|
Nem said: You still dont understand. You dont know what segmentation is, you dont know know the logic behind producing and aiming a product at a market. Marketing isnt something you can define that easily. I dont know where you found that definition, but it is certainly very incomplete. Dr. Philip Kotler defines marketing as “the science and art of exploring, creating, and delivering value to satisfy the needs of a target market at a profit. Marketing identifies unfulfilled needs and desires. It defines, measures and quantifies the size of the identified market and the profit potential. It pinpoints which segments the company is capable of serving best and it designs and promotes the appropriate products and services.” Do you understand now? Can we agree that the "mature"games Nintendo makes are good? If they are good it means they are well marketed on the product side. I dont know wich target they are actually aiming for, but if they expect bigger sales it can only be because the news of the game didnt reach all the customers it should. This is either because the product wasnt good enough for the needs it was trying to satisfy, wich i guess isnt the case, or they failed to deliver the message to the target it was aimed at. Delivering the message is the job of Advertisement. What you are saying is that everything is wrong including the products, the price, the placement, when in fact the problem is just the communication. You are saying everything is wrong, when in fact only 1/4 is. That is hardly what i consider accurate. Choose between these what you think is wrong: Price Product Placement Promotion Tell me what you think is wrong from those, because when you say the Marketing is wrong you are saying they are all wrong. Also, drop the arrogance, i have legitimacy to tell you what these things are since i do have a degree on it. I am teaching you here and you are squabling at me. I can just leave you in ignorance if you'd rather. |
A decent post, but I'll try to convince you that I understand, and this whole thread revolves around the idea of marketing.
Price:
This one is ok. However, Nintendo has a tendency to keep their prices high, so this could use some work too. I believe Prime stayed a high price for a long time (too long imho).
Product:
Like some were mentioning in the thread, there may be parts of Prime that may have been a bit too slow paced to make them instant hits, and things like making the character fully powered at game start was suggested (though I believe Corruption uses that idea iirc).
Placement:
I need a little more details regarding this. Does this ask "where should we sell our games, in what retail outlets, in what regions?".
Promotion:
Well, this one you know how I feel about it, so yeah the advertising is inadequate.
In summary,
A hit needs to be designed as a hit from A to Z. My main example in this thread for that point was Assassin's Creed. That was well marketted.
| cusman said: I think the type of gamers that would have wanted Metroid Prime 3 spent most of their time playing on X360 or PS3. They dont feel the need to buy a Wii just to play one game. The same way people don't feel a need to buy a PS-Vita to play the 1-2 games of slight interest to them. Very few gamers out there are multi-plat minded where they get the hardware and trust that good games will come and then get only the good games (regardless of platform). |
@cusman and soundwave: You're correct for the Vita, but what about the 360. When it first came out, people primarily bought it for Gears and Halo iirc. And note, that the 360/PS3 crowd was very small when Corruption was released.
A console is then built on the legs of great hits which attract a consumerbase. That fuels other games within the genre, or for that segment, to bud.
| RolStoppable said:
2) It's not that easy though. A company cannot say: "Okay, we'll make two games and both will be huge hits, so we are good to go." - In one specific case, Nintendo tried to broaden the appeal of Metroid and the result was Other M which was a flop on every imaginable level. All the failures third party publishers produced were intended to become hit games and turn into franchises. |
I agree that it's not easy, but I do believe it's possible. Ubisoft has found a winning strategy, and they are making it happen. Are they that much better than Nintendo? We both know Nintendo is the greater one, but when it comes to marketing to the older-teen segment, Ubisoft wins, hands down.
I agree that Other M didn't work, but that's why I'm saying they need to hire proper consultants and see what they're doing wrong, because in their oriental mindset and in their unfamiliarity with what pleases that segment, all the attempts they will try will go wrong, until someone shows them how it's done. (imho)
| 3) It's clear that Nintendo wants this demographic, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. Especially because their business has been in free fall ever since they opted to change their strategy from what made the Wii and DS successful in the first place. |
And again this is where you're not seperating things. I personally agree that Nintendo is dropping the ball on its Wii strategy. The Wii U should be the success of the combination of successful Wii and U strategies. As you've noticed, it's not fully working. Need they fund a fully seperate branch to ensure the success of their U strategy? Then they should do that. One should and need not hinder the other.
| 4) All Nintendo needs to do is to get the third party multiplatform games on their console. As it stands, approximately 98% of the big budget games that third parties make appeal to the older teen crowd. There's really no point for Nintendo to majorly invest in additional projects for this demographic, especially when every other segment of the market is widely underserved. Funding a game like Bayonetta 2 every now and then is more than sufficient, if the third party multiplatform games are there; and if the multiplatform games are missing, then no amount of Nintendo developed older teen crowd games are going to make up the difference. |
But that is the point of OP. If Nintendo doesn't have a major hit on its console, the 3rd parties will not congregate on their platform, it's simple. We saw it happen with Halo, we saw it happen in the casual/non-gamer market with the Wii Series (other casual games ensued). That's how it works, and until Nintendo understands that it needs to spearhead the markets it wants its platform to penetrate, that will never happen. This also answers your point 5.
