The Business of Manipulation

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
Nice article.

Are we allowed to talk about marketing ploys that annoy us? Because I have one.

I hate it when retailers offer bonuses for pre-orders, especially in game ones. Because the people who pre-order them likely would have pre-ordered them anyway, regardless of whether they get a new gun or not. Me, on the other hand, if I see that other are going to be given a weapon or advantage that I don't get, I'm not going to say "Ooh, better buy that!" I'm going to say "Fuck that, I want access to all the weapons."


That said, I have no information about this, and this may increase pre-orders and be effective. I still hate it though.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
I'm not sure that this is what JP was talking about, but I remember back when I was at IGN, hearing this travesty from Infogrames. It was massively ridiculed at the time.

Infogrames is Entertainment! [http://usual-corporate-lamers-infogrames-rocks--mp3-download.kohit.net/_/375590/mp3player.php?single=1&tellafriend=http://Usual-Corporate-Lamers-Infogrames-Rocks--mp3-download.kohit.net/_/375590&id=375590]
 

RMcD94

New member
Nov 25, 2009
430
0
0
I'm confused at why there is an article about telling marketeers how to market. Why should we care? There isn't an article on teaching cookers how to cook (for gamers), is there?

Edit: Overall the article felt like a waste of my time. Any one who falls for advertisement "good" or "bad" is probably not on an intelligent website.
 

rddj623

"Breathe Deep, Seek Peace"
Sep 28, 2009
644
0
0
An interesting read with a good conclusion. Inclusion is usually all the community wants from marketing anyways. :)
 

ReverseEngineered

Raving Lunatic
Apr 30, 2008
444
0
0
I'm glad to see a marketer who tries to perform his job honorably. Please believe me when I say that what's to follow is nothing personal and not directed at you, but at marketers (and the people who hire them) in general. I mean this as constructively as possible.

Now, as a gamer, let me tell you why I don't like marketing.

Marketing is about manipulating us, the customer, into buying stuff. As gamers -- people who desire the ability to control our actions -- we don't take kindly to that idea. I don't know any self-respecting human who would. Isn't agency central to being human? Then why would we ever want to give that up willingly, or worse yet, unwillingly and subconsciously?

But it's not even just that. If it was in our best interests, we would allow ourselves to be directed. But it isn't always in our best interests. Marketers have a job to sell stuff -- that stuff may be pure gold or pure shit, but it's their job to sell it. Screenshots, trailers, sneak previews and early reviews give gamers the sense that a game is going to be great. Maybe too great. Marketing tries its hardest to raise our expectations as high as possible so that we'll value it as highly as possible. It tries to make us think that we need this game no matter the price.

Then the game arrives and our expectations are thoroughly let-down. It could be because our expectations were set too high or, quite likely, the game is just out-right terrible. Whatever the case, we get angry at ourselves for being deceived and angry at the marketers and publishers for deceiving us.

Yes, we want to be marketed to, because we want to be excited for the next great game -- we like games and want to play all of the best games -- but we don't want to be lied to. Marketing is looked down on because it's often misleading, and many times, it is intentionally so. Nobody likes being lied to.

Now, my take on this might be a bit extreme. I'm all about free agency and I despise marketing of any kind. I don't like commercials, pop-ups, unsolicited emails, or even billboards. If I want something, I'll go looking for it, and I'll trust the recommendations of trusted friends and reviewers long before any publisher-sponsored advertisement. So it's entirely possible that I am an extreme case, biased by my own view of marketing and not representative of gamers in general.

But I think we all feel that hatred for marketing at some level. We don't want to be manipulated and we especially don't want to be mislead. We want to get excited about new games, but we want them to live up to their promises and we feel cheated when they don't. I don't expect that marketers will tone down their message when a game will likely suck, because that's not their job: marketers are paid by publishers to convince customers that their shit smells wonderful. But it's still shit and the customers will eventually realize that, and when they do, they will be upset and distrustful.

