Why competitor games matter more than you might think
It is perhaps not a unique challenge that video games are facing, but it is one, that I often find puzzles various decision makers in studios. The fact that other games, competitors or not, have an impact on your audience’s expectation and perception of your game.
While a rather standard practice is to avoid having a live phase, or release close to a highly anticipated and well established brand (I don’t think a lot of studio like the idea of releasing two days after a release of Call of Duty), that the decision made by others impacts the community and audiences expectations and opinion of your game, is a step not everyone is ready to accept. I have found it sometimes be met with lines of “Yes, but we are different”, “Yeah but that’s a XXX studio problem”. But considering successes and challenges faced by others is a key part of understanding behavioural shifts and dynamics within the wider audience.
Take Cyberpunk example. A highly anticipated game, with a level of hype behind successfully created and maintained by impactful campaign. The trouble was that it wasn’t entirely what gamers saw on the day of release. Subsequently we still see the ripples of that crisis impacting marketing activity today. While players always have been critical of over polished marketing material, they are now even more vocal about their concerns that what is being presented isn’t representative of the game they will play. They are not shy of pointing out overpromised lines or visual.
Trust in what is shown in marketing material is lower than ever before. Before Cyberpunk, a tricky situation I experienced actually created a wave of negativity over a year after release. One of earlier teaser trailers for Rainbow Six Siege, started with the operators roping out of a helicopter before they engaged in their mission. We did not have any helicopters in the game, let along the ability to use it as an insertion point. Test phases, and even launch went by, but over a year later the players asked about the promised, and shown, helicopter spawn point. Only for us to have to note that this feature doesn’t exist. Which as you can expect, created a week of negativity and pointing out the overselling nature of the marketing activity.
Marketing materials is but only one aspect of how other game’s activity impacts your own. Monetisation, game quality, server stability, the list goes on, all have an impact on your audience’s expectation for your game. A good few years ago loot boxes, were looked at rather distastefully by the general player population. However, more recently, especially when we look at Overwatch2, they actually would have liked to get their loot boxes back. In case you’re unfamiliar with the case. Overwatch 2, was released as a free 2 play sequel to Overwatch 1. While the way to optain cosmetic items, character voice lines, etc. in Overwatch 1 was to either buy loot boxes or receive them as a reward for playing and completing challenges. In Overwatch2 these boxes were removed and replaced with the ability to buy these for hard currency. While the team over at Blizzard were explain that it would allow the player to buy what they actually want rather than roll for the items, the players did not really appreciate that direction. Likely due to the fact that it was now much harder, if not impossible, to get the item without paying for it. The choice was removed for players, which is what ultimately created the negativity, and call to bring back loot boxes. They rather gamble for the item rather than being forced to buy with real money. Marking a dynamic shift for player communities.
The list of dynamics and behaviours is practically endless, but a final example I like to point out is the Early Access phase. While players are rather more forgiving for bugs and issues with the games, even missing features, when a game releases in early access, you still must treat it as if it was the full launch of the game. There are a few reasons for that:
Player data shows that an early access release does mark the highest number of active players. A full release following an early access phase, is not the highest spike of active players, but it is the initial release in early access. A rather lower number of players returns after having played the game in an early access stage.
Your development and public level just changed until you end support for the game. Regular communication, updates, and activity around your game are now the bare minimum, a support operation to help players is needed is now a requirement. Not to mention all the feedback and bug reports you will be collecting. You suddenly need to be responsive and active with your player base, and they have expectation what that means for release cadence and communication.
An early access game is expected to implement feedback from the player base even more rapidly than as if it was the full release. It comes at the advantage of players having a greater sense of being part of shaping the game’s future, but also requires the studio to follow through with a solid feedback process, and communicate back to the players.
No second chances for first impressions. This is nothing particularly surprising, but people who wish listed you on steam, and gain early access, are also just as quick to drop your game and reimburse their purchase. If you’re facing a problematic bug that prevents progress early on in the player journey, chances are players won’t bother and just remove you.
The reason I’m marking it here as an “impact of others” is that over time the early access has shifted into a ‘soft’ release, and has changed the player expectation of what is present in an early access phase. While initially it might just be the first hour or so of gameplay. Today’s expectation is much closer to a complete and finished product with more issues than a full release.
Monitoring and understanding these dynamic shifts is critical for ensuring community can advice appropriately for the situation at hand. If you operate blindly, or under an outdated mindset, you run the danger of repeating the mistakes, and missing out on the success of others. Navigating the complex dynamics is what your community person is best at, as they know their audience and player inside and out. Making sure they remain up to date is not that easy, but a crucial element to ensure the up to date implementation of community and marketing strategies. We at Com-Unity Consulting, can help your team remain informed and up to date with the latest dynamics to make sure they can be most impactful for your game and brand. Find out how here
