Here is a great example of why a "developer" should never take criticism personally.

The developer ImminentUprising released a not-so-good game called The Slaughtering Ground . After receiving large amounts of negative feedback they lashed out at the public, in what some call the worst PR nightmare imaginable.

For whatever reason during this mess, ImminentUprising decided to attack an internet reviewer for giving their game a bad review, which resulted in this "saga" ...

[media]http:

Actually here is an example of why a developer sometimes shouldn't lash out in public. Let's be generous and take this sample size of one and apply it to reach the reasonable conclusion that developers shouldn't, generally, lash out in public. Taking criticism personally has, at best, a tangential connection to this example. You can take every word of criticism as a personal affront to your dignity and still take it on the chin and maintain your composure, or you could disregard every word of it without pause and still react poorly out of intellectual arrogance or simply from pressure.

Most criticism isn't personal, and you shouldn't take it personally. However, some criticism is personal, and a good deal of criticism has personal implications. It would be far wiser to consider each piece of advice on its qualities, rather than make blanket assessments. When it comes to taking criticism personally it would be my advice to consider how equipped the source is to judge your personal qualities and their motivations for doing so. I do understand, however, that making such distinctions becomes more complicated when the criticism is directed toward your work, ideas, or words.

I think indie developers should really consider releasing games that aren't ready. Play testing is crucial. Having your friends/family play your game before releasing it should be a formal part of the process.

I have friends who develop games on the side, and plenty of times, when I play their games, I honestly think "it sucks". There's a lot more to game design than just carving out a level and randomly drop enemies in your level. This game seems to be exhibiting those symptoms, yet the developers complain when someone brutally and honestly bash out their incompetence.

I think indie developers should really consider releasing games that aren't ready. Play testing is crucial. Having your friends/family play your game before releasing it should be a formal part of the process.

I have friends who develop games on the side, and plenty of times, when I play their games, I honestly think "it sucks". There's a lot more to game design than just carving out a level and randomly drop enemies in your level. This game seems to be exhibiting those symptoms, yet the developers complain when someone brutally and honestly bash out their incompetence.

Obviously this, +1.

Before I even think of considering releasing anything, I run it by enough people to make sure it's a feasible concept, or worth playing (if it's in the demo stages). That's what I did with my game. With all the positive feedback, and after almost winning 2 indie contests with it, I knew it was feasible at the very least. I got a few poorly worded comments that were negative (i.e. that will never work, and "you just fell in love with your own idea"), but any critique I got besides that was mostly constructive.

Another thing, just because you coded game X and spent X amount of time working on it, that doesn't make you entitled to money or make you or your game above criticism. When I was young, I was a terrible programmer and yet so smug. I learned the hard way that your pride will blind you from reality, and rob you of wisdom and common sense. Well, in a sense, I'm still learning that.

Imagine if a professional studio like Adrenium pulled stunts like this after reviewers gave massively negative feedback for Azurik, that would have damaged their reputation beyond repair. And I really respect them for not doing so, because they got some really immature comments directed at them, and I even read some reviewers making threats towards the devs. Remember X-Play? They were professional trolls (hated that show btw because many times, they clearly didn't know what they were talking about). Instead of taking it personally, they sought to prove them wrong with their next title. The best revenge you can get is shutting them up with a better game next time. No matter how good your next game is though, I wouldn't buy a title off of a known douchebag. Apparently, Steam community agrees on this, as they have voted with their wallets against devs of similar behaviour.

Lastly, it's the internet. You're going to run into all sorts of peeps. What's the worst they can do? Curse at you? Because talking crap in person is dangerous, it's unlikely they will say anything they typed in the internet to your face.

Shogun.

I've seen this video before, and it's quite interesting what this surge of indie developers has given us as an unintended source of entertainment. Some of them don't seem to have a clue on what it takes to actually dedicate some time to learn how to make a good, polished game, but most importantly need to know how to communicate with their customers.

I think indie developers should really consider releasing games that aren't ready. Play testing is crucial. Having your friends/family play your game before releasing it should be a formal part of the process.

I look at some of the Greenlight concepts and can't help but think some of them are just trying to make money off their very first Unity game, regardless of their experience. A lot of people have noted that much of the content in Slaughtering Grounds were unmodified Unity assets. Then there was that whole debacle with Earth 2066 which was even poorer in quality. The whole game (was in Early Access) cost $20 for a single small map with buggy combat and unresponsive enemies. The developer censored every critical comment and derided them as trolls. I think he was really just wanting to see what he could get away with. After enough complaints, Steam removed it from the website.

