Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Marketing = Bad Game?
Graveblade
Member UncommonPosts: 547
Is it me or do alot of people seem to have this attitude that if there isnt much marketing, the game will be bad? Its actually kinda the opposite.... if the company overhypes their game alot (AOC anyone) it can create a knockon effect of negative feedback causing people to not buy the game or leave, the community itself will be shot down and will cause for a worse game experience because everywhere you go in game or forums there will probably be people complaining or chatting about the bad aspects of the game.
You must realise that the marketing aspect is actually a seperate thing and if the company chooses to put money into developing the game (which is what Aventurine have chosen to do) it can actually be a very good thing for the game.
You have to realise the potential for the game, embrace the imagination of what the game could achieve... im not saying to just blindly follow the game but just keep an open mind to the possibility that this game could be a very fun game.
Comments
I think that large companies with money to spend on big marketing budgets generally make very poor games. It's not the not the marketing so much as the companies that tend to do it.
Yeah i agree i think they do too. I have just seen alot of people putting down DF because of the lack of PR but it doesnt actually mean the game will be bad in any way whatsoever... yes it would be great if we had more information but its just not their style.
I don't buy that in any way shape or form.
Gee, we marketed our game, and people bought it, but they don't like it. If we had noly NOT marketed the game, people would like it.
I do not get that logic. The people that dont' like the game will not like it, with or without marketing. Marketing will not make them like a game, it will not make them dislike a game. Only playing the game will determine that.
I would not have liked Auto Assualt if you never marketed it, or if you spent a billion dollars marketing it. It's a bad game. I would like DAoC, if you spent a billion dollars marketing it, or if you never spent one penny marketing it. It's a good game.
I can accept the logic that the developers do not want to many players at once, becuase they don't really know how to handle them, and they don't want a customer service fiasco on their hands. You get a bunch of people trying to play the game, but they can't because the servers are overloaded, accounts aren't set up properly, billing is messed up, you can't answer phones or emails to help customers, etc.
That sounds like a legitimate worry. But, if we market a good game, people won't like it then? I don't see it. Not marketing AoC would have made it a better game? It's a lousy game, marketing or no marketing, IMO.
I don't buy that in any way shape or form.
Gee, we marketed our game, and people bought it, but they don't like it. If we had noly NOT marketed the game, people would like it.
I do not get that logic. The people that dont' like the game will not like it, with or without marketing. Marketing will not make them like a game, it will not make them dislike a game. Only playing the game will determine that.
I would not have liked Auto Assualt if you never marketed it, or if you spent a billion dollars marketing it. It's a bad game. I would like DAoC, if you spent a billion dollars marketing it, or if you never spent one penny marketing it. It's a good game.
I can accept the logic that the developers do not want to many players at once, becuase they don't really know how to handle them, and they don't want a customer service fiasco on their hands. You get a bunch of people trying to play the game, but they can't because the servers are overloaded, accounts aren't set up properly, billing is messed up, you can't answer phones or emails to help customers, etc.
That sounds like a legitimate worry. But, if we market a good game, people won't like it then? I don't see it. Not marketing AoC would have made it a better game? It's a lousy game, marketing or no marketing, IMO.
Most of the Marketing of AoC was based on things that never existed in the game or did not make launch or are just now making it into the game. They marketed a product that didn't exist and people got angry and yes it hurt AoC.
No Funcom overhyped AOC, big marketing campaigns can create a bad rep for the company and the game if the marketing gives people a general false impression or if the game is released without certain promised features etc.
I don't buy that in any way shape or form.
Gee, we marketed our game, and people bought it, but they don't like it. If we had noly NOT marketed the game, people would like it.
I do not get that logic. The people that dont' like the game will not like it, with or without marketing. Marketing will not make them like a game, it will not make them dislike a game. Only playing the game will determine that.
I would not have liked Auto Assualt if you never marketed it, or if you spent a billion dollars marketing it. It's a bad game. I would like DAoC, if you spent a billion dollars marketing it, or if you never spent one penny marketing it. It's a good game.
I can accept the logic that the developers do not want to many players at once, becuase they don't really know how to handle them, and they don't want a customer service fiasco on their hands. You get a bunch of people trying to play the game, but they can't because the servers are overloaded, accounts aren't set up properly, billing is messed up, you can't answer phones or emails to help customers, etc.
That sounds like a legitimate worry. But, if we market a good game, people won't like it then? I don't see it. Not marketing AoC would have made it a better game? It's a lousy game, marketing or no marketing, IMO.
Most of the Marketing of AoC was based on things that never existed in the game or did not make launch or are just now making it into the game. They marketed a product that didn't exist and people got angry and yes it hurt AoC.
It seems to me you are saying if they had not marketed AoC, then the players would have liked it. Taht some players tried AoC, and they WOULD have liked the game, but now they don't because of marketing.
I'm saying, I don't think this is true. There are players that like AoC, and players that don't. The players that don't like AoC, would STILL not like the game, even if it had not been marketed.
I don't think that if the game had not been marketed, it would have done better, and people only left because they were disappointed with the marketing claims. The people that thought the game sucked, whould have STILL thought the game sucked, even without the marketing claims.
In otherwords, players didn't like the game, not becaues the features weren't there, but only because the features were promised, but weren't there? If they had never promised such features, then these players would have liked the game, even without these features?
I don't buy that in any way shape or form.
Gee, we marketed our game, and people bought it, but they don't like it. If we had noly NOT marketed the game, people would like it.
I do not get that logic. The people that dont' like the game will not like it, with or without marketing. Marketing will not make them like a game, it will not make them dislike a game. Only playing the game will determine that.
I would not have liked Auto Assualt if you never marketed it, or if you spent a billion dollars marketing it. It's a bad game. I would like DAoC, if you spent a billion dollars marketing it, or if you never spent one penny marketing it. It's a good game.
