Why doesn't companies listen to consumers?

[aaron]

Why doesn't companies listen to consumers?

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

english is not kingmohd's first language, i don't think, so i gave him the benefit of the doubt.

[RCBH928]

actually I have not taken English grammar since '96 so I think I am doing well for a second language. It gets me on has/had and do/does .

I see a lot of you got correct points. But let me just clear something out of the way.
as for Windows, I think we all can agree that Microsoft can build a better product than this. Whatever we are using now it basically Windows '95. You will also have to agree that it is the most vulnerable system, its not as secure as linux or mac. It has disadvantage of being wide spread and people attacking it, but it is also built on a weak security system. I am glad blue screen of death is gone though(substituted by RROD) yet still I think they can do highly a better job.

There is almost an opposite points to what all of you have argued.

1) A lot of you said that new IPs are risky. But what if Nintendo said oh lets just play pac man because launching a new IP called Mario is very risky? It is really very very rewarding just look at Halo, MGS, Gears of War, Call of Duty. Don't you think its worth it instead of just having Sonic/Mario for 20-30 years?

2) I know crappy stuff sells, but it comes on the price of having a bad reputation too. Do you think Sonic games surpassed Mario games all together? If it is more profitable why does Nintendo releases one major Mario game each generation? To keep a standard of quality I believe(they broke it this generation). Why don't we get Mario and the Secret Rings and Mario with a sword if it just about cheap profits?

3)Hardcore games on the Wii is a big issue. Sure Madworld and The Conduit are "hardcore" games but do you really want to compare them with Bioshock, GTA4, and Gears of War? Plus I think it simply just won't work selling "hardcore" games to Wii owners . It is like selling turbochargers to Toyota Prius owners. Its just the wrong crowd, and I think Nintendo is slowly moving wards software entertainment/education market than videogames as we know them.

4) You are right, sometimes we talk about something we just want. Like how many times we hear people screaming for a Shenmue 3, and we all know that when it is out it will flop and only a minority will buy it. Another crowd will think something is cool and they want it, once it is out , no one buys it because they don't see a reason to they just think it is cool. But sometimes we really want something and companies just refuse to do it .

5) If corporate listens to market research and the such because they are always right how come Dreamcast failed? How come PS3 Running 3rd in the console race and it is the most featured, bang for your buck, free online, stable console you can buy? How come Wii won when everyone thought it will fail?

6) I understand that some companies are moving toward just cashing in, but why can't others be more like Apple. Apple can mass produce stuff for cheap, but they decide to go for quality products for higher prices. They have met and over delivered the expectations on most of their customers and it turned them from being too close to shutting down to highly profitable hot on the stock market company.

Basically if you are going to tell me companies are just going to sell anything that is mass produced with highest cash return I guess then all restaurants will be fast food restaurants . Why are they not?

I am sorry this seems to turn into videogames/computer only companies but this was meant to be covering everything from children books to real estate .

[MrPopo]

I see a lot of you got correct points. But let me just clear something out of the way.
as for Windows, I think we all can agree that Microsoft can build a better product than this. Whatever we are using now it basically Windows '95. You will also have to agree that it is the most vulnerable system, its not as secure as linux or mac. It has disadvantage of being wide spread and people attacking it, but it is also built on a weak security system. I am glad blue screen of death is gone though(substituted by RROD) yet still I think they can do highly a better job.

Without looking at the Windows codebase I can't say that Microsoft can make a much better product, without scrapping the entire thing and starting anew and dropping backwards compatibility. And dropping the backwards compatibility would be the easiest way to make a new Microsoft OS fail.

1) A lot of you said that new IPs are risky. But what if Nintendo said oh lets just play pac man because launching a new IP called Mario is very risky? It is really very very rewarding just look at Halo, MGS, Gears of War, Call of Duty. Don't you think its worth it instead of just having Sonic/Mario for 20-30 years?

It can be rewarding. But lets look at all the failed new IPs. Bubsy and Gex went away fast, and Mirrors Edge sold below expectations. And as game development costs increase the risk of launching a new IP increases. Back in the Donkey Kong era a new IP was relatively cheap.

2) I know crappy stuff sells, but it comes on the price of having a bad reputation too. Do you think Sonic games surpassed Mario games all together? If it is more profitable why does Nintendo releases one major Mario game each generation? To keep a standard of quality I believe(they broke it this generation). Why don't we get Mario and the Secret Rings and Mario with a sword if it just about cheap profits?

