Kinect Is Not For You
- Thread starter J.P. Sherman
- Start date
I'm not getting kinect to game, I am geting it to video chat with friends and browse through the menus better.They will likely update the dashboard too to suit it, so that will be fun.
um...maybe its not for core gamers cause...it wasn't built for them but casuals?
I find it funny how supposed ""core"" gamers actually think they dictate video game trends and such...they don't...Casuals have controlled the industry since the begining, what sells wins..casuals outnumber core gamers 2000/1 once you learn that you'll live much happier.
Kinect is meant for casuals the market that the Wii is capturing..not for ""core gamers""
this is quite a bad article First person marketer and its the first I've read of yours..not a good sign.
I find it funny how supposed ""core"" gamers actually think they dictate video game trends and such...they don't...Casuals have controlled the industry since the begining, what sells wins..casuals outnumber core gamers 2000/1 once you learn that you'll live much happier.
Kinect is meant for casuals the market that the Wii is capturing..not for ""core gamers""
this is quite a bad article First person marketer and its the first I've read of yours..not a good sign.
Badger Kyre, I don't disagree with you. And, to answer your question, no. I'm not a marketer I'm just a biologistBadger Kyre said:With respect, Mr Dolphin, I would be leery about telling a professional marketer his business, unless you are one as well.craigdolphin said:
And for all I know, you are.
However - as much as his column seems to anger people I personally find this column interesting, and I hear a great similarity between what he is saying and for example, what "MovieBob" says about the movie industry, what some of my musician friends complain about, and what "gamers" have always said, to be honest.
Did you perhaps read Shamus's Xcom piece? Why are they using that IP, to get the 14 people who remember it?
If that fails to illustrate, I can clearly remember when if anyone would have said "Core Gamer" that meant the people that still owned "Blackmoor" and the original "Deities and Demigods" complaining that the bought-out TSR was screwing them by marketing their beloved game to the infantile "comic book" demographic - even made a cartoon and a new, less dark, more kid-friendly world called "forgotten realms"... and dragonlance.
Watering it down, they said. And sure, but the truth was, that market was FAR LARGER. No one CARED that the original "core" demographic was left behind, it was business.
The "core" audience for the computer games such as Xcom or "the gold box series" barely count as a NICHE to modern game sales. Has the audience for such games increased by? what? 100 fold?
Hell no. Games sell more because they made them ACCESSIBLE to a larger audience.
Almost no music I really like has ever been played on the radio, but the watered-down bands they influenced are.
Almost every movie i really like loses money...
TV shows I like have to be on obscure networks, and could be out-ratings-edby any cheesy reality show.
Big companies don't make music, games, movies, or books - or anything else unless there is an audience,
and the way i see it, the current "core" gamers, who don't recall when things were watered down to include THEIR demographic, are now seeing what it is like when games, etc are no longer made for THEIR demographic.
There's a larger, more important market. BE prepared to become even more niche.
And to respond to Mr Penguin - in my (admittedly limited )experience, it is actually pretty difficult, generally, to market something - any product - to both a "mainstream" market and a niche or "hardcore" audience simultaneously.
Surely we have all seen idiocracy?
Perhaps because I have scientific training, I've learned to question assumptions in order to learn. Which is why I asked the author to provide some justification for the paradigm he's operating under. It just doesn't make sense to me that it should be an either-or situation. I understand that the marketing focus of companies will always be to target demographics with the best growth potential. My point was that it doesn't have to be this 'either/or' paradigm as espoused by the article. It can be both. And in this case, I think it /should/ be both. My argument is not a complaint about being considered 'niche', it is an opinion that the marketing strategy is wrong to focus myopically on only the non-core 'potential customers' to the exclusion of the large and still lucrative 'niche' of core gamers.
For example, if M$ wants to sell kinect units then it has two ways to do this.
The first is to sell them separately as add-ons for people who already have an XBox 360. The additional cost to those customers will be a certain dollar value. These are most likely to be the 'core' gamers as outlined by the author.
