The dreaded "vocal minority"

[Vegost]

I have noticed something lately.

It is a given that most decisions made will have a bunch of people agreeing, and another bunch disagreeing with it. What bothers me, and what i'd like to discuss, is that the people who disagree with a design choice always seem to blame "the loud minority on the internet". I will give two examples (although please try to not discuss these on their own, there are several other threads for that).

1. When Microsoft went back on the awful DRM-restrictions they planned for the Xbone, this was due to overwhelmingly bad feedback from what seemed to be a collective gaming community. The hype around the PS4 when it didn't have said restrictions and the difference in pre-orders seems to support this. Yet every time I see someone arguing that the DRM-restrictions were positive, they blame the vocal minority for pressuring Microsoft into removing the restrictions.

2. The car handling in GTA V. Car handling in GTA IV seems to have been a controversial issue. Personally I didn't like it, but I see people both on these forums and elsewhere who preferred the way it was in GTA IV over how it is now in GTA V. While I do not have any real source material, my personal experience is that for every person that liked the car handling in GTA IV, there are five people who didn't like it. Yet now that Rockstar changed car handling in GTA V, it was due to the dreaded vocal minority.

To me, blaming a vocal minority seems like an easy way to add another serious-sounding argument to your point of view. It seems to be used as a domination technique in gaming discussions particularly, and without any regard for the truth of the matter (who is actually the minority or majority in any given issue).

This might not be that strange, obviously when you have an opinion it is easier and safer to surround yourself with those who agree with you and only discuss it with them, thus giving you the impression that more people agree with you than they actually do. This might be just as true for both of my examples above. However i think my underlying point still stands: this trend of blaming a vocal minority only serves to cheapen and dumb down discussions.

 

[shrekfan246]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

 

[Zhukov]

Well, yeah, it's just a way to make your view sound more credible and dismiss opposing views as coming a fringe element of whiners. Since it's not like anyone is polling this stuff, it can't be proven or disproven who is actually the minority.

There are some situations where I think it can apply though. For example, when you have people hating on very popular games. Y'know, the 'CoD sucks' and 'GTA4 was boring' crowds. Given that those games sell in ridiculous quantities and people obviously like them enough to come back for the sequels, I think we can safely say that the folks complaining are a (very) vocal minority. (And before I get accused of hypocrisy here, allow me to point out that I am not overly fond of either CoD or GTA.)

 

[krazykidd]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

Who better to ***** and whine than those who actually bought the game ? ( speaking about diablo 3). And to be fair , the PC release had a shitton of problems .

As for the xbone . I think everyone and their mother was bitching about the DRM. I think that qualifies as the vocal majority in that specific case .

Now for the actual vocal minority . Well , in those cases , people who aren't bothered by something tend to not say anything . Which gives the impressing that everyone is complaining . When you like something ,say so . And when you dislike somethig , say so . And there problem solved . We have opinion from both sides . Vocal minority dissapears.

 

[GoaThief]

And before I get accused of hypocrisy here, allow me to point out that I am not overly fond of either CoD or GTA.

Aye bud, but there is a big difference between saying something is flat out shit and saying why you dislike something for subjective reasons but recognise why others think differently.

 

[shrekfan246]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

Who better to ***** and whine than those who actually bought the game ? ( speaking about diablo 3). And to be fair , the PC release had a shitton of problems .

I'm really not interested in getting into yet another argument about Diablo III, but most of the complaints I personally saw and have seen involved adding the words "Get rid of the DRM and I might possibly consider buying it, maybe". Yes, I occasionally saw people complaining that the end-game balance was completely fucked because of the Auction House skewing the item drop rates, or about how the new skill system was less fun because it wasn't like Diablo II, and certainly things like that were actually present on the Blizzard forums themselves (which is expected), but widely many of the people around here or on other non-Blizzard forums gave the impression that they were complaining despite having not purchased the game.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refusing to purchase a game because it has online DRM. But I saw a large amount of complaints about things like the new skill systems in the game or the Auction House from people who admitted themselves that they hadn't and weren't planning on actually buying and playing the thing. And again, if those are things that put you off of the game, fair enough. But once people start putting it forth like objective fact ("The skill system isn't a tree like D2; It has less freedom for personalization and sucks!", "Why grind for gear when you can just grind gold and buy everything?") and ignore that things like buying gear happened in the older Diablo games anyway, or how there were "optimal builds" for every class in Diablo II that you pretty much had to adhere to if you wanted to get through everything, it starts coming across as a tad silly.

