Is everyone raising a voice when there is dissatisfaction point in the game?
I began to raise lately these days. Some people are quite in sync, and they are retweeted. In addition, the operation itself may respond.
Recent game management is monitoring SNS such as Twitter, so I think it is sensitive. I get pretty much pleased if you get an answer from the operation body, I feel closeness. Therefore, corrections are added to the dissatisfaction point. I am wondering "I'm glad to say." I do not know if it changed because I said.
Although it is a recent game management which is close to such a user, I think that there is a part to listen to opinions from users and a part which should not listen.
· Opinion to hear
Game problem
Game dissatisfaction points
· Opinions not to hear
Game improvement plan
I will explain in order. "Game trouble" is an oversight of operation completely. That is, it is not intended movement. You should fix this as soon as possible. Well, this is good.
"Game dissatisfaction point" This is important information because it is a point that the current user, customers are dissatisfied. In addition, as for the points that you think about dissatisfaction, there are many cases of users' common views rather than opinions of individuals, so it is likely that everyone will be pleased if you correct it.
However, you should not ask "game improvement plan". I mean that you should not take it for granted.
In most cases, the user complains that "~ is funny ~ Please! This 'is funny' is dissatisfactory, so it is better to listen to it, but saying "~ shiro!" Part is to throw it away.
why. The part of "Shiro!" Is an individual opinion of that user. This is because it is intolerably difficult to realize or a particular user may be advantageous.
Therefore, the operation requires the user to understand the change policy. That policy may be unacceptable for some users. It may be that you truncate that user. What I do not want you to misunderstand is that truncating some users is not a problem. It is necessary to prevent some ripples from spreading to the whole by truncating some users.
Especially since money is involved in dapps, violence of vested interests between users is intense, and accidentally some users may say that it will lead to a decline of the whole game.
I think that the goal of game management is to increase user population first.
Please do not take any measures just to change the specification that closes the target aim.
As a matter of fact, I will also make suggestions for improvement as a personal opinion. I think that I want you to refer to one person as an opinion, but I leave it as to whether it will be realized or not.
