. But that doesn't mean that they should, at least not without being polite, recognizing that all we have are our own opinions and that we aren't entitled to have our own way in this area. IS can read it, and it can hurt them. It's better to say something like "I appreciate all the work IS is putting into their product, but I respectfully think that it would be better for their finances if they implemented x strategy." than "IS is stupid. I'm so mad right now! I can't believe I'm not getting what I want right this second! IS should be doing x, and they're so dumb for not doing that!" which is most of what I see. Not only does it have the potential to hurt IS, but it makes a toxic environment for the fans, making them more bitter or, if they like what the people are bashing, they can clam up and feel bad about themselves for liking what is apparently stupid. I know I've felt both in the past. At least some people are more careful with how they word things. Like, "I'm not super into this, but I'm happy for the people who are," which I've seen. Sadly, it's much rarer than the more toxic and childish responses.

[XRay]

2 hours ago, Mercakete said:

The intellectual property does not belong to the consumer, and so the consumer does not have the right to tell the one who does hold the right what to do with said product. The consumer pays for what the artist chooses to make. As for the consumer's rights, they have the right to abstain from buying and enjoying said product. That's about where the rights of a consumer end.

Artists can do whatever they want, but if they are asking customers for money, artists will have to listen to their customers if they want to be paid. The customers do not have the right to directly force artists to do certain things, but customers do have a right to voice their opinions and demands, and customers most definitely can indirectly force artists to do things by the power of their wallets. It is a whole lot easier to just tell artists straight up what the customers want instead of letting artists randomly guess and starve in the mean time.

In this case, the artist is not just an independent contractor serving themselves, it is a company with stockholders to answer to, and unless other wise stated, the company's primary objective is to maximize profit. If the company is not pleasing their customers and earning their stockholders as much profit as possible, the company is leaving money on the table and wasting stockholders' money, and if it is really bad, it can result in firings and lawsuits.

For Intelligent Systems, from my perspective, they are definitely ignoring a minority portion of their customers and that generates quite a bit of ill will. In my opinion, there is no reason to ignore these customers unless these customers really are unprofitable, and they can definitely handle public relations better.

2 hours ago, Mercakete said:

There's a point when constructive criticism and helpful suggestions become opinionated demands, and people become unduly entitled, and when you start using language like "x company should do this" rather than "I would enjoy it if x company did this" or "I think that it would be financially beneficial to x company if they did this" you have crossed that line.

I personally do not see anything wrong with opinionated demands. It is better to have a loyal customer base that is screaming at the company than an indifferent customer base that just leaves and never returns.

I agree that "Thots should die" and "I am not spending money on a walking sack of tits" and stuff like that are crossing the line, but statements like "I hate alts" and "Camilla should not be here" are reasonable responses.

Edited November 12, 2018 by XRay

[Mercakete]

3 hours ago, XRay said:

I personally do not see anything wrong with opinionated demands. It is better to have a loyal customer base that is screaming at the company than an indifferent customer base that just leaves and never returns.

I agree that "Thots should die" and "I am not spending money on a walking sack of tits" and stuff like that are crossing the line, but statements like "I hate alts" and "Camilla should not be here" are reasonable responses.

And this is where it really breaks down into how affected you are by harsh wordings and whether you (the IS people, not you specifically) tend to focus on "this data helps us do our jobs better" or "I wanted to make them happy but all they can do is yell at me. *soul-crushing despair*" I'm far more tuned into the latter, while you clearly have more of a mind for the former. Since IS is a company, you're bound to get people from both camps looking at the fans' comments. Personally, (like, for my own artwork) I'd rather have people keep their opinions to themselves if said opinions are destructive (I.e., disrespectful, mob-inciting, trash-talking, etc.) harkening back to "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Key word being "nice," as opposed to "positive." You can disagree politely and you can give negative feedback in a nice/respectful/helpful/courteous way. (Used various words to make what I'm trying to say as clear as possible since this point could easily be misunderstood.) Whereas, by your own words, you would rather your own fans roar about than not hear anything. But going even beyond that, I'm not just looking out for those who have put their hearts out there within the product. It isn't good for a community to get toxic (as in, it's bad for the community's own health as a community), and it's also bad for individuals to always be complaining. Like young children need to be reprimanded when they act out in order to help them mature (for their own happiness as well as the happiness of the people around them), those who have become more sophisticated in their temper tantrums need to be informed that they are doing so and asked to stop. After all, they may not even realize what they're doing is hazardous to others and to themselves.

So, I'm looking out for the overall wellness of everyone involved at large. And even if you would rather have one of the two extremes (that is, preferring "loyal customer base screaming at the company" to "an indifferent customer base that just leaves and never returns"), why not strive for the ideal of people reaching a state of healthy internal development which results in the most progress and the least unhealth? Why say to those who complain loudly "what you're doing is okay" when it results in so much damage? Why not try to make a positive change at large in order to help as many people as possible? Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, the most miserable people in life are the people who complain often and live for their own satisfaction. While the people who are the most content consider others before themselves. Additionally, no one wants to be around someone who's spiteful all the time. However, everyone likes being around someone who cares about them.