undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsmobiuscog1y ago0 comments

Because 'dogfooding' has worked so well for other products...

If you don't get feedback from the people actually playing your game (or using your product), you will never get the improvement you need to help them.

You can have the most talented passionate people there are developing a product, but if it's not working for the people you want to sell it to, it's the wrong product.

Most tech products are terrible because those paying for them are not those that have to use them every day, or because they solve a corporate problem (compliance) and not a usability problem which is the actual need from the people on the shop floor.

Many big games/products are already built mostly on metrics, and that has proven to be a terrible way to work out what people 'want'. It's a great way to justify money decisions though, so it keeps happening (and games/products from big companies keep getting worse).

0 comments

raincole1y ago

I see. So you don't know what dogfooding is.

malcolmgreaves1y ago

I like and agree with something you've touched on here. I think the downvotes are perhaps because you're not putting an end cap onto this idea here. And I think that end cap is: the feedback a company gets when it dogfoods its own product is *not* guaranteed to be similar to the feedback it gets from customers.

The implicit assumption with dogfooding is that more feedback is better, even if that feedback is artificially constructed.

I think the idea here is that foisting one's product onto one's own workers is likely to incur a bunch of additional biases and preferences in feedback. Paying customers presumably use the product because they need it. Dogfooding workers use the product because they are told to do so.