Slimebeast said:
Yeah I know there was more to it. It got me thinking, especially about the long-term trust thingy. I can't honestly say which strategy is more worth it from a dev/publishers point of view. In the case of AvP I can see that when (if) you already know your product is sub-par, and I actually heard this first hand from one of the developers - he openly said to me that AvP 3 will be bad - then I understand that it makes sense to put all your resources on cheap, effective marketing (shock value) rather than build long-term trust. But guys like Call of Duty/IW might risk their brand trust a little by too much shock value marketing rather than have the product speak for itself. |
Well yea that is very true. I believe I stated somewhere in that wall of text that shock value does have its place, but it can't be everything. I mean everyone needs that little edge every now and then to give it the boost it needs to be be better than the rest. But it can't be nice wrapping paper on an empty box.
Now for games that are already bad and trying to market its shock value to at least get something out of it, it does have its place. What I'm just tryign to argue against, is not everything can do that because it is rather risky. Because if every game started to do that then you'd have a lot of flops and a decent amoutn of huge successes with little to know middle ground. I don't mind anything in a little moderation, but when it starts to become an epidemic, that's when the problem occurrs.
