409 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

I think, to boil down that overly long explanation, what I was trying to say is that as a business you do want the large numbers to buy...
but for any product that is leisure or entertainment, you cannot do so by trying to appeal to everyone nor by just hoping that you are at the forefront of the next trend.

What you can do is target an audience and make the best product you can for that narrow audience, without making the product itself so niche that no one else could like it of course - there's making your base happy and then there's making something only your base can appreciate.  For games, that's where accessibility comes in... but that's a digression from my point.

The problem with this, the idea that the majority of gamers will want whatever game has a good critical reputation, is actually at odds with any argument that the game should cater to an audience.

What this suggests instead is that the gaming company should work very hard to manufacture hype. A mediocre game with great hype is far more important than a great game with little buzz. Look at what you described in terms of purchasing habits:

What I always think about is how there are gamers who will pick
up most any game - they are equally happy playing a shooter or a sports
game, a racing game or a platformer, an RTS or an RPG, etc.  They may
have favorites, sure, but I think most gamers will pick up most anything
and at least try it.
And I think it's probably a majority of gamers
who buy a game new as opposed to renting or buying used.  They buy it
pretty close to release, not usually pre-ordering but browsing shelves
and grabbing something new that catches their eye.  The majority of
gamers probably pay little attention to sites like IGN or shows like
X-Play, instead relying on friends and the description/images on the
box, maybe a few tv or such ads that they stumbled across.

Right now the only variable that a company doesn't have a direct hand in are people's friends. But that doesn't say anything about whether these friends are "into" the genre in any meaningful way. They could as easily be the same sort of fairweather fan.

And look at it this way: you listed lots of ways a game company with a fun game (but not particularly genre specific) could reach out to: awesome box, great TV ads, etc. If these people play the game (and they are generally into anything) and happen to think the game is good, then these will become the friends that will sell the game.

Yes, you want the gaming money of the majority - but you can't market to the majority, it fails as often as it works and that success ration has little to do with what the product is.

Sure you can. You just outlined an entire process by which you could do this.

You get the gaming money of majority by getting the approval of the "hardcore" gaming community.  That doesn't mean you go to that group and ask them what they want, but it does mean you design for them and market to them.

Why? You just said the majority of gamers ignore most of the gaming press and go off word of mouth/box apperance/TV adds. I'm not seeing how a hardcore audience matters at all, unless you're arguing the hardcore will be friends who reccomend games... except that we have a great mechanism for how that won't be the case (or doesn't have to be).

After the product is made it's the job of advertisers to get it into the public awareness (breaking that indifference bubble of the majority who don't follow such things on their own), but once it's in the public awareness the fans of such things will most of the time make or break the product.  If you don't have a pre-established fanbase of sometype (you make a movie that's hard to categorize, like say Requiem for a Dream or Being John Malkovich or even something like Blade Runner) it will either always only be a small success at best or take a long time to seep into public consciousness.

The problem with that is that "it looks awesome" is effectively the summer blockbuster route of advertising, and this is precisely how Bioware markets the game.

[Collider]

I played as human & dwarf equally.

[request denied]

The Bard From Hell wrote...
 
 It also made me wonder why I tend to always play as a warrior in RPGs.

Me to , i always play warrior but i found it was my least favourite class .

[Chuvvy]

Andrastee wrote...

Did that many people really play only once or only play one origin? What a waste of an awesome game, if true!

Apparently a majority of players didn't even finish the game the first time! (And it's not just that they didn't like Dragon Age. Apparently most purchased video games never get played through to the end. As someone who has abandoned exactly two games since 1995, this astonishes me, but there you have it.)

I see what you mean about the dwarf origin stories. The City Elf one is also grim, but at least there you're being oppressed by a different race - in Orzammar, it's your own people or even your own brother who are kicking you in the head/stabbing you in the back. I love it myself, but I can see why not everyone does.

You're forgetting that 90% of those go a little something like this. "What? ****, look at that nose it didn't look like that in the creator. Goddamn it, I have to restart."

Modifié par Slidell505, 26 janvier 2011 - 02:47 .

