MikeTheElf said:
No, I'm saying that the human race is attracted to shiny objects. I didn't say more people would play games that look nicer; I said more people would be attracted to purchase games that look nicer. Of course people are also going to look into gameplay mechanics, but even then: novelty sells. The newer the stimulus, the more attracted to it humans will be. THAT is why gimmicks sell in the first place. If they look cool, people want them.
You obviously think that everyone looks into the game studio or publisher of the game, or even cares to remember it. Let me list some demographics that more often than not don't pay attention:
1- Children of parents with expendable income - Spoilt children generally love to waste money on things that look shiny. If you were to tell me that these parents research the games they buy for their children, I'd call bs on you faster than you called on me.
2- Casual Gamers - These sort of gamers are into the gimmicky stuff. Whether or not the company has made bad games ultimately has no bearing on the gimmick-drawn crowd.
3- People with expendable incomes - Lots of people I know love having lots of games. Some people don't trust what the read or hear in internet reviews and want to try games out for themselves, or maybe they want to give companies more than one chance at making a good game.
4- Magpies - As stated numerous times: people are drawn to new and shiny things. If it looks good, some people will look into it, others will just buy it (see 'people with expendable incomes')
Lastly, you appear to forget that opinions are subjective. Games are not factually considered 'good' or 'bad'; the verdict is up to the gamer. There are billions of people in the world; it would be talking out of your ass to say that there isn't a market for everything.
i actually had a post ready about this, but i decided not to post it because of lack of worthwhile content.
let me instead counter your points one by one:
1) as awareness on games is increasing, and they are becoming an increasingly larger part of our culture, parents are actually doing this. i remember working at a game retailer several years ago, where i would see parents with their children every day. it really struck me how much more most of them cared than i anticipated (i had pretty much the stereotype of what you described in my head when i started). of course, back then there were much less emphasis on physical motion than there is now, but really, it's just hopping from one trend to another.
i will say that the interest is still fairly limited, and we probably won't see any parents in this generation care excessively about what their child plays; but i'll wager that when the coming generations will become parents, they will have a much stronger opinion on games. not just as legal guardians, but as players themselves.
2) casual gamers are per definition people who want to have a casual atmosphere around a game. this includes events such as party gaming, and these people generally aim more at creating a social atmosphere than actually playing any game. since the game isn't in focus, it can by them be substituted by anything else. they only care about the game as far as it can actually provide worthwhile multiplayer entertainment. gimmicks have no place here, since gimmicks provide no worthwhile entertainment.
as an addendum, you should consider your prejudice about people and what they are into, especially considering there is no logic in your statement about casual gamers.
3) as a games developer, i consider game 'research' to be much needed; which is why i sometimes force myself to play games in order to look for what hooks people in said games. i have a budget every couple of months for which i can buy any game, whether hyped or out of interest. i have a large collection of games; with some i've played through numerous times and some i've never touched. i usually check around on a few review sites before checking a game out, if a demo isn't out. i know several people (colleagues and friends) who are in the same situation. i would never buy a game because of its gimmick, and i don't think the people i know would either.
it boggles my mind how you stereotype a person with interest in games to label him completely ignorant of said games. it's like expecting a person with a personal library of books to be ignorant in literature. it really hurts your credibility when you speak of these people you know that obviously have an interest in games that you neglect to mention.
4) not really an argument since magpies aren't humans.
lastly, i do not forget anything. opinions are subjective, yes. opinions masquerading as facts are too. you substitute your own stereotype definition for seemingly the entire demographic of players instead of looking at things as how they are. i used to see things my way too, but then i grew up and realized that even though you see stupid people on tv and on the internet, it doesn't mean that every single person is equally stupid. take my advice and get out somewhere and meet with people, or even just sit on a bench and look at them. i can assure you you'll be positively surprised.
as a final note: yes, everyone likes different tastes, yadda yadda subjectivity. this is true, but you don't market a product on a business model that say, "everyone likes everything".