I've heard a number of devs complain that the core gaming market is unfair. But what I also realise is that a lot of these guys screwed up their game one way or another. Guys like the Gearbox CEO had the nerve to blame the market for Colonial Marines' failure and irrelevant studios who bitch about Rockstar games because they can't acheive those levels of sales. Time and time again we've seen that it really nothing special to creating a successful game. Many devs just make a high quality game and market it effectively. Look at a game like Dark Souls, at that time who would have ever thought that game would sell? And who would have thought fantasy games would go mainstream before Skyrim?

So I really don't think the market is unfair I just think we have a lot of people in this industry who aren't willing sweat out for success and would rather hop on the mobile banwagon hoping to churn out shovelware while making bank. Thoughts?

It's not that the core market is unfair, it's just full of competition. And in that kind of market, even a small mistake can put you behind hundreds of other titles.

sometimes they can be unfair. remember the whole commotion that happened about AC Unity not having playable female characters? sometimes people just want to bitch.

however Gearbox only have them selfs to blame about Aliens Colonial Marines, it was a shitty game beyond measure, they neglected it and it was a turd, blaming the core gaming market for its failure? HA! im glad that turd supposedly lost 10 million on that game. if thats how he handles his money imagine how he handles other peoples money. (i dont believe he lost 10 million on that game though).

Irrelevant studios blaming Rockstar because they get so many sales and they didnt? HA! Rockstar pretty much sets a new standard in gaming when ever they release a new game. they make top notch games and deserve every damn sale they get.

I'd say around 2/3 of the time yes. Colonial Marines still sold more than it should have, and Isolation, an actually decent game, suffered for it (though still did well enough that it should have satisfied SEGA, but didn't, because they're retarded). Assassin's Creed Unity sold far, FAR better than it had any right to (at least at launch), as did DriveClub and Halo: The Master Chief Collection, whereas Bayonetta 2 hasn't even cracked a million yet. And that's just recent times. BUT, disregarding all of that, MOST of the time, the market punishes failures and rewards successes well enough, look at GTAV, Splatoon, and Bloodborne for success examples and (at least the backlash from) Colonial Marines, Sonic Boom, and Duke Nukem Forever for fail examples.

I think you're talking about the wrong concept here. A lack of female playable characters didn't harm sales at all, and that's all the market is: sales.

The market, by definition, can't be unfair unless there are external influences that cause a market distortion. Advertising distorts the market in favour of those who spend the most on advertising. But is that unfair? If there is unfairness, then there is some sort of justification for intervention. If marketing is really the only thing that makes the market unfair then would that justify some kind of corporate welfare to help smaller developers / publishers market their games in a way they wouldn't be able to afford?

Can the market be distorted by a handful of people trash talking a game? Surely such people will be exposed as trolls if the game turns out to be really good, and ultimately the game will reap positive benefits from being trolled unjustly. If the game is shit, then the market will soon come to agree with the trash talking few and the game will deservedly bomb.

About the only unfairness introduced in the market is the review score system. Developers have (according to some pundits) have metascore KPI bonuses, because publishers probably rightly predict that a meta score in the 80s is worth a certain level of good will sales, and a meta in the 90s is worth even more good will sales, whereas a meta in the 70s is worth no good will sales and a meta in the 60s and below means -ve sales. But at least in terms of games that meta in the 70s there shouldn't be such a huge hit on sales. However the effect on sales is only an indirect effect. What is at play is supply and demand. If games get pumped out at a high rate, which they are, then people are going to prioritise their purchases, and if there are too many games coming out then the prioritisation will be very harsh. Games are expensive, and most people can't possibly afford all the 70+ meta games that they might want to try.

Do you want to get more people buying and trying 70+ meta games (or even 60+)? How about introducing full refunds into PSN and XBL? If people see no risk to laying down $60 for a game that's a bit of a 50/50 call then more people will give those games a go. They like it, they'll say money well spent and who cares about the meta score. They don't like it, they'll