Its not so much the marketing campaign or if it affects sales, its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself. Fake religious protestors, the supposedly real and upset mothers viewing the game's content, these are the negative points that point to a fundamentally flawed marketing scheme. You dont move your product by harping on the bad so kids will buy it just so they (and their hundreds of friends) can say they were being rebelious or anti-authoritive. To maximise sales you appeal to the largest and broadest range you can. This is what EA hasnt done.The3rdEye said:Not necessarily. People have been complaining about the supposedly harmful effects of videogames for quite some time, but overall distribution and development have emerged unscathed. While I do see merit in trying to maintain a certain quality of image and professionalism, what I don't see is legitimate and diplomatic reasoning for attacking videogames in the first place. The comparison has been made thousands of times before: Games are the new rock music, which were the new movies, which were the new books, which were... There are elements of society that just need to wail on an aspect of society, the less that's known about that aspect the easier it is for them to rationalize.
Do I think some of EA's advertising campaigns are in bad taste? You bet. Do I think it's a problem? No. People are still enjoying their ads and using their ads as prompting to buy EA games. There are plenty of companies with commercials that fall under my own perceptions of "poor taste", but as long as they sell the product they're successful and continue. EA's not stupid, if the DS2 campaign had failed to bring in scores of purchases, they would have to rethink the campaign. It sucks to have that image attached to a company you want to respect, but if they're still making money then...
Perhaps some of us are looking at this whole scheme through rose coloured glasses, not too long ago when I was in the target demographic of 15-25s, the prefered method of advertising was "Sex Sells". The same moral outrage over games was there, just in a different direction. Dead or Alive and Tomb Raider both drew fire for "oversexualised" (concerning DoA's physics, maybe there is some truth to it) depections of women.Loonerinoes said:And you'd be surprised as to what misconceptions people have about bad press. Heck, the most samey and unimaginative games ever to exist have gotten blasted several times over for pandering to the easiest audiences, you think people care? Hell no! So long as the game can work decently enough and fulfills that one thing you're after, they couldn't care less and sales are affected sooner by the *quantity* rather than the *quality* of the press.
Not to say that if multiple gaming press stations simultaneously cried foul, then the publishers and developers still wouldn't notice. But if you think that there is that one *special* reviewer who can make all the difference...you are dead wrong. I particularly got a foul taste in my mouth when MovieBob recently harped on how his and the EC and ZP reviews 'don't let them get away with mediocrity' - NEWSFLASH! You are not that important! All they do is provide criticism that may or may not be ignored. And maybe...just maybe, if you're extremely lucky, they'll actually contribute to a general outcry of multiple critics and reviewers that will finally pierce the ivory towers of the publishers (them moreso than the developers).
What EA was trying to do essentially seems to me that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. As one poster pointed out, they have the Taliban named there long enough for the first wave of gamers to go "Fuck yeah!" but then swiftly back off when the Army comes calling, knowing that most gamers will not check the follow-up stories to the original Taliban announcement while still appearing 'reasonable' to those that opposed this move of theirs. Now...dishonest this might be in a big way and to critical appearances, this strategy is failing hard, though who knows...perhaps they have different consumer numbers that actually make them think something else. I know that what they do (as the 2nd largest publisher) ultimately affects the entire community and yes, I would truly TRULY love it if I woke up one day to see them reverting back to their original statement as read at the end of this week's EC.
I just think that this will never, EVER happen. And if it does, you can be pretty sure that critics and reviewers, no matter how incisive or worth listening to, will not be the ones to galvanize its beginning. Only the publishers and developers themselves can start that (again, publishers moreso), but frankly...the world of money is a very stale place where shining ideas are *always* given a 2nd place to the same, boring, repetitive approaches, that guarantee more money being made.
In this case EA marketing seems content to stick to pandering games not as art but as teenage chattel. Wether it is actually working for them is, I suppose, up to debate and yes - personally I would like to see them change this strategy. But the fact is that it's easier to buy out another studio and then fire the talent only so that you can claim the IPs that come with it, for example. Far easier than it is to actually bother trying to create something new or from scratch, like actually funding the training of a new studio with fresh talent for example. A shame, since EA is probably one of the few that could actually afford to take that risk - but as always, the bigger the business company is, the less likely it is to take risk for the fear that its $$$ will plummet.
And as of right now, marketing games as for hormonal teenagers is the 'tried and true' method. Wether the times have genuinely changed enough for it to not work anymore, however, only time can tell. Not us, who bang away at our keyboards in order to delude ourselves into thinking that words can actually change things. They rarely do and when delivered across the internet you can be certain that the chances drop down to a 1 in a million. But if you feel like you need to comfort your ego by thinking, that words typed or spoken across the internet actually matter that much or that a massive press barrage will in fact change the ways in which money is being made in this industry...go right ahead. Delusion is, after all, humanity's most favourite pastime I suppose.
dogstile said:One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.
Ok, but do you know why company's follow others? Because it makes money. If it makes money then doesn't that, by its own merit, mean that /that/ right there is what people want?bushwhacker2k said:dogstile said:One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.... I believe you are mistaken.
