How feedback works and why it matters

General Discussion
Prev 1 8 9 10 32 Next
11/15/2012 01:43 AMPosted by Tyrathius
While I do not necessarily agree with every complaint being raised lately, some of the blue posts really seem to give a "We're right and you're wrong, so shut up" vibe. That's probably not the intention but it's still frustrating. Even if the feedback is being considered behind the scenes, we aren't seeing any of that. We have only the blue posters to go by and lately you guys have seemed really curt and abrasive.


That is also the vibe players are getting from other players. that is why Blizzard needs to restore the ability to give feedback in-game or through the support site.
11/15/2012 01:43 AMPosted by Tyrathius
While I do not necessarily agree with every complaint being raised lately, some of the blue posts really seem to give a "We're right and you're wrong, so shut up" vibe. That's probably not the intention but it's still frustrating. Even if the feedback is being considered behind the scenes, we aren't seeing any of that. We have only the blue posters to go by and lately you guys have seemed really curt and abrasive.


I suppose you could get that "vibe", but you'll notice that the only ones who feel that way are the ones who dissagree with whatever the blue has posted.

I'm sure there might be a few people who are 100% happy with every aspect of the game, but most people would like to see something changed... which is why there is no way to please 10,000,000 people.

It just shows how far Blizzard does go to please their customers, when players expect everything they demand be given to them.

At some point players will have to either play the game the way the developers meant for us to play, or they can find a game that has what they are looking for.

Saying no isn't bad customer service.
While you're 'round these parts, I want to draw your attention to a well-written, insightful article by Matt Rossi over at WoW Insider. It's a great point of reference when you consider some of the statements we, as Blizzard employees, tend to consistently reiterate.

"[url="http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/11/14/how-feedback-works-and-why-it-matters/#continued"]How feedback works and why it matters[/url]" via WoW Insider

Food for thought!

With love,
[url="https://twitter.com/CM_Zarhym"]Zarhym[/url]


I'm going to say this, and I'm not even upset about WoW:

WoW has gone from niche to mainstream to attempting to cater to everyone. In the process of trying to gain universal appeal, they water down the the product to garner more subscriptions.

Solo content has steadily become easier and fruitful to the point where a casual solo player can be geared equivalent to a casual or an unlucky hardcore normal mode raider. Engaging five-man content has been completely neglected in favor of quick and easy gear, while the only challenging five-man content awards vanity items.

Raiding still rewards class stacking, even with the simplification of the buff system. Some specs are still cookie cutter with the simplification of the talent system. The development team even got a 10 month reprieve from creating content for Cataclysm and some people that feel that Blizzard used a marketing ploy to deflect the backlash.

Some people have issues with communicating and there are many subtle changes to this game that irritate people but are hard to put into words. You're just a liaison, and its no fun dealing with irate customers, but being passive aggressive is just going to spark the people that disagree with you into a deeper fervor.
11/14/2012 08:30 PMPosted by Zarhym
While you're 'round these parts, I want to draw your attention to a well-written, insightful article by Matt Rossi over at WoW Insider. It's a great point of reference when you consider some of the statements we, as Blizzard employees, tend to consistently reiterate.

Since this article fully endorses, supports our position, and agrees with what our intent is as we move forward in our master plan for the game, we encourage you to read it and embrace it as fact. After all we've been telling you posters this forever, and now we present this reasonable proof for your generous consideration ....

To put it in few words, you've had your say now shut up and deal with our desicions.....

LOL what a load of tripe !
11/15/2012 01:46 AMPosted by Ewing
While I do not necessarily agree with every complaint being raised lately, some of the blue posts really seem to give a "We're right and you're wrong, so shut up" vibe. That's probably not the intention but it's still frustrating. Even if the feedback is being considered behind the scenes, we aren't seeing any of that. We have only the blue posters to go by and lately you guys have seemed really curt and abrasive.


That is also the vibe players are getting from other players. that is why Blizzard needs to restore the ability to give feedback in-game or through the support site.


I understand what you are saying, that by giving feedback in a public forum, sensitive people will get their feelings hurt if anyone dissagrees with them.

I have to side with Blizzard on this issue, if all feedback was private, for the most part, all feedback would be negative. They wouldn't hear much from people who like the way the game is going.

