PCGamer article: "Paradox Interactive says player toxicity is driving developers away from its forums"

[awmobile367]

I'm actually terrified of the implications of this. The homegrown fan base, those who use this forum "toxicly,, or not, are a minority of the playerbase in total. There are millions of players worldwide and how many of those freuqent this forum? I'm sure the devs don't want that, but especially in regards to how this community appears right now, we might be put on the backburner. DDRjake actually alluded to something like this a while ago, saying that community backlash means nothing for a [this] company if cash flows. Creative Assembly did this. They completely disregarded historical total war fans to make mass appeal fantasy and tablet games for american kids and Chinese drones. The core fanbase either adapted to this situation or became bitter. There's for example the Youtuber Volound who is saying absolutely correct negatives about TW but is a complete douche about it. Now CA has way worse community relations compared to PDX but if the agry parts of the community are not ready to accept peace and change their behaviour when @konbendith offers us an olive branch, then we shouldn't be surprised if we're not being involved at all in the future. And seeing where that got CA, wealthy but hated by their former fans, I suggest the angry fans to double check what they want to post.

I might get called fanboy for this - I'm not btw, I criticise recent developments a lot, just not on this forum - but I hope the angry posters claiming that they lose all trust in PDX make due on their words and just leave. Older users here might remember Marco Antonio. He criticised PDX a lot, harshly even. But he was man enough to just leave himself when he couldn't bear EU4's direction anymore. I respect that. But those people continuusly attack the company, its employees and its products, but then still come back just to do it again and again for every release ruin everything for us others who try to work out differences.

I've been called a fanboy in a steam review for trying to present a moderate view of a problematic but still decently beneficial DLC for HOI4. And I'm from the states, unfortunately I've caught flak from both sides of this divide. I'm back on the forums to try and help the company out, but I don't have high hopes anything will change.

 

[Uniform764]

Also, for those of you who hadn't noticed yet, echoing to the 'actions not words', another hotfix has been released for EU4 Leviathan just now.

EU4: 1.31.2 Majapahit is now LIVE! - Checksum [3ad4] - Not for problem reports

Its up on steam now, and here are the patchnotes. For instructions on how to play the game on a previous version, please go here! As usual, please report any issues in our bug report forum or submit a support ticket. Thank you! Older...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

To me actions would be learning the lesson and not releasing patches that need multiple emergency hotfixes.

- I know and see that a lot of people are often asking about the 'why' something went wrong, and I want to be very clear and manage expectations there: we probably won't tell you that. The reason is, why something went wrong often boils down to who made a decision, and we're not going to play the blame game. Our culture is that when we fail, it's as an organization, we fail and fix things together. We don't point fingers. Not saying we'll never provide public explanations on anything, we sometimes do, when it make sense. But if what you're hoping for is someone or something to blame, it's unlikely that you'll ever get it.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking PDX to name a scapegoat who can be thrown to the wolves, I am asking for an explanation of why PDX seem to continually repeating the same mistake we've already had public apologies for. That's the real frustration for me.

A culture of failing and fixing things together is fine, if you actually reflect on mistakes as an organisation and make changes to prevent them reoccurring. The fact that within three months of a written Dev apology for a poorly tested patch (1.30.5) we were given one of the most hideously QA'd patches I've ever seen makes me seriously question your practices (which isnt your problem) and reluctant to buy your products (which is your problem)

 

[Neoman]

The only two cents I'll put in is I've been following PDX since roughly as long as they've been a company, but since around the time they went public they've made moves with how they deal with their community culture, customers, fans, and critics, and how they develop, release games/dlc and patches which are worrying and make me sometimes avoid the forums for long lengths of time and sometimes avoid certain products all together.