The second way is to sell bundled xbox/kinect to people who don't have the console yet. These are most likely to be the non-core gamers as explained in the article. The dollar cost of the bundle is going to be /higher/ than the standalone cost of the kinect.
Now, to my way of thinking, the original cost of the console for gamers who already have an xbox 360 is irrelevant to the question as to whether they buy the kinect add-on later on.
So, you have a large install base of 'core gamers' with a comparatively /cheaper/ path to getting a kinect, and you have a /potentially/ larger set of non-core gamers who face a more expensive path to buying a kinect enabled console. Add in to this the fact that attach rates for core consoles (Xbox and Ps3) are vastly higher than for the non-core console (Wii), which means that each 'core' customer equates to more game sales than an equivalent non-core gamer. And cost is a well accepted barrier to purchasing decisions.
Putting it together, it seems to me that M$ should be marketing to BOTH core and non-core demographics but with different messages and delivered via media outlets that target core, or non-core, audiences as appropriate.
Now, if I'm wrong then so be it. But I'd like to hear from the marketer WHY I'm wrong and what data he has to support his contention. I can be objective about it and accept a well-supported contrary position. But one thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of well-controlled empirical data being presented by marketing types to support their 'theories' publicly.
craigdolphin said:
Its rather simple, kinect is being talked about on the 6 o'clock news and being written about in the newspapers as a casual game system. Its being advertised on main stream TV in prime time as a casual games system. All places where the hardcore see it as well as everyone else. Large chunks of the hardcore gamers being somewhat self regarding and with unbridled levels of venom for anything that they don't like will it hate on sight.
I think basically by saying "I'm a professional marketer" he is talking to an audience "as an expert" ( pedant ) to a non-expert audience.craigdolphin said:
And you're right, he doesn't 'show his work', so to speak. On the other hand, I don't think MOST of the readership here would have appreciated it much if he had.
I don't know this fella or his research or methodology, but marketing involves pretty well researched sociology, etc in most cases. Your point of not knowing if he's using such methods is valid, but I hope you will see my point is valid, too - if you were speaking about biology to a non-biologist, you might not feel you have to "convince" someone outside your field, you are speaking and they can listen or not.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you.
Please also understand, I was not referring to YOUR objections to the article, but "much" of the anger in the responses ( and something I see in a lot of related pieces ) - and i think the author himself may be one of the people i mean, who are suddenly keenly aware that they are no longer the target demographic things are made for.
My illustrations of self were to illustrate why I'm USED to it, but I think you'll agree, alot of the people who seem shocked/ complaining/etc, obviously AREN'T used to not being the center of the marketing target.
I should have split those points more clearly in regards to your point.
I don't think you're wrong at all, I think they COULD.
I THINK that the market they are going after is so large and (hopefully ) lucrative they just don't CARE to.
Nintendo didn't care one WHIT about making games for fans of "gold box" etc, "back in the day", and IIRC, that was mor eor less why 'Final Fantasy' was amde in the first place, I believe the fellow believed marketing was going to kill RPG's as he loved them.
I also suspect , and perhaps this is more the point, that they want to avoid the "stigma" of GAMER for fear of scaring off the larger market - similar to Yahtzee's gamer post.
I'm not a games marketer but am a marketer for another type of business. It's a basic belief for me in marketing that you avoid mixed messages for the same audience (well it's the way I see the best results).
Segmenting audiences and marketing messaging is not an exact science (lots of variables with secondary effects, look at New Coke). Marketing to hardcore gamers and casual gamers would appear to be considered mutually exclusive marketing, at least this is an idea I subscribe to. The reason being is that both audiences overlap in some forms of communication (tv, main stream pr, billboards etc...). You would have to somehow have to tailor an attractive message that appeals to both audiences without alienating another audience for these forms of communication. Remember it is rare that anyone just consumes only one form of communication.
Being tailored towards the core audience puts off parents and family gaming because of the violent perception (whether right or wrong). Marketing to the casual audience brings the ire the core community as the games feel too simple and appears as shovelware (again whether right of wrong).
