Bethesda’s “Starfield Review Rectification” Gamble 2023

Bethesda’s recent foray into responding directly to negative Steam reviews for their game, Starfield, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. While the intent may have been to address concerns and clarify misunderstandings, the execution has left many feeling more frustrated and suspicious than understood.

The Starfield Controversy:

Customer support staff at Bethesda began replying to negative reviews, highlighting aspects of the game that the reviewer may have missed and emphasizing Starfield’s vastness and potential for exploration. While some reviewers appreciated the engagement, others felt patronized and dismissed.

Steam’s customer support team has taken an unusual approach to addressing negative reviews of Starfield by engaging directly with players to influence their ratings.

Following the successful Xbox Games Showcase in June, Starfield emerged as a potential game of the year for 2023, creating high expectations. However, player experiences revealed a reality that didn’t quite match the hype. Despite critical acclaim, the game quickly became Bethesda’s lowest-rated title on Steam, lagging behind Skyrim in player numbers within just two months.

Bethesda’s response has been noteworthy; they’ve begun actively responding to negative reviews in an attempt to persuade players of the game’s merits. Unlike previous Bethesda titles, Starfield is now labeled as having’mixed” reviews, with 83,206 positive and 40,232 negative reviews. While a 2:1 positive-to-negative ratio is typically commendable, it falls short of Bethesda’s likely expectations.

The Concerns:

Several concerns have been raised about Bethesda’s approach:

• Transparency and trust: Directly responding to negative reviews can be perceived as an attempt to manipulate opinion rather than genuinely address concerns. This can damage trust between Bethesda and its players.
• Gaslighting and dismissal: Some reviewers felt their valid criticisms were downplayed or ignored, leading to accusations of gaslighting and a lack of respect for their experiences.
• Focus on the positive over the negative: While highlighting positive aspects can be helpful, it should not overshadow valid criticisms and concerns.

For instance, a Steam user named dr_sectsy posted a negative review stating, ‘The story is generic, and the gameplay gets repetitive. There’s no incentive to explore planets and build outposts. Everything becomes a monotonous chore after the first try.’ Bethesda’s customer support, represented by Bethesda_Kraken, responded within 13 hours, passionately highlighting the game’s depth and encouraging players to ‘Never stop exploring!’

This unusual move by a major gaming company targeting individual players has raised eyebrows. The goal appears to be encouraging users to update their reviews, potentially shifting the rating from ‘Mixed’ to ‘Mostly Positive,’ requiring at least a 70% positive rating.

The practice was brought to light by Twitter user JuiceHead, who observed that the targeted reviews weren’t necessarily inaccurate or excessively critical. Bethesda’s responses often focused on minor details, such as loading times, with one response emphasizing the seamless loading of procedurally generated content.

Potential Consequences:

This approach could have several negative consequences for Bethesda:

• Further backlash: The community’s response has been overwhelmingly negative, potentially damaging Bethesda’s reputation and impacting future sales of Starfield and other games.
• Erosion of trust: Players may become less likely to trust official communication from Bethesda, further widening the gap between the developer and its audience.
• Loss of control of narrative: By directly engaging in the review process, Bethesda has ceded some control of the narrative surrounding Starfield, potentially leaving them vulnerable to further criticism.

Alternative Approaches:

Instead of directly responding to negative reviews, Bethesda could have taken several alternative approaches:

• Openly acknowledge and address common criticisms: A public forum or blog post addressing major concerns and outlining plans for improvement would have been a more transparent and respectful way to engage with the community.
• Focus on improving the game: Listening to player feedback and actively working on addressing their concerns through updates and patches would demonstrate a genuine commitment to improvement.
• Engage with the community in a positive way: Fostering open and constructive dialogue with players through forums, social media, and community events can help build trust and repair the damaged relationship.

Conclusion:

Bethesda’s attempt to address negative reviews through direct responses has backfired, highlighting the importance of careful communication and a genuine commitment to listening to player feedback. Moving forward, Bethesda must prioritize transparency, respect player concerns, and focus on improving the game experience rather than manipulating opinion. Only then can they regain the trust of their audience and ensure a smooth journey for Starfield and future endeavors.

The Starfield review controversy serves as a valuable lesson for all game developers. It demonstrates the importance of open communication, respect for player feedback, and a commitment to delivering the best possible experience. By learning from this misstep, Bethesda and other developers can navigate the ever-evolving gaming landscape with greater understanding and success.

Despite fan discussions and awareness on social media, Bethesda has persisted in this approach. The company seems determined to reshape the perception of Starfield, even at the risk of an unconventional engagement strategy with its player base.