 

[Kovax]

One of the early posts in this thread described it as a "vicious circle". I think that's a correct way to describe it, but not necessarily in the way that it was stated. Paradox has made a calculated move to expand its player base by catering to more "casual" players. This has resulted in "simplified" games, ahistorical and absurd content in "historical" IPs, and new fantasy and sci-fi IPs which extend well outside of Paradox's earlier product focus. MANY of the toxicity issues can be attributed to the new "more casual" crowd, whose expectations differ from those of the old fans, and whose previous forum experiences have been with far more toxic sites, where they consider this sort of behavior "normal". The change in the games has also soured a lot of the older fans, who are being unusually vocal as a result. The "circle" part comes in when Paradox decides to ignore the abusive criticisms and do what it feels is the correct move, no matter what the rude and annoying players say, and then the players get even more incensed when their feedback is ignored. Civility goes out the window, and we end up with modern "social media" at its worst.

Paradox's course of action has created this "vicious circle", or at least gone out and dragged it home to these forums along with a share of the larger pool of currency that Paradox intentionally decided to go after. THIS is one of the down sides of that course of action, and has to be taken into consideration when you make the decision. It appears that it either wasn't considered at all, or else was dismissed as not important enough at the time. I see it as an inevitable result: you bring in the kiddies to milk their cash, and now you have to baby-sit them. And so, Paradox has to learn how to live with the reality of the monster it either created or invited in, and a lot of people in both the company and the forums may not enjoy the outcome.

 

[Lavilledieu]

Since Konbedith has been mentioning discussions with the devs about their presence on the forum: one of the great things on the forums is how it's clear where official staff have posted a comment, and how you can filter a thread specifically to read those. It makes it very clear that devs interact with the players, which is a thing I really like. But those people don't comment on everything, obviously, which makes their interaction with the fanbase on the forum largely invisible. If they read a thread, and don't proceed with a comment, the poster of the thread is left in the shadows, they can't know if they contributed or not. I specifically have this with bug reports. So has there ever been given thought about adding an indication if a dev read the first post of a thread?

 

[konbendith]

Since Konbedith has been mentioning discussions with the devs about their presence on the forum: one of the great things on the forums is how it's clear where official staff have posted a comment, and how you can filter a thread specifically to read those. It makes it very clear that devs interact with the players, which is a thing I really like. But those people don't comment on everything, obviously, which makes their interaction with the fanbase on the forum largely invisible. If they read a thread, and don't proceed with a comment, the poster of the thread is left in the shadows, they can't know if they contributed or not. I specifically have this with bug reports. So has there ever been given thought about adding an indication if a dev read the first post of a thread?

Good suggestion! I actually like the idea of having some sort of "seen" feature for suggestions and bug reports maybe. One of our focus for developing the forum (in the collaboration with our Player Services team in charge of the platform) is to ensure we make them better at what they do, rather than trying to make the platform good at everything. I think that's suggestion from that perspective!

 

[vanin]

I think the very simple solution is delaying shipping games or DLC that are obviously buggy, broken or generally dysfunctional. Toxicity does not rise in a vacuum, but the Internet definitely provides that very anonymous environment which spurs on hostile comments people would not dare spew out face to face. If the Internet is the kindling, broken releases are the gasoline and fuse.

The former PDS can do very little about (I think requiring registering a game before posting would help because suddenly getting banned for shitty behaviour has a kind of cost) but the latter they are directly responsible for. Release better games, patches and DLC and people will complain less. Shigeru Miyamoto's classic adage is perhaps no longer true the way it once was, but it is no excuse for shipping broken software.

 

[schnizzle]

I don't really see the problem. When you present it as "the company disregarded fans" it gives an air of malice, but they have merely switched to other products for other audiences.

I think quite often there is a lot of illusions on the side of the "fans" and the "community" and on how much they matter. Perhaps it it the nature of the product, which is entertainment, but at some point it starts to look a bit unhealthy and it looks like some people get overly attached to game development companies.

For example you say "us others who try to work out differences", what does it even mean?

I'll quickly respond to each paragraph of yours but I'm a bit in a hurry so I hope my answers suffice.