Every company that pulls these big over-the-top schemes because it 'sounded good at the time' damages the industry somewhat. World of Warcraft is a great game, but its monumental success has brought many other companies to the conclusion that making a game just like it is the way to bring in the dough. I don't know what company did it (though maybe several did) but the same thing seems to have happened with FPSs(and I'm not saying FPSs are bad, just uninspired and getting generic). I would also like to add I respect Halo(for example for FPSs) and WoW, as both are great games IMO.
Those examples are differing from the particular point of this video, I'll get back to that now.
Things like this are what make people think video games are bad influences and unsuitable for children (though generally those are rated M, but since when has that argument worked?). It's because of thoughtless marketing like this that people launch entire crusades against the gaming industry. Maybe you're right, one company wouldn't cause that, but even if 5 companies did the same thing, could they all just blame each other? I think not, responsibility has to be taken for one's own actions.
I really do hope EA is learning from this, in a good way. >:|
Really? The second line of the original article is:008Zulu said:Its not so much the marketing campaign or if it affects sales,
Be it the perceived morality or consequences, it is the ads we're talking about here. It can be argued that I'm mincing words, but my point is that this should be treated as a broad and sweeping mechanical process, rather than one specific liberty taken on the publisher's part.008Zulu said:You dont think that prolonged negative campaigning that EA is currently using wont have an adverse affect? You'd be surprised what can happen if enough people complain.
I did originally state that I don't personally agree with their methods, but you seem to be under the false impression that marketing has anything to do with morality. Succinctly stated, marketing is the sum of actions taken in transferring goods or services from the seller to the buyer. When your game reaches 2 million units sold in less than two weeks, it's a pretty fair indicator of a positive reaction to your methods. (Of course at the same time in situations like this, differentiating between units sold as a result of commercials/ads and units sold based on product quality is sticky business at best)008Zulu said:its the direction and tactics used during the advertising itself. Fake religious protestors, the supposedly real and upset mothers viewing the game's content, these are the negative points that point to a fundamentally flawed marketing scheme. You dont move your product by harping on the bad so kids will buy it just so they (and their hundreds of friends) can say they were being rebelious or anti-authoritive.
Many of the responses I've seen in this thread so far erroneously equate their own personal opinion or "buy/no buy" action with the public at large. Appealing to a large audience is all well and good, but it's only useful to a company if008Zulu said:To maximise sales you appeal to the largest and broadest range you can. This is what EA hasnt done.
Your joking right? 2 million copies is nothing for EA on a big budget title like medal of honor.The3rdEye said:2 million units says they were right, it really is that simple.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Medal of Honor barely broke the 1 million unit mark in it's first two weeks worldwide, so you say that the marketing was poor. I don't agree or disagree with you, but when one considers that Gears of War 2, a rather successful (?) and well financed (?) title has an opening two week sales of 2.5 million, that should indicate that Dead Space 2, who is enjoying similar numbers can be considered a success as well, doesn't it?jp201 said:You're joking right? 2 million copies is nothing for EA on a big budget title like medal of honor.The3rdEye said:2 million units says they were right, it really is that simple.
Medal of Honor should have been able to sell much more and shows that the marketing was not good enough.
That's probably true, I believe we DO need to make them understand that our demographic isn't the kind that corrupts children. On the other hand I STILL think gaming as a whole should be more mature. I've stated before (in other threads) that the group that annoys me the most is the group that sees the generic/overused/immature things and approves of them.dogstile said:Ok, but do you know why company's follow others? Because it makes money. If it makes money then doesn't that, by its own merit, mean that /that/ right there is what people want?bushwhacker2k said:dogstile said:One company isn't going to damage an entire industry, so please, everyone. Stop overreacting.... I believe you are mistaken.
Every company that pulls these big over-the-top schemes because it 'sounded good at the time' damages the industry somewhat. World of Warcraft is a great game, but its monumental success has brought many other companies to the conclusion that making a game just like it is the way to bring in the dough. I don't know what company did it (though maybe several did) but the same thing seems to have happened with FPSs(and I'm not saying FPSs are bad, just uninspired and getting generic). I would also like to add I respect Halo(for example for FPSs) and WoW, as both are great games IMO.
Those examples are differing from the particular point of this video, I'll get back to that now.
Things like this are what make people think video games are bad influences and unsuitable for children (though generally those are rated M, but since when has that argument worked?). It's because of thoughtless marketing like this that people launch entire crusades against the gaming industry. Maybe you're right, one company wouldn't cause that, but even if 5 companies did the same thing, could they all just blame each other? I think not, responsibility has to be taken for one's own actions.
I really do hope EA is learning from this, in a good way. >:|
I have an issue with a website trying to make a company stop catering to a demographic of immature (immature, not underage, please don't mix that up) people simply because they think it hurts the image. Why should we stop ourselves from having fun if other people disapprove? We're knowingly censoring our own industry, just to try and prove that we can be more than immature gamers.
I understand that, I really do, but the entire industry is not immature, it just has immature examples of games. If we want to be taken more seriously, then we need to educate the people who have the perception that gaming is evil, not bend to their ideals of "what's correct".
That's the best way to do it, but your still one out of millions of people who might or might not do the same.Atmos Duality said:The most sensible way to defeat a senseless ad-campaign: ignore it.
The most sensible way to protest a corporation you don't agree with: Don't do business with them.