By letting us discuss the issues, they get to hear from both sides.
I don't feel feedback matters as much anymore. MoP has been such a mess right out of the gates, I am pretty baffled by how a lot of the stuff made it live. PvP is pretty much the most broken thing in this game at the moment. The entire system, balance, everything is horrible. And rewards are tied to it. Jesus.

Then there's the CRZs, which I feel all the feedback in the world wont alter, because I think Blizz is in money-saver mode with that one. Probably in a lot of other things too to cut corners. Like there are things fundamentally disruptive and damaging to gameplay happening that I find hard to believe the creators or testers were too stupid to notice. Things that were reported so many times in Beta feedbacks... They were ignored outright. Probably under the pressure to get the game out to bring in money under the falling subs.

Money will always trump any customer feedback or satisfaction.


That is also the vibe players are getting from other players. that is why Blizzard needs to restore the ability to give feedback in-game or through the support site.


I understand what you are saying, that by giving feedback in a public forum, sensitive people will get their feelings hurt if anyone dissagrees with them.

I have to side with Blizzard on this issue, if all feedback was private, for the most part, all feedback would be negative. They wouldn't hear much from people who like the way the game is going.

By letting us discuss the issues, they get to hear from both sides.


This quote from Daxxarri a Blizzard CM was part of the article linked in the first post.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7004697771?page=25#486

11/13/2012 04:09 PMPosted by Daxxarri
Those polls only used a few thousand people...


It's true that the forum population represents a relatively small chunk of the overall player base. It's also true that the kind of player that's apt to post on the forums doesn't necessarily represent all of the vast and incredibly diverse World of Warcraft community, but that doesn't mean that the feedback here isn't useful. We do realize that forum goers are often our most invested, passionate players. We appreciate you guys, and what you have to say matters.

That said, election polls and the forums are different in several key ways. Among them--and I don't want to get into how statistics works in detail (especially since I'm not an expert)--but I do know that the forums are what is called a 'self selecting sample', and that trying to derive representative statistics from such a sampling is an excellent way to get skewed results.


If players could offer feedback again in-game, through the support site, email, as well as the forum; It would enlarge the sample, thereby minimizing any skewed results. As anyone who has taken statistics in collage knows, the bigger and more varied the sample, the better the results.
That article is a joke (but it's WoW Insider, which makes a habit out of creating columns out of tripe). Yes, obviously feedback matters. Obviously they listen to feedback. But that doesn't necessitate any applause. When they discount feedback (even after listening to it) that was well reasoned and highly supported, they should offer better explanation (if they want to keep their community feeling like communication is valuable). They should be judged based upon the context of the time, and right now the context does not look good.

The statement in the article about Blizzard not following the directions of people who shout the loudest on the forums is a strawman argument (and one that, sadly, Blizzard reps and Blizzard fans like to fall back on). No one thinks that they bow down, or should bow down, to the wishes of the guy who posts in all caps and with cursing about how his class needs to be buffed. But obviously that's not the issue people are identifying as "failing to respond to feedback," and to act like that IS the issue reveals a discrediting bias in the writer (again though, not surprising, since it's WoW Insider, where the bloggers LIVE for those moments that they gain enough favor to interview Blizzard staff).

Forum trends are just not that difficult to spot. And the large trends tend to be pretty representative of the in-game opinion. As much as people like to talk about self-selection, more often than not the "vocal minority" is only a minority because they're vocal, not because their opinions about what is good or bad are out of sync with the general population - that is to say that the opinion which appears to be the majority on the forums is often the majority in the game, and the minority on the forums are also the minority in the game (again, this is talking about large forum trends). Probably the only area in which self-selection has a highly skewed result is class balance arguments, for obvious reasons. Outside of that, the skew is minimal, and failure to act on widescale feedback is worthy of criticism.

The two best examples of that are recent: CRZ's and dailies. In the case of CRZ's, the article makes the extremely unconvincing point that CRZ's were a feature developed based on player feedback. Well, no, not really. It was a feature developed to save money on server costs, but spun to the playerbase as being a positive feature to make the world feel "alive" again (cue eye rolls over the people who think "alive" means smaller chance of getting rare mobs and loss of nodes for professions while people continue to not group up for quests because it's faster to just solo the solo content most of the time). The problem? First, the "feedback" about how the world was too empty was never a notable trend on the forum to begin with. And the ones who did complain about that tended to see server merging rather than CRZ as the appropriate response. The best you could say about Blizzard's reaction to feedback here was that they used it to determine how best to make a cost-cutting measure sound like a positive development for the game.