[The Edge]

I had the most fun playing a human rogue. Everything else just seemed forced and wasn't as fun for me.

[Tannerblackbird]

My favorite playthrough was my Dwarf Female casteless run as a dual wielding warrior. I didn't end up with a romance (I'm a straight male and didn't feel the need to actively pursue anyone this run, although a dwarf alternative to Oghren might have changed my mind!) I loved the set up in Duster area of town. I honestly could have played the Dwarf alternative to the Godfather and died a happy dwarf.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
said a lot of stuff - go back if you want to read it

I don't know your experience with market research, marketing, polling, or statistics.

I have no idea how much you are pulling from the top of your head thinking it's logical or rational.

And whatever that truth may be I have little interest in bandying back and forth about this.

---

One simple thing you are getting wrong that I'll atttempt briefly to clear up, as it may well be my fault for poorly wording something somewhere -

There's a difference between trying to make your product for a certain market...
and trying to make a market for your product.

Going for "mainstream" - which is very similar to the "independent" or "undecided" voter - is trying to target the largest group of people who are in the middle of extremes.  It is trying to make something that appeals to the largest group of people while upsetting or turning off the fewest.

You get "mainstream" by cutting off the harsh edges of genres, the more niche or defining aspects, anything that might turn off a large portion of the majority.  You get "mainstream" by trying to blend aspects of popular genres to attract as many people as possible.

But there's nothing that defines "middle" or "mainstream" that isn't relative... that is to say, there's no defining qualities or aspects of "mainstream" other than how much they are in-between focused groups of interest, how much they are not into niches.

To make a product for "mainstream", you are trying to create a market for your product as there isn't something you can point at and say "most people like this" unless you try something absolutely worthless like "most gamers like their games to be fun" or "most movie goers like being entertained."

You can't MARKET to that.

If you take a poll, and see what "the majority" like on a given subject, that isn't something you can effectively MARKET at.
Wait, that sounds too simple, I can see how that'd be misunderstood...

You can't take a poll like "which genre of film do you like best" and get (37% comedy, 28% action, 12 % romance, etc.) and then make a movie that is 37% comedy, 28% action, 12 % romance, etc.
Nor can you say "ok, MOST people didn't choose horror (like 4%) so we shouldn't ever make horror or include scares."

You CAN say "hmm, comedy seems to be the most popular genre, let's make a comedy movie" and viola, you are targeting a genre, a fandom, a niche... but more than 37% of those responding to the poll will probably go see the comedy.  If it is well-received (critically, word of mouth, or both) and good.

You can say "hmm, only 4% chose horror as their favorite... we should make less horror films or use a smaller budget expecting smaller returns."  That's targeting a genre, a fandom, a niche, and acknowledging the smaller size of that genre's fanbase.  And odds are if the movie gets good word of mouth (horror almost never gets good critical reviews so I'm not even pretending here) and is well made there will be much more than that 4% that see it, even if it'll be rare to see it equal the sales of the comedy movie.

----

If you still insist that you can make something for the mainstream market, what aspects of that market are you appealing to?
What aspects ARE THERE that you think can be appealed to?
Other than just making a good movie, having a good ad campaign, and getting good reviews / word of mouth?  <--- none of that is making a movie to a market.  Most of those are just ways to sell a movie to people outside the movie's target demographic.

---

You can have the last word on this if you like, In Exile, as I've spent too much time in this thread digressing from the topic.

[In Exile]

[quote]MerinTB wrote...
One simple thing you are getting wrong that I'll atttempt briefly to clear up, as it may well be my fault for poorly wording something somewhere -

There's a difference between trying to make your product for a certain market...
and trying to make a market for your product. [/quote]

I am denying there is this substantive difference you are arguing for. Certainly I haven't seen you put foward anything more than personal conjecture that this is the case - vague hypotheticals about purchasing habits are not particular convicing.

[quote]Going for "mainstream" - which is very similar to the "independent" or "undecided" voter - is trying to target the largest group of people who are in the middle of extremes.  It is trying to make something that appeals to the largest group of people while upsetting or turning off the fewest. [/quote]

Insofar as political campaigns are concerned, going for independent voters is a good strategy, since the party affiliated are hardliners who will either vote for the party or stay at home. Avoiding annoying your base and giving your base a candidate that they want are two different things.