[sub]And I'll just add that yes, Blizzard implemented the Auction House horribly and should've never made it impact item drop rates or itemization values as heavily as it did.[/sub]

 

[Altorin]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

Who better to ***** and whine than those who actually bought the game ? ( speaking about diablo 3). And to be fair , the PC release had a shitton of problems .

I'm really not interested in getting into yet another argument about Diablo III, but most of the complaints I personally saw and have seen involved adding the words "Get rid of the DRM and I might possibly consider buying it, maybe". Yes, I occasionally saw people complaining that the end-game balance was completely fucked because of the Auction House skewing the item drop rates, or about how the new skill system was less fun because it wasn't like Diablo II, and certainly things like that were actually present on the Blizzard forums themselves (which is expected), but widely many of the people around here or on other non-Blizzard forums gave the impression that they were complaining despite having not purchased the game.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refusing to purchase a game because it has online DRM. But I saw a large amount of complaints about things like the new skill systems in the game or the Auction House from people who admitted themselves that they hadn't and weren't planning on actually buying and playing the thing. And again, if those are things that put you off of the game, fair enough. But once people start putting it forth like objective fact ("The skill system isn't a tree like D2; It has less freedom for personalization and sucks!", "Why grind for gear when you can just grind gold and buy everything?") and ignore that things like buying gear happened in the older Diablo games anyway, or how there were "optimal builds" for every class in Diablo II that you pretty much had to adhere to if you wanted to get through everything, it starts coming across as a tad silly.

[sub]And I'll just add that yes, Blizzard implemented the Auction House horribly and should've never made it impact item drop rates or itemization values as heavily as it did.[/sub]

in diablo 1, online anyway, gear was mostly all hacked, and it was ridiculously easy to get unlimited gold (but funny enough incredibly difficult to store it) even without using a third party tool because the game had a lot of little bugs in it that could be abused for free gold. If you wanted the best gear, there was plenty of "legit-like" gear out there that wasn't broken, merely hacked into the game, available at a moment's notice.

diablo 2, there was item trading, but gold didn't factor into it barely at all. in order to get hardcore into the trading there were serious hurdles to jump through, and frankly by the time I got to it it was completely dead. You could purchase items (as the millions of spam bots jumping ceaselessly into any open character slot in any open game will let you know), but those websites tend to be malicious and it involves actual money, it doesn't turn the game into a gold grind.

In diablo 3, blizzard looked at that system, and cut out the middleman entirely, and turned seedy-back-alley item selling into a simplified, built it into the system and then finetuned the system around it. Even if you don't descend into rhetoric about Blizzard being greedy pricks and wanting a cut of the action (I'm sure they did, I just give them the benefit of the doubt when they say that the RMAH was about providing a service to the players), the system broke the game. Gold in a diablo type game is a strange beast. I don't think it should have been a sellable, parity commodity.. it's just impossible to regulate. I like how Path of Exile completely eschewed it in favor of commodity itemss..

Video game gold is just a strange beast entirely - the only point of gold's value in real life (at least until we started using it to make computers) was its rarity, and VG gold is not rare at all. It's the most common of common. A bit of a tangent, sorry.

Diablo 3's economy was broken and I'm glad it's going to be fixed. I'm jumping ship to the consoles starting next month and I probably won't be looking back.

As for the skills... Both D2 and D3's systems had their issues. I just found D3's skill system to be boring... It was exciting for the first 30-40 levels, but after that... what was there? I suppose D2's system hd a similar pit to fall into at about that level, but it FELT like you were improving every level. D3's systems (for attributes, skills and equipment) hide all of your gradual improvement. It feels more like every character is plotted on a graph, filled out from the start and just waiting for you to gain the levels to activate it, whereas in D2 it feels like you're given a blank graph and tasked with coming up with the best way of filling it in as you level up. Maybe you go your own way, maybe you strictly follow a guide, but there's still choice in there - you don't HAVE to follow a guide, and once the game introduced a few ways to retrofit your skill points, it became even more clearly a matter of choice - you were allowed to screw up because as you progressed you were given a few options to changing your mind later.