That decision made the player communications even more irate. The players thought their task was to convince Blizzard that their feature was not fun and detracted from the game, and became pretty certain that feedback was useless and ignored when the surge of negative feedback for weeks resulted in nothing but comments about bug fixes and vague promises of upping spawn rates. Was it useless? No. But it didn't carry the weight that common sense would tell you it should carry if the subject under discussion is what is fun rather than what is cheap.

Dailies are another prime example of course of this same trend. A decision by Blizzard motivated purely by the belief that creating chores for players to do every day makes it more likely they will stick around in their subscription. It's not about fun there, it's just about tying a reward to a grind that slowly - extremely slowly - gets done on a day to day basis. They're hoping that the joy of the reward will make players stick around longer than they otherwise would. Of course the game has always had grinds, but the level of reward and the tying of grinds to solo content has never been at this level, and it kind of stumbled over that line from, "hidden grind through enjoyable gameplay" to "boring grind where players are all too aware they are in a grind and can't wait to get the reward so they can never do that boring content ever again."

Lots of negative feedback again. And the response? Silly "gotcha" comments from Blizzard supporters about "dailies not being required" with some nodding from the blues. Oh yeah, that definitely makes feedback seem worthwhile. Again, I don't think the feedback is useless or not being taken into account in some fashion.

There have times in WoW's history that I have actually held them up as an example of doing a good job in providing steady communication with players and taking feedback into account. In many ways, Mists of Pandaria does that. But I view that as their response to feedback on other issues that was probably delivered a year ago. People who wanted more challenging dungeons got challenge modes. People who wanted something between dungeons and solo got Scenarios. When looking at the questing structure (NOT counting the daily quests), you can see how they split up storylines a little more to give more flexibility to player travel across zones (something I saw many people supportive of in the past, though some linearity is still good to have and players like to have arcing stories).

At present, however, it's difficult to be anything but critical of how they are handling the feedback on dailies and how they handled the CRZ feedback (I use the past tense because CRZ is something that was pretty well set in stone). Everything should be judged based on how long it would reasonably take to respond to the issue raised by the feedback. With dailies, it really would take almost no time at all, but instead we are waiting for it to be addressed in 5.1, and even then only in a half-hearted way that has not dulled the negative sentiment from the players much. (A token to increase rep gains after revered means little to people primarily complaining about how long it takes to get to revered, not to mention that the complaints also strongly center on the inability to gain the rep outside of dailies; and the double rep gains for alts has not removed the dread players feel at working on all those rep grinds with their alts - account wide reputation for alts being the far more sensible solution, with a restriction for Horde and Alliance only reps only translating to other Horde / Alliance characters and a few notable exceptions made for neutral factions opposed to each other such as Oracle and Wolvar or Aldor and Scryer).

Anyhow, I've rambled, but to sum up, it really comes down to two things. Does feedback matter? Yes. The article is right that it does. And should Blizzard be criticized for how they have discounted feedback in their actions recently? The article seems to take a very defensive stance for Blizzard, and I think it's just not correct in that stance. I think Blizzard is well deserving of criticism lately for that. (Though the criticism chiefly belongs to the decision makers, not the forum representatives of Blizzard).
The article is a joke?! Always picking on the negatives, never the positives geez...
Myself and all my friends feel that your listening to some people about how empty the world was and CRZ being the result falls into the category of listening to the minority.

1000s of posts have stated why CRZ is a terrible idea, yet months later, it is still here, and um where is our fishing contests?

I agree with the guy who said feedback is way too selective. I see more blue posts responding to stupid off-topic stuff then real feedback on issues that matter. (Or soliciting opinions to collect and bring to the devs...)
I find WoW to be pretty much a reflection of real life - it isn't always fair, things can always be improved but there are always things to learn and master that keeps one coming back for more. And in that aspect I have to admit, Blizzard has never failed to deliver.

Everytime an expansion is announced, I tell myself "well, maybe it's time to stop". Well, 4 expansions and close to 8 years later, I still find myself delighted and amazed at what Blizz puts out.

There's is only one gripe that I have about Blizz taking in feedback though - GREEN FIRE! 'nuff said. *folds arms*

P.S and giving those mobs in the Theramore scenario fel immolate and incinerates really pissed me off for 2 secs the first time I saw them then I started laughing hysterically at how evil Blizz devs could truly be.