Take DA2. If Bioware annoys 30% of the DA:O users such that they won't buy DA2, from 3.2 million that reduces us to 2.24. If this attracts another 1.2 million new users... that puts the overall count at 3.44 million, which just made Bioware/EA an extra 0.24 million sales, which at $40 an average copy would mean $9 600 000 in revenue.
[quote]You get "mainstream" by cutting off the harsh edges of genres, the more niche or defining aspects, anything that might turn off a large portion of the majority.  You get "mainstream" by trying to blend aspects of popular genres to attract as many people as possible. [/quote]

Let's say this is true - what you are suggesting right now is that it is possible to create a game that appeals to the broadest possible number of people. Initially you denied that this was the case, and argued that people are roughly speaking going to buy any genre. To quote you:

[quote]What I always think about is how there
are gamers who will pick
up most any game - they are equally happy
playing a shooter or a sports
game, a racing game or a platformer,
an RTS or an RPG, etc.  They may
have favorites, sure, but I think
most gamers will pick up most anything
and at least try it.
And I
think it's probably a majority of gamers
who buy a game new as
opposed to renting or buying used.  They buy it
pretty close to
release, not usually pre-ordering but browsing shelves
and grabbing
something new that catches their eye.  The majority of
gamers
probably pay little attention to sites like IGN or shows like
X-Play,
instead relying on friends and the description/images on the
box,
maybe a few tv or such ads that they stumbled across.[/quote]
[quote]But there's nothing that defines "middle" or "mainstream" that isn't relative... that is to say, there's no defining qualities or aspects of "mainstream" other than how much they are in-between focused groups of interest, how much they are not into niches. [/quote]

Which is entirely irrelevant. Insofar as we can say: the following set of features appeals to mainstream, then that's a good enough broad design principle. All that's left is the implementation - we already have the theoretical aim we want, which is to avoid falling too hard on any one genre.

[quote]To make a product for "mainstream", you are trying to create a market for your product as there isn't something you can point at and say "most people like this" unless you try something absolutely worthless like "most gamers like their games to be fun" or "most movie goers like being entertained." [/quote]

But you just said there is something concrete we can point to:

[quote]]You get "mainstream" by cutting off the harsh edges of genres, the more
niche or defining aspects,[/quote]

That's a reasonable design strategy: take a particular genre, identify what are the most "niche" aspects of the genre (which we can reasonably define as those features which do not appear in most other genres) and remove them.

[quote]You can't MARKET to that.

If you take a poll, and see what "the majority" like on a given subject, that isn't something you can effectively MARKET at. [/quote]

That's nonsense. If there is some clearly identifiable feature the majority like, you can design around that. If there isn't a clearly identifiable feature that any large number of people like, then your polling data will always show low %s and wide spread for any sample of large alternatives.

[quote]Wait, that sounds too simple, I can see how that'd be misunderstood...

You can't take a poll like "which genre of film do you like best" and get (37% comedy, 28% action, 12 % romance, etc.) and then make a movie that is 37% comedy, 28% action, 12 % romance, etc.
Nor can you say "ok, MOST people didn't choose horror (like 4%) so we shouldn't ever make horror or include scares." [/quote]

First of all, if you were going to be reasonable about any such preference survey, you wouldn't use an exclusive ranking (since we know people can like more than one kind of movie). But putting that aside what that would suggest is that there isn't a majority preference. In this case, you would look at things like how likely fans of each genre are to view a movie, how much it costs to produce each, and then work the niche.

Whereas if you had the finding that: 89% of people like comedies, 81% like action, 56% like romance, and 13% like animal puppets, you would look to avoid animal puppets if costs are high (or potentially include them to sucker in the audience if costs are low) and then aim to make many comedies and action movies.

You're biasing your own data set to prove your own.

