Roadmaps Are BAD for Games
Summary
- The inherent risks and lack of upside for game companies when publishing development roadmaps.
- How roadmaps function as indirect promises that lock developers into specific decisions.
- The disconnect between player desire for information and the corporate risk of community backlash.
The Trap of Indirect Promises
Public roadmaps are one of the most detrimental tools a gaming company can use. While some players enjoy the transparency, there is no objective benefit for the developer. A roadmap acts as an indirect promise of what content to expect; the only “upside” is that the audience has a vague idea of the future, but this clarity comes at a high cost to the company.
Operational Risks and Community Backlash
Roadmaps present a company with exclusively negative outcomes. By publishing a schedule, a developer locks themselves into specific decisions. If the company fails to deliver on a specific item, the community will inevitably use the roadmap as evidence of a broken promise.
Roadmaps have never been beneficial for the entity producing them because they create a rigid framework that punishes flexibility. As soon as a company needs to pivot, change direction, or expand upon a concept in a way that deviates from the original plan, they face significant criticism from the player base.
Player Satisfaction vs. Corporate Strategy
From a player’s perspective, seeing a roadmap is enjoyable because it creates expectations and hype. However, from a corporate perspective, posting one is a mistake. It offers no protection or advantage to the company; it only creates a platform for potential disappointment. Because any deviation from the path results in community backlash, a company should never publicly post its internal roadmap.