1. CA did disregard the fans. Everything Paradox is accused of by the "toxic,, fans, CA did. Mass banning of forum users for nothing but constructive criticism. Strongarming creators into presenting a favourable image of the product. They not only focussed on fantasy, they attacked those who criticised that development or simply wished a new historical title that's not a Saga title (low quality iPad cashgrab made for Chinese audiences)

2. Yes you are right. But Paradox, purposefully or not, cared for its fans and I assume they still do. It's not that I'm particularly attached to PDX. I played 2 hours of CK3 in one month and that's that. But for a company they are pretty good in cultivating public relations. (A lot when compared to CA) And because of that I'll defend them to a reasonable amount, even though I have no doubt that in the face of economic factors the single consumer matters little.

3. I have no idea what I meant by that. Being polite in general. "Working out differences,, as opposed to just complaining about a DLC, saying something like "this is the last time I ever bought something from Paradox, I won't miss it,, and then coming back the next DLC to complain again.

 

[Phibs]

I'd be less disinclined to listen to pdox opine on customer/company communication if y'all weren't the publisher of VtMB2.
And I'm not just talking about the lack of news there.

 

[burglar225]

@konbendith First I want to thank you for your inital post. In my opinion it just perfectly points out the problem.
But I think we need to add one more thing into your considerations: Number of players/forum users. For sure, I have no numbers or anything like that, but It think it's pretty obvious that there are way more people active in the forums than maybe ten years ago.
I'm pretty sure each of us did a more or less big mistake at work. Depending on how big the mistake was, the following conversation with your superior was more ore less friendly. If it was a huge mistake there even may be more following conversations. But at some point this ends. You will either get fired or you return to your job and try to do the best of it.
Now imagine you work in a company with 1000 employees and you do a greater mistake. How would you feel, if every single colleague of yours will actively visit you, just to say "Wow, such great job you did"? Very funny, amusing and definitly a good foundation to work together. Not.
(If you work at such a company, you should definitly consider finding a new job!)

 

[Rossigil]

Also it is funny that "Respectfully disagree" cant be used on your post (Well, technically it can be "used" but it doesn't show up under it). That being said the entire "Disagree" button is pointless and doesn't really add anything to the forums and should be removed. I'm simply pointing out that selectively turning it off on some posts is super cringe

"The customer is always right!". Unless he is a toxic fan
Just use "Angry" button as an expression of disagreement on blue posts. I know it's half measure, but still...

Edit: looks like I was mistaken. We can use that 'X' emotion on blue post like on everybody's else!

 

[Phibs]

Wait, blue posts show agree reacts but not disagree? What fresh kind of nonsense is this?

disregard

 

[Triumph Jordi]

Wait, blue posts show agree reacts but not disagree? What fresh kind of nonsense is this?

Post only show the top 3 reactions, in the post Maria Theresa is talking about the Agrees, Likes & Informative outweigh the angry and respectfully disagrees so they don't appear. That's a global forum setting and not dependent on the user or thread.

 

[Phibs]

Post only show the top 3 reactions, in the post Maria Theresa is talking about the Agrees, Likes & Informative outweigh the angry and respectfully disagrees so they don't appear. That's a global forum setting and not dependent on the user or thread.

Hahahaha. Oh my. Thank you for pointing that out. Learned me something new about the forum. ^^

 

[Rossigil]

Post only show the top 3 reactions

Well. I've just made an experiment and can confirm that this is true

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Post only show the top 3 reactions, in the post Maria Theresa is talking about the Agrees, Likes & Informative outweigh the angry and respectfully disagrees so they don't appear. That's a global forum setting and not dependent on the user or thread.

Disagreed for purpose of showing the users.

 

[aono]

The reason is, why something went wrong often boils down to who made a decision, and we're not going to play the blame game. Our culture is that when we fail, it's as an organization, we fail and fix things together. We don't point fingers. Not saying we'll never provide public explanations on anything, we sometimes do, when it make sense

I have three questions which I believe are reasonable.

1. When do you suppose to deliver a fixed product which is already paid for? I don't care who answer it, developer, PR, janitor, whoever - until it's... let's say "binding" answer, meaning that it's something people can rely on. I really think it's reasonable question.
2. Yes, sure, it's a question of why did it happened. I don't care who exactly is responsible, but I do want to know what happened that it was decided - by organization - to release a game in a state it is right now. Because if I have no answer, I have to guess, and no guesses like that are, generally, complimentary. That can be seen unfair, but it is what it is. You speak that "this requires more actions than words", but I'd like to see words considering this exact point as well. That's important, because from this info I can plan my expectations. So, if you want to reduce number of personal assaults and conspiracy theories, I think, giving any kind of official version would be nice.
3. Does Paradox as a company believe that in current state, 1.31.2 at this particular point, game does comply to basic standarts of quality? Because it's still in the stores right now.

