32 réponses à ce sujet

[Zatche]

This is a topic that has been talked about it some threads, most recently in the Twitter Thread, where we were warned to stay on topic, but hasn't had it's own topic (not that I've seen recently, anyways): the Bethesda approach.

 

Based on the DAI's DLC releases and the current state of us not having much Mass Effect Andromeda information, some of speculated that Bioware is trying to reverse course of the initial announcement (back in 2015?) and pull a Bethesda/Beyonce with MEA.

 

While it'd be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do an objective quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of this strategy versus a more traditional strategy, in which the Developer shows demos years before the release and at all the major gaming conventions, we can offer some speculative arguments as to why one might work better than the other.

 

My argument would be in favor of the Beyonce:

 

1. This is the era of YouTube, where people have 24/7 access to a whole bunch of information right at their finger tips. We can watch a few demos/videos of a game within a few hours, and decide then whether we're hyped or we don't care.

 

2. Again, in the era of YouTube, people have short attention spans, and get distracted by the next big thing pretty easily. If BioWare releases a new big video/demo for MEA now, it'll be the next big thing. If they release a new demo/video again, say 6 months from now, closer to release, it won't be the next big thing anymore.  It'll just be a little more information than we had six months previous. It'd make more sense to have the game be the next big thing, when it's actually releasing. 

 

3. Given the recent toxicity of the gaming community, releasing information early can often backfire when there are changes or cuts to the game. See the Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs graphics downgrade, and the DAI Crestwood demo.

 

4. At all the major gaming conventions, all the developers are trying to get your attention all at once. If developers released information on their own time, they'd be the only one vying for your attention.

 

Some more thoughts from Yahtzee: http://www.escapistm...3-Around-Anyway

 

What are the opposing thoughts on how big gaming events and releasing info a year before release help the developer, or even the consumer?

[AngryFrozenWater]

If what you say is true then why show a video in 2015 and 2016?

 

If the game was supposed to be ready and all it needed was "polishing, polishing, polishing" then we see very little of that in the latest BtS. Compared to the other EA games at E3, it didn't look like ME:A was in its last development stage.

[Zatche]

If what you say is true then why show a video in 2015 and 2016?

 

If the game was supposed to be ready and all it needed was "polishing, polishing, polishing" then we see very little of that in the latest BtS. Compared to the other EA games at E3, it didn't look like ME:A was in its last development stage.

 

There wasn't a new Bethesda approach to emulate until 2015. They couldn't then un-announce the game. 2016, they gave us something small to hold us over, since we already know it exists. Though I can understand the frustration with the vague tweets teasing that there was something "big" for 2016.

 

I don't really have much of an opinion on whether the "polishing, polishing, polishing" comments are genuine or not. I do suppose, it is possible that the game is in polish mode, but they're delaying the game anyway in order to not take away attention from Battlefield, but who knows?

[Il Divo]

Off-topic: cool avatar choice, Zatche. Always was a fan of Zaheer and Bolin. 

[SofaJockey]

EA are not going to co-market Titanfall 2 and MEA.

 

[nfi42]

OP, a couple things stand out as being arguable.

 

 

 

Again, in the era of YouTube, people have short attention spans.

 

 

Some people have short attention spans, some don't. 

 

 

Given the recent toxicity of the gaming community, releasing information early can often backfire when there are changes or cuts to the game. See the Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs graphics downgrade, and the DAI Crestwood demo.

 

TW3 suffered not at all sales wise from it's graphics downgrade, because it was still a good game.  The other 2 games suffered because they were crap or lacking in content.

 

Personally, I don't really care whether the marketing is long or short as I don't let it influence my decision to buy a game.  Marketing is to raise awareness of a game, and both a long or short marketing lead in can achieve this.  It's a bit foolish to base purchasing decisions on marketing alone.

[Blueblood]

For me, all it takes is just a little more information down the line and the flame is instantly reignited. But I can be really fickle when it comes to getting excited for games.

If developers are going to release info on games a year before release, then it should be just a small amount of info I think. Just so we know that there's more to look forward to and we therefore don't lose interest, that and being drip fed small tidbits throughout the year to KEEP us interes- nah, that's too simplified.

[Oldren Shepard]

I have the witcher for now and there are coming good games in the next months...but the waiting is hard.

[Spirit Vanguard]

I prefer the "Bethesda" approach and feel it's a wise move for MEA. This game is already under heavy scrutiny as a spawn of its trilogy relative, and the less that is known the less that can be torn apart pre-release. We got a short video from E3 and that was enough to get people riled one way or the other. (Asari eyebrows! Exploration! RYDER!) They do claim they're mostly "polishing" right now, but that doesn't mean what they show us couldn't somehow still be removed.

New fans who haven't experienced the trilogy likely won't need a long build-up. They'll learn of it closer to release and probably be more inclined to stay interested since it's not some far-away thing about which they know nothing.

