Analyst: Marketing Trumps Reviews in Driving Game Sales

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Analyst: Marketing Trumps Reviews in Driving Game Sales

Prepare to be shocked: Jesse Divnich of EEDAR [http://www.eedar.com/] says that when it comes to boosting videogame sales, a good marketing campaign goes a lot further than good review scores.

People, generally speaking, like to think of themselves as informed consumers. Nobody wants to admit to being an indiscriminate dullard who buys any kind of shiny crap that advertisers convince him he can't live without. But the said truth is that when it comes to buying videogames, what matters isn't how good a game is, but how good the marketing department can make it look.

"You can make the greatest game and it won't even matter. I know that's discouraging to developers at first but it's very true," Divnich said at the Montreal International Games Summit [http://sijm.ca/2009/?language=en].

"Marketing influences game revenue three times more than quality scores. There's a giant myth out there that reviews scores are the most crucial to a videogame. The reason why that is is the information is readily available - we can go to Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com] - and we see games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty succeed and we see they have a high quality score and we make that correlation," he continued. "But the truth is, marketing actually has much more of an influence to game sales than high scores."

EEDAR looked at all videogames released between 2007 and the end of 2008 and compared as many variables as possible. The end result was clear: When it comes to driving sales, marketing consistently trumps game quality. The result was especially apparent on the Nintendo DS, which Divnich said was almost completely unaffected by review scores.

"If you're making a DS game don't even bother on quality, just ask for a bunch of marketing dollars," he said. "This actually suggests to developers that if you can, sacrifice quality to get a higher marketing budget."

Budget isn't everything, of course; Divnich noted that Sony blew $150 million on the launch of the PlayStation 3, which netted the company one of the most infamous advertising disasters in years. "They honestly thought they could release any type of commercial and it would sell. It truly is a WTF moment in marketing history," he said. "[The baby commercial [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJaGScKpZuU]] creeped people out. Sony got complacent, they were on top of the world and they thought they could say, 'Here's the PS3, go out and buy it'."

Divnich believes that the company's recent turnaround with the PS3 has less to do with the reduced price than it does with the inestimable Kevin Butler [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71zDrqpKXRs]. "I actually think it's the marketing. It's how you distribute that message to your consumers. I truly believe Sony's success in late 2009 had less to do with the price drop and more to do with how they delivered their message," he said.

Ironically, while the strength of a marketing campaign is vital to a game's success, Divnich said that strong campaigns are more likely to come from industry insiders that from actual marketing types. "You know your target market better than anyone," he told the audience. "Most agencies that make videogame commercials come from outside the industry. I honestly believe that more level designers and even low level programmers can make a better marketing plan than most marketing managers."

Source: GamesIndustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/marketing-influences-game-revenue-three-times-more-than-high-scores]


Permalink
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
So, what they're saying is that a game that's mostly a dull rehash of ideas already implemented can sell really well as long as it's got a strong marketing campaign up front. Probably one that includes something once deemed offensive.

Glad that's not happened yet.

But don't blame Nicaragua for it.
 

hamster mk 4

New member
Apr 29, 2008
818
0
0
Some times it feels like the developer's main job is to create a product that makes the wild lies of the sales people technically true.

For example the advertisers say: "This game has a branching plot with multiple endings." The game actually plays linearly until after the last boss fight where a dialog option gives you a choice of 3 ending videos.
 

ReverseEngineered

Raving Lunatic
Apr 30, 2008
444
0
0
I'm inclined to agree with Divnich on this one. Video games are a lot like music: there are more games than you could possibly ever play, so you tend to play the ones that you've heard of. How you hear about it can take many forms: reviewers, friends, and certainly advertising. The more something is advertised, and the better it looks, the more interested people will become in it. They'll start talking, telling their friends, and eventually a huge hype is built up around it. Even if it sucks, it will sell a million copies in the first week because everybody is lining up to be the first to try it. This all happens long before the reviews.

