I don't think they're risk adverse, in these matters, because they're unaware there is a social risk. Even when it isn't social politics. Look at the community managers at blizzard. Or if we want to go to ancient history, the warrior strike in everquest.
You have community managers and their job is to literally collect and aggregate community feedback. The higher ups in a company trust them to be doing that job honestly.
In the case of both everquest, and blizzard, you had big issues with specific mechanics or balance issues that the community managers ignored due to personal bias or personal feelings. To the point that the player base went on strike in ways that would harm the game's play-ability. These protests bore fruit because the problems became problems that the community manager alone couldn't hide or clean up... and in certain circumstances, even got CMs fired, retired or reassigned.
Look how many sponsors are big brands like intel. Do you know how many gay / lesbian / feminist projects that intel spends on? That isn't risk advertise.
How about Unilever? Dove? JCpenny? Victoria secret? Gillette razors?
The management are oblivious and the "sponsors" are all big for-profit companies. As long as the CMs aren't telling the bosses that "we're getting real pushback for the dylan can" they don't know any better. Until it's too late. Until it's national news.
It is as I said.
You have to make ruckus above the CM's ability to hide it. Work has to follow these owners/investors/c-staff home. Onto their personal accounts.
[ In the everquest example, it was November of 2003. All servers had two primary hubs, the plane of knowledge and the plane of tranquility. The broken class was the warrior class. So warriors and other sympathetic tanks, and alts of friends/family, all logged in and filled the hubs up to capacity. It caused a lot of problems for the server infrastructure and capped out the zones. Beyond that, it brought a lot of raiding and group content to a screeching halt. The community manager had to concede and the developers made they public statement that they'd be addressing the issues.
Rogues likewise had a fit over vanish and stealth breaking and used a campaign of pressure against the developers that extended to sending physical letters to mark morhaime and corpse skeleton spamming. Part of why skeletons became limited per character before later being completely removed in support of appeasing China. ]
I don't think they're risk adverse, in these matters, because they're unaware there is a social risk. Even when it isn't social politics. Look at the community managers at blizzard. Or if we want to go to ancient history, the warrior strike in everquest.
You have community managers and their job is to literally collect and aggregate community feedback. The higher ups in a company trust them to be doing that job honestly.
In the case of both everquest, and blizzard, you had big issues with specific mechanics or balance issues that the community managers ignored due to personal bias or personal feelings. To the point that the player base went on strike in ways that would harm the game's play-ability. These protests bore fruit because the problems became problems that the community manager alone couldn't hide or clean up... and in certain circumstances, even got CMs fired, retired or reassigned.
Look how many sponsors are big brands like intel. Do you know how many gay / lesbian / feminist projects that intel spends on? That isn't risk advertise.
How about Unilever? Dove? JCpenny? Victoria secret? Gillette razors?
The management are oblivious and the "sponsors" are all big for-profit companies.
It is as I said.
You have to make ruckus above the CM's ability to hide it. Work has to follow these owners/investors/c-staff home. Onto their personal accounts.
[ In the everquest example, it was November of 2003. All servers had two primary hubs, the plane of knowledge and the plane of tranquility. The broken class was the warrior class. So warriors and other sympathetic tanks, and alts of friends/family, all logged in and filled the hubs up to capacity. It caused a lot of problems for the server infrastructure and capped out the zones. Beyond that, it brought a lot of raiding and group content to a screeching halt. The community manager had to concede and the developers made they public statement that they'd be addressing the issues.
Rogues likewise had a fit over vanish and stealth breaking and used a campaign of pressure against the developers that extended to sending physical letters to mark morhaime and corpse skeleton spamming. Part of why skeletons became limited per character before later being completely removed in support of appeasing China. ]