[quote]You CAN say "hmm, comedy seems to be the most popular genre, let's make a comedy movie" and viola, you are targeting a genre, a fandom, a niche... but more than 37% of those responding to the poll will probably go see the comedy.  If it is well-received (critically, word of mouth, or both) and good. [/quote]

But your consequence is a direct result of your purely construct survey.

[quote]You can say "hmm, only 4% chose horror as their favorite... we should make less horror films or use a smaller budget expecting smaller returns."  That's targeting a genre, a fandom, a niche, and acknowledging the smaller size of that genre's fanbase.  And odds are if the movie gets good word of mouth (horror almost never gets good critical reviews so I'm not even pretending here) and is well made there will be much more than that 4% that see it, even if it'll be rare to see it equal the sales of the comedy movie. [/quote]

This, again, is a consequence of your poorly constructed survey. Not to mention it involves your central premise (which I am contesting, again): that many people will see whatever just because it has good press.

I don't actually agree with you that most people are up for anything.


[quote]If you still insist that you can make something for the mainstream market, what aspects of that market are you appealing to? [/quote]

We can use your definition. You outlined a potential design strategy in trying to prove there is no potential design strategy.

[quote]Other than just making a good movie, having a good ad campaign, and getting good reviews / word of mouth?  <--- none of that is making a movie to a market.  Most of those are just ways to sell a movie to people outside the movie's target demographic. [/quote]

But that doesn't matter. If there was some kind of add campaign that would be 100% succesful in getting anyone who saw it to get the product, our movies would be: "Blank Screen 19 - Blank as Always!"

If you are right and people will basically consume anything that's available on the market so long as it isn't horrid by its own standard and it has good press... then what you produce is irrelevant compared to how you get the word out. It's all implicit in your own premise.

[quote]You can have the last word on this if you like, In Exile, as I've spent too much time in this thread digressing from the topic.
[/quote]

Certainly, and much time presenting a rather unjustified opinion as marketing orthodoxy.

Modifié par In Exile, 26 janvier 2011 - 05:24 .

[HTTP 404]

Twilight movies are crap movies that make tons of money. The market are Teens. they like to throw money away. Make video games that market to teen boys and make it look cool with heavy metal music and big booby characters and lotsa blood.

Thats target marketing. you maximize your consumer base and you do that by focusing in on a demographic or two. We on this forum are a target demographic. So bioware has to keep our demographic and find a broader audience that is related to us. maybe its single mothers, maybe its retired old military vets. Most likely its going to be male (sorry ladies) between the ages of 14 and 30 that play video games at least 10 hours a week.  Of course there are exceptions to every rule but you dont market to "exceptions"

its really not rocket science, its just common sense. Ultimately I want our opinion to matter but the only opinion that should matter is whatever the creative minds at bioware can come up with and if it isnt good its gonna reflect eventually through sales.

edit for being tired

Modifié par HTTP 404, 26 janvier 2011 - 05:34 .

[AlanC9]

HTTP 404 wrote...

Twilight movies are crap movies that make tons of money. The market are Teens. they like to throw money away. Make video games that market to teen boys and make it look cool with heavy metal music and big booby characters and lotsa blood.

Actually, Eclipse was good fun...... if you're into camp. I took my niece and nephew to a midnight premiere, so we got the full experience with all the Team Edward and Team Jacob girls shrieking at each other. The actual film wasn't too bad, though that wasn't really the point.

[HTTP 404]

AlanC9 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

Twilight movies are crap movies that make tons of money. The market are Teens. they like to throw money away. Make video games that market to teen boys and make it look cool with heavy metal music and big booby characters and lotsa blood.

Actually, Eclipse was good fun...... if you're into camp. I took my niece and nephew to a midnight premiere, so we got the full experience with all the Team Edward and Team Jacob girls shrieking at each other. The actual film wasn't too bad, though that wasn't really the point.

wow...just wow man

[AlanC9]

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

[Akizora]

I had one playthrough as an elven mage, one as a human warrior and one as a dwarven rogue, now I'm replaying as a human mage before DA2. My favorite playthrough was as a human warrior due to the fact I became "King" (not entirely, forgot what the title was, but I was on the throne anyway), this time I'm not sure what I'll do..Maybe I'll kill Alistair, make sure Loghain sacrifices himself and then become an evil mastermind of the universe.