Reviews can be useful, but the majority of people don't look at reviews. Us Escapist followers tend to use reviews, but that's because we also tend to be intellectual, rational beings. There are many more people out there who see something shiny and buy it. I'm not saying that we're better than them; that's just how our brain works when confronted with so many choices -- we gravitate to whichever seems the coolest. Add to that the fact that we've seen many biased, unworthy reviews from all sorts (even The Escapist), and it's fair to say that reviews aren't even useful. You might as well just pick whatever is shiniest.

Reputation is definitely a big determinant when it comes to games. MW2 wouldn't be nearly as successful if MW1 wasn't as popular as it is, Half-Life 2 sold because of how good Half-Life was, and millions of people bought Halo 3 because it was Halo. Even myself, I preordered Dragon Age: Origins based on Bioware's reputation. Sure, I checked reviews, and they were mostly positive, but they covered so little and described things so generally that I really couldn't decide anything based on them. The game was shiny, their reputation was solid, so I took a chance.

Really, if people want to make critical assessments of new games, they have to wait until a month or so after the game is released. Let the early adopters play it first and tell you how much they liked it. Let your friends brag about it on day one, then ***** about it on day 10 (like Warhammer, Scribblenauts, and Spore). See where it goes once the hype is over and everybody has had a chance to truly experience it. It's nice to get things on day one and be part of the crowd, but you haven't missed much if you buy it a month later; if nothing else, they'll have the bugs worked out by then.

So really, advertising and hype counts for a lot. With nothing else to go on, first-day sales will depend almost entirely on advertising. Reviews will come out and friends will eventually tell you how good it is, but by then a highly-hyped game will have already made it's money, even if it sucked. Weakly advertised games may gain critical acclaim and word of mouth, but unless it really stands out from the crowd, it will get lost in the sea of games.

But don't forget reputation. It is probably as important, if not more so, than advertising. A sequel to a good game is guaranteed to sell, with little regard for how good the sequel is. People will just assume that it will be as good as the last.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
If corporate propaganda didn't work then they wouldn't pay for it instead of spending more money on it that they do developing the games. They aren't fools, or at least not that foolish.

If you don't like that then try not to let it influence your buying too much and go out of your way to champion titles with no marketing push. Loads of luck with that, no honestly, not being sarcastic for once.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
Khell_Sennet said:
I'd have to disagree with Mr. McBias of EEDAR (anyone else think that sounds a lot like Gaydar?)...

Reviews on a product, not from places like IGN or Gamespot which you know are biased as all hell, but from people you know or people who already own a game, make far more impact than "marketing", which is such a catch-all term to almost be useless in itself. And a company's reputation goes much farther than reviews. How many people have openly stated that they'd buy pretty much anything Bioware or Blizzard makes? How many people avoided EA games because of brand alone when they had their worst shovelware years?

Do commercials affect sales? Yes. Because 1/4 of all people are retards, and are easily swayed. But nothing will have greater impact on a game's sales than one simple aspect... "Is it Fun?" Braid, Portal, Grand Theft Auto (1), American McGee's Alice... All under-marketed, all would be obscure discount bin titles except for their sheer awesomeness spoke for itself, and sold the game on pure enjoyment. Super Mario Sunshine, marketed out the ass, one of the biggest flops Nintendo has ever made.
On the other hand you have awesome games like Beyond Good and Evil and Psychonaughts that were also "flops" because of the lack of marketing. And by the time the word had gotten around how amazing these games were they were bargain bin titles.

I don't think one trumps another. A good ad can inspire someone do some research on a game they would have passed up otherwise. Borderland's "ads" (the Claptrap Christian Bale ad and the real gamer by IGN) made me laugh. Then I started looking more into it. If it wasn't for them I would have missed out on a helluva game because the title and seeing FPS I thought it would be another genetic shooter by a company I had heard little about. Not everyone has the time or patience to look into every new release title and research them. There has to be a little something to focus that research. A good ad, a unique title but something.
 

