Eveconomics

First of all, I want to thank everybody for the nice comments. I really appreciate it. Also a huge shout-out to everybody who met up at Gankaton in Copenhagen on Saturday. It was a blast!

Last time I discussed the different approaches to interaction with a customer base. The tl;dr is that given how large networks everybody have, every single customer matters and interacting with them is important.

This time, I want to discuss the problem extremely predictable communication patterns brings with it.

But before I get into the bit where I disagree loudly with the status quo, let me explain why the current situation makes sense, but is undesirable.

The nature of software development.

CCP is eventually a software company (We shall from now on refer to it as a "Service provider"). Unlike most providers, CCP has a large user-base whom a %( I have heard the number 10-15%, but I’m not sure) try to communicate directly them on a regular basis. While writing code for hundreds of thousands of users isn’t an uncommon thing, service providers usually deal with its end-users by proxy through the IT-Personal/The lawyers (When the service provider screws up).

CCP has a unique situation where customers’ presence is focused on a very small part of the internet, in terms of communication. The nature of their software relies heavily on their servers. When there’s a problem with the servers, it affects everybody. Where do they complain? The forums!

The discussion taken place is often very harsh and there’s a whole lot of it. Hence, communication is inherently hard when you have such a large amount of direct communication and there’s an attitude.

Users usually wants information on when CCP are going to do x and y, and when they will implement feature z and c. This as well goes through a single point of communication to the service provider (Like CCP). However, because of the sheer volume of players who takes part in the communication (Usually in the form of shouting at CCP), there’s large pressure on keeping to communicate about what the people want.

One of the areas of communication where people are extremely vocal is in regards to expansions. Expansions are very large bundles of new features, which are rolled out every 4-6 months. As everybody who has wrote code will know, unpredictable things can happen. And if it can happen, it WILL happen. And as the code-base expands, this is more likely to happen if people aren’t extremely careful.

Due to this, a software provider tends to keep silent about what they are working on to a large degree. This makes them kind of a black-box operation. In the short term, this provides them a bit of privacy to change their plan on the fly. Another argument for running things mostly as a black-box operation is the very harsh tone which exists towards game companies like CCP on the forum, by the vocal minority.

Understanding versus anxiety

Summing up this far: CCP, as a service provider, have short-term benefits from not being open to its users about the direction of the game. However as human beings, this is a very uncomfortable position to be put in as a customer.

Like I discussed in part 1, the new generation of users is used to being able to exercise control over their surroundings. When you take control away from people, you find that they get anxious. And everybody has tried this. You find yourself in a situation where you are unable to either act in a situation or are not able to get information about a situation. This is a very undesirable thing to put people through.

The rationalization which I think that CCP tends to use is something along these lines:

"We do not wish to give people an idea that we are doing X, if we end up not doing it"

And this is a very reasonable argument, if you accept the underlying principle that people get upset and are going to quit the game over it. This is where understanding comes into the picture.

At the risk of getting into a deeply philosophical discussion, I’m now going to make a very bad assumption: Human is inherently reasonable and understanding.

When discussing a scenario like this, the question comes down to: Can we give the users information and control, without unreasonable flaming when we pull the plug on a feature? And I’m of the firm belief that it’s certainly possible to the extent there the initial dissatisfaction that a feature didn’t make it into an expansion, makes up for the benefits which it yields.

Setting reasonable expectations

And at the risk at risk of insulting people here, I’m going to make this statement: A marketing department ought to only deal with building a platform for spreading the word of EVE, not controlling communication.

I really have a sense that marketing departments are possibly one of the worst things that was ever invented. While uniformity, which a marketing department which oversees communication can provide, is a decent thing, I do not believe that it’s the optimal solution.

With the recent adoption of scrum at CCP, I was pleasantly surprised that CCP took a small step in the direction of being more open about communication, by having each team write their own dev-blogs. However these sorts of things have the exact same pitfalls as everything else thus far: It easily becomes a marketing piece to create buzz.

By changing the tone of communication to a less "authoritarian" one however more "We are your best friends", where CCP provides a platform for communication and discussion of the future, it’s possible to extend the level of communication about things which would earlier have considered strictly NDA-covered information.

And with that argument we eventually return to the initial argument: Communication isn’t a biyearly thing that takes place around the time of deployment of an expansion.

By giving the users a window into CCP and what they are working on, people will have a better attitude towards CCP. If the "social contract" explicitly states that the nature of communication is informal and seeks to allow for CCP t o gather opinions and feedback from its users on features they are planning, it’s possible to reach a sweet-spot where they gain the benefits of increased communication, but aren’t eaten alive by the crowd, due to a lack of a social contract.

Social contracts are eventually implicitly controlled by the people involved in the discussion. Forum users aren’t afraid of calling somebody out on being unreasonable. If CCP can create a situation where majority understands that the dev-blogs are what they are, but not solid plans, I’m sure that the forums can regulate themselves. Again: Human is inherently reasonable.

Users are stakeholders, not your enemy

Agile methodologies are heavy on involving the user. This is expressed as "stakeholders". It’s important to include the users and have continual communication with the users. I’m sure we can all agree to that.

How can users get more involved, you ask? It’s simple: Rip the whole facade off CCP. Expose the immediate plans (6 months into the future or so). Release work in progress documents about what CCP wishes to do. Release sketches of how new UI pieces are going to look. By throwing a fat "This is just an idea"-mark onto things and explicitly asking people for ideas is a way to create reasonable expectations. Create 2-way communication about it. Throwing something out there and leaving it alone is a sure way to upset the stakeholders. And sadly this isn’t an uncommon sighting in regards to the developer-blogs

It’s not to say that people are so reasonable that you won’t have the occasional bitter internet spaceship player who will voice their harsh opinion against CCP. However, the forums are extremely good at regulating themselves when people are being unreasonable.

A dev-blog is something you create to communicate and gather feedback. I think where things go wrong is when people perceive dev-blogs as marketing. It’s not going to get you more subscribers. Communication is going to get you more subscribers, however.

Wrapping it up

This is the second and for now, last part of this piece about communication. I’m going to sum up my arguments and my ideas this far:

Part 1:

1. 1. Affiliate marketing and buddy programs are not going to carry you into the future market. Communication is.
2. 2. Incentivizing communication through contests using social networks are immensely effective tools and are by all means cheap

Part 2:

1. 1. CCP is a software company(Surprise?)
2. 2. They run scared of their users because of the broken social contract they have created by not communicating
3. 3. They are running on a 6-month schedule, where the communication only takes places in the last 2-3 months, with most it going on very late in the process. This create anxiety on the part of the stakeholders
4. 4. Human is inherently reasonable and understanding
5. 5. By ripping out the marketing department’s influence on communication, it’s possible to create a new social contract that allows for 2-way communication which will benefit both CCP and it’s users in shaping a good future for the game

That sums up my current thoughts on this subject. I have left out a crucial part where I include the CSM into the grand scheme of things. Stay tuned on Friday, where I will discuss the benefits which making a rigid structure of the CSM can provide value and give stakeholders a better sense of control.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 27th, 2009 at 8:22 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.