The rest of us have no choice but to wait -- some aren't even going to play it straight out of the gate, but will wait even longer. Those that are on the fence will still get the info to decide sooner or later. While it can be frustrating waiting all this time without much information, I'm patient enough to continue waiting because I already know I'm going to play it. I personally prefer going into games fairly blind anyway.

[Zatche]

Some people have short attention spans, some don't. 

 

I was speaking more about the media and general public. It seems pretty fickle to me. I can see how the way I phrased it makes it seem like I was speaking about everyone.

 

TW3 suffered not at all sales wise from it's graphics downgrade, because it was still a good game.  The other 2 games suffered because they were crap or lacking in content.

 

We don't really know what the effects were sales wise. The effect on TW3 was likely pretty small. The game is awesome-sauce. With DAI, which I personally liked, the Crestwood demo did seem to lead some people towards comparing the actual game to one that didn't exist. But maybe I'm basing this too much on the forums, which aren't all that representative of gamers as a whole. And it's likely people would still have been disappointed in the side content either way.

 

It certainly didn't help, though.

 

Personally, I don't really care whether the marketing is long or short as I don't let it influence my decision to buy a game.  Marketing is to raise awareness of a game, and both a long or short marketing lead in can achieve this.  It's a bit foolish to base purchasing decisions on marketing alone.

 

I certainly agree. Both have been effective in the past. I'm just wondering if one's better than the other and speculating it's the latter. I don't think I'll ever get an objective answer, unless some thorough academic study on it pops up. And I definitely don't correlate good marketing with good games.

[straykat]

I prefer the "Bethesda" approach and feel it's a wise move for MEA. 

 

It's only a wise move for Bethesda because they can sell 20+ million copies and people who barely play games still tend to find out about them.

 

Bioware hasn't been as successful. Not even half as successful. They have a strong fanbase, but not nearly as many people care about them. They need marketing and more word of mouth. They can't generate hype the same way Bethesda does. 

[Spirit Vanguard]

It's only a wise move for Bethesda because they can sell 20+ million copies and people who barely play games still tend to find out about them.
 
Bioware hasn't been as successful. Not even half as successful. They have a strong fanbase, but not nearly as many people care about them. They need marketing and more word of mouth. They can't generate hype the same way Bethesda does.

I'm not saying it should be identical to Bethesda, but Bioware is clearly holding onto information until a later date -- for whatever kind of "condensed hype" or protection of game material. In theory, I like this approach. In the sense of slimming information to keep from overzealous criticism I feel like it's wise. Reputation by word of mouth could be damaging if it happens to be mostly negative.

[straykat]

I'm not saying it should be identical to Bethesda, but Bioware is clearly holding onto information until a later date -- for whatever kind of "condensed hype" or protection of game material. In theory, I like this approach. In the sense of slimming information to keep from overzealous criticism I feel like it's wise. Reputation by word of mouth could be damaging if it happens to be mostly negative.

 

Oh, they still have quite a ways off. I don't blame them for being silent now. It's just that Bethesda is kind of tight lipped until months before release. I don't think that in particular would be good for Bioware.

[AlanC9]

It'd probably help the discussion if we had some testimony from people who are susceptible to hype. Four months, three months, one month, it's all the same to me. If anything, I get bored with a game that I've been hearing about for months unless I'm already committed to it.

[straykat]

It'd probably help the discussion if we had some testimony from people who are susceptible to hype. Four months, three months, one month, it's all the same to me. If anything, I get bored with a game that I've been hearing about for months unless I'm already committed to it.

 

Well, I was pretty susceptible to Skyrim hype. That's the still best trailer I've ever seen. All they needed was that and I was sold. And I hated Oblivion, funnily (liked Morrowind, but that was years before. And it was more, like, "interesting". I wasn't a diehard fan. I appreciate it more now).

 

I came to Bioware via Star Wars hype. And the idea of a SW RPG. Ever since, I've sort of just been a early customer.

[Seraphim24]

All I know is this 16 second SWTOR trailer is better than 2 years worth of whatever from the ME people.

 

[Spectr61]

Interesting academic discussion on marketing strategy, however I suspect neither would substantively impact a game as immensely popular as MEA will be right out of the chute.

Many, many will buy it just because is has "Mass Effect" on it. And the fence sitters wil be more influenced by reviews than marketing hype strategy.

I'm sure some small incremental gains could be realised by selecting one over the other, but in the end, the franchise is too popular, and even if they did zero marketing, it would be a huge hit on release.

[Norhik Krios]

If what you say is true then why show a video in 2015 and 2016?

Ahh, the videos in 2015 and 2016 were a "joke"* compared to what AAA titles usually get as pre release hype-build-up and video and gameplay information these days. They were trailers, to say "Remember Andromeda? We are working on it, it will be a bomb, just wait for it!"* . So please count that out as gameplay and pre release videos.