I can accept the logic that the developers do not want to many players at once, becuase they don't really know how to handle them, and they don't want a customer service fiasco on their hands. You get a bunch of people trying to play the game, but they can't because the servers are overloaded, accounts aren't set up properly, billing is messed up, you can't answer phones or emails to help customers, etc.
That sounds like a legitimate worry. But, if we market a good game, people won't like it then? I don't see it. Not marketing AoC would have made it a better game? It's a lousy game, marketing or no marketing, IMO.
Most of the Marketing of AoC was based on things that never existed in the game or did not make launch or are just now making it into the game. They marketed a product that didn't exist and people got angry and yes it hurt AoC.
It seems to me you are saying if they had not marketed AoC, then the players would have liked it. Taht some players tried AoC, and they WOULD have liked the game, but now they don't because of marketing.
I'm saying, I don't think this is true. There are players that like AoC, and players that don't. The players that don't like AoC, would STILL not like the game, even if it had not been marketed.
I don't think that if the game had not been marketed, it would have done better, and people only left because they were disappointed with the marketing claims. The people that thought the game sucked, whould have STILL thought the game sucked, even without the marketing claims.
In otherwords, players didn't like the game, not becaues the features weren't there, but only because the features were promised, but weren't there? If they had never promised such features, then these players would have liked the game, even without these features?
If the game had not been marketed as heavily as it was they would have had a much smaller starting population. With out the abundance of negative feedback from those that were sorely dissapointed with the lack of what was promised they could have built up to where they are now. Heck even I liked some aspects of the game. Bearshaman was the first healer class I ever liked in any MMORPG. It would have been a decent PvE game to play as a side game for me.
Unfortunately since just about everyone that was remotely interested in it has tried it already instead of getting new subs they now have to focus on winning back people they lost.
Imagine it, they start of with 200k subs instead of 800-1milish. Those 200k didn't come for the hype from the extreme marketing campaign, the came for the mechanics and the IP, those initial 200k will be much more forgiving than the masses that were there because of the marketing and advertising campaign. They start small get some money comming in, fix problems, get things put in that were supposed to have been in already............ they would have been able to build there subs up, instead of getting half the MMORPG community in an uproar.
No Somniferous. Read the post again i think you are not understanding what im actually getting at in the post. Anyway your going off on about AOC and thats not what my post is really about its just about the fact that alot of people come to the conclusion that no marketing = bad game.
Also though grey imagine if they spent all that money on development rather than marketing.... i wonder what would happen and my prediction is the actual game would of been feature complete, probably more than feature complete really and they could of got more testers etc.... the game speaks for itself in the end when its released and the advertising become somewhat bogus.
Not overly sure about that myself. Gaute didn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the shed lol. At times it realy did seem he thought everything was fine oO.
I agree that a lack of marketing does not indicate a bad game.
However, I disagree that marketing can cause a game to be bad.
My point was players didn't like AoC because it sucked. Marketing has no effect on that. Marketing gets you to try the game. Then you decide if it sucks or not.
I don't think that not marketing your game will ensure that only the people that like it will try it. You get the same effect eitehr way.
You make a crappy game like AoC, and some perscent of people like it, and a bigger percentage won't. Let's just use random figures, like 30% like it and 70% don't, because it's kinda crappy.
No Marketing means 100 people try it, 30 like it, 70 say it sucks. Marketing means 10K people try it, 3K say it's good, 7K say it sucks.
The outcome is the same, majority says it sucks. That's what people will look at, not the actual numbers. They won't go, well if 70 people said it suckes, that's ok, but if 7K say it sucks, well that's different.
They will just go, majority says it sucks, it must suck.
Interesting argument about AoC.
I'd have to say less marketing would have kept subs higher. They flat out didn't include half the features that made me want to try the game in the first place. There was enough there that I would have tried it out, and I totally enjoyed it. I just felt empty inside because there wasn't mechanics that I was told there would be.
Marketing in general is not a bad thing. They should have marketed the real product instead of the idea of a product. If Darkfall is ready to start today, as Tasos said, then there is no reason they cannot do a small marketing plan. No marketing will have the game try to survive off fanbase only, it needs just a bit more to get people interested in it.
i think that a company should balance marketing and giving more money to help develop the game. marketing is important because these are companies trying to sell their product and make money at the end of the day but we have seen companies lately spending way too much money marketing the game rather than spend time to make it a fun, enjoyable experience.
Sure marketing doesnt make a game good and can lead to a shit community.
But marketing will give you that nice boost of cash that can make a growse game last untill they patch it decently or until the gms are the last ppl on the servers.
Marketign is what prevented aoc from shutting down.
Sure df can be the best game in the world but if they have less players than anticipated after launch they might end up selling the game to soe so they can gang rape it for the heck of it.
I'm not a no life that sits in front of his computer all day long, I'm an intern that sits in front of his computer all day long.
Assuming that a game isn't just garbage I think people who buy that game with no marketing are much more likely to eventually find that they like it as they must have deliberately sought it out in the first place, probably based on the features, so I don't think the outcome is the same. A higher percentage of people buying games based on the marketing are probably just willing to give it a try rather than having a particular interest in that kind of game so the non subscriber rate will be higher.
If you actively go looking for a product than you are more serious about your need for it than someone who has bought it based on it being presented to them.
Marketing encourages impulse buying rather than considered purchases.
You do see a lot of games getting advertisement on tv especially that are crap, often a month or two after they have been released, and the companies are perhaps doing it to make up for poor initial sales; pumping money into adverts will make people buy them...
Still DF worries me in that theres been very few previews by magazines and gaming websites where the people actually got to play the game, even in a basic state.
Still, I want to believe.