I am not a regular MvP, I am part of the guild mentoring program. This is not permanent. I posted before the green text and I will post after I don't have it anymore.

Why does that make my post, or my opinions, any less valid than yours? I applied to be part of the mentoring program because I honestly care about this community, and I post also because I care. I hate seeing the nasty things people say about one another. Call me naive, but I think we're better than that.

Usually I kill threads I post in, honestly. :P


What I see is you posting on how things should be civil, but I didn't see you respond to any of the haters on here that are defending blizz. I see that on here a lot. People rush in to attack the legitimate post, but they rarely confront the haters.


I try not to get involved in arguments that I know lead to nowhere. If someone has a beef with something Blizzard has done, be it legitimate or otherwise, rarely anything anyone says is going to change their mind, as evidenced by a lot of the blue post replies. If you remember before, I did mention that people of both sides should be more civil, but I am not a moderator and it is not any regular poster's job to police the forums.

The post I responded to, was also in no way legitimate, it was just another example of completely non-constructive feedback.

11/15/2012 04:40 AMPosted by Hinrichs
Wouldn't simple in-game e-mails out to every subscriber tell them something? They could have a yes or no check-mark. That way it would tally for them automatically and they wouldn't have to read millions of e-mails. I know that is not allowing verbal feedback, but it is pointing them in the right direction. They have other ways of know which questions to ask. They already know which issues are the controversial ones.


I am not sure mass survey emails are the right solution either. A lot of people don't like them and won't reply to those. I am not sure what a perfect solution might be. Even when presented with the GM survey I would hazard a guess that the majority of people don't do it, and that's feedback directly to the Blizzard GM team.
That article is a joke (but it's WoW Insider, which makes a habit out of creating columns out of tripe). Yes, obviously feedback matters. Obviously they listen to feedback. But that doesn't necessitate any applause. When they discount feedback (even after listening to it) that was well reasoned and highly supported, they should offer better explanation (if they want to keep their community feeling like communication is valuable). They should be judged based upon the context of the time, and right now the context does not look good.

The statement in the article about Blizzard not following the directions of people who shout the loudest on the forums is a strawman argument (and one that, sadly, Blizzard reps and Blizzard fans like to fall back on). No one thinks that they bow down, or should bow down, to the wishes of the guy who posts in all caps and with cursing about how his class needs to be buffed. But obviously that's not the issue people are identifying as "failing to respond to feedback," and to act like that IS the issue reveals a discrediting bias in the writer (again though, not surprising, since it's WoW Insider, where the bloggers LIVE for those moments that they gain enough favor to interview Blizzard staff).

Forum trends are just not that difficult to spot. And the large trends tend to be pretty representative of the in-game opinion. As much as people like to talk about self-selection, more often than not the "vocal minority" is only a minority because they're vocal, not because their opinions about what is good or bad are out of sync with the general population - that is to say that the opinion which appears to be the majority on the forums is often the majority in the game, and the minority on the forums are also the minority in the game (again, this is talking about large forum trends). Probably the only area in which self-selection has a highly skewed result is class balance arguments, for obvious reasons. Outside of that, the skew is minimal, and failure to act on widescale feedback is worthy of criticism.

The two best examples of that are recent: CRZ's and dailies. In the case of CRZ's, the article makes the extremely unconvincing point that CRZ's were a feature developed based on player feedback. Well, no, not really. It was a feature developed to save money on server costs, but spun to the playerbase as being a positive feature to make the world feel "alive" again (cue eye rolls over the people who think "alive" means smaller chance of getting rare mobs and loss of nodes for professions while people continue to not group up for quests because it's faster to just solo the solo content most of the time). The problem? First, the "feedback" about how the world was too empty was never a notable trend on the forum to begin with. And the ones who did complain about that tended to see server merging rather than CRZ as the appropriate response. The best you could say about Blizzard's reaction to feedback here was that they used it to determine how best to make a cost-cutting measure sound like a positive development for the game.

That decision made the player communications even more irate. The players thought their task was to convince Blizzard that their feature was not fun and detracted from the game, and became pretty certain that feedback was useless and ignored when the surge of negative feedback for weeks resulted in nothing but comments about bug fixes and vague promises of upping spawn rates. Was it useless? No. But it didn't carry the weight that common sense would tell you it should carry if the subject under discussion is what is fun rather than what is cheap.