Everything else you said was also entirely true. The attempt to fit in and be one of us; the pandering to stereotypes that we, ourselves, despise -- we don't buy any of it. Publicity stunts like those for Dante's Inferno and APB only make us realize that marketers aren't on our side and don't know what we want.

You want to market a video game? Give us the goods: screenshots, gameplay videos, all the juicy details of what we'll see when we open the box. Don't try to spin it or make it look cool, just feed us the raw info that we crave. Our own imaginations and desires will drive the rest. As long as the gameplay videos and screenshots are real and what we can expect to see when we get the game, we'll be happy. Sure, you may not sell as many units if we see the real thing instead of the cinematic trailer, but we'll be a lot more likely to buy the next $60 game if we walk away from the ordeal with a positive experience.

I respect companies who don't sell their game, but let others sell it for them. Link to the major websites who are all posting rave reviews of your game (just don't pay them for that PR). Let me see the 7/10 ratings too, so that I know you aren't trying to pull a fast one on me (I'll buy a 7/10 game if it's something I find interesting; it doesn't have to be a 9.5). Give me the head's up when something new is coming out that I might be interested in. But don't ram it down my throat, don't mislead me into thinking it's something that it's not, and don't betray my trust by using underhanded tricks like paid "reviews".

Gamers want to be informed, not lied to. We want to love your game just as much as you want us to love it, but it has to be for real. Marketing isn't the problem; deceptive marketing is the problem. Unfortunately, nobody wants to pay to tell the real story: they'd rather tell the fairy tale with the happy ending. That's why we hate marketing: it's not trying to inform us; it's trying to deceive us.
 

DrDarkStryfe

New member
Apr 16, 2010
4
0
0
It is just another growing pain of the industry, an entertainment medium that is still less then 40 years old.

Right now the bulk of your marketing firms are made up of the children of the 60's and 70's. They are the old school breed of marketers that still see the world in terms of age and gender brackets, which is still tied into the television ratings.

It is nice to see a fresh look at the marketing side of things. It is a horribly under appreciated part of the business world from the consumers prospective, and can be a very fun field to study and get involved in.
 

gamer_parent

New member
Jul 7, 2010
611
0
0
Whispering Death said:
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but focus grouping is best used for exploratory data, trying to uncover the breadth of opinions on an issue; not descriptive data, determining how previlant a given opinion is.

Focus groups are often used incorrectly when viewed by bad marketers as legitimate samples of the overall audiance when, in actuality, focus groups are so small as to be nothing more than annecdotal evidence.

Then you get the bad marketer tendency of when s/he doesn't have market research, instead relying on "industry trends" which is the fastest way to make yourself look silly. This is the kind of thinking where "no, don't make an RTS game. Guitar hero is hot right now, we need to make a band game! The kids love the band games!"

Gamers don't dislike marketers, but they hate bad marketing.
oh yeah, that is definitely true.

The point I was making was that video game marketing has not yet matured to a point where they can perform truly sophisitcated marketing decisions.

But we're starting to see a change though. Social gaming platforms are starting to collect the data for future analysis, and slowly but surely we're starting to see more companies whose entire schtick is to focus on gaming research. these are all very promising signs.
 

occamsnailfile

New member
Sep 10, 2008
11
0
0
I really liked this article, it shows a lot of self-awareness about marketing and where it fails. In particular the comments on gender--since "fewer" girls play games, we can't vote with our dollars at all it seems; our preferences are simply not recorded for most games, or we get insulting shovelware.

Anyway, I hope this kind of wisdom catches on.
 

UnclGhost

New member
Apr 7, 2010
20
0
0
Thanks for bringing up the old memes. Those usually make me actively not want to buy something.
 

jezcentral

New member
Nov 6, 2007
121
0
0
I thought the reason that marketing aimed at 18-25 year olds was that they are more amenable to marketing, whilst 30+ years old were less liable to be swayed?
 

Flamezdudes

New member
Aug 27, 2009
3,696
0
0
First of all, welcome to The Escapist!

Brilliant article, a lot of points to be made which hopefully some developers will come to read and take in.
 