Nintendo has Miyamoto, one of the most talented developers in the industry. Every interview I've seen with him shows that he just takes a different approach to game design, but since he has such a great track record Nintendo is willing to go with it. Compare it to Sega. It feels like in Sonic's case they are trying to find a 3D game that will resonate with people similar to the 2D games. That's why we keep seeing a new mechanic in each game. And even in the Genesis era Sega wasn't shy about sequels. We got four main Sonic games, while we only got two main Mario games, with the second releasing right before the end of the console.

3)Hardcore games on the Wii is a big issue. Sure Madworld and The Conduit are "hardcore" games but do you really want to compare them with Bioshock, GTA4, and Gears of War? Plus I think it simply just won't work selling "hardcore" games to Wii owners . It is like selling turbochargers to Toyota Prius owners. Its just the wrong crowd, and I think Nintendo is slowly moving wards software entertainment/education market than videogames as we know them.

I disagree. I feel that Nintendo saw an uptapped market, created games for it, and raked in the cash. They still release several core games (especially this year's E3 lineup), but I think the real issue is that third parties aren't willing to put forth the effort. I feel, though, that it's gotten a bit late, so the Wii has gained this casual label. If some of the fantastic games like Madworld and the Conduit had come close to launch then I'd suspect more core players would have a more favorable opinion of the Wii.

4) You are right, sometimes we talk about something we just want. Like how many times we hear people screaming for a Shenmue 3, and we all know that when it is out it will flop and only a minority will buy it. Another crowd will think something is cool and they want it, once it is out , no one buys it because they don't see a reason to they just think it is cool. But sometimes we really want something and companies just refuse to do it .

That was the point I was trying to make. Sometimes people think they want something but when they get it they don't enjoy it. The example I can think of is the various balancing suggestions you hear on the World of Warcraft forums. Let's say after one patch the Paladin has an ability that gives them a big advantage over the Rogue. So the Rogue forum lights up with all the "balance" suggestions. However, Blizzard takes none of them, as the Hunters and Mages can completely wreck the Paladin in this patch. Therefore they feel the game is balanced, as they balance on group fights instead of one-on-one. If the Rogue balance suggestions went through you would end up with a Paladin that was useless against every class and people would stop playing them.

5) If corporate listens to market research and the such because they are always right how come Dreamcast failed? How come PS3 Running 3rd in the console race and it is the most featured, bang for your buck, free online, stable console you can buy? How come Wii won when everyone thought it will fail?

Dreamcast, are you aware of what the market research showed? Plus, there were a few things Sega did, like lose EA, that really hurt them. PS3, they launched for too much and a weak lineup. So it was tainted in people's minds. And because of how late it launched in comparison it was deficient in certain features which I consider unimportant (like voice chat and achievements) but it did hurt them. Plus, the main suggestion is lowering the price. However, we are not privvy to the cost of manufacture and the details of their long-term business plan for the company as a whole (and not just the video games division) so we can't know why they aren't dropping the price. The reason the Wii won was that they tapped a new market. All the people buying at launch were core gamers, and they got Wii Sports. Their family members really enjoyed Wii Sports and told their (non-gamer) friends. It spread like a virus, and when devs heard about the success of such a "casual" game more were created. In fact, the reason the Wii did so well is that the market research showed that casual games were popular and nailed a market segment not targeted by the 360/PS3. It's easy to do well when you have no competition.

6) I understand that some companies are moving toward just cashing in, but why can't others be more like Apple. Apple can mass produce stuff for cheap, but they decide to go for quality products for higher prices. They have met and over delivered the expectations on most of their customers and it turned them from being too close to shutting down to highly profitable hot on the stock market company.

Apple was in the right place at the right time and released a quality MP3 player at the time when people were getting into digital music. This is what saved the company and gave them enough recognition that people were willing to start buying other Apple products.

Basically if you are going to tell me companies are just going to sell anything that is mass produced with highest cash return I guess then all restaurants will be fast food restaurants . Why are they not?

Fast food does high volume at low margin. Regular restaurants do low volume at high margin. Both are reasonable approaches to take. If you all move into one strategy you have to compete with more people and leave a market that's untapped (people who want a good steak). In general you tend to see a balance between the two philosophies.

[Anapan]

Have you ever visited the official Konami or Capcom forums? 'nuff said.

[elvis]

I don't think it's fair to attack Windows like that.

It's perfectly fair. More public scrutiny is required, not less. And beyond that, Microsoft have enough financial resources to improve Windows (from a security/reliability standpoint). They only lack the motivation at a corporate level.

Windows 95 was revolutionary

No, it wasn't. WindowsNT was revolutionary. Windows 95 was a steaming pile of turd.

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.

This is a common myth that so many people seem to gobble up.

