PR Guy: Games Should Be Judged on Quality, Not Brand Name
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
But the whole reason you made the series was because the first one was fun to play. Therefore, isn't it only natural include past satisfaction in your decision to purchase the game? Something tells me that he only believes this because smaller less popular series get overshadowed by the juggernauts, and while it is sad, there is a simple reason for it.
The Juggernauts are fun to play.
The Juggernauts are fun to play.
Very simple, really. The group that knows about and cares about games - the population of the various websites - is a fraction of a game's potential audience. The rest of the "gamers" buy franchise titles - Call of Duty, Halo, Madden... and unless a game is actively advertised where they can see it, they won't know it exists. Hence, as mentioned in the original article, it is very much "chicken-and-egg" - unless a game is advertised heavily, it won't sell, but publishers only want to advertise games they know will sell. Hence the franchise loop.
As an addendum, the wider market generally seems to want "realistic," "gritty," "mature" games. Games similar to blockbuster movies, in other words. So trying to sell them, say, Psychonauts or Recettear would be difficult indeed, as the innate reaction to games like these is "It's for kids." This is the same problem that a Pixar movie might have when trying to sell itself to a beer-swillin', football-watchin', pot-bellied couch potato - someone unfamiliar with Pixar whose first thought is "A movie about fish? Don't care. Gimme guns and violence."
As an addendum, the wider market generally seems to want "realistic," "gritty," "mature" games. Games similar to blockbuster movies, in other words. So trying to sell them, say, Psychonauts or Recettear would be difficult indeed, as the innate reaction to games like these is "It's for kids." This is the same problem that a Pixar movie might have when trying to sell itself to a beer-swillin', football-watchin', pot-bellied couch potato - someone unfamiliar with Pixar whose first thought is "A movie about fish? Don't care. Gimme guns and violence."
It's a vicious cycle, isn't it?Irridium said:
Right now I'm strapped for cash, so I'm deciding between Portal 2, L.A. Noire, InFamous 2, or Brink. Portal 2 just for the sake of more portals, L.A. Noire because I've been dieing for a detective game, InFamous 2 because I liked the first one and want to see what happens next, and Brink because it looks like it's trying something different in FPSs and it's genuinely interesting.
And that's not even getting into the games that will be coming out even later in the year (Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Arkham City, etc...).
So, really, the question is do I go for something that I know for sure I will enjoy to a large extent (InFamous 2, Portal 2, both sequels....hmmm...) or do I show my support for uniqueness (L.A. Noire, Brink) and if so which one do I show support for?
But that's just me ranting. It is a shame that some games do go under the radar, but with prices these days, can you really blame people for going with the safe investment while at the same time demanding more? Probably.
Heh, I just finished ranting about buying Epic Yarn because Kirby was on it.Greg Tito said:
Greg Tito said:
That sounds exactly like EA's marketing strategy; "any publicity is good publicity... even when it's clearly bad, insulting and enforces stereotypes onto your target consumer... as long as people see it we've done our job well"
I'm not quoting anyone in particular it's just what I hear from any large video game marketing department. It's kind of sad when I think of video game marketing that I'm not thinking of valves remarkable ability to keep their target audience glued to breaking news about their upcoming game, but how stupid and misinformed large game companies are about it's target consumer. Large game companies(EA... easy target for this) seem to either hold extraordinarily ignorance as a virtue or just they're completely indifferent to their audience. Honestly, who felt like the Dead Space 2 ads were effective at selling the game?
I (and I assume many others) treat games like I do books. I have a favorite author or two that I stick with for consistency. These are the ones I go to when I want a relatively safe investment, something I know will be enjoyable though perhaps less so than some unknown game. Lets face it, love them or hate them you know exactly what you are getting when you buy Call of Duty 470312.
Then, when I feel adventurous or there is nothing new by those safe choices, I will branch out. I will try something new after doing some research. These are the risky choices. You may find a hidden gem or merely a polished turd. If you get lucky and find a gem then congrats. If not, well you just wasted $10, $20, $30, etc.
Then, when I feel adventurous or there is nothing new by those safe choices, I will branch out. I will try something new after doing some research. These are the risky choices. You may find a hidden gem or merely a polished turd. If you get lucky and find a gem then congrats. If not, well you just wasted $10, $20, $30, etc.
The first game in a series is a wager. After you've won it, (if you haven't you scrap the project and take it on the employees) you'll want to repeat the formula till it stops working.
I can guess that CoD would stop working at number 11.
Final Fantasy at 21.
Zelda, Mario, Kirby and the rest of Nintendo's intellectual property at ∞.
That is partially the fault of developers, and the fault of consumers. Because you buy these ...'games'... he allow developers to make more money and therefore make a sequel to profit from the game even more. On the other hand, AAA games are too 'safe'.
I bought the first CoD and its expansion. I still play it now. I haven't bought any of the other CoD... I'm looking at you, regenerating health.
I can guess that CoD would stop working at number 11.
Final Fantasy at 21.
Zelda, Mario, Kirby and the rest of Nintendo's intellectual property at ∞.
That is partially the fault of developers, and the fault of consumers. Because you buy these ...'games'... he allow developers to make more money and therefore make a sequel to profit from the game even more. On the other hand, AAA games are too 'safe'.
I bought the first CoD and its expansion. I still play it now. I haven't bought any of the other CoD... I'm looking at you, regenerating health.