If anyone manages to find the middle ground that brings in better results than going for a single audience, they have found the silver bullet all marketers would love to get a hold of.
Segmenting audiences and marketing messaging is not an exact science (lots of variables with secondary effects, look at New Coke). Marketing to hardcore gamers and casual gamers would appear to be considered mutually exclusive marketing, at least this is an idea I subscribe to. The reason being is that both audiences overlap in some forms of communication (tv, main stream pr, billboards etc...). You would have to somehow have to tailor an attractive message that appeals to both audiences without alienating another audience for these forms of communication. Remember it is rare that anyone just consumes only one form of communication.
Being tailored towards the core audience puts off parents and family gaming because of the violent perception (whether right or wrong). Marketing to the casual audience brings the ire the core community as the games feel too simple and appears as shovelware (again whether right of wrong).
If anyone manages to find the middle ground that brings in better results than going for a single audience, they have found the silver bullet all marketers would love to get a hold of.
Here's the thing, though. The resources that MS and Sony are putting towards Kinect and Move are resources that are not going towards making games that the core audience wants, so there's a reason for us to be concerned. Further, they could overplay their hand to such a degree that they'll actively harm the future of both consoles in their misguided attempt to copy the Wii.
It would be like my favorite hard sci-fi writer deciding to write schlocky romantic modern fantasy because that's what sells, and telling me I shouldn't care because it's not for me, but I do care because it means he's writing that rather than what I want him to write. I know authors are one person and companies can keep more balls in the air, but you're still dealing with limited time and money.
It would be like my favorite hard sci-fi writer deciding to write schlocky romantic modern fantasy because that's what sells, and telling me I shouldn't care because it's not for me, but I do care because it means he's writing that rather than what I want him to write. I know authors are one person and companies can keep more balls in the air, but you're still dealing with limited time and money.
Sorry to beat the same drum as Yahtzee a few days ago but pretty much every mention of the word "gamer" in this article made my skin crawl. I match every part of the description of "gamer" except for the part where I call myself that, and possibly the bit where I identify as part of a 'subculture'. I'm not going to bother making the argument because it's all in this week's XP if you haven't read it (and if you haven't, you should), but I am going to make a point of complaining about particularly flagrant abuse of the term like in this article.
@albino boo...um, go for the eyes!!!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself, BG was a great game.)
@Badger, fair enough. Although I always have my 'work' on-hand whenever I do a presentation to non-biologists in case more details are required.
@Arkanza: thanks for the reply and for your perspective as a marketer.
I think that core gamers are media-savvy enough to not be bothered by 'non-core-focused' marketing that they inadvertantly may encounter provided that there's some media message that they can connect with. If such were available, then I think that core-gamer anger would subside. The question is really whether the existence of core-gamer-focused marketing, delivered via core-gamer-specific media outlets, would result in a case of non-core customer aversion at levels that would exceed sales lost to core gamers (due to the lack of that kind of marketing), and also factoring in the extra cost to produce the extra campaign.
That's a question obviously we can't answer. But I would submit that most non-core gamers do not regularly visit gamer-centric sites, like this one, and that I think any collateral confusion would be relatively minor. But I'm the first to admit that's simply my opinion, not a fact.
I would be fascinated to see the chain of thought/numbers used by M$ to arrive at this decision they've arrived at.
@Badger, fair enough. Although I always have my 'work' on-hand whenever I do a presentation to non-biologists in case more details are required.
@Arkanza: thanks for the reply and for your perspective as a marketer.
I think that core gamers are media-savvy enough to not be bothered by 'non-core-focused' marketing that they inadvertantly may encounter provided that there's some media message that they can connect with. If such were available, then I think that core-gamer anger would subside. The question is really whether the existence of core-gamer-focused marketing, delivered via core-gamer-specific media outlets, would result in a case of non-core customer aversion at levels that would exceed sales lost to core gamers (due to the lack of that kind of marketing), and also factoring in the extra cost to produce the extra campaign.
