"Broadening our audience"

[JagermanXcell]

I actually associate that phrase with everything that's wrong with TV today. Live action on Cartoon Network, wrestling on Sci-Fi, reality shows on Discovery & National Geographic, Things on the Disney Channel they didn't make but bought the rights to, no music on MTV or VH1.....Expanding the audience compromises the integrity until there is no integrity left.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Eventually the big hats will find out whats popular and turn something people love into something they will grow to hate.
Cause the OP mentioned the "Biggest Joke in Gaming" Thread I'm going to use what I said on that thread and say DmC.

I looooooved DMC. People loooooooved DMC. Sure DMC4 wasn't the full package, but that wasn't our fault. The people who enjoy the series did their job, Capcom didn't, they pushed an unfinished project out and thought "Oh no! Criticism! We need to brudone teh eudience!" And thus the reboot happened...
ALL ABOARD THE DUMBING DOWN BUSINESS PRACTICE TRAIN!!! *CHOO* *CHOOOO*
Earth to Crapcom, people didn't dislike DMC's universe, characters, and campy story, people disliked DMC4 because YOU DIDN'T FINISH IT. Thats no damn excuse to take everything great about the game, dumb it down, and add crap that doesn't belong.

Whatever, hopefully speaking with our wallets will be a growing sensation amongst niche groups. Hopefully.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

ITT: people who want AAA budget games, but don't want to pay more for it, and doesn't want it to appeal to more people.

As a consumer, I'm not part of some aggregate or collective. I want AAA games that appeal to me, and I'm never going to apologize for that. If they aren't financially viable, I'll settle for AA. If those aren't in the cards, I'll go ahead and play the low-budget indies. And if those dry up? I'll play the classics. It's not my job to support this industry despite my personal tastes. If they don't cater to me, my money goes elsewhere. The free market cuts both ways, right?

In all businesses, the name of the game is margin. If you can't get your distribution numbers up to break even, then you need to find ways to do things with less money, which is REALLY hard to do with AAA games like Dark Souls.

Dark Souls is kind of a counterpoint in this argument. It sold well (2.3 million units across all platforms, to this point) but not CoD-well, and that's okay because it didn't cost a fortune (relatively speaking) to make, market, and distribute. It's not a AAA game with a runaway budget that needs to crack five million in sales to justify a sequel. It was a laser-focused production that targeted a niche audience and delivered. That's why I bought it twice and played it more than any other game last year. Dark Souls is exactly the sort of game I want to see from this industry moving forward.

i.e. a single AAA title costs around what, 30 million to make and distribute? So that means at 60 USD a pop, you're looking at least 500K in sales to break even. For reference, Total War: Rome 2 sold 800K copies, and Street Fighter 4 sold 1.5 million copies. It's not exactly a trivial task. Keep in mind, this is just to break even.

When people hate on the concept of "broadening the audience", others frequently frame it as entitled whining. Why can't it just be consumers flexing their wallet muscles to bring about desired changes to their preferred hobby? If enough people grow wary of sequels that "broaden the audience", if enough games like Dead Space 3 and Resident Evil 6 crash and burn, maybe publishers will learn that they can't count on repeat buyers without delivering the goods that brought those consumers to the table in the first place.

I don't mean to be confrontational here, but there seems to be this underlying conceit that we absolutely need video games and we're stuck with whatever the publishers decide is best for their own bottom lines. I reject that idea. The market forces are obviously powerful and extremely influential, but that's what makes this kind of push-back so important. If we're not standing up and telling them what we want, and putting our money where our mouths are on a regular basis (or deflating bad sequels before they even get off the ground), we will end up with the video game industry we deserve. Good thing I can always walk away from it, though. Lots to do and see.

 

[Saelune]

Broadening the audience game wise almost always means making it more generic and less risky. Though really anytime anything -intentionally- does it, its bad. Sometimes things just work out to be more appealing to a broader audience, but that doesn't usually sacrifice the quality or the intentions. But when done on purpose usually equals selling out.

 

[Rich Webb]

I would say your logic is flawed OP. As far as the music you mentioned goes those bands got popular off of their 'quirkier' albums from their early catalgoue not to mention that music technology doesn't regularly advance making previous albums sound inferior by comparison. Also a huge number of bands are criticised in the exact same way for essentially broadening their music (for example Muse's most recent album was much more akin to chart music than "their own" sound from previous albums, alienating a lot of their old fans); how many times have you heard someone say "their old stuff was so much better".