Another thing, just because you coded game X and spent X amount of time working on it, that doesn't make you entitled to money or make you or your game above criticism.

I'm just pointing out that either that is an awesome idea for a game name or it's going to be really hard to put into context for the player .

</troll>

Regarding the OP, I'd like to briefly touch on a related subject and suggest a way to alleviate the problem.

Early access is both a scourge and a heaven-sent opportunity for indie developers. Being a child of the 90s (eg being born in the 80s) and thus being somewhat antiquated in my world view, I am strongly critical of the whole early access fad. Far too many games abuse the system to get something out there, but the whole concept has left me with the impression that oftentimes games are no longer worth completing for the dev. There's simply too little incentive and giving the "Early Access" label up is a cheap way of saying "stop the hate - we're not done yet". You know, the old "the money is not in the cure, but in the treatment" argument. Since the state at which a game qualifies as an early access release is completely arbitrary and in this case quality control is something Steam in particular has allowed to fall through the cracks, there really is no way to gauge the quality of a game beforehand. I personally own about 10-15 early access games and I've only ever found one of them worthwhile going back to (as a small endorsement, the game is called 7 Days To Die). The flipside of this is that if someone writes a valid negative review early on, it's likely going to stay up there at the very top till the end of time. The game is going to have to live with it and will consequently suffer from reduced sales until the developer either releases a more polished sequel or stops development to go and make a living some other way. The catch 22 here being that if your game is already out there and its reputation is potentially tarnished, then how do you determine when you put in the time and effort to move it out of early access or when it makes more sense to simply abandon it?

As a hobbyist developer I know writing a game is tough. I am working on a small project on the side and I find myself confronted with new problems every day - most of which are more involved than I could ever have imagined. I'm making headway every time I sit down to work on the code, but probably due to my quaint mindset, I don't see a way to justify how I could possibly release any version of the game before it's pretty much fully ready. The problem being that as a single developer, getting playtesting done is tough since I simply don't know enough people who I can pester all that often. Nevertheless I feel like exposing myself to potential troll level criticism (or even valid criticism) too early that would likely address elements of the game that need internal modification (and are hence far more difficult to explain to the average Joe, especially in retrospect) is something I might not take all that well. Not because I couldn't handle the feedback, but because of how it would slowly corrode my game's credibility and reputation, devaluing the time and effort I've put into it and in the process eventually consume my enthusiasm.

Being a douche as the developer in the OP's video appears to be would only compound the effect.

Since early access won't be going away any time soon, then - as an ad hoc solution - I suggest having a number of early access stages might be beneficial: moving from pre-alpha to alpha resets the current review cycle (true, you still can't do anything about slandering Youtube reviews, but I think these would quickly fix themselves), in a way giving the game a clean bill of health. The same applies to moving from alpha to beta, after which reviews are consolidated and will stay with the game even after it's released. Earlier reviews and comments would still be accessible, but would not be shoved in a potential buyer's face or count towards the game's overall score.

It would then be the responsibility of the dev to determine when their game is ripe enough to play with the big boys and the responsibility of reviewers to make it clear as to which stage they are subjecting themselves to. I should imagine any respectable reviewer would keep away from slandering pre-beta versions of games, foremost to avoid putting themselves in a bad fix later on. It would also give developers much-needed feedback and provide them with confidence that they will have a chance to make good with any serious flaws before they commit to a release candidate. Additionally, this would provide potential buyers with a more refined choice. This might impact early sales a to an extent, but it seems to me that in this way all three sides would have the least to risk and the most to win.

I'm not saying it would fix anything if you're a douche, though...

If they choose to go Early Access with their game, developers need to set price tiers for their stages of development. Selling an alpha for $20 in most cases is ludicrous- I wouldn't take it unless it came from a studio with a known reputation for top quality games. Xbox Indie Games had its own problems with quality control (it had none) but at least the prices were more restricted and limited to $5 maximum.

Another thing, just because you coded game X and spent X amount of time working on it, that doesn't make you entitled to money or make you or your game above criticism.

I'm just pointing out that either that is an awesome idea for a game name or it's going to be really hard to put into context for the player .

</troll>

?

I can't believe somebody would take opinions so seriously. Negative feedback is a great way to improve. This devloper dug his own grave.