Well I'd say that there is often a discrepancy between the objective facts of how a customer could be made happier and what a given customer [b]says [/b]will make them happier (because saying something can have a purpose other than what's contained in the literal word-content, which is a state found in most human interactions). [i]That [/i]is why a dev shouldn't take [i]some [/i]suggestions at face value (particularly those that have strong relevance to factional struggles within the community, where suggestions may relate only to pushing the other group out [see. Halo's history with the Battle Rifle].) But take this point as "how to manage a feedback process." I'm not arguing for Bungie's lack of consideration for player interests, only for a more moderated view of company-community interactions. Those should still happen because of what you say and (to bring up another point) that "the product as is" is the product of a [i]plan[/i], not a comprehensive analysis of human behavior. Its going to diverge from reality in some way (ie. suck) and the only way to correct for that is feedback-driven iteration. If you just stick to the plan, as bungie is apparently doing, you [as the dev] can only be sure of success up to the point of the accuracy of your original guess. You will never do better than that (or [i]learn [/i]how to do better than that for your community.) One should just be [i]mindful [/i]of the entities giving you that feedback both in the sense that "you should think twice on what they have to say" and that "you should think about what they have to say." The latter builds positive culture while the former helps maintain it (but only once you have it).