As for games the example you gave was Ocarina of Time, one of, if not the, most popular and critically acclaimed games of all time, suggesting that that game was widely popular because it was good rather than because it catered to the masses at the expense of its previous audience. When people talk about broadening an audience as a bad thing in gaming it's because it only seems to be used for sequels and only when said sequel will depart from the typical makeup of the previous games in favour of being more generic, for example Dead Space 3.

I'm not saying it's always a bad thing for a game to aim to appeal to more people however when a game already has a core audience that it knows enjoys the franchise as it is there's no quality based reason to suddeny cater to the masses instead, all it does is potentially increase the income of new releases. Sometimes a first entry might not get a particularly big audience to the point that it's in danger of dying out, in those circumstances it makes sense to try and fix whatever has put the majority of other gamers off. If, on the other hand, said franchise has its own "flavour" so to speak and is still pulling in steady profits the only reason to ditch the best, most unique aspects of the game is sheer greed.

Very good points. I think what I was trying to get across was the way that sometimes it can take a slightly more familiar version of something to ease you into the deep end. I understand that when a game is made with a democratic decision making process that builds on safe bets and base rates from the accounts department, you do get diluted fluffy content.

I guess the whole argument can be pin pointed at the threshold of where changes to a franchise are either ironing out the clunky bits or paying a disservice to the material.

To clarify, what I meant with Zelda and the music examples was I probably wouldn't have exhibited a further interest in the series, had I not played these far more successful and accessible instances of work.

I can't help but think that the people making these kind of decisions really believe they are doing the right thing for the game. I don't think all of them are cynical business types with dollar signs for eyes. I think they are far too disconnected to what they are working on and what it really needs. I happen to work with a particular company that has this problem and the problem comes from a fundamental disagreement with the guys who have to please the investors and the guys who write, code and provide art for the game.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Heh, I feel honored that my inane ramblings actually inspired something productive like a thread.

Having read you post, I actually see your point and agree to a certain extent. I have had the experience myself of getting into something because of the accessible version of whatever that thing was.

I think it's important to have a bit of a balance. Getting more people into a certain genre or movie studio and whatnot is great, but do it too many times and things just get more and more watered down.

I think it's also important to stay roughly inside the theme of whatever the less accessible thing was. A horror series for example could certainly cater to broader tastes, but it should do so be expanding the horror elements rather than, say, ditching all the horror in favor of being a shooter because lots of people like shooters.

snip

This would be a decent point if game budgets weren't hilariously inflated specifically BECAUSE they try to cram so much crap in to make games appeal to more people.

 

[Callate]

The thing is, too often it's a marketing phrase that reads as "'X' is the game of the moment; therefore, we're turning our previously decent- but modest- selling series into 'x', in as far as that is possible." Dead Space 3 comes to mind-- as does nearly any single-player game that had resources torn away in development in order to add a multiplayer mode that almost no one actually played. "Broadening" is one of those phrases that sounds good, much like "bringing freedom" sounds better than "killing people" and "extended vacation to relieve exhaustion" sounds better than "dragging oneself to rehab until the needle marks go away."

There are times when real broadening can be a good thing, but it pretty much has to come from the creative side, rather than the marketing side or on high from management. If developers says "we could expand our core idea to be more", that can work. Even "Hey, this other game has a mechanic that is a perfect fit" can work out. It's when the game ends up saying "We're going to relegate everything that worked into this one tiny section because we have more faith in [being a pale copy of] this AAA franchise than we do in our own identity" that things tend to go sour.

 

[Zen Bard]

This phrase gives me cold sweats and a "Fable" flashbacks.

"Fable", for its time, for a pretty solid action RPG that delivered on most of the over-hyped Peter Molyneux promises. It was a good game but we all agreed (Molyneux included) that some aspects definitely needed some tuning.

With "Fable II", instead of addressing the shortcomings of the previous game, our pal Pete effectively stripped out everything that was challenging and enjoyable about the game in the name of "broadening the audience".

And don't even get me started on "Fable III"!

Basically, the challenge of the gaming industry is to make their games more accessible without sacrificing the integrity of the game.

It's that last part they seem to struggle with.

Okay...I'm off my soapbox now.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Is it easy to differentiate attempts at broad appeal with actual broad appeal?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Is it easy to differentiate attempts at broad appeal with actual broad appeal?

Aye.

