Are Sales > Quality?

[C2Ultima]

Sales are what matter to publishers, but the quality of the game is more important to everyone else. Let's take your exanple. Modern Warfare 3.

MW3 is a good game, and you cant argue otherwise. However, it really is starting to feel like they don't want to change a thing (apart from campaign). I like MW3 a lot, but I can't help feeling like the next sequel will be nothing but a pallete swap.

And don't bother quoting with anything along the lines of "MW3 already is a pallete swap".

 

[Jegsimmons]

So escapist, I'm generally curious about what you think about sales versus quality.

Personally it seems were moving further away from quality. All these formula's to print money (IE Modern Warfare 3!) are creating a nasty little situation where it's probably more profitable to not do something interesting or new.

Does this mean sales mean more now? How long before this bubble bursts?


Lastly, if something breaks sales records a short short shorrrtttt time after it's released... What does that say? That hype sells better then quality?







should eansfig <---- What the hell is this captcha telling me?

if Avatar makes 2.8 billion and scott pilgrim makes 30 mil under its budget, then i say fuck the sales figure.

so yes, i say hype sells, they were hyping this game since BEFORE black ops. So im thinking the average person has no concept of art or quality and will buy shit just to feel like part of the crowd.
Personally, fuck the crowd, the crowd is stupid and will lead to your demise. I would say that people need to be themselves, but popularity is dictating so much that they don't even know WHO they are at all and can't tell what they like for themselves.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Quality every time.
You'd think that the most popular things would generally be the highest quality but this is pretty obviously untrue.

Just look at the music industry...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well ideally Quality = Sales, so the higher the quality the more sales, but clearly it doesn't seem to be working that way for some strange reason.

 

[Palademon]

The trouble will measuring quality through sales is simply that you can't judge something before you pay for it.

Millions of people buying a game on launch day means nothing, since for all they know so far, there's a turd in the case.

 

[NiPah]

I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain that low quality games don't sale. Games that make tons of cash may be not very creative for formulaic but aren't low quality. It takes lots of man hours to amke them and they lots of work goes into them.

Cough minecraft cough farmville cough

 

[Phishfood]

No, I don't think it does. Because if Sales was equal to Quality, then it wouldn't apply to just games.

And by that logic Avatar would be the greatest movie ever made, simply because it made the most money.

People can try to deny it all they want, but hype is what creates sales.

Anyone who says "I didn't buy this game because of the hype, I bought it because it looked like a good game, and it is." is full of crap. What made it look like a good game? Hype. Advertising. People spent money making the game appealing, whether it's through commercials, gameplay trailers or even the box art. Even something as small as a friend recommending it to you is a form of hype.

Naturally in some cases, something that sells a lot did so because it is good. But it got that way because either a lot of advertising went into it to get people to buy it, or they had a really successful earlier product.

The fact that we've got an avalanche of games with the number 3 in the title this year is proof of that.

Exactly. 100% right. Hype > Brand Recognition > Quality. Here is the sad fact and basic underlying problem. You only find out the quality AFTER you buy the thing. Once you have parted with your money no-one cares if you like it or hate it. Now, if we got to watch a film THEN decide on payment the world would be a very different place.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

not now at least.

theres too much money and too many people afraid of loosing it.

and the artists of today have families, you can't blame them for protecting that by playing it safe.

What is happening is institutionalisation, art is now built it is a product and quality is congruent to sales and people buy well...you saw MW3's sales figures.

although i would very much like to blame them.(sighs)

 

[xXBanisherXx]

Sales > Quality to whose getting the money.

If you take a big franchise that has at least 1 great game, then make a giant hype about the new one that comes out, you could put shit in the box and sell millions until people see what they're buying.

 

[emeraldrafael]

For the producer, sales are more important than quality, and if they dont understand that, thats all well and good for the consumer, but there is something deeply wrong in the company that needs to be corrected in a way the consumer wont care for.

For the consumer, quality is better.

as to what that quality is equal to I have no idea and is subjective, but I imagine qaulity is better, unless you're investing in the company.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Personally, I think quality is all. I would say, however, that its increasingly become more about sales than quality. After all, a company can sell millions of units on just the franchise name.

 

[Electrogecko]

The real question is what is quality? Is quality what you find good or is quality what the guy down the street finds good? How do we determine when a games sells because of hype or its quality?

Lets take MW3 for example. A lot of its haters say it sells well because of the hype and the majority of its fans say it sells well because its a good game. So who here is right and who here is wrong?

They're both right. The game wouldn't be selling nearly as well if it wasn't so hyped, nor would it sell as well if it wasn't good.

There's something to be said about the fact that about 7 million people bought MW3 on day 1. What % of those people does everybody think actually bothered to look up reviews or assure themselves of the games quality in any way?