HentMas

The Loneliest Jedi
Apr 17, 2009
2,650
0
0
thruth be told, the marketing campaing for Halo 3 was amazing, that scene where Master Chief picks up his helmet and puts it on just to drop a shield generator and cover himself from a rocket was amazing, and those where they put old people talling their storyes like a veteran from WWII were cool too (they continued with the "finish the fight" motto looking at the fight from one of the marines)

and you buy the game and nothing even remotelly resembling those scenes ever appear, but damn if those were not cool.
 

Ancientgamer

New member
Jan 16, 2009
1,346
0
0
Khell_Sennet said:
I'd have to disagree with Mr. McBias of EEDAR (anyone else think that sounds a lot like Gaydar?)...

Reviews on a product, not from places like IGN or Gamespot which you know are biased as all hell, but from people you know or people who already own a game, make far more impact than "marketing", which is such a catch-all term to almost be useless in itself. And a company's reputation goes much farther than reviews. How many people have openly stated that they'd buy pretty much anything Bioware or Blizzard makes? How many people avoided EA games because of brand alone when they had their worst shovelware years?

Do commercials affect sales? Yes. Because 1/4 of all people are retards, and are easily swayed. But nothing will have greater impact on a game's sales than one simple aspect... "Is it Fun?" Braid, Portal, Grand Theft Auto (1), American McGee's Alice... All under-marketed, all would be obscure discount bin titles except for their sheer awesomeness spoke for itself, and sold the game on pure enjoyment. Super Mario Sunshine, marketed out the ass, one of the biggest flops Nintendo has ever made.
Seeing as:
1. you have absolutely zilch data to back up your claims, and
2. You seem to presume all of the quarter billion gamers in the world are completely connected, checking reviews all the time, and up with the latest trends and internet news. The fact is they're not. The community you see online is at best a few percent of gamers worldwide. This is why companies don't market to the hardcore.

Regardless, you're arguing against facts with speculation, and I can't buy that. Make a theory when you see facts that countermand what we already know.
 

Zerbye

New member
Aug 1, 2008
202
0
0
What about games that have a huge marketing push, good reviews, and weak sales (e.g. Brutal Legend)? There are other factors out there beyond reviews and hype.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,719
9,335
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Malygris said:
Budget isn't everything, of course; Divnich noted that Sony blew $150 million on the launch of the PlayStation 3, which netted the company one of the most infamous advertising disasters in years. "They honestly thought they could release any type of commercial and it would sell. It truly is a WTF moment in marketing history," he said. "[The baby commercial [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJaGScKpZuU]] creeped people out. Sony got complacent, they were on top of the world and they thought they could say, 'Here's the PS3, go out and buy it'."
The funny thing is, Sony really COULD have made commercials that just said "Here's the PS3, go out and buy it" and they would've worked. That hype rocket was ready to carry Sony into the stars... but they foolishly decided to shoot it down instead. Just goes to show that there really is such a thing as bad publicity (or marketing).

Zerbye said:
What about games that have a huge marketing push, good reviews, and weak sales (e.g. Brutal Legend)? There are other factors out there beyond reviews and hype.
I suppose the article could have pointed out that GOOD marketing trumps reviews. Which is a sad but true facet of modern life- many people allow themselves to be swayed by pretty pictures or commercials rather than taking a critical eye to everything they see.
 

Generic_Dave

Prelate Invigilator
Jul 15, 2009
619
0
0
The point about the DS is most telling, "DS least affected by game reviews", no-one I know who owns a DS reads games reviews, they buy games the way they buy books or go to see films. Based upon the cover or the ad. Give the "casual gaming" demographic a few years, trust me, they'll pay more attention to reviews.

We've all been burned by a pretty game, but mostly we were burned years ago and we've gone out and found a critical source we trust to guide (if not dictate) our game purchases, or we trust a particular developer...mainly because the price of games is beyond the "impulse buy" threshold. If I get screwed over by a marketing campaign and buy a s**t game, I don't buy the sequel, neither will the casual gamers.