 

[DavidBrewster]

The conversation has shifted to blaming customers for being too harsh, and maybe they are, but the real way for Paradox to avoid this kind of toxicity is to release better products.

 

[MagisterMundi]

I actually feel a little guilty, because I've not been actively participating on the forums for a while - even reading them less frequently. I'd like to think I was part of the 'quiet majority' who are (usually) polite, respectful and genuinely trying to maintain a relationship and dialogue with the developers of the games I play so much, and to read of such a change of atmosphere here made me quite sad, and not a little shocked.

Note to self: If you don't use it (in the right way) it'll wither and die. I need to spend more time and effort on the forums.

As a fellow member of the "old guard" who also fell off the forum bandwagon for... uh... several years, if I'm being honest... I've been trying to remember this as well. I, too, felt a bit of culture shock coming back, and felt more than a little sad that a forum where I once had a vigorous (but respectful) debate about ship upgrades in HoI2 with Johan and Blue Emu had become... well, definitely not a place that is conducive to that style of conversation anymore, at the very least. Which is a shame, because while I understand both the growth element AND the toxicity element, that level of transparency and access to devs and forum moderators was what made me such a fan in the first place.

 

[alexti]

I think that's actually a pretty good summary, and that's very much what I'm after, or what I'm trying to help putting into perspective and solving at least.

Honestly, how to deal with people that cross the line is relatively easy, that's why the question of personal attack is quite easy to handle, it's a clear breaking of the rules, we act on it by taking moderation actions, end of the story.

However, defining when something/someone crosses the line from being rightfully annoyed and negative while complaining about something, to becoming unconstructive and generally toxic in helping to solve the situation... Well, that's not as clear of a line in the sand, and not as easy to define. We can of course set moderation rules, but they're always open to interpretation. Ultimately it's a cultural question and needs to come from us, but also from a general agreement with the community as a whole on what's ok or not in terms of tone, behavior, attitude, etc.

Typically, that's preciselly why I called out an answer earlier in this thread that I believe what super unconstructive. It's not the shame or punish the person who did it, they probably had all the right reasons to be annoyed and to want to express it. It's about clearly defining what I believe is ok or not.

I was going to write a long post with the same points, but since you and several other posters have already expressed it better than I could, I will only add some ideas that have not been mentioned yet.

There is a class of posts that probably don't break any rules, but contributes to the negativity in the forums and waste everyone's time. As an example, in EU4 it's common for quite some time to see statements about how badly religious ideas were nerfed (without elaborating on any details). They come out as an implied criticism of the developers or the game (or both), but without any critical analysis. In my view such posts are pointless. If someone feels strong about it one could offer analysis of the ideas and explain the reasons for thinking that religious ideas are so bad - that can be interesting to read even if you disagree.

As you said, it's difficult to formulate the rules to cover this type of content and when the rules are vague that can displease users when their interpretation doesn't match moderator's one. With many users (particularly new ones) coming from different backgrounds/cultures and perhaps having experienced different forms of internet communications it's hard to expect everyone to intuitively figure out what is suitable in these forums, so the problem here is to communicate to the users what is the accepted community standard.

So my suggestion is somewhat technological - instead of moderators deleting posts falling to a gray area and warning users, the forums should simply reject "unsuitable" posts (in a somewhat impersonal style). The user posting this type of message would get a response indicating that user's post was rejected due to such and such reason and telling that the user is welcome to address indicated issues and re-submit. Those rejections wouldn't be viewed as any kind of infraction and it should be made clear to the users. Paradox has a lot of data (posts in the forums) that can be used to train AI to determine what is acceptable content and what is not, so after the training phase this process can be automated and not require any further moderators effort.