Why doesn't companies listen to consumers?

[RCBH928]

If any one of you worked corporate please give us your input

I always wondered why never ever the companies listen to their consumers?
For example, Windows has been crashing and filled with bad viruses since '95... but after like 4 different releases it still has the same problem and it isn't like Microsoft does not have the money or talent to fix this kind of thing. We have seen Linux and Mac OS X build into something far more safer and stable.

Nintendo no matter how much people scream for what we call "hardcore games" they just don't care and they have been doing it since he N64 days. 3rd party support is bad for Nintendo since '96, they only had Rare for N64, and a little flourishing happened on the gamecube, and now it is basically kiddy games. Plus when was the last time Nintendo released a new IP?

Again since '99 like no 1 single decent Sonic game has been released. Consumers are like waiting with money in hand and drooling for a decent Sonic game, but Sega is like saying oh we don't want your money, you think we are money making organization?

This happens with most companies, they ignore the consumer so much and they never release what you want no matter how much you want it. This car only comes in black and white, well consumers want a blue one but noooo . This computer costs $1600 , everyone wants it for $1400 like millions, but nooo they rather lose money selling it at $1600 than make money being sold at $1400.

Do you have any idea why do they do this?

[General Chaos]

Corporations regularly use market research (focus groups, surveys, etc.) to get an idea for what will make their products sell, and as a part of this, what consumers want. There is a difference between what each individual consumer thinks all consumers must want, and what market research tells the company the aggregate consumer base actually desires.

Note that I have not worked directly as a market researcher but have done contract work in this area.

[Erik_Twice]

Because they don't run the company for starters. Also setting aside bad managing, most of the time they know better than you what sells and what does not.

For example you talk about those "Hardcore games". The people who want hardcore games is very reduced. Let's be frank, do you think Shin Megami Tensei will outsell crap like "Imagine being a mom" or "Puppy love"? ET sold 7 fucking millions! ET FOR THE FUCKING ATARI!

Also setting up a new IPs is risky, remember that time when everyone wanted to create new mascots, ugh. Why do that when Mario is the most beloved icon in the industry and plastering it on a game will make it sell like mad?

Also, why spend millions making a good game when you can make 10 bad games that make you 90 times the profit each?

I also disagree with your comments on Windows but since that's more subjective I'm not going to talk about it.

It's sad but making a good product doesn't mean it will sell. See Twilight.

[superlarz]

This is a major problem in the corporate world. Companies are responsible to their shareholders, instead of their consumers or employees. They think about how to make as much money as quickly as possible to get/keep the stock price up. Most companies dont seem to ever have a real long term plan, and just keep band-aiding things until they eventually go bankrupt from bad long-term decision making.

[dedalusdedalus]

Why doesn't companies listen to consumers?

why doesn't people listen to subject-verb agreement?

[Xonticus]

Over the years, I seem to agree generally with the idea that game companies and companies in general don't try hard enough to satisfy their customers, and would rather rush out a crap product 3 months earlier than a quality one. The balance of development time, money and quality is a hard to achieve it seems. The corporate leech seems to dominate most markets of course, so all we can do is fight as our rights as consumers! Be wise and try to sift the crap from the gold!

I also have to disagree with the Windows comparison, because having viruses geared towards that platform has to do that the majority of computer users use it, so thats who's targeted. The one version of windows that was a complete mistake to release was Millennium Edition. Complete garbage. Moving on...

Fear not! Over the years I've seen that Valve has upheld the policy of spoiling their customers and listening to their feedback, and actually improving on the product with free patches and content support for a long time.

Too bad more companies aren't like them.

[MrPopo]

Or let's look at the example of World of Warcraft. Just because the consumers think they want something doesn't mean that they would enjoy it if it was actually implimented. I can't tell you how many "balancing" ideas that have gotten floated around the forums, received a following, and then get shot down by the community managers who in general have more data about the state of the game than an individual consumer.

3rd party support is bad for Nintendo since '96,

Nintendo can't force third parties to make a game for their console.

they only had Rare for N64,

Nintendo owned half of Rare, so they were second party. They were contractually obligated to make Nintendo games.

now it is basically kiddy games.

Really, you can't find ANY good games designed for older players?

Plus when was the last time Nintendo released a new IP?

