Question of the Day, September 28, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I've voted for "Don't care" because it's the most negative poll option, but that's not my true opinion on the matter. I think when marketing ploys aim for 'controvertial' it generally means simply that they're trying too hard, trying to impress and wow an audience that couldn't care less. If a product (whether it's a game or not) has to rely on so-called 'controvertial' marketing techniques it's usually because it can't stand on it's own merits - an indication of poor quality. Therefore my initial reaction to advertising shock tactics is to draw the conclusion that the product isn't very good, and I should probably avoid it. After all, if it's quality was clear for all to see, marketing gimmicks (controvertial or not) wouldn't be required.
Or to summarise, over-the-top marketing makes me less, not more, inclined to buy a product.
Or to summarise, over-the-top marketing makes me less, not more, inclined to buy a product.
Yea I'm disappointed in your leading poll but I'll bite anyways.
A game (or any product/service) shouldn't need controversy to sell. It's a bull**** ploy that needs to be stamped out. Controversy is a thing to be resolved, if possible, and not encouraged.
A game (or any product/service) shouldn't need controversy to sell. It's a bull**** ploy that needs to be stamped out. Controversy is a thing to be resolved, if possible, and not encouraged.
I don't care how a game is marketed. I care how the media (Fox) distorts and spins that marketing to meet their own desires.
The Splinter Cell Conviction stunt was just plain stupid, and other stunts like it should not be attempted. Now, if the guy was just dressed like Sam and was walking around ordering coffee or something then that's ok. It is boring but at least the guy won't get arrested.
I don't care if it's "controversial" or not. What bothers me is when they insult the consumer's intelligence. It doesn't have to be controversial to do that.
Remember the "all I want for xmas is a psp" thing? That (IMO) is a prime example of the marketing department taking things to an insulting level. Gamers may be suckers but we aren't retarded.
Remember the "all I want for xmas is a psp" thing? That (IMO) is a prime example of the marketing department taking things to an insulting level. Gamers may be suckers but we aren't retarded.
All publicity is goods publicity. I mean we remember the games that went over the line far more then the tame marketing right? That said, I would prefer to keep things more tame myself.
Considering this is a fragile time for video games, what with that whole nonsense with that law in California and whatnot, I don't think it's a good time to be pushing boundaries.
That brings up another point. It's not "just a game" anymore. Games, agree with it or not, are an evolving art medium. This deliberate controversy isn't doing us any favors, but it IS increasing exposure and generating a huge amount of discussion about that very point.Riddle78 said:
However, there is a limit as to when a controversy campaign has gone too far (especially if the product sucked like Daikatana, if anyone remembers that BS campaign and even shittier game). We the consumers need to show our support by voting (with our wallets) which campaign is successful, as well as showing marketers that this crap will not fly. It's not gonna happen, if our American political ads are any indication... bunch of whiny high school girls bitching at each other and us about why the other guy is worse than I am...[mega-rage!] *shakes head* sorry, what was I talking about? Oh right... It won't be easy, but collectively we have the power to change this behavior.
Having been in the situation where I've been responsible for marketing a game, I can understand the issues facing a company. The problem facing the company is this; they are marketing to an already savvy community with high expectations and if the game they've produced doesn't meet those expectations, then they have to use other tactics in order get attention. It's all well and good to have your great story, advanced graphics and all that, but most other games on the market are fast hitting that benchmark. That's when shock tactics are your only means of standing out.
However, from the perspective of the "hard-core" gamer I am (and yes, my boss has called me this), I think it's atrocious. I'm not going to buy a game based soley on controversy. I'll buy a game because it appeals to me, is in a genre I enjoy or has been recommended to me by a friend. Similarly, I will steer clear of games that don't interest me or that my friends have warned me are no good (which I am happy to say isn't a bad thing. We all did a games degree together).
I suppose the middle ground here is to show the buying public what they want to see, not what the company wants to show them. Be honest. Gloss it over too much and you run the risk of disappointing the customer. Be too secretive and you could end up with a cult hit, rather than making the money when you need it (oh psychonauts, I pity thee!).
However, from the perspective of the "hard-core" gamer I am (and yes, my boss has called me this), I think it's atrocious. I'm not going to buy a game based soley on controversy. I'll buy a game because it appeals to me, is in a genre I enjoy or has been recommended to me by a friend. Similarly, I will steer clear of games that don't interest me or that my friends have warned me are no good (which I am happy to say isn't a bad thing. We all did a games degree together).
I suppose the middle ground here is to show the buying public what they want to see, not what the company wants to show them. Be honest. Gloss it over too much and you run the risk of disappointing the customer. Be too secretive and you could end up with a cult hit, rather than making the money when you need it (oh psychonauts, I pity thee!).
