Post Page Advertisement [Top]



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:

Image Source:
Pcinvasion.com
Steamcharts.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Bottom Ad [Post Page]

| Designed by Colorlib