Pikmin is the last one I can remember (from the perspective of a "hardcore" game). As mentioned, launching new IP is a risky proposition. And considering that every Mario, Zelda, and Metroid game is high quality and sells a ton what is driving them to make new IP?

Again since '99 like no 1 single decent Sonic game has been released. Consumers are like waiting with money in hand and drooling for a decent Sonic game, but Sega is like saying oh we don't want your money, you think we are money making organization?

If the Sonic games didn't sell well then you would see changes. The problem is that people are still buying them. Sonic has enough name recognition that lots of people will go out and buy it on the hopes that this one will be good. It doesn't matter how many games get resold back to Gamestoy; they still count as a sale to Sega.

This happens with most companies, they ignore the consumer so much and they never release what you want no matter how much you want it. This car only comes in black and white, well consumers want a blue one but noooo . This computer costs $1600 , everyone wants it for $1400 like millions, but nooo they rather lose money selling it at $1600 than make money being sold at $1400.

This is just working from incomplete information. You know that you and your buddies want the car in blue, but how do you know that enough consumers want it in blue to make it worthwhile for the company to make it that color? The computer costs $1600. How do you know that the cost of parts and labor doesn't come to $1400? Video game consoles can lose money because the manufacturer can make up the difference on licencing, but you can't do that on a PC.

[jfrost]

Companies do listen to customers. Sonic fans over the years have made it blatantly clear that they will buy any puerile shit Sega puts out with the brand name. Thus, they release crappy, cheap Sonic games.

On the other hand, hardcore gamers claim to want new IPs, deep games with stunning graphics and so on. The sales performance of triple-A titles for the PS3, however, begs to differ.

And not only on the PS3. Take Madworld for the Wii. It was outsold by any shit Ubisoft cash-ins for the console.

So, customers don't seem to be all that clear with what they want after all, right?

[corn619]

On the subject of Nintendo not having hardcore games, they do truth is they just dn't sell well. Look at games like Madworld, Okami and Blastworks. All great games, but no market on the Wii for them. Its a shame but true.

[Ziggy]

I don't think it's fair to attack Windows like that. Windows 95 was revolutionary, it almost put Apple out of business. 95 was on my first computer so it's pretty hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that this was the first time we saw a taskbar/star menu and things like long file names. Got that? This was probably the biggest step forward in an OS in my life time, maybe of all time. Sure, 95 had problems, but I'd like to think that it was in it's infancy of what OS's have become today.

As far as Apple and Linux OS being "more stable" than Windows, I like to point out a few things.

ONE: Windows is by far the most widely used operating system, this is why most viruses, spyware, and any other form of malicious software is designed specifically for Windows. Which is why when you're using a Windows computer, it's just that much easier to get it. It isn't Microsoft's fault that some one made a virus for their OS. If you're gonna create a virus with the intent to infect as many computers as you can, you're gonna design it for Windows. Which kinda brings me to point two...

TWO: Most people don't know how to maintain a computer. They get infected with tons of malicious software. And one infection usually leads to multiple infections. And I've noticed most people get infections and don't even know it, they blame their shitty computer performance on Windows.

THREE: Windows has to cater to the affair of many different manufactures. Mac software is ONLY run on Mac hardware. Popular belief is that any problems on a Windows computer is that it's Microsoft's fault. Not saying that their products are flawless, but how many problems can we pin on the manufactures of the hardware? How many cheap PC's are sold in places like Wal Mart with sub-par parts that causes system instability and is automatically blamed on XP or Vista? Most computers come with horrible power supplies. I've seen computer that cost over a grand that have shitty power supplies. Keep in mind, this thing is supplying power to your computer, this is what is making every other component in your computer run. If this isn't running stable, how can you expect anything else to? This is just one example, I'm sure EVERYTHING is sub-par inside most retail computers.

THREE & 1/2: Drivers. Since Mac OS only runs on Mac hardware, they don't have a problem here. Windows has to have drivers compatible for MANY different manufactures. Think of how many brand names computers there are, and computer parts. Windows has a lot of generic drivers, but most of the time it's up to the manufacture to make a driver that works. Is it XP's or Vista's fault that some shitty manufacture didn't make a stable driver for their product? I can't see how it is.

I'm not trying to argue, and I'm not sure if everything I said is 100% accurate. I just like to point out these few facts when ever some one attacks Microsoft. I'm also not saying that Microsoft is the greatest or anything like that.