Klepa

New member
Apr 17, 2009
908
0
0
What a pleasant article. Someone in marketing is telling me that I'm an intelligent person, and my feedback in games is 'precious information'.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
Cool article. Keep them coming :)

We Underestimate the Intelligence of Gamers
A bit. It's always just a few people that pick up on things at first, and the wonders of the internet that get the word around.

We Market To Gaming Stereotypes
Yes, and for me personally this is probably the paramount offense. I hate being pigeonholed even with indy terms; when you try the mainstream stuff it just kills the appeal. I didn't play Dragon Age for nearly a year after it was released because the Blood & Edgy marketing theme put me off.

We Go to the "Xtreemez" and Use 5-Year-Old Memes
Yep.

We Don't Realize That Girls Play Games Too
Can't really comment, but I do know the statistics on women playing WoW vary, and that very few of the female players I've met notably enjoyed distinctly feminine aspects of the game.

We Try to Control the Narrative
/

We Just Make It Hard to Trust Us
Can't really comment. Either I'm not a 'core gamer' (which is possible, as I don't care as much as I used to) or I don't care about the hype. When games are getting released nowadays I'll decide early on based on the screens, producer(s)/developer(s), and subject matter, if I want it. Then I'll keep loose tabs on it and buy it about 6 months after release -- after the initial fanfare has died down.
And I definitely don't want anyone sending me emails. I've worked far too hard to keep my inbox clean...

It's Not Just What Not to Do
-Interesting that you bring up feedback. In my (cynical) experience, feedback is rarely integrated in a worthwile manner. Developers may add functionality modifications after >1,000,000 users complain on the forums. And I understand it's not financially sound to add in content for every guy who has a decent idea. But currently the ratio of input : output[results] is not worth signing up on the message boards and shouting yourself horse in the throat to bother.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
gamer_parent said:
Whispering Death said:
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but focus grouping is best used for exploratory data, trying to uncover the breadth of opinions on an issue; not descriptive data, determining how previlant a given opinion is.

Focus groups are often used incorrectly when viewed by bad marketers as legitimate samples of the overall audiance when, in actuality, focus groups are so small as to be nothing more than annecdotal evidence.

Then you get the bad marketer tendency of when s/he doesn't have market research, instead relying on "industry trends" which is the fastest way to make yourself look silly. This is the kind of thinking where "no, don't make an RTS game. Guitar hero is hot right now, we need to make a band game! The kids love the band games!"

Gamers don't dislike marketers, but they hate bad marketing.
oh yeah, that is definitely true.

The point I was making was that video game marketing has not yet matured to a point where they can perform truly sophisitcated marketing decisions.

But we're starting to see a change though. Social gaming platforms are starting to collect the data for future analysis, and slowly but surely we're starting to see more companies whose entire schtick is to focus on gaming research. these are all very promising signs.
Analysis of what people do today, in gaming, is completely worthless data in a year.

Remember Fly!2k? It was released because there were a ton of flight-sims taking up a substantial chunk of the market. It sold like crap not because it was a bad (it was fantastic, well-coded, with a decent physics engine), but because people had already moved on. When it hit the shelves, no one was playing flight-sims.

It also doesn't help that neither marketers nor developers seem to understand why people buy certain games. People don't buy Street Fighter because the name is "Street Fighter," they buy Street Fighter because the series and developers are generally known for producing quality, well-balanced fighting games.
 

gamer_parent

New member
Jul 7, 2010
611
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
Analysis of what people do today, in gaming, is completely worthless data in a year.

Remember Fly!2k? It was released because there were a ton of flight-sims taking up a substantial chunk of the market. It sold like crap not because it was a bad (it was fantastic, well-coded, with a decent physics engine), but because people had already moved on. When it hit the shelves, no one was playing flight-sims.

It also doesn't help that neither marketers nor developers seem to understand why people buy certain games. People don't buy Street Fighter because the name is "Street Fighter," they buy Street Fighter because the series and developers are generally known for producing quality, well-balanced fighting games.
You would think that it would be dependent upon what kind of information we're extracting. If we're talking about what kind of game is big and thus profitable, well, yeah, obviously that data will be worthless short order.