Tying back to OP, even if they have Bayo 2, if they don't market it properly, it's going nowhere. They need to put in the money to build this market they are seeking, in the goal of winning it back by making their efforts massive hits.
As for your point 6), Rol, Nintendo could very well just continue with the Wii strategy, and they would just need to make it clear that that will be their focus. But some of us want Nintendo to dominate in all segments, much like was the case for the PS2, the PS1, the SNES and the NES. I understand it can be annoying to hear it repeated, but until my questions aren't answered, and we haven't come to a middle ground, I can't stop.
|
Looks like you didn't have an answer to my argument, so you focused on the one part you could attack. Although... I do understand that different people have different tastes and I argue that Nintendo should accept that and don't cater to those people who wouldn't buy a Nintendo system anyway. You cannot honestly believe that there aren't people who refuse to buy a Nintendo system. When are you going to buy a Wii U? |
And that's the point of OP. If they can market their games properly, the hope is that they COULD lure these gamers into buying said hits. If they make a serious effort and it fails, I will let this go. But until then, if they don't do thorough research into what sells a game for that crowd, then I am not satisfied with this idea.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
This. Nintendo makes games everyone can play but their main goal is to bring the family into the living room. It was my start up console like the Wii is for many other people. Lets see how long Nintendo can hold onto those people. Nintendo wants the COD sales but they dont want to get their hands dirty. They were responsible for gaming becoming huge and they want to stay relevant to the serious gamers whom they brought into gaming. |
@S.T.A.G.E. and Xxain: As I have said multiple times, it's not because they're not currently able or willing to that the idea of it is invalid.
Just like Microsoft entered the casual space with Kinect, Nintendo can certainly do the same with the older teen crowd.
pezus said:
But isn't the case the same with Wii? Brawl sold really well, as did Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, as did RE4 (I think) and Twilight Princess. |
True, but that's only a handful as compared to the list I mentioned. And the sales numbers of the list I mentioned were proportionate to that gen, where games like Prince of Persia (the analogue to AC today) sold roughly 3.5m units on 3 systems as compared to today's AC at roughly 9.5m mainly on two platforms.
| zuvuyeay said: they have a chance to make it better with the WiiU,the "all round" console that's what reggie said on mnsb channel to that lady the other day,battling microsoft in the USA for that market will be quite difficult for anyone now though with the "online" crowd cemented which one can only assume is a major pull to the "older teen" market interesting thread HD |
Thanks, and OP was there to say that they need to do something serious to do it right, because in their current practice Nintendo doesn't quite have it. Maybe I can give them time, but they really need to better research their target audience.
| oniyide said: @happydolphin SK is no longer with ninty. There pretty much dead as a company and you keep bringing up third parties. Thats not what I asked you, i asked can NINTENDO make those kinds of games, not THQ, Namco, Capcom etc. A straight up NINTENDO in house dev team. I know they can contract someone outside to do it, ala Other M any can do that. And yes it does make a difference because it still isnt a Nintendo made game. |
I know that SK is no longer with Ninty, not even with MS, I know that. My point still stands for the time they were with Ninty on the cube.
Anyways, my point is that Nintendo, whether they can make those games or not, need to learn to make them, but even more importantly, need to know how to market them, as this applies to 1st party games AND games they sub-contract to make.
It doesn't make any difference from the perspective of Nintendo having an IP they own that serves as their posterchild to that crowd (OP). Whether it's built in hous or not, all that matters is that they own it, and that they market it properly.
Cobretti2 said:
their top selling first party games like mario get barely advertised too. I am yet to see ONE WiiU add. In contrast, I have seen SONY of all people advertising assassins creed III for PS3 and VITA and that isn't even their own game. |
:) I live in Canada. I don't watch much TV, but I do go to the movies, and I remember back in the day when I would see some launch period commercials for Nintendo, Sony and MS in the theaters.
If Nintendo is scared about a war of attrition, they just need to do the math and do it right. Yes advertising costs, but they just need to calculate the costs, add it all up and make it a reality. If they have a product that suits the segment, that is.