PR guy states obvious, gets news story.
I really don't get the world these days...if I ever did.
I really don't get the world these days...if I ever did.
Downloadable games are a great example of this, many being far more superior than most retail releases.
One of the more annoying aspects of games being unfairly judged is when lesser franchises are criticized in reviews for being similar... now I don't think I even need to bother listing games that somehow get away with this. I'm sure many here can already think of many off the top of their head.
One of the more annoying aspects of games being unfairly judged is when lesser franchises are criticized in reviews for being similar... now I don't think I even need to bother listing games that somehow get away with this. I'm sure many here can already think of many off the top of their head.
The problem: People can't be bothered to realize that if they spent 5 minutes playing X game, they would squee in delight and gladly fork over a $100 bill.
The solution: Make that game MUCH easier to try out. Examples:
-Make the game free entirely! Charge overpriced for cosmetic DLC, premium forum-discussion access, additional content, etc.
-Make a demo available.
-Even better, make a demo tryable on a WHIM; no immense download, install time, etc. A great example would be the ability to start playing the Minecraft Alpha within a few seconds of visiting Minecraft.net
-Style the gameplay so you can quickly get a good idea of what is going on, and what makes it fun, just by watching a video. This might include filming the person playing, giving plenty of feedback for each button press, etc.
This stuff probably seems like an obvious lesson to us all, but how many of us just bought Portal 2, eh? (Not saying Portal 2 is bad; but it is very definitely brand-recognition at work)
The solution: Make that game MUCH easier to try out. Examples:
-Make the game free entirely! Charge overpriced for cosmetic DLC, premium forum-discussion access, additional content, etc.
-Make a demo available.
-Even better, make a demo tryable on a WHIM; no immense download, install time, etc. A great example would be the ability to start playing the Minecraft Alpha within a few seconds of visiting Minecraft.net
-Style the gameplay so you can quickly get a good idea of what is going on, and what makes it fun, just by watching a video. This might include filming the person playing, giving plenty of feedback for each button press, etc.
This stuff probably seems like an obvious lesson to us all, but how many of us just bought Portal 2, eh? (Not saying Portal 2 is bad; but it is very definitely brand-recognition at work)
You want a game that needed a face behind it to get sales? Painkiller. As soon as Yahtzee did a review on the game, the sales for the game grew, like over 1000%, I want to guestimate reading it was about 3200% increase in sales. And according to wikipedia, not too long after he reviewed in ZP it appeared on the Steam store.
Sometimes you need press like this for a game.
However, using your company to market for a game is a good thing, people buy Valve games all the time because it's Valve, and while yes, the products are quite good always, it doesn't matter because we look at the name.
For games that aren't made by big names who can say "We made this great game so you should buy this other game because we made it," companies should market the game early to reviews. Give them demos and get feedback from them. A lot of us consumers will make decisions on games based on reviews
I bought Saint's Row 2 based on Yahtzee's recommendation and I haven't been disappointed, and I heard about Just Cause 2 from ZP as well. If you want to advertise the game, get some good reviews behind it, and use the reviewers and critics at your disposal to your advantage. Give them a copy of the game, ask them what's good and what's bad, then go fix the bad stuff. Because us consumers are like sheep, we follow orders and take commands from those in power.
If a game is good, it will get the press it needs, but helping it get more will help out a LOT of the time, especially when you can't point out a game and say "We made this" or 'this is the sequel to our great game," because using Just Cause as an example, I hear from EVERYONE that 1 sucked, and about 2? I heard showers of praise for it.
Sometimes you need press like this for a game.
However, using your company to market for a game is a good thing, people buy Valve games all the time because it's Valve, and while yes, the products are quite good always, it doesn't matter because we look at the name.
For games that aren't made by big names who can say "We made this great game so you should buy this other game because we made it," companies should market the game early to reviews. Give them demos and get feedback from them. A lot of us consumers will make decisions on games based on reviews
I bought Saint's Row 2 based on Yahtzee's recommendation and I haven't been disappointed, and I heard about Just Cause 2 from ZP as well. If you want to advertise the game, get some good reviews behind it, and use the reviewers and critics at your disposal to your advantage. Give them a copy of the game, ask them what's good and what's bad, then go fix the bad stuff. Because us consumers are like sheep, we follow orders and take commands from those in power.
If a game is good, it will get the press it needs, but helping it get more will help out a LOT of the time, especially when you can't point out a game and say "We made this" or 'this is the sequel to our great game," because using Just Cause as an example, I hear from EVERYONE that 1 sucked, and about 2? I heard showers of praise for it.
That's not the point though. People choose Windows because it's what they are used to and it comes pre-installed on all computers not made by Apple.SL33TBL1ND said:
But for some weird reason, overpriced Macs have become more popular and now Valve is porting all of their games for it. If Linux suddenly became popular, developers would code their games for that too.
Perhaps The Escapist could lead the way on this? One article on a game per two to four news cycles would free up a good amount of space to cover lesser known games, and I don't think it would really hurt the readers to see fewer articles on the upcoming very hyped game. Around Dragon Age 2 launch time, there was a lot of material published on what turned out to be a game that got a lukewarm reception.
Variety is the spice of life. I like to take risks, chances, el risque!Puddle Jumper said:
Also, if I was going to Mcdonald's all my life, I think I'd be sick of hamburgers and fries by now.