Nintendo taking negative comments in Miiverse very seriously
Posted on July 3, 2012 by Brian(@NE_Brian) in News, Wii U
Miiverse is an unprecedented online community channel for Nintendo. The company has never before allowed such extensive communication between users.
It’s true that Nintendo does have to be cautious with Miiverse based on the large percentage of family-based gamers using its systems. The technology could open the door to users who would hope to stir things up in the various community and act badly overall.
Nintendo president Satoru Iwata is aware of potential issues, including “negative campaigns on the Internet in which false opinions are deliberately posted to ruin the reputation of a product.” In addition to the removal of unfavorable comments, there are “several plans and formats” in place to discourage and eliminate poor behavior. Unfortunately, Iwata couldn’t elaborate on the specifics because “some might start thinking how to circumvent them to annoy Nintendo.”
Read on below for Iwata’s full comments on the topic.
First, please let me elaborate on the social communities for the Wii U in your question. For the Wii U, we are developing a system where consumers exchange their impressions, opinions and senses of accomplishment about games they play with each other through the network functions I mentioned before. We announced it with the service name of “Miiverse” just before E3 this year.
On the other hand, it is true that there are people who behave very badly in the world of computer networks, even though they constitute a very small percentage of the network population. In a community where anonymity is protected, there are those who think that no one will be able to identify who they are no matter how rude they are, and these people sometimes engage in socially-prohibited comments or behaviors that could make other people feel hurt or uncomfortable. That is one point we need to consider. When I answered the previous question on the costs associated with network service operations, I was actually intending to include our determination in this field. Taking this opportunity, let me elaborate on this point further. Above all, how much energy we will pour into the actual operations of such services is going to be very important. More specifically, we have never thought that we would simply build up an environment where we could let our consumers exchange any and all comments freely. We have never intended to operate the service in that way. Everybody knows that there will always be a certain number of people who do not behave themselves in such a community. We have several plans and formats, including the elimination of comments from such people, and other ways to prevent children from being exposed to them. I am afraid I cannot tell you more about our protective measures because the fact is that if we disclose any details here, some might start thinking how to circumvent them to annoy Nintendo. Anyway, we will work steadily on this matter by spending sufficient energy and, if necessary, financial costs.
In addition, there have recently been negative campaigns on the Internet in which false opinions are deliberately posted to ruin the reputation of a product. Such vicious rumors are a big problem and could be considered business interference. On the other hand, however, it is very difficult to tell consumers’ real complaints from those that are posted as part of a negative campaign. If we were to delete anything negative about our games, it could constitute a suppression of free speech and you would not able to believe in even a good reputation. Luckily, those who are engaged just to be engaged in negative campaigns are in fact just a fraction of all users. Therefore, in a community in which a number of users with fair opinions exist, opinions posted just for the purpose of a negative campaign will be gradually overwhelmed by the majority of posts of fair impressions. Also, if a number of game players put a remark to indicate “I think this comment is inappropriate,” the subject comments will be seen as unreliable and thereby decreases their influence on other consumers. In that sense, in the world of the Internet, we cannot afford to always act on “the ethical doctrine that human nature is fundamentally good.” At the same time, however, we would like to believe in the possibility of “the wisdom of crowds,” which could create a very interesting and fascinating world, and make efforts for the services to realize it in one way or another.