Though, given sufficient popularity anything will be copied and run into the dirt in the name of "broadening appeal".
Fortunately, "Broad appeal" changes over time as people start to tire of the same old shit.

The suits think they can capitalize on trends indefinitely or analyze their way into the best money-making product on the market. Sometimes it works (Call of Duty 4.x), but sometimes it ends in weeping hilarity like the FMV video craze, or Square-Enix's stubborn arrogant attempts at replacing gameplay entirely with shiny graphics and hack writing.

But everything has a shelf life; including trends.
If AAA tries and force the market to accept stagnation forever, it's going to receive a rude awakening; one that many believe is well overdue.

 

[gamer_parent]

ITT: people who want AAA budget games, but don't want to pay more for it, and doesn't want it to appeal to more people.

As a consumer, I'm not part of some aggregate or collective. I want AAA games that appeal to me, and I'm never going to apologize for that. If they aren't financially viable, I'll settle for AA. If those aren't in the cards, I'll go ahead and play the low-budget indies. And if those dry up? I'll play the classics. It's not my job to support this industry despite my personal tastes. If they don't cater to me, my money goes elsewhere. The free market cuts both ways, right?

In all businesses, the name of the game is margin. If you can't get your distribution numbers up to break even, then you need to find ways to do things with less money, which is REALLY hard to do with AAA games like Dark Souls.

Dark Souls is kind of a counterpoint in this argument. It sold well (2.3 million units across all platforms, to this point) but not CoD-well, and that's okay because it didn't cost a fortune (relatively speaking) to make, market, and distribute. It's not a AAA game with a runaway budget that needs to crack five million in sales to justify a sequel. It was a laser-focused production that targeted a niche audience and delivered. That's why I bought it twice and played it more than any other game last year. Dark Souls is exactly the sort of game I want to see from this industry moving forward.

i.e. a single AAA title costs around what, 30 million to make and distribute? So that means at 60 USD a pop, you're looking at least 500K in sales to break even. For reference, Total War: Rome 2 sold 800K copies, and Street Fighter 4 sold 1.5 million copies. It's not exactly a trivial task. Keep in mind, this is just to break even.

When people hate on the concept of "broadening the audience", others frequently frame it as entitled whining. Why can't it just be consumers flexing their wallet muscles to bring about desired changes to their preferred hobby? If enough people grow wary of sequels that "broaden the audience", if enough games like Dead Space 3 and Resident Evil 6 crash and burn, maybe publishers will learn that they can't count on repeat buyers without delivering the goods that brought those consumers to the table in the first place.

I don't mean to be confrontational here, but there seems to be this underlying conceit that we absolutely need video games and we're stuck with whatever the publishers decide is best for their own bottom lines. I reject that idea. The market forces are obviously powerful and extremely influential, but that's what makes this kind of push-back so important. If we're not standing up and telling them what we want, and putting our money where our mouths are on a regular basis (or deflating bad sequels before they even get off the ground), we will end up with the video game industry we deserve. Good thing I can always walk away from it, though. Lots to do and see.

Oh no worries man. This is precisely the kind of responses I am hoping for, since it spurs discussion. I'll field both yours and STSC's post in one go

This would be a decent point if game budgets weren't hilariously inflated specifically BECAUSE they try to cram so much crap in to make games appeal to more people.

Now here's the bottom line for me: it is not wrong to vote with your wallet, and buy what you like. That is 100% fine. The consumer is right to make that decision.

My grief is when people come out and say stuff like "casuals are ruining the industry" because a company wants to shoot for a wider audience. I also wanted to offer up a perspective on how a company might think about this problem.

To be frank, you're 100% right that if a company wants to pursue a niche market, then they need to be prepared to do really good budget controls, or even cede the idea of doing AAA title, because the market just can't support the product with that kind of budget. That is a completely valid thing to say, and something I think more companies should do more of.

However, the gaming market has now split into two kinds of basic product: experiential games and thoughtful games. i.e. the difference between Dwarven Fortress and ICO. One game is all about the visceral appeal and the emotional resonance it brings. The other is more about planning, execution, and stratification of resources. All games sit on that spectrum somewhere in the end. Games like CoD, which are more on the experiential end, tend to be more expensive as more needs to go into the various asset pieces, which tends to be one of the biggest drivers of cost.

So this means that if gaming companies want to hedge their risks, and make smaller productions, they need to either cut content, or cut polish. In either case, that's a difficult choice to make.