As for your initial concern about "get rid of the DRM and maybe I'll buy the game", that's a completely valid response. If you like D3's systems, people who say that aren't trying to take your toys away (I'm not trying to be condescending, sorry if that came off that way). I can only speak for myself, but when I say things like that (and I did say things like it about the X1), I don't actual expect change.. I don't personally lobby for change, and I don't consider my opinion of greater import then people who do enjoy the system. I just know that certain systems being in place will not be to my liking, and i earnestly voice my opinion - if it weren't for those systems, I'd be excited, but I'm not, have fun without me.

And I'm not really trying to argue... just D3 sort of cut me to the bone in those respects.

 

[veloper]

It's not a democracy.

Though everyone can vent their opinions on games and consoles all they like.

If the vocal "minority" is too hard to ignore, maybe they simply have a point and are worth listening to.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot

Oh, the irony! (sorry, couldn't resist)

OT: The vocal minority is a way of dismissing other people's complaints by appealing to majority rule. They think that if they convince people that those complaining are a minority, then it will allow majority rule to overcome those people's complaints and get back what they want. There doesn't need to be any actual evidence that these people are the minority, and it sometimes runs contrary to what evidence seems to suggest (such as the Xbox One issue), but since most developers want to earn money on their games, appealing to majority rule can work. Granted, those developers have far more evidence than the average forum-goer, which is why they generally make their decisions based on the "vocal minority", as they realize their evidence indicates they are the majority.

Still, it is hard to get a complete overview of opinion on a particular issue. For instance, the people that are likely to complain about the driving in GTA IV are those who didn't like it, but those who liked it are less likely to voice their opinion as they are already happy. Basically, Rockstar has to guess that their data, which favors changing the driving, is correct when applied to the whole community. A great way to overcome this would be for people to stop talking about just what they don't like and start talking about what they like and why they like it. This might give more moderation, potentially avoiding bad changes in the next game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

People complain for free. This is the internet. What do you expect?

 

[lacktheknack]

in diablo 1, online anyway, gear was mostly all hacked, and it was ridiculously easy to get unlimited gold (but funny enough incredibly difficult to store it) even without using a third party tool because the game had a lot of little bugs in it that could be abused for free gold. If you wanted the best gear, there was plenty of "legit-like" gear out there that wasn't broken, merely hacked into the game, available at a moment's notice.

diablo 2, there was item trading, but gold didn't factor into it barely at all. in order to get hardcore into the trading there were serious hurdles to jump through, and frankly by the time I got to it it was completely dead. You could purchase items (as the millions of spam bots jumping ceaselessly into any open character slot in any open game will let you know), but those websites tend to be malicious and it involves actual money, it doesn't turn the game into a gold grind.

In diablo 3, blizzard looked at that system, and cut out the middleman entirely, and turned seedy-back-alley item selling into a simplified, built it into the system and then finetuned the system around it. Even if you don't descend into rhetoric about Blizzard being greedy pricks and wanting a cut of the action (I'm sure they did, I just give them the benefit of the doubt when they say that the RMAH was about providing a service to the players), the system broke the game. Gold in a diablo type game is a strange beast. I don't think it should have been a sellable, parity commodity.. it's just impossible to regulate. I like how Path of Exile completely eschewed it in favor of commodity itemss..

Video game gold is just a strange beast entirely - the only point of gold's value in real life (at least until we started using it to make computers) was its rarity, and VG gold is not rare at all. It's the most common of common. A bit of a tangent, sorry.

Diablo 3's economy was broken and I'm glad it's going to be fixed. I'm jumping ship to the consoles starting next month and I probably won't be looking back.

