There are three separate ways to answering this question. The third one is the most likely explanation, but let’s mention the other possibilities.
⁂
Given the context this is the least likely explanation, but in my experience as a softdev and an activist valid more frequently than people expect: there is no problem and company’s reaction is accurate.
I want to bring your attention to one thing: neither side cared to provide any reliable data supporting their claims. Gearbox almost certainly has the data, but sharing it would mean revealing their cards. In the climate and legal landscape the society created, this is nothing but a rational decision. The players seem to rely on anecdotal evidence and singular datapoints, and also consider the scale of the reaction to be an indicator of the scale of the problem.
⁂
Another option is: there is a problem, but ignoring it is an intentional part of the business tactic.
While Legendary Drops marks Pitchford’s responses as unwanted, there is a large group of people who see it as the exact opposite. The fragments of Randy’s narrative presented in the video fit strangely well into the scenario of Gearbox appealing to that audience. Feeling special and elite, because one either can afford better gear or merely happened to be in the lucky crowd, is a thing!
Another benefit is slowly building the perception of PC not being good for gaming. Maybe slightly detrimental to single titles, but long-term effect may be worth the tiny losses along the way.
⁂
Finally the most likely explanation. Right in the beginning and after 12:45 there is a mention of the company not caring about customers. The context suggests he considers himself to be the customer. Yet another attempt to interpret 21st century reality through the lens of a 19th century mindset?
Players are not customers. Shareholders of Take-Two Interactive are the customers. The game is not a product. The game is a tool to extract money. It has absolutely no other purpose. In particular it’s not meant to be good, working, or appealing, beyond what is needed to bring revenue and balance it with costs, fulfil agreements with business partners, and to meet strategic goals.
Will “the industry” react to criticism? Maybe. But not in a way the Legendary Drops guy hopes. That’s because his hopes are living in a 19th century fantasy world. Any reaction will be aimed at reducing visibility and impact of the negative perception. Not at delivering better games. Doubtlessly removing some most visible issues is among the tools to achieve that goal. So games may receive some improvement, but that’s going to be a mere side effect. Not a change in the approach.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