Star Citizen, in this case, is using a model that is bucking this trend. The guy is really making one MASSIVE game, but what he is doing is splitting the game into disparate sections based on activity, and then making each part separately, and monetizing each separately, but also tying each game together in the middle. This way, the games can still play together, but the rollout is not handled as one gigantic investment, which makes it a safer investment.

I'm making a prediction now, that in 5 years, ALL studios will be doing their development in this method to control risks.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Doesn't it usually mean removing the element(s) that makes the IP engaging to it's fanbase in the first place, in the hope that blandificating (now a word) it will lower the barrier of entry enough to encourage more sales?

Meaning nuanced cult film series become bland genre films and games with mechanics that require mastery get auto-jump-correcting-features and QTE's in place of actual combat mechanics.

I never want to hear the phrase uttered about a coming installment in a game series that's dear to me.

 

[Vor Yang]

The one thing that I will never understand about the whole "broaden the audience" thing is that, if said game has sold well enough to have a sequel made, why the hell does it have to appeal to more people? To me it basically comes across as a screw you to the fans of the original and a piss poor excuse along the lines of "This game sold well therefore we shall milk it of every last cent" At least that's the way it seems to be these days.

 

[Flutterguy]

My inner accountant child is really sad the new Elder Scrolls game doesn't have a character stat system as hard to learn as Autocad. Having to level only certain major and minor stats in unison that allowed for 3 +5 stat boosts every level made me feel like a damn wizard. Having the full paper map sprawled before me with notes showing master trainer locations and ingredients combinations for the best potions... Come to think of it I can see why they dumbed it down so much. I really wish they gave an 'oldschool' option for Skyrim, Oblivion and any future games... I'll just have to live with my Morrowind running with over 100 mods and crashing every hour. /sigh

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

My grief is when people come out and say stuff like "casuals are ruining the industry" because a company wants to shoot for a wider audience. I also wanted to offer up a perspective on how a company might think about this problem.

I'm kind of split on this. I mean it's pretty silly to accuse other consumers of ruining an industry because their choices and preferences don't align with your own. Let them have their games while you focus on the devs who cater to your tastes. Everyone wins, right?

Unfortunately, this is almost never how it goes down. Instead, publishers co-opt the games and genres that we love in order to tap additional markets while still carrying those previous demographics (us) through (what amounts to) sheer dishonesty. They take something like a survival horror game and inject it with a bunch of space marine run-and-gun bullshit (including multiplayer). The goal is to sell to that CoD crowd while keeping all of the previous fans (aka suckers) on board.

Saying "the casuals are ruining things" is misguided but indirectly true. Their existence as a lucrative growth market is what temps publishers to constantly "pull a fast one" on the gamers who supported their previous projects and contributed to their initial success. We should be directing our anger at the publishers, of course, and doing whatever we can to make them understand that the whole "broadening the audience" bit only works if we continue to fall for it.

I guess it's a matter of context and/or reading between the lines. When someone gets mad at casuals, I don't always feel like he/she is literally mad at those specific people. He/she is usually just frustrated with the circumstances leading to the diminishing stature of his/her preferred games.

 

[Stephen St.]

I guess the thing with broadening the audience is - you can't. You can change your audience, and that is what mostly pisses people off.

Having a broad appeal comes from being a quality game - in your specific niche. If you are a (admittedly not hardcore) survival horror game like DS1, the only way to "broaden" your audience is make another survival horror game, but better. What people mean when they say "broadening the audience" means switching the niche, for example, to a scary shooter with RPG/survival elements. That is what DS3 (which I consider a great Co-Op game by itself) was. The fact that some people who play survival horror games also play scary shooters doesn't mean you have broadened your audience. It just means that the new audience you switched to also has some of the same people in it.

It sounds like splitting hairs, but it's the problem with the phrase: "Broadening" implies that things get added, not lost. But what happens is that the entire old audience is "lost". If you were in that audience, but are not by chance also in the new audience, that means the game is dead to you. Nothing has been "broadened" from your perspective.

For me, DS3 was good because I happened to be in the audience that also likes a good Co-Op shooter. By comparison, the recent switch from X3 Albion Prelude to X-Rebirth killed the franchise to me, because I am in the "complex space sim" audience, but not in the "Action shooter in space" audience.

 

[Signa]

The fact that a game series is getting sequels means that the original fan base was more than happy to buy your game to the point you made a profit and are willing to do it again. Dont piss them off or fuck with them to try to draw in others.

I think you said something critical here, but fell just short. Fixed it for you.