[lenkite]

I am a casual player. And I ended up with 3 playthroughs over a long time - all human. The first a male human tank, the second a male human mage and third a human female rogue. I enjoyed the rogue the most simply because a dual-wield human, female rogue twirling, backstabbing and parrying with evasion is one of the sexiest sights around. (shallow I know)



Anyways, many of my friends have played DAO. And none of them have played any other race other than human. Only for curiosity did I check the origin stories for the other races.

[HTTP 404]

AlanC9 wrote...

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

did i not mention that there are exception to the rule?  I dont see a whole lot of adult males lined up to see Twilight.. it isnt random

[Akizora]

HTTP 404 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

did i not mention that there are exception to the rule?  I dont see a whole lot of adult males lined up to see Twilight.. it isnt random

I've seen them and required extensive therapy and medication over the course of a year (3 months which I spent in isolation). When I was finally feeling well again, another movie came out and my ex forced me to watch it with her with the promise of violence and death. All I got was some awkward lovescenes, some teenager without his shirt on and teen angst..Oh and 5 minutes of bad action, when I got home I watched a marathon of Arnold Schwarzenegger movies as self-therapy.

Where are all the oldschool vampire movies? Where's Anne Rice? Redemption? Requiem? The bloodlust, the sexuality of feeding, the embrace, the kiss of death. Now I just get to see glittering skinny "vampires", I really hope BioWare never makes me play a glittering dude.

[HTTP 404]

Akizora wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

did i not mention that there are exception to the rule?  I dont see a whole lot of adult males lined up to see Twilight.. it isnt random

I've seen them and required extensive therapy and medication over the course of a year (3 months which I spent in isolation). When I was finally feeling well again, another movie came out and my ex forced me to watch it with her with the promise of violence and death. All I got was some awkward lovescenes, some teenager without his shirt on and teen angst..Oh and 5 minutes of bad action, when I got home I watched a marathon of Arnold Schwarzenegger movies as self-therapy.

Where are all the oldschool vampire movies? Where's Anne Rice? Redemption? Requiem? The bloodlust, the sexuality of feeding, the embrace, the kiss of death. Now I just get to see glittering skinny "vampires", I really hope BioWare never makes me play a glittering dude.

where's Blade?

on that note; im off topic

[AlanC9]

HTTP 404 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

did i not mention that there are exception to the rule?  I dont see a whole lot of adult males lined up to see Twilight.. it isnt random

Sure, but that's not a quality argument. Adult males are repelled by certain kinds of content. I can get through it because as a Brooklyn hipster I've got near-impenetrable irony shields.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 janvier 2011 - 08:30 .

[Maria Caliban]

Akizora wrote...

Where are all the oldschool vampire movies?

30 Days of Night and Daybreakers spring to mind.

[GameBoyish]

I just hope that the stats will not cause you guys to permanently eradicate dwarves in the DA universe... I know there are many dwarf haters out there but there are many dwarf fans as well...

[Lotion Soronarr]

I played with all races/classes. Didn't finish all games tough.

[SkittlesKat96]

Who wouldn't want to be play as the Noble mighty warrior dwarf?

[Falmung]

I always play as human. The faces of elves simply didn't appeal to me. I also would never play as a dwarve. Don't like being short. The other races are something I would consider for playing around but not to use as a main character. Thus why it doesn't affect me that much that they were scrapped for char creator on DA2.

[HTTP 404]

AlanC9 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

My point is, nothing gets to be that big without something going for it besides marketing muscle. It isn't random.

did i not mention that there are exception to the rule?  I dont see a whole lot of adult males lined up to see Twilight.. it isnt random

Sure, but that's not a quality argument. Adult males are repelled by certain kinds of content. I can get through it because as a Brooklyn hipster I've got near-impenetrable irony shields.

haha you got me on the quality argument.  I was only making a quantity argument.  One guy who lets his DA:O collect dust with only half a playthrough paid as much money as us to get that game.  A big part of marketing is getting customers to the door, Quantity.  The last part is keeping them, thats where you can talk about quality.