Windows has its roots in single-user computing. It has evolved from a "one person on one computer" concept. The glaring fault is that standard, day-to-day users are given administration rights on a machine by default, and that most running services run in "ring 0", or the "system" (administration) group by default. Herein lies the problem: a virus that can attack a service running in ring0 has access to all services in the same group, meaning it can spread with ease thanks to the poor low-level OS design.

UNIX and it's clones/derivatives (including Linux, BSD, MacOSX, etc) have come from the other end of the spectrum. They started life as very large multi-user systems (designed for hosting tens of thousands of users on one machine). Privilege separation was built into the POSIX model from day one, and is what makes this family of operating systems more secure. Again, should a virus try to attack a service, the best it can do is exploit that one service. All other services are running under different privilege accounts, and will reject the infected services attempts to spread.

Windows is improving, but far too slowly. The changes made to Vista (via UAC) were a good idea poorly implemented. Windows7 is said to improve these, but Windows is still not a well designed beast.

If you attend any major technology security conferences, you'll find the same sorts of things said by experts across all fields (including people within Microsoft). This "insecure via popularity" argument is a cop-out, and untrue. There are products from people like IBM, RedHat and Cisco that run our stock exchanges, financial/retirement management systems, telephone exchanges and the entire internet backbone that don't have the same security issues as Windows does. In terms of being a "juicy target", these products are just as popular as Windows. However the difference is these vendors strive for security first, whereas Microsoft have not for some time now, and it's catching up with them.

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.

This I will agree with. People are largely stupid, and will break their own systems. However it has to be said that Microsoft could be doing things to improve this from their end. I've long wondered why Microsoft don't extend their "Windows Update" tool to also patch other preferred vendors applications. Under Linux, I can patch an entire system from head to toe. Under Mac, not everything is patched, but things like Java, Flash and other third-party stuff get patched via the update tool. Under Windows, if I have a few third party apps, I need to visit a dozen websites just to patch everything. Surely there's some low hanging fruit here that Microsoft could deal with by extending their update tool to include some of the more popular software vendors?

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?

In the last 5 years I haven't seen a machine that I haven't been able to install Ubuntu Linux on and have working "out of the box".

The way Microsoft handles drivers is pretty abysmal. If you look at the underlying methods that Linux, BSD and MacOSX handle drivers, they are far more generic and capable of handling large families of chipsets and hardware with small binaries. Conversely Windows drivers seem to be much larger in size, and far more specific to individual devices rather than families of chipsets. Once again, there is MUCH improvement to be made here.

Following on...

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.

There is tonnes of third-party hardware for Mac. Everything from SATA and RAID controllers to fibre channel cards, network cards, disk arrays, scanners, printers and plotters, high end video and audio input systems, etc, etc, etc. I've had to use/support a lot of this during my career. And as for drivers, they're handled brilliantly by MacOSX.

I just like to point out these few facts when ever some one attacks Microsoft.

And likewise, it's also good to point out a few facts when someone defends Microsoft.

Remember that they have nearly unlimited resources at their disposal to improve the Windows core (kernel, security, drivers), but seem to concentrate instead on a flashy desktop and high level applications.

Among other industries, I currently also contract to a large retirement/finance organisation, and am a member of their technology security committee. Attending events like AusCERT and discussing technology issues with a number of international experts has lead this company to do what many companies in the same industry have done: leave Windows on the desktop, and put something else on the server for two reasons: security and business continuity concerns. Even with teams of highly paid sysadmins at their disposal, and even with state of the art firewalls and security systems keeping these machines away from public networks, there are grave concerns about how well Windows can stand up. And on a similar theme, there is great annoyance that in order for Windows to stand up, it REQUIRES massive financial expenditure on third party software and hardware to prevent it falling in a heap.

While all that might seem out of scope for discussion about the home desktop, I think it's all heavily related. There are some very core and fundamental low level design problems with Windows that endanger the home user (particularly if they are stupid, which most are). Large industry has the funds to work around this to some degree. Home users don't. For their own longevity, Microsoft need to fix these issues. All it will take is one "mega exploit" (bigger than Sasser, bigger than Nimda, bigger than Bugbear), and consumer faith in their product will crumble (as will their share price).

[Ziggy]

Software isn't my strong point, and never will be, I'm a hardware guy. I wont pretend to know anything I do. I'm not pro-Microsoft here, I just don't like the common "Micro$oft sucks" band wagon that many jump on when they don't know a lick about anything. You seem to know a lot more than I do about this. I just don't like when people bash Microsoft because of the points made in the "Hi, I'm a Mac" commercials (which most of them are grossly exaggerated if you ask me) when they know nothing about computers.