Dailies are another prime example of course of this same trend. A decision by Blizzard motivated purely by the belief that creating chores for players to do every day makes it more likely they will stick around in their subscription. It's not about fun there, it's just about tying a reward to a grind that slowly - extremely slowly - gets done on a day to day basis. They're hoping that the joy of the reward will make players stick around longer than they otherwise would. Of course the game has always had grinds, but the level of reward and the tying of grinds to solo content has never been at this level, and it kind of stumbled over that line from, "hidden grind through enjoyable gameplay" to "boring grind where players are all too aware they are in a grind and can't wait to get the reward so they can never do that boring content ever again."

Lots of negative feedback again. And the response? Silly "gotcha" comments from Blizzard supporters about "dailies not being required" with some nodding from the blues. Oh yeah, that definitely makes feedback seem worthwhile. Again, I don't think the feedback is useless or not being taken into account in some fashion.

There have times in WoW's history that I have actually held them up as an example of doing a good job in providing steady communication with players and taking feedback into account. In many ways, Mists of Pandaria does that. But I view that as their response to feedback on other issues that was probably delivered a year ago. People who wanted more challenging dungeons got challenge modes. People who wanted something between dungeons and solo got Scenarios. When looking at the questing structure (NOT counting the daily quests), you can see how they split up storylines a little more to give more flexibility to player travel across zones (something I saw many people supportive of in the past, though some linearity is still good to have and players like to have arcing stories).

At present, however, it's difficult to be anything but critical of how they are handling the feedback on dailies and how they handled the CRZ feedback (I use the past tense because CRZ is something that was pretty well set in stone). Everything should be judged based on how long it would reasonably take to respond to the issue raised by the feedback. With dailies, it really would take almost no time at all, but instead we are waiting for it to be addressed in 5.1, and even then only in a half-hearted way that has not dulled the negative sentiment from the players much. (A token to increase rep gains after revered means little to people primarily complaining about how long it takes to get to revered, not to mention that the complaints also strongly center on the inability to gain the rep outside of dailies; and the double rep gains for alts has not removed the dread players feel at working on all those rep grinds with their alts - account wide reputation for alts being the far more sensible solution, with a restriction for Horde and Alliance only reps only translating to other Horde / Alliance characters and a few notable exceptions made for neutral factions opposed to each other such as Oracle and Wolvar or Aldor and Scryer).

Anyhow, I've rambled, but to sum up, it really comes down to two things. Does feedback matter? Yes. The article is right that it does. And should Blizzard be criticized for how they have discounted feedback in their actions recently? The article seems to take a very defensive stance for Blizzard, and I think it's just not correct in that stance. I think Blizzard is well deserving of criticism lately for that. (Though the criticism chiefly belongs to the decision makers, not the forum representatives of Blizzard).
And still people don't understand what feedback is. Feedback is when we voice our concerns over something. At that point, the feedback is given. Never expect a response, however know that someone read it and it was jotted down to be brought to the proper departments's attention.

11/14/2012 08:44 PMPosted by Hinrichs
Feedback doesn't always work. I tried nicely to get at least an acknowledgement about my transmog problem. That didn't work. I tried again a little louder and that didn't work. I screamed and that didn't work. Soon I will whisper, and that might work. But it won't be through normal channels.
That article is a joke (but it's WoW Insider, which makes a habit out of creating columns out of tripe). Yes, obviously feedback matters. Obviously they listen to feedback. But that doesn't necessitate any applause. When they discount feedback (even after listening to it) that was well reasoned and highly supported, they should offer better explanation (if they want to keep their community feeling like communication is valuable). They should be judged based upon the context of the time, and right now the context does not look good.

The statement in the article about Blizzard not following the directions of people who shout the loudest on the forums is a strawman argument (and one that, sadly, Blizzard reps and Blizzard fans like to fall back on). No one thinks that they bow down, or should bow down, to the wishes of the guy who posts in all caps and with cursing about how his class needs to be buffed. But obviously that's not the issue people are identifying as "failing to respond to feedback," and to act like that IS the issue reveals a discrediting bias in the writer (again though, not surprising, since it's WoW Insider, where the bloggers LIVE for those moments that they gain enough favor to interview Blizzard staff).