As for the skills... Both D2 and D3's systems had their issues. I just found D3's skill system to be boring... It was exciting for the first 30-40 levels, but after that... what was there? I suppose D2's system hd a similar pit to fall into at about that level, but it FELT like you were improving every level. D3's systems (for attributes, skills and equipment) hide all of your gradual improvement. It feels more like every character is plotted on a graph, filled out from the start and just waiting for you to gain the levels to activate it, whereas in D2 it feels like you're given a blank graph and tasked with coming up with the best way of filling it in as you level up. Maybe you go your own way, maybe you strictly follow a guide, but there's still choice in there - you don't HAVE to follow a guide, and once the game introduced a few ways to retrofit your skill points, it became even more clearly a matter of choice - you were allowed to screw up because as you progressed you were given a few options to changing your mind later.

As for your initial concern about "get rid of the DRM and maybe I'll buy the game", that's a completely valid response. If you like D3's systems, people who say that aren't trying to take your toys away (I'm not trying to be condescending, sorry if that came off that way). I can only speak for myself, but when I say things like that (and I did say things like it about the X1), I don't actual expect change.. I don't personally lobby for change, and I don't consider my opinion of greater import then people who do enjoy the system. I just know that certain systems being in place will not be to my liking, and i earnestly voice my opinion - if it weren't for those systems, I'd be excited, but I'm not, have fun without me.

And I'm not really trying to argue... just D3 sort of cut me to the bone in those respects.

http://img.pandawhale.com/42139-stop-girl-gif-BsPK.gif

If you're "not trying to argue", you won't post a massive reply about how much Diablo III is inferior to the others while quoting someone who stated their disinterest in such rants.

OT: Quite frankly, if the quiet majority would like to not be screwed over by the loud minority, they should speak up.

 

[Altorin]

It's not a democracy.

Though everyone can vent their opinions on games and consoles all they like.

If the vocal "minority" is too hard to ignore, maybe they simply have a point and are worth listening to.

this is pretty much my thought on the matter - if the "vocal minority" get the changes they're whinging about, then the changes probably needed to be made. Because while on the ground we can only really see ourselves and it's hard to get accurate poll information so every topic seems like a "vocal minority" topic.. the people who actually make decisions SHOULD be paying attention.

in the case of Blizzard, they probably have gigabytes of meta-data letting them know how people are playing diablo 3 and can tell just from that that something's wrong, even without the forums there to bring specific issues to light. I doubt Microsoft caved to the protestors on the protestor's own pride, they did it because Sony didn't play ball and they absolutely fumbled their reveal - a great reveal and sony's participation, and even a vocal majority probably wouldn't have been able to shake those policies, if they were actually good policies to begin with.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Since I don't know who is speaking at any given time, nor do I know if they actually represent the majority when bitching/complaining/whatever, there's no way to tell what the 'vocal minority' is in the gaming realm.
I have felt that on occasion some of the people making a big fuss about something in gaming are people who may have started off not wanting the product in the first place. I did see a lot of "I wasn't going to buy the Xbone, but now I REALLY won't". That sort of opinion while a "valid" opinion means to me that one way or the other the person expressing said opinion doesn't really count because they weren't going to buy anyway. But I'm just assuming so take that for what its worth. Some people genuinely feel strongly for or against something and some people just say things to feel validated or get attention. Its hard to know the difference, thats why I really take the "vocal majority/minority" thing with a grain of salt. Bandwagoneers vs. the people who actually care. You'd be surprised at how many people argue against something for the sake of being part of what they feel is the "majority". And its kind of sad really, because these people don't have any opinions of their own, just whatever seems popular.

 

[Souplex]

Sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't.
For example, with the XB1 controversy, the people who wanted a more digital console were in the minority, but blamed a "Vocal minority" to make their side seem more credible.
For an example of it being an actual thing, we look at the Space Wizards (Mass Effect) franchise. There was this awesome space-tank called the Mako that most people loved. Some people hated it. They hated it so loudly that Bioware removed it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

Well, the vocal minority isn't really a strawman. It's just dishonest. A strawman would be more accsing people of suppoting terrorism and taking them to task just because they don't think it's okay to...I don't know, sexually abuse terror suspects.

Of course, almost any vocal group is a minority by its very nature, so I just figured I'd point that out. The thing is, even the majorities tend to be vocal minorities, because most people simply won't sound off. Even if they care, they won't necessarily sound off.