 

[Smooth Operator]

For the acountant sales are everything, if they could just sell you shit instead of game disks they would be infinitely happier, until the next year comes around and they haveto find ways of selling you less shit for more money.

And for the consumer quality should be everything, you really shouldn't be the one who cares about sales.

And then there is the developer in the middle, they want to make a game that blows everyones mind but also make a decent buck off it, so they juggle both sides for the optimal effect.

 

[spartandude]

Look at sales for Modern Warfare 3

Now look at sales for the vastly superior Metro 2033. there is your answer

 

[ResonanceGames]

The entire premise is false. There are more original, interesting games than there have ever been in history. But they're hitting places like Steam and app stores, and gamers often shit on them for some reason.

AAA games have usually stayed on the safe side for as long as the concept has existed. Doom? Newer, better Wolfenstein. Baldur's Gate 2? Newer, better Baldur's gate. Final Fantasy 7? Mario? Zelda? All those are classic franchises that also had frequent, iterative installments. Just like today.

But you know what else we've gotten over the last few years? Mirror's Edge. Human Revolution. Portal.

In ten years you won't remember all the bad, generic games that are out now -- just the good ones -- and you'll be pining for the golden days again. Except the golden days will be the days that you're complaining about now right now. And thus the cycle continues.

 

[ACman]

I'd say the MW3 is of very high quality. Finely tweeked and tuned like a finely cut diamond. It's just not very innovative.

Battlefield 3 is set in the same setting as MW3 with more dynamic multiplayer gameplay let down by a phoned in story campaign and a poor matchmaking system. It's a big but flawed diamond. High in carats but low in quality.

Then there is Skyrim. A game that while amazing has game killing bugs. It's a bag of uncut semi precious and precious stones. Lacking in refinement but definitely as worthwhile.

 

[Legendsmith]

I'd say the MW3 is of very high quality. Finely tweeked and tuned like a finely cut diamond. It's just not very innovative.

I wouldn't call it a diamond. Remember, it's the same engine that they used for COD4.
MW3 is like a semi precious stone that has been cut well and then polished and buffed until it's shining like a diamond, then set in gold.
But it's not a diamond.

B

attlefield 3 is set in the same setting as MW3 with more dynamic multiplayer gameplay let down by a phoned in story campaign and a poor matchmaking system. It's a big but flawed diamond. High in carats but low in quality.

BF3 has a matchmaking system?

Anyway, I'd say BF3 isn't flawed, it's just cut rough. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

A lot of my favorite games sold very poorly or didn't have enough hype to sell well. Whereas I find most of the best selling games to be mediocre and just there. The fact Call of Duty sells so well despite never changing anything blows my mind. It is like people buying Madden games over and over.
Sadly, this is the future of gaming.
-EDIT-
Just so people don't say I am a BF3 fan for hating on MW3. I think BF3 is a piece of crap also but at least it tried to improve somewhat.

 

[Athinira]

Quality comes in many forms.

Take Arkham City for example. It's a GREAT game with a great story and are excellent in almost every aspect, but after you completed it, finished all the challenges etc. you are going to move on to a new game, maybe picking it up again a few months later.

You see, this is the point where games like Modern Warfare and Battlefield shine. Those series excel in providing a lot of entertainment value with a VERY long lifetime, which is more than most other games can claim. Arkham City is a great experience, but for most people it's not gonna last much longer after they've completed it. Modern Warfare and Battlefield, by contrast, are games that people are going to play almost every day for a very very long time into the future. Over time, they simply provide more entertainment value.

It's the same thing as when Counter-Strike became popular 10 years ago. Counter-Strike wasn't a revolution in itself. It had limited content (initially) and simple gameplay, but at the end of the day it was god damned entertaining and very cheap. To play Counter-Strike, i had to pay $15 bucks for Half-Life, and i played Counter-Strike for 5 years. I doubt there is ever going to be a game again that will ever provide me with so much entertainment for so little a price (i played WoW for just as long, but that cost me a monthly fee, and they had to provide new content all the time to keep me interested).

Games that excel at long-term entertainment value generally sell better than games that don't.

 

[babinro]

Does this mean sales mean more now?

Yes. That's how it's always been. I'm sure there are very rare examples of quality over sales especially among indie developers or ones starting out who are simply trying to get their name out on the market.

Lastly, if something breaks sales records a short short shorrrtttt time after it's released... What does that say? That hype sells better then quality?

Yes again. Games like Elder Scrolls and Fallout sell big despite having being products that are buggy and typically require multiple patches. Pre-orders and first week sales are big because of the excellent marketing leading up to the product release. It's this hype that will carry the products sales for a while after launch. Only after the hype dies down on a game, likely months after the release, will it have to sell itself on quality.

Hype gave Duke Nukem some great sales numbers...quality meant those numbers weren't sustained like those of an actual good game like Skyrim, MW3 etc.