Consumer Goodwill Cannot Save
an Out-of-Touch Company
(Commentary by Jordan Low)
Have you ever forgiven a company for releasing a poor or unsatisfactory product?
If the answer is yes, then most likely it
is because you know that said company has had a proven track record of
producing quality goods/services. This is known as consumer goodwill. Consumer
goodwill is gained when a business is able to instil a sense of confidence in
their product among consumers, leading them to believe that the company is
actively trying to provide quality goods/service for the consumer. Relatability
has also been shown to be a factor affecting consumer goodwill as people are
more likely to support small businesses as opposed to sprawling corporate
companies.
However, companies must keep in mind that
consumer goodwill is not like some ATM card that they can cash out anytime they
please. It can deteriorate over time, especially if a company becomes lazy in
regards to creating new products.
Valve Corporation is arguably the most
well-known name in the video gaming industry, particularly among personal
computer (PC) users. It is the largest digital distributor of video games on
the PC via it’s Steam platform. It is also one of the greatest proponents of
Esports, being the developer and publisher of two incredibly popular Esports
video games, those being Counter Strike:
Global Offensive and DOTA 2.
However, here lies the issue. Many often forget that Valve Corporation
developed and published these amazing games. In fact, many often mistakes Valve
as purely a digital distribution platform.
The reason is simple. Valve has not created
a new video game since 2012, that being Counter
Strike: Global Offensive (While DOTA 2 officially released in 2013, the
game was playable by the public in Beta form since 2011). As a video game
developer, Valve’s products have been excellent. When it comes to developing
video games, they are often described as a company that can “do no wrong”. So
when Valve finally released a brand new, in-house developed video game called Artifact in 2018, one might be surprised
to learn that in just two (2) months, the game has lost eighty (80) to ninety
(90) percent of it’s players.
 |
| Artifact's playerbase as of 30 January 2019 |
Artifact’s failure is a combination of two things. One is Valve’s failure to
understand what their target market actually wanted. The second is complacency
on the company’s part. Valve’s track record of quality games is undeniable.
Artifact itself is well made with high production value. However, it simply
was not what their consumers wanted. Artifact
is an attempt to cash-in on the games as a service (GaaS) model. GaaS are
ways to monetize video games either after their initial sale, or to support a
free-to-play model. This model has become notorious over the past few years as
large video game publishers have begun adopting the model in greedy and
exploitative ways to maximise revenue.
Valve had to be aware of the negative
connotations that come with the GaaS model. There have been huge controversies
in the industry annually regarding GaaS over the past few years. This is why I
would argue that Valve have gotten complacent. They believed that the Valve
name and pedigree would be enough for their customers to immediately jump
aboard their bandwagon. However, when you make your consumers wait around for
half a decade when they have been desperately clamouring for a new product,
don’t be surprised when they turn on you if your product does not meet their
expectations.
Consumers do not live in a vacuum. They are
well aware of other happenings throughout the industry. When the community
comes together to agree that certain practices are harmful and anti-consumer,
the strength of you brand does not excuse you from implementing such practices.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Source:
https://www.gamereactor.eu/news/726233/Artifact+loses+90+of+its+player+base+in+less+than+two+months/
Image Source:
Pcinvasion.com
Steamcharts.com
No comments:
Post a Comment