How social media controversy influenced game marketing

Almost everyone in the game industry knows the controversy around the 2012 release of Mass Effect 3, the final game of a trilogy that remains one of the most extraordinary achievements of interactive entertainment. The real tragedy is that the controversy only happened because of a confluence of timing and transition. The emergence of social media as a true marketing influence overwhelmed what was then a common best practice of marketing, followed by an unfortunate company response that fed into the worst instincts of online behavior.

After two long and detailed role-playing experiences where players made many choices that influenced the third game, players were able to import their character from games 1 & 2 into Mass Effect 3 with the promise that their choices would have consequences in the third game. That was unquestionably true. I recently played Mass Effect 3 again, first without importing a character and then importing a character I’d played through both earlier games. The play experience using the imported character is dramatically superior, offering many game actions and storylines missing from the use of a newly created character. This was undoubtedly why the game was confidently marketed as rewarding players’ earlier choices.

Once players were repeatedly told they had “complete control over the final outcome,” Electronic Arts (EA) and Bioware had inadvertently fueled what would become a burning fire of criticism.

So what went wrong? Two words: “complete control.” This subjective statement is impossible to achieve in real life, never mind in a game limited by programming and design, no matter how detailed and creative. Even that might have been overlooked if the phrase wasn’t tied to the ending. But once players were repeatedly told they had “complete control over the final outcome,” Electronic Arts (EA) and Bioware had inadvertently fueled what would become a burning fire of criticism.

What could not have been predicted was how the emergence of online social media would have the effect of a 40 mile per hour wind on this fire of outrage, turning it almost overnight into an uncontrolled firestorm that included online petitions and complaints to the Better Business Bureau. When I say the response was unprecedented, I mean just that. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Nothing like this COULD have happened before.

The internet mob had decided to grab their torches and pitchforks and march on EA’s castle. And for the first time, they could do it.

There is a great line from Mel Brook’s “Young Frankenstein” where the Inspector says: “A riot is an ugly thing…and it’s just about time we had one!” Well, the internet mob had decided to grab their torches and pitchforks and march on EA’s castle. And for the first time, they could do it. The besieged executives inside the castle were completely blindsided and made the worst choice possible: they let the mob inside. They had Bioware rewrite the ending. The mob had won, and the creators had lost. That result has had a lasting effect on the way games and, indeed, many products, are marketed.

Nothing EA’s marketing had done was unprecedented at the time. For generations, we’ve all been inundated with exaggerated advertising claims. “The best/fasted/quietest/most effective (insert product name)” on the market. I live in New England, and there are at least a dozen different roast beef chains named something like “Chuck’s FAMOUS Roast Beef!” I doubt anyone’s formed a petition or dropped a dime to the Better Business Bureau demanding that they justify calling themselves “famous.”

Developers now derive a lot of their most embellished claims from their own players, influencers, curators, and reviewers.

One significant change that came from this debacle is that developers now derive a lot of their most embellished claims from their own players, influencers, curators, and reviewers. These folks are now a part of the development process itself via public beta testing and early access versions of games. It’s generally a very positive thing to include users in product development. It’s also a much safer way to use superlatives. Users influencing the narrative is now a key part of game industry marketing strategy.

Imagine if, back in 2012, an EA marketing promo for Mass Effect 3 included a quote from beta player Bobgameguy246 stating: “This game is the best RPG I’ve ever played, I felt like I had complete control over the final outcome.”

I’m guessing no one would have started an outraged petition. No online mobs would have sprung up. No calls for an immediate product overhaul. It was just one guy's opinion, right? Never mind that it's prominently displayed on the digital store page, in a place formerly reserved for content created by corporate marketing.

Marketers can now pick and choose the opinions that dovetail with the narrative they intended to create

This strategy is great cover from the internet mob champing at the bit to crank up the outrage machine. Marketers can now pick and choose the opinions that dovetail with the narrative they intended to create and boost the signal using relevant qoutes. They can highlight players, influencers, and game streamers that show off their product in the best light. These remarks may well be parsing the truth for advantage, but the words are still people speaking truthfully about how they feel. That resonates.

Setting expectations is critical to successful marketing. Definitive statements from corporate marketing are a lot less risky when they are ostensibly coming from an individual, or group of individuals, playing the game. This strategy doesn't prevent negative remarks, but it certainly helps developers and publishers avoid a mass negative effect from the online masses.

Chris Parsons