Jay520 said:
I'd like you to name some superb quality, appealing games that don't see high sales because of marketing, particularly PS3 exclusives. The only PS3 exclusives of superb quality & appeal that I can think of are Uncharted & God of War (and maybe GT) and those are fairly big. Nearly every other PS3 exclusive is a B-Level game and/or lacks appeal, two problems that marketing can't fully overcome. Killzone is not appealing (most people dislike the slow aiming) and in some cases, it's low quality (it lacks modes like competitive splitscreen). LBP is not appealing to most PS3 owners (it just looks kiddy and that's enough to put most people off), and in some cases, it's low quality (floaty physics, amateur levels, etc). InFamous & Resistance are both considered B-Level games. Heavy Rain is obviously niche. Ratchet & Clank is apart of genre not popular at all amongst PS3 fans so it's not appealing. This is why I believe most Sony games see low sales because of their own content, not marketing. Like I said, marketing would come naturally if they were good enough. Can you name me some high quality/appealing games that see low sales? I agree with everything else you said. |
You're a little off in you discrepancy.
All those games are AAA games. AAA refers to quality and budget. KZ is AAA, Resistance is AAA. They're just not as appealing, but a shitload of money goes into them, and they are, by all standards very polished and professional AAA games. I'd contest that Infamous is likely high B.
If you're talking AAA as in, an outstanding game, then I'd say their AAA franchises are GoW, GT, Uncharted, LBP. Those games are all excellent games totally worth 60$ and first day buys. They could focus more on those, but you have to understand that three of those are aging franchises. Some of those B games could be pushed up to AAA if they tried a little harder or had better focus.
Also @ this
"
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."
That is not true. quality/appeal will never see the levels of sales that a strong marketing push will provide. You don't think you can advertise a B level game to make it sell like an A level? Just look at Cod and Halo for counter-evidence.
Uncharted didn't even have a tenth of the marketing that halo 3 had.
All the Sony first party are extremely high quality games, they just don't have enough exposure. Shit, I didn't even know resistance 3 had been released until like a month after it was. Sony just doesn't advertise.
Halo 3 had a marketing budget of 40 million. As much money as a AAA game's budget. Sony instead uses that money to make a new game. MS uses it to make those Halo 3 sales explode.