But things like how do people play this particular kind of game or the time frame that most people spend in a game, or microtransactions that people make and such are all valuable info that can be used to drive the development direction of new games. With further data collection from the actual user profiles, you can actually do very fine level segmentation that figures the people's profiles and thereby gain insight into what the market can handle.

However, you're point is well taken. The data gathered from these things alone will not be enough, obviously. Raw data at the end of the day, is still raw data. Without actual knowledge of the medium, the data will still be more or less worthless.

None the less, I feel the data you can gather from these things can still contribute and complement our understanding of gamer behavior.
 

RvLeshrac

This is a Forum Title.
Oct 2, 2008
662
0
0
gamer_parent said:
RvLeshrac said:
Analysis of what people do today, in gaming, is completely worthless data in a year.

Remember Fly!2k? It was released because there were a ton of flight-sims taking up a substantial chunk of the market. It sold like crap not because it was a bad (it was fantastic, well-coded, with a decent physics engine), but because people had already moved on. When it hit the shelves, no one was playing flight-sims.

It also doesn't help that neither marketers nor developers seem to understand why people buy certain games. People don't buy Street Fighter because the name is "Street Fighter," they buy Street Fighter because the series and developers are generally known for producing quality, well-balanced fighting games.
You would think that it would be dependent upon what kind of information we're extracting. If we're talking about what kind of game is big and thus profitable, well, yeah, obviously that data will be worthless short order.

But things like how do people play this particular kind of game or the time frame that most people spend in a game, or microtransactions that people make and such are all valuable info that can be used to drive the development direction of new games. With further data collection from the actual user profiles, you can actually do very fine level segmentation that figures the people's profiles and thereby gain insight into what the market can handle.

However, you're point is well taken. The data gathered from these things alone will not be enough, obviously. Raw data at the end of the day, is still raw data. Without actual knowledge of the medium, the data will still be more or less worthless.

None the less, I feel the data you can gather from these things can still contribute and complement our understanding of gamer behavior.
MMOs generate VASTLY more data than has ever been collected on any activity - daily. Where a player clicks; how long it took to do a quest; whether the player DID the quest, or just faffed about; how often the player changes equipment, and whether they've equipped something for cosmetics or because there was a stat increase... and on, and on, and on.

None of that seems to have helped. MMO developers rise and fall, and MMO populations rise and fall, despite their knowing exactly what people respond to, and how they respond to it. Unfortunately, while you can try to predict behaviours, you can't. Games aren't like cereal or toothpaste - it takes a lot more than changing the colour or adding marshmallows to get attention.*

*Except for WoW. I really don't understand WTF people keep going back to it, repeatedly, after talking about how boring it is. I know plenty of people who regularly re-subscribe for 2 hours, only to drop their subscription immediately thereafter, with the exact same complaints. These people are idiots, and they apparently make up the major part of the WoW playerbase.

They know it will suck, know exactly how it will suck, tell me how it will suck, and yet they still resubscribe, only to then ***** about all the ways in which it sucks.
 

Phantomess

New member
Sep 19, 2009
417
0
0
I wonder if he'll marry me?

Kidding, but it's nice to know someone else in the marketing biz has noticed the woeful inaccuracies blighted upon the gaming community.
 

Straz

New member
Jan 10, 2010
195
0
0
Tzekelkan said:
A superb article! I've always been amazed by the crazy marketing campaigns some companies do and actually think they'd work. It's like they always understand the other way around how the gamer thinks and functions. Hopefully there are more people who see things as Mr. J.P. Sherman here.

An interesting thought though: I've been reading some of Valve's demographics-targetting/game-testing/game-designing techniques from <a href=http://valvesoftware.com/company/publications.html>here and they make it seem so easy to take input from the gamer and their needs and apply it to make great games, but it's definitely not. They're either extremely talented or extremely lucky.
I must say, Valve is my favourite developer for just that reason.