We live in an age where it is extremely easy for critics, commentators, pundits, customers, and fans to express their analyses and opinions on game products and announcements/ads for game products that have been presented to the public (and anything ever presented in public, really, but here I am sticking to one topic to make a specific point) very, very publicly.

And, for good or ill, if those analyses and opinions pick up interest from others with likes, comments, and shares, they can go viral. Often, by the time a game professional is aware of some statement about a project they worked on or are tied to, it’s already been seen by hundreds or thousands of other people.

When those statements are critical, perhaps especially when those criticisms are valid and strongly negative, boosters of the project will often complain that there was “no need” to make “such a big deal,” out of the criticisms. One common refrain is that any complaints could be initially handled in private communications to the publisher or creator in question.

And of course, such things could start that way, that’s obvious. By even mentioning it, boosters are pushing the narrative that such criticism should start that way, and not doing so is somehow inappropriate.

And that’s B.S.

Such suggestions of different ways a thing could be handled also often claim the “only reason” criticisms are done in public is to “drive views,” or gain attention.

And even when true, that’s completely irrelevant.

Once a product, or an ad/announcement for a product, has been released to the public, the public has no responsibility to restrict their negative reactions to private communications, even as a first response. Nor should their be any expectation or suggestion that the public will do so. A game or announcement for a game is put out into the public eye specifically to garner a reaction. If a company is at a stage where positive reviews and critiques of an item are appropriate in a broad forum, then so are negative ones.

It is, of course, possible for there to specific specific people who WANT to begin criticisms privately, and that’s fine. If I have a relationship with a publisher or creator and I think they have, or are about to, make a big mistake I will often contact them privately and say why. Coming from another direction, someone who does not want fans of a game line to harass them may well seek less-public ways to send feedback to a publisher just so they aren’t the target for harassment. Further, if I was involved with a project, I may have some ethical desire to initially express my concerns about it in private even once the material in question is public.

And, yes, there ARE ways to respond to publicly released material that are themselves open to criticism. I’m not talking about the content of critiques, but the venue for them. Though it’s worth noting that even accusations of a response being made in bad faith — vicious ad hominem attacks, intentional falsehoods, and similar things — even that needs to be considered with an analytical eye. While there absolutely are bad actors who will make up objections to try to take down game creators and game projects they dislike, there are at least as many bad actors who will claim legitimate criticisms are actually vile attacks because they dislike the criticism.

My key point here is, the public doesn’t owe any game or game creator the privilege of a private preview of their critique of a public release. Once a creator releases an ad, statement, or game into the public eye, they are inviting response to that release.

Even the responses they don’t like.

Support My Patreon
The more support I get, the more time I can spend on writing things like this. 

If you enjoy any of my articles, please sign up, for as little as the cost of one cup of coffee a month!