Now it does make people avoid off-brands, but again, it's not because of the brand name itself, but because they think the off-brand doesn't offer what they like from the brand name. Take Saint Row 2. It has the same feel of a 3D GTA game, but without the brand, it sold just a fraction of those games (fortunately still enough for a third game). Or take the Zune to the iPod. Even if the Zune has better specs, it's an off-brand, so it sells a lot less. This is also why a lot of us feel the Move is going to be a tough sell unless Solny can set the games apart from Wii games. The mainstream won't see the specs of the sensors, or the HD graphics (which are part of A/B/C)*. They will see an off-brand Wii.
Now brand name can raise awareness of a product, but that only helps sales a little. When a product with the brand name doesn't offer what made the brand name a hit, people won't buy it. New Coke is the most famous example, but with gaming, the same applies. I could go the extreme with the CD-i games using Zelda and Mario, but looking at the wacky spinoffs buy the same developers shows that brand names can only sell a game so much. Mario spinoffs are often hits, but the sales usually pale in comparison to the main games. And even when they are hits, those games still have to stand on their own to reach mainstream appeal (Mario Kart being an obvious one, which made its own brand name).
Brand is very important because it tells you something of a product and so is advertising. Imagine going into a retail store and going over a bunch of the brightly coloured and dazzling displays and being unfamiliar with any of the products. Games are intimidating for a lot of people so familiar names like Mario and Nintendo are very important to this market because they have no other way to tell the quality of the goods on the market. Thats the reason why 3rd party games are cheap, they are at a price where people are more willing to take a risk. I know this because I felt the same way in trying to pick out a DS game without being familiar at all with the library.
The reason why I believe the iPod takes the crown and the Zune cannot get a break is the same reason why Windows stays in charge:
-
Compatibility: +++
-
Reliability: ---
-
Price: --
-
Familiarity: ++++++++
When you're dealing with complicated or unfamiliar products people like to deal with the familiar. See people go into the shops and they know they can use an iPod and they can use the iTunes software so they stick with it, they don't know if they can use the Zune or the Zune software. When the general population is incompetent, they tend to gravitate towards the easy choices. When the population has a good general understanding of the product like for instance clothes, the market tends to be far more varied.
Where this relates to motion controllers is that the Move controller is close enough to the Wiimote but complicated enough for most people to stick with their automatic Wii purchases. It doesn't have the familiar titles or experiences which people have come to expect and making those cloned games more complicated is unlikely to endear them to the Wii potential market. I bet the most common first thing an average person will want to do when they pick up the Move controller is play Wii tennis.
On the other hand Microsoft doesn't have to replicate the Wii because people expect a completely different experience. However it does have the advantage in that people will want to show off the novelty of it if it works. Ricochet is there because its socially awkward. You look like a baboon playing it and thats the intention. The river rafting is there because its a reasonably intense if accessable two player game. The advantage with being unfamiliar is that the audience will take some time to become familiar whereas being too close to the original means people are familiar with the concept but not any of the USPs as they can't be bothered.
Tease.