I'm not going to bother quoting everything that was said, we know what we said. But I don't think you got what I said in point three, probably because I jumped between two things. What I meant about Mac was, they run their operating system on their own hardware where as Microsoft doesn't. Mac, as far as I know, makes good, stable hardware. Most companies that make PCs to run Windows do not. I'm arguing that the hardware most Windows computers are run on suck. Drivers and all software aside, if the hardware isn't running stable than you can't expect your OS to.

Eh, there was a few other things I was gonna say. Maybe I'll say them later. Again, I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, I just like to point out a few things. I like to keep my head in the middle of everything and commit to nothing.

[elvis]

I just don't like when people bash Microsoft because of the points made in the "Hi, I'm a Mac" commercials (which most of them are grossly exaggerated if you ask me).

For the record, as trivially amusing as those commercials are, I do consider them your standard Marketing 101 BS. Made by marketing people for the mindless masses, and nothing more.

It's worth noting that Apple have one of the worst track records when it comes to patching vulnerabilities in a timely fashion (there's been a few noteworthy ones that have taken MONTHS to patch, which is just disgusting). And that's not even starting on Safari, which is so full of holes it's not funny. (If you're a Mac user reading this, please for your own safety switch to Firefox).

Many will say I'm "anti-Microsoft", but I don't think so. Microsoft have some great products under their umbrella. It just so happens that their operating systems are not some of these. If anything, I'm "anti Windows on general purpose computers", and only for technical reasons. It seems to be a perfectly fine product where it belongs: on single-user game consoles.

And as above, if Microsoft are going to persist with Windows on general purpose computers, they need to fix it before the worst happens. It's funny that whenever some script kiddy releases a new virus, Microsoft are happy to throw a $100,000 bounty away to throw the person in jail. The question needs to be asked: why wasn't that $100,000 invested into preventative research before the fact, rather than bounty-hunter action after the fact? Attempting to scare people into not hacking your OS isn't the answer.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

And as above, if Microsoft are going to persist with Windows on general purpose computers, they need to fix it before the worst happens. It's funny that whenever some script kiddy releases a new virus, Microsoft are happy to throw a $100,000 bounty away to throw the person in jail. The question needs to be asked: why wasn't that $100,000 invested into preventative research before the fact, rather than bounty-hunter action after the fact? Attempting to scare people into not hacking your OS isn't the answer.

You my friend need to watch Cowboy Bebop, as apparently hackers and bounty hunters is where we're headed after the hyperspace gate running windows crashes.

[GSZX1337]

Saying that companies doesn't (sic) listen to their consumers is simply wrong. Like Xonticus said, Valve is a great example of a company listening to its consumers. Every time there's an update to TF2, there's another one following right after to best resolve the gamers' complaints. *cough*Pyro's Backburner*cough cough* Insomniac Games is another example. IG tried something different in the fourth installment of their Ratchet & Clank series. The game wasn't received very well (I liked it, though), so upon the fifth game, IG brought the game back to what the fans were used to (and improved it). Hell, EA (notorious for rehashing and not having innovation) came out with 4 new IPs last year (Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Army of Two, and Spore [okay, I'm kind of cheating with that one]).

Not all companies ignore their consumers. I know this sounds kind of stupid, but why can't there be more threads (in all forums, not just this one) pointing out the positive things in modern gaming than the negatives? Why can't there be more people going "Man, I love how Capcom is coming out with remakes/sequels for Mega Man, Marvel vs. Capcom, and Bionic Commando!" or "I love Valve's customer service!" or "Man, it's surprising how EA came out with 4 original IPs last year!"?

EDIT: Sorry, I just think grammatical error in the title was kinda funny.

As for Microsoft and Windows, (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think that most of the problems that are in Windows are caused by the fact that Windows is still based on NT and that since it's not their original code it's easier to just slap on band-aids (patches) than to jump in and fix the problems. (ie. Windows Vista was originally supposed to use a new File System but was cancelled)

[elvis]

As for Microsoft and Windows, (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think that most of the problems that are in Windows are caused by the fact that Windows is still based on NT and that since it's not their original code it's easier to just slap on band-aids (patches) than to jump in and fix the problems. (ie. Windows Vista was originally supposed to use a new File System but was cancelled)

Here's an amusing little task you can do for yourself, which proves the "bandaid fix" mentality:

If you've happened to install Windows 7, hold down your Windows key and press R (this will bring up the "Run" dialog box). Now type in "winver" and press enter.

See what version of Windows you actually have installed.

As for the new filesystem: you're talking about WinFS. It was actually due as far back as Windows NT 3.51 (released 1995). It has been pushed back every major release since then, and as of today is still vapour ware. Not bad for 14 years of unfulfilled promises.

[edit]
Wikipedia suggests as far back as 1990 for initial development!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS#Development