*I'm all for it, I like the trailers and can't wait for the gameplay, when they finally show it. I have faith and trust in BioWare, that Andromeda will deliver. These days the game developers put half the game out there, especially the good stuff (logically, who would by a game when they show the boring parts!? lol) but everyone's teasing themselves - me included! - by watching all that gameplay. They build up so much shizzle, that the game, that comes out, can only fail or stay on the same level.
There are certain games, that are an exception, but exceptions proof the rule, like The Witcher 3 for example, or maybe Shadow of Mordor, for the people who followed the developement of that game, but what I'm trying to say... once Andromeda arrives, people will be blown away, because they see it for the first time.
The fewer things they might have shown before release, the more things you will see for the first time! While you're in the game! Controlling it! How fugging awesome is that!?




*ring-ring  ring-ring*

"Hello?"

"Yeah hi, hello, 200X here, remember how excited you used to be, when games appeared on your monitor for the first time?"

"Ahh, not that much, it's been a while..."

"Well, I got news for you!..."

[straykat]

Interesting academic discussion on marketing strategy, however I suspect neither would substantively impact a game as immensely popular as MEA will be right out of the chute.

Many, many will buy it just because is has "Mass Effect" on it. And the fence sitters wil be more influenced by reviews than marketing hype strategy.

I'm sure some small incremental gains could be realised by selecting one over the other, but in the end, the franchise is too popular, and even if they did zero marketing, it would be a huge hit on release.

 

It's not that popular, relatively speaking. The whole series sold 14 million copies put together. One Skyrim sold 20 million. Each call of Duty sells 10-20 million. GTA sells 20+ million. Diablo 20+. And lets not even get into Pokemon or other Nintendo games. These are the kind of games that don't need much marketing.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Announcing a game two years before launch is good for two reasons:

1. Investors know your working to improve company finances and

2. The player community is aware of a future game down the road.

 

EA, I think, controls the marketing budget. Seeing that EA can set aside 40-80+ millions for marketing, a 3-4 mo intensive ad campaign, before game launch, ensures awareness and retention from the "greater unwashed".

 

I like dev diaries, myself, starting about 1.5 years before game launch.

[Spectr61]

It's not that popular, relatively speaking. The whole series sold 14 million copies put together. One Skyrim sold 20 million. Each call of Duty sells 10-20 million. GTA sells 20+ million. Diablo 20+. And lets not even get into Pokemon or other Nintendo games. These are the kind of games that don't need much marketing.

Not the same.

Those are video games, but then again, so is Angry Birds. And it's probably sold more than all those combined.

Sci-fi action RPG is the genre. Qualifications are numerous "best game ever", and multiple examples of inclusion in top 10's.

This creates a brand that will sell without an ad campaign. It would help, yes, but my point is it would only help incrementally(small), and would sell enough without one entirely to be considered a smash.

When was the last time you saw a Ferrari commercial?

[straykat]

Not the same.

Those are video games, but then again, so is Angry Birds. And it's probably sold more than all those combined.

Sci-fi action RPG is the genre. Qualifications are numerous "best game ever", and multiple examples of inclusion in top 10's.

This creates a brand that will sell without an ad campaign. It would help, yes, but my point is it would only help incrementally(small), and would sell enough without one entirely to be considered a smash.

When was the last time you saw a Ferrari commercial?

 

It's not even much an RPG. Skyrim is a fantasy RPG more than ME is a sci-fi RPG. There's hardly anything to the skills. It's strength is in the dialogues, but that not much else.

 

And that isn't bad btw. I wouldn't want to play a real Mass Effect RPG. Then we'd allocate for more things, including aiming. Screw that.

 

But anyways.. Ferrari doesn't need commercials because they sell for $300,000.

[Dr. Rush]

Bioware is not going to Beyonce ME:A, thats silly.

Nobody will use Tidal, not even for Mass Effect.

[Zatche]

<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

Announcing a game two years before launch is good for two reasons:
1. Investors know your working to improve company finances and
2. The player community is aware of a future game down the road.

EA, I think, controls the marketing budget. Seeing that EA can set aside 40-80+ millions for marketing, a 3-4 mo intensive ad campaign, before game launch, ensures awareness and retention from the "greater unwashed".

I like dev diaries, myself, starting about 1.5 years before game launch.

Why is Point 2 beneficial?

[Zatche]

It's only a wise move for Bethesda because they can sell 20+ million copies and people who barely play games still tend to find out about them.

Bioware hasn't been as successful. Not even half as successful. They have a strong fanbase, but not nearly as many people care about them. They need marketing and more word of mouth. They can't generate hype the same way Bethesda does.

I agree that MEA needs marketing. I just don't see why it needs it right now.

Your point about needing word of mouth makes me think. From a players' standpoint, why would we trust that at any time before launch (or the launch of a downloadable demo)? Isn't word of mouth more reliable once people have played the game?