| Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Oh dear god. Please for a moment, stop and think about what you are saying. How do you think the masses as you like to put it would have been able to deem whether Haze and Lair were of quality or were not? Did they look at the cover and go “Well that does not look like a quality game”. Did they look through screenshots and videos which did in fact look promising? Most likely they looked at the review which contributed to the purchase. You keep claiming that I don’t understand how “the masses” work yet your own argument is contradicting in itself. Either they buy in an impulsive unpredictable manner, and are completely affected by marketing or they are more intelligent that and do they’re homework. The fact of the matter is that it is a mix of both, which is why certain games of lower quality end up selling better than others that are critically acclaimed. As a Nintendo fan I will admit, Carnival games and Wii party didn’t flop because a significant amount of soccer moms who purchase the Wii for there family look at games like that and go “well that looks fun for the kids”. |
@Bold Do you have any statistics to prove that they go looking for reviews ? (Not from the forums but from the so called "soccer moms" because I am looking for non biases all around.) You clearly demonstrated that you obviously don't understand how masses will buy a game. The masses do NOT impulsively buy games immediately. The way a game can be successful towards the masses is that a small fraction of them are willing to try them. If they deem the game as a high quality title then they will spread words to others and you get a wild fire affect of demand. Games like mario kart and NSMBWII did not sell upon tens of millions on release. The reason they have attained these legs is through the words of other parts of the masses. Your assumption that they impulsively buy is incorrect and disingenuous at best.
The masses do not care about review scores, it's as simple as that otherwise their wouldn't be such distortions in sales across each games.
| Nirvana_Nut85 said:
I don’t feel it was excessive. It was an analogy that gave a comparison. Purchasing a game for the ‘masses” is still an investment for them. So your saying that an experienced gamer would not be able to analyze a persons interest and then give a non biased opinion of a game to help direct them to an experience they would enjoy? I don’t think you understood what I was trying to say. The opinion to analyze someone’s interest and recommend them a genre that would suit them would be substantially of more value coming from an experienced gamer than a soccer mom saying “well just buy this game because it looks fun”. They wouldn’t be able to give the same analysis for a game recommendation based on this lack of experience and knowledge. Therefore, financial adviser vs. stoner is not that far fetched when comparing! |
You see the problem with "experienced gamers" is that they are biased by their own defintion of what a defines a "quality" game. The reality of it all is that the market responds differently. The market simply has the greater presence in comparison to the "experienced gamer". What the "market" thinks about the "experienced gamer" is simply irrelevant to the amount of votes that were shown.
@Bold The problem with that logic is your equating opinions that pertains to games compared to a financial adviser that has credentials to do the jobs.
The votes or opinions of a "soccer mom" and a "gamer" is equal as far as the market is concerned, it's as simple as that. The recommendation of a financial adviser is incomparable to that of a stoner because a financial adviser is trained to manage something as objective as financial wealth and for that your example was definitely far fetched.
| Nirvana_Nut85 said:
You’re completely underestimating the ability of marketing. You’re also not factoring in that recognition is key. If the public is not educated to the existence of a console and believes it’s an expensive add on, that will impact the sales of such said console. The Wii U has worth while exclusives, there are many sites known for low balling Nintendo games and having quite the “hate-on” so to speak who have given good reviews for the likes of Pikmin, Zelda and SMW3D. The games are not Nintendo’s problem (at this point), Nintendo's problem is that the hardware itself is not selling. They haven’t managed to make the hardware look attractable and came in at too high of a price due to the game pad. The system looks as if the Wii was bundled with an add-on at a higher price. Most people as I’ve stated over and over again still have no clue what that the system even exists. Nintendo have not be able to properly communicate that to the customer “which” is the reason for it’s sales. As for SMW3D, since its release, The Wii U has gone from 3.95mill to 4.5 in a matter of a few weeks, which shows Mario moving consoles, just not to the extent that some people thought. |
Marketing will do nothing if the masses do not realize you definition of quality pertaining to a game. Therefore these games deserve low sales because the masses just simply do not have anything worthwhile to mention about these games. If the WII U truly had worthwhile exclusives then they wouldn't be having non existant legs. Again I have to keep telling you that "SOFTWARE SELLS HARDWARE". What exactly is so hard to understand about this statement ? Price can be an issue but all it comes down to a gaming console is the games. Would you rather a console with all your favourite game that cost $1000 for a console or would you rather a $100 console with absolutely no games ? The masses know what the WII U is, it's just that they don't want it as you can clearly see for a year now. SM3DW didn't move alot of hardware because the market thought it was a low quality title. In other words SM3DW is a flop compared to other mario titles.
