Hooktube link:
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=-S22DLNTRnw
But I'll summarize the video here:
> Jap magazines put in survey codes for their own customers for feedback.
> Proposal says devs could use the abundance of online accounts for consoles/PC or even their own website to link the player to one of their games. This proves they are a paying customer and not some rando or SJW.
> Devs offer surveys for feedback, incentivized with bonuses (in-game currency, costumes, even discounts on DLC. All the crap you'd usually get with pre-orders).
Pros:
> Send out regular surveys (based on play-time, progress made, or if they've stopped playing for a while), and a dev can work out what incited then to buy it (style, genre, reviews, marketing, etc), how the game flows (if certain parts are too hard, easy, or dull), why they stopped playing (a rival game overshadowed them, game got too hard or repetitive, etc), or major issues (bugs, etc).
> Helps tailor content for games that regularly update/fix.
> Gives the anti-censorship crowd a voice. Kinda (see the first Con below)
Cons:
< Some people may not buy a game due to important factors (censorship, shitty dub, DLC rip off, monetization, etc)- but their voice will be ignored over a paying customer. You don't need to eat shit to know it's shit, but under this system devs would only listen to people who bought- and with the state of the consumers right now, they'd be only listening to people who are happy with being served shit.
< Assumes most users can phrase their concerns well. I'd think over 50% would write nothing but single sentence praise or scorn due to a myriad of factors (salty they're struggling with the game, fan-boys, don't have the time or desire to give an in-depth explanation, flat-out not smart enough to phrase it). Sure you'd gravitate to well written feedback, but then you've got to decide who is more right- the majority (normalfags) or those who explain (gamers). Devs have a high chance of learning the wrong lesson (i.e. 80% of players didn't finish the game means 80% bought it due to marketing and expected something else/impulse buy, not that 80% of the intend audience are unhappy. Or how much the consumer is willing to have their wallet gouged).
< Assumes SJW won't buy a game (or use other methods to trick out the survey) just to complain. Falling shy of looking at how many hours they've put into the game, you wouldn't be able to tell they're just in it to convert.
< The whole system falls apart if an SJW is running the survey system. The devs will probably hire some to handle it all, meaning you'll get (((business advisers))) who have been telling them all the shit that has got us here now, or SJW looking to infect and control. And neither of them want devs to do things that'd make other devs follow suite without them getting a cut or meeting their agendas.
< The system will not be implemented by AAA, or badly on purpose. I.e. accepting feedback and not listening, lying and claiming majority of users wanted something they didn't, etc. Most AAA devs are SJW- no sane businessman would put all their eggs in a basket that is profitable now, but has a real chance of going sour. In addition, they'd be horrified if their feedback isn't glowing perfect- shareholders would want to see said feedback, and demand it is perfect. This means only smaller and/or good devs would be left to do this system, and they'd need the capital to do it.