Forum trends are just not that difficult to spot. And the large trends tend to be pretty representative of the in-game opinion. As much as people like to talk about self-selection, more often than not the "vocal minority" is only a minority because they're vocal, not because their opinions about what is good or bad are out of sync with the general population - that is to say that the opinion which appears to be the majority on the forums is often the majority in the game, and the minority on the forums are also the minority in the game (again, this is talking about large forum trends). Probably the only area in which self-selection has a highly skewed result is class balance arguments, for obvious reasons. Outside of that, the skew is minimal, and failure to act on widescale feedback is worthy of criticism.

The two best examples of that are recent: CRZ's and dailies. In the case of CRZ's, the article makes the extremely unconvincing point that CRZ's were a feature developed based on player feedback. Well, no, not really. It was a feature developed to save money on server costs, but spun to the playerbase as being a positive feature to make the world feel "alive" again (cue eye rolls over the people who think "alive" means smaller chance of getting rare mobs and loss of nodes for professions while people continue to not group up for quests because it's faster to just solo the solo content most of the time). The problem? First, the "feedback" about how the world was too empty was never a notable trend on the forum to begin with. And the ones who did complain about that tended to see server merging rather than CRZ as the appropriate response. The best you could say about Blizzard's reaction to feedback here was that they used it to determine how best to make a cost-cutting measure sound like a positive development for the game.

That decision made the player communications even more irate. The players thought their task was to convince Blizzard that their feature was not fun and detracted from the game, and became pretty certain that feedback was useless and ignored when the surge of negative feedback for weeks resulted in nothing but comments about bug fixes and vague promises of upping spawn rates. Was it useless? No. But it didn't carry the weight that common sense would tell you it should carry if the subject under discussion is what is fun rather than what is cheap.

Dailies are another prime example of course of this same trend. A decision by Blizzard motivated purely by the belief that creating chores for players to do every day makes it more likely they will stick around in their subscription. It's not about fun there, it's just about tying a reward to a grind that slowly - extremely slowly - gets done on a day to day basis. They're hoping that the joy of the reward will make players stick around longer than they otherwise would. Of course the game has always had grinds, but the level of reward and the tying of grinds to solo content has never been at this level, and it kind of stumbled over that line from, "hidden grind through enjoyable gameplay" to "boring grind where players are all too aware they are in a grind and can't wait to get the reward so they can never do that boring content ever again."

Lots of negative feedback again. And the response? Silly "gotcha" comments from Blizzard supporters about "dailies not being required" with some nodding from the blues. Oh yeah, that definitely makes feedback seem worthwhile. Again, I don't think the feedback is useless or not being taken into account in some fashion.

There have times in WoW's history that I have actually held them up as an example of doing a good job in providing steady communication with players and taking feedback into account. In many ways, Mists of Pandaria does that. But I view that as their response to feedback on other issues that was probably delivered a year ago. People who wanted more challenging dungeons got challenge modes. People who wanted something between dungeons and solo got Scenarios. When looking at the questing structure (NOT counting the daily quests), you can see how they split up storylines a little more to give more flexibility to player travel across zones (something I saw many people supportive of in the past, though some linearity is still good to have and players like to have arcing stories).

At present, however, it's difficult to be anything but critical of how they are handling the feedback on dailies and how they handled the CRZ feedback (I use the past tense because CRZ is something that was pretty well set in stone). Everything should be judged based on how long it would reasonably take to respond to the issue raised by the feedback. With dailies, it really would take almost no time at all, but instead we are waiting for it to be addressed in 5.1, and even then only in a half-hearted way that has not dulled the negative sentiment from the players much. (A token to increase rep gains after revered means little to people primarily complaining about how long it takes to get to revered, not to mention that the complaints also strongly center on the inability to gain the rep outside of dailies; and the double rep gains for alts has not removed the dread players feel at working on all those rep grinds with their alts - account wide reputation for alts being the far more sensible solution, with a restriction for Horde and Alliance only reps only translating to other Horde / Alliance characters and a few notable exceptions made for neutral factions opposed to each other such as Oracle and Wolvar or Aldor and Scryer).

Anyhow, I've rambled, but to sum up, it really comes down to two things. Does feedback matter? Yes. The article is right that it does. And should Blizzard be criticized for how they have discounted feedback in their actions recently? The article seems to take a very defensive stance for Blizzard, and I think it's just not correct in that stance. I think Blizzard is well deserving of criticism lately for that. (Though the criticism chiefly belongs to the decision makers, not the forum representatives of Blizzard).

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum