Einsam_Delphin said:
DélioPT said:
Forgot about that question. Mentioning games of that caliber doesn't really make you right.
See Halo 3, for example: "Licensed products including action figures, toys, and Halo 3-branded soda were released in anticipation of the game; the franchise utilized more than forty licensees to promote the game, and the advertising campaign ultimately cost more than $40 million." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_of_Halo_3
Why spend so much time, effort (read the marketing part in the article) and money on a money making franchise as Halo?
"I will repeat, a live audience/action figures/jokes/etc. are not necessary to get people excited and make your product well known, the numbers prove this." Go tell that to every company at every E3 and every other game related show, 'cause they sure are bent in doing the opposite of what you say.
What you just said is valid to describe every single console and explains, in no way, why PS4 was so successful from day 1.
|
Or not, as you're still confusing filler and marketing I see. Again, going from live to prerecorded and not having jokes or puppets doesn't suddenly mean it's not marketing anymore. And yes, actual proof n evidence does make me right. Just because Sony n Microsoft still do live conferences doesn't change the fact that dropping them hasn't stopped Nintendo from seeing success.
It explains why people are buying PS4s, the only thing I was trying to explain. PS4 is successful because it has the most games on the best hardware. It is not successful simply because they had a live conference instead of a digital one (especially since, you know, Microsoft also did a live event), and likewise the Switch isn't successful merely because it skipped E3 all together instead of showing up. As long as you have a good product with good marketing, you get success. Filler jokes and live audiences aren't necessary.
|
Ok, now you are losing me.
This is what you said (repeated in your last sentence):
"I will repeat, a live audience/action figures/jokes/etc. are not necessary to get people excited and make your product well known, the numbers prove this."
To what i responded that, unlike you, who finds them meaningless, companies do think they are very valuable.
I also gave you the Halo 3 marketing campaign that clearly showed how your views and 3rd parties' views, don't match.
Fillers to you doesn't mean it's part of a marketing strategy.
People loved how Nintendo handled E3 2014; people didn't love how Nintendo handled E3 2013.
Actually, one of the best marketing strategies Nintendo has done in recent history was trying to regain it's older consumers by using the NES mini.
They went for the heart of the consumers, not their dollars.
You can't see this as live performance = success, digital presentations = failure.
Both live and digital presentations are part of a marketing strategy (i'm ignoring the execution of said strategy). Each one has it's pros and cons.
Nintendo chose to go for the digital angle. Ok. They added stuff because they knew how bland E3 2013 was; If you can't replicate the pros of a live conference then use other pros.
"It is not successful simply because they had a live conference instead of a digital one "
A comment not directed at me, i believe.
What you said could be used to describe the XB1.
PS4 has the most games... now! Because when both were out, even if PS4 had more support (Indies and/or japanese games) it surely wasn't that little extra that created the PS4 success story, as sales numbers show that.
Right from the get go, Sony not only had the best strategy, but it clearly had the best marketing: "for the gamers".
Instant success!