"Vocal minority," then, is generally an easy out.

Of course, it often belies reality. The Xbone deal where Microsoft was being outsold like 12 to 1 at Gamestop was clearly not a minority in any sense that people would normally count, but even when the sales being so skewed, people still called it a vocal minority.

I'd say the noteworthy "vocal minority" were the ones who still chose an Xbone (before the changes).

In any case, the "vocal minority" card is one that can be played legitimately, but probably shouldn't be.

 

[shrekfan246]

Given the fact that, on the internet, about 78% of all statistics are completely made up on the spot, the 'vocal minority' tends to fall into that same area in my opinion.

That's not to say it's never true; to this day people still ***** and whine about Diablo III, but it sold an absolute fuckton despite that.

But I believe that we can look to the latest Critical Miss for the answer to this dilemma. People don't seem to like having actual discussion over something. So when they're faced with an abstract idea as an "enemy" instead of an actual person's direct thoughts and feelings, they can easily construct a shoddy caricature of the arguments behind that idea and can argue those down instead of the actual points in question.

Because lord forbid the overworked Strawman ever gets a day off, right?

Well, the vocal minority isn't really a strawman. It's just dishonest. A strawman would be more accsing people of suppoting terrorism and taking them to task just because they don't think it's okay to...I don't know, sexually abuse terror suspects.

I take your point.

But I think there's a very thin line between being intellectually dishonest by accusing someone of being part of a vocal minority without any evidence either way, and building them up as part of a vocal minority just so you can argue down tangentially related points. Your example is certainly more relevant, but the two fallacies aren't mutually exclusive, especially around here. >.>

The Xbox One is actually a fantastic example, too. After Microsoft announced the policy reversal, we had a bunch of people completely misrepresenting the problems that the anti-Xbox-DRM people had with the original policies, so that they could point at the anti-Xbox-DRM people and accuse us, the "vocal minority", of "hindering progress for consoles" and whatever else.

In any case, the "vocal minority" card is one that can be played legitimately, but probably shouldn't be.

Though really, shouldn't that be the case with most logical fallacies?

 

[Something Amyss]

[
But I think there's a very thin line between being intellectually dishonest by accusing someone of being part of a vocal minority without any evidence either way, and building them up as part of a vocal minority just so you can argue down tangentially related points. Your example is certainly more relevant, but the two fallacies aren't mutually exclusive, especially around here. >.>

Around here, we tend to reach falliception.

While it is a fine line, I tend to see people staying on the dishonest and lazy side of things most of the time. Possibly all of the time, I'm not sure. I'll give most people the benefit of the doubt that they're not trying to lie, though, so maybe I'm just being charitable. >.>

The Xbox One is actually a fantastic example, too. After Microsoft announced the policy reversal, we had a bunch of people completely misrepresenting the problems that the anti-Xbox-DRM people had with the original policies, so that they could point at the anti-Xbox-DRM people and accuse us, the "vocal minority", of "hindering progress for consoles" and whatever else.

Which is a bit of a laugh, considering "progress" meant "stripping everything that makes a console a console" more or less.

Though really, shouldn't that be the case with most logical fallacies?

Touché.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

While I agree with a lot that is being said in this thread, the thing most people seem to be missing is that even if it is a vocal minority complaining, that doesn't mean their argument can just be dismissed, or that it is necessarily wrong. And if you can't think of a good reason why an argument is wrong other than the fact that there are few people taking that side, then you might want to reconsider.

Then there's the whole issue that, with a lot of issues, most people just don't care, and if appeasing this vocal minority will not negatively impact the silent majority, then why not implement it. The LAN issue in Starcraft II is a good example of this. From my impression, most people really don't care about the lack of a LAN feature, and there experience probably wouldn't be significantly affected on way or the other if it was implemented. However, there are a minority of people that really want a LAN feature implemented, and would use it if it were included. From the perspective of trying to please as many people as possible, even though only a minority want LAN, it would still make sense to implement (I'm aware that there are more factors in this issue than this, but it's the first example I thought of, so whatever).