That's a question obviously we can't answer. But I would submit that most non-core gamers do not regularly visit gamer-centric sites, like this one, and that I think any collateral confusion would be relatively minor. But I'm the first to admit that's simply my opinion, not a fact.
I would be fascinated to see the chain of thought/numbers used by M$ to arrive at this decision they've arrived at.
I agree on the above in most respects. I suspect Nintendo focused on the the core gaming media for it's core games (zelda, metroid, mario galaxy to some extent) and sony focused on the causal market for its littlebigplanet marketing campaign (tv, mass media etc...).craigdolphin said:@albino boo...um, go for the eyes!!!! (Sorry, couldn't help myself, BG was a great game.)
@Badger, fair enough. Although I always have my 'work' on-hand whenever I do a presentation to non-biologists in case more details are required.
@Arkanza: thanks for the reply and for your perspective as a marketer.
I think that core gamers are media-savvy enough to not be bothered by 'non-core-focused' marketing that they inadvertantly may encounter provided that there's some media message that they can connect with. If such were available, then I think that core-gamer anger would subside. The question is really whether the existence of core-gamer-focused marketing, delivered via core-gamer-specific media outlets, would result in a case of non-core customer aversion at levels that would exceed sales lost to core gamers (due to the lack of that kind of marketing), and also factoring in the extra cost to produce the extra campaign.
That's a question obviously we can't answer. But I would submit that most non-core gamers do not regularly visit gamer-centric sites, like this one, and that I think any collateral confusion would be relatively minor. But I'm the first to admit that's simply my opinion, not a fact.
I would be fascinated to see the chain of thought/numbers used by M$ to arrive at this decision they've arrived at.
What seems apparent to Sony and Microsoft at this point is that the casual market seems to be a lucrative option for consoles (based on the fact they both seem to moving into this market).
In terms of whether it is worth putting money into very targeted marketing in gaming media without being to accurately measurable results, well without working in the industry I don't know the returns. Also whether marketing for the majority of games, marketing will be done by publishers/studios (or more likely an agency), they generally tie their marketing to the brand of the console, hence the lack of core marketing for Nintendo's Wii.
Microsoft may be able to pull Kinect off but it's a very high risk strategy in my opinion and they don't seem to be doing themselves many favours at the moment (the price seems astronomically out of sync).
Last note, you mention about gamers being media savy. Marketing communications isn't about going after individuals (though I note there are exceptions to this), it's about going for audiences with similar characteristics/interests. Though a person may be media-savy a crowd/group rarely follow the same logic and marketers will use a variety of methods to get results (always using positive words, always alluding to a possible problem that may have a solution, where to place a banner on an email). All these methods only have varying and minor effects on different people but I would be surprised if when combined anyone could identify every method used (I know I can't).
Marketers, as per the first article, are in many ways there to manipulate but they are also often the link between someone wanting something and someone providing something to satisfy the want. People won't buy what they don't want.
Last aside, on the gamer discussion going on. In terms of marketing I would be surprised if my profession hasn't come up for a label for every type of audience (gamer, driver, activist, toast eater, milk drinker, etc...), that fact that gamer has become a label, well it makes identifying people's interests a lot easier. This does means in theory marketing campaigns should be better targeted and received, though this is of course not always the case.
Oh well wrote far more than I meant to here!
Rememeber back in the 90's, when no one in games journalism ever looked into the business side of games and peripherals, it was all about what the audience liked and we knew what we liked.
No offence to JP Sherman, he is doing a great job for a job that IS needed now but I have to ask the wider industry... why is his job needed now? Why do we core gamers need to have an expert explain to us that we are not important, that is it the feckless soccer moms and ostensibly non-gamers who are the key to success for their beloved gaming platform.
I mean it's not like this core market hasn't been pulling it's weight. The cost of core games has shot up this generation from $40-50 to $60+ (and taking a long time to drop in price) plus lots of expensive DLC often just to see the endings of games. And these games have been selling like crazy, Modern Warfare 2 was such an incredible smash hit on consoles earning BILLIONS!
By Kinect being a peripheral for Xbox 360 this marginalises the Xbox 360's purpose and market.
IF Microsoft are trying to answer the Wii, which is selling to a brand new audience, why not make Kinect a brand new stand-alone console which CAN be a peripheral to an Xbox 360? You know, it has it's own CPU and GPU with a hard drive for downloadable game data so you can plug it into power and then DIRECTLY to a TV to use it as it is... but with basic Wii graphics.
As it is the Kinect + Xbox partnership is schizophrenic, but it could have been for Kinect audiences that the Xbox 360 is the upgrade with more powerful processing ability and addition of a disc-drive too. Kinect would also be
No offence to JP Sherman, he is doing a great job for a job that IS needed now but I have to ask the wider industry... why is his job needed now? Why do we core gamers need to have an expert explain to us that we are not important, that is it the feckless soccer moms and ostensibly non-gamers who are the key to success for their beloved gaming platform.
I mean it's not like this core market hasn't been pulling it's weight. The cost of core games has shot up this generation from $40-50 to $60+ (and taking a long time to drop in price) plus lots of expensive DLC often just to see the endings of games. And these games have been selling like crazy, Modern Warfare 2 was such an incredible smash hit on consoles earning BILLIONS!
By Kinect being a peripheral for Xbox 360 this marginalises the Xbox 360's purpose and market.
IF Microsoft are trying to answer the Wii, which is selling to a brand new audience, why not make Kinect a brand new stand-alone console which CAN be a peripheral to an Xbox 360? You know, it has it's own CPU and GPU with a hard drive for downloadable game data so you can plug it into power and then DIRECTLY to a TV to use it as it is... but with basic Wii graphics.
As it is the Kinect + Xbox partnership is schizophrenic, but it could have been for Kinect audiences that the Xbox 360 is the upgrade with more powerful processing ability and addition of a disc-drive too. Kinect would also be
Somehow I think MS will be juuuust fine; after all, their core customer base has been blindly following them for decades.
That's not just fanboyism for a rival system, its true. Most MS games are basically the same damn thing, year in and year out, but they are always "awesome" and "the next big thing" for MS's loyal fan base.
That's not just fanboyism for a rival system, its true. Most MS games are basically the same damn thing, year in and year out, but they are always "awesome" and "the next big thing" for MS's loyal fan base.
This is something that concerns me as well because it is such a gamble counting on a great many variables. I do not believe that all of a sudden Microsoft and Sony will become casual marketing facsimiles of Nintendo during the Wii's rise in popularity if Move and Kinect take off. However, if neither fare particularly well, I wonder how the wasted effort could have been utilized to postively affect the respective consoles and actually expand them beyond trying to steal from Nintendo's market. As I type this, thoughts creep into my head like "If Kinect was never a big priority for Microsoft, could Rare have finally made another Conker?" As you have stated, there are resources being directed towards the motion sensing periphials that could have been allocated elsewhere, which can easily trigger the natural curiosity in myself, and I would think others as well.mattaui said:
I feel this way especially because I have both a 360 and PS3, but can honestly say that the 360 in particular has only raised short-term interest with Fable III and Reach, but nothing further.
To the wary consumer, money invested should provide a long-term benefit and not just a cheap flash in the pan. This is where I believe Kinect is lacking because it does not have any real clout being a new product. The Wii is already widely renowned and has a great variety of games, motion controlled and not, planned for or currently in its library. Why should a new consumer take the risk of $450 for a Kinect/360 bundle when a Wii is a cheaper and possibly more conducive option? This is where the 360/Kinect is going to have to entice people with its wider arc of games that the Wii lacks or those consumers will just go the Nintendo route. With a divided consumer demand, the 360/Kinect will be geared towards those who are not completely new to video games what with the high cost and seemingly unnecessary functions/games available. To give an example, I know an adult who bought a Wii just for things like Wii sports; where is the appeal to this sort of market with Kinect? I'm sure she would not give a toss about playing Halo or Fable, so $450 for a motion-sensing camera?