| Jay520 said: Sure, marketing is important, but I believe that quality/appeal comes first. I'm a firm believer that if a game is top quality & appealing, then sales will come. I think a passively marketed, top quality/appealing game will be more successful than a highly marketed, average game in most cases. Of course, marketing is necessary to cross into the "huge" territory, but quality/appeal comes first IMO. You can't advertise a B-Level game to sell like an A-Level game. This is the reason I think Sony didn't heavily market games like Killzone or Resistance. They simply weren't made to be blockbuster games, so why waste money trying market them as such? Now, if the games were top quality like Uncharted, then I'm sure they would have naturally gotten the marketing love like Uncharted. Marketing is used on games only if they are good enough. For that reason, the game's content is more important than marketing. Had all the games Sony released last been developed with superb quality/appeal, then I'm sure heavy marketing would have naturally been used. But sadly, that was not the case. |
I agree and disagree. I agree you can market the heck out of a B-Level game, and it'll sell maybe the first or second iteration, but not sustainably.
However, there are lots of A-Level gems that don't get the love they deserve. That's the part I disagree on hardcore. Yes, a good game will have its love in a niche without marketing, but why do that to a good game? If it's really good, of good quality and high appeal, then it should be marketed.
Then, I agree here, in that there are exceptions. Some games have little marketing and yet do very well by their intrinsic appeal and quality. Yeah, it happens.
But tying back to OP, a game like Uncharted given more marketing can really shine. Repeat the process on other links in the chain (increase quality and appeal, the themes have potential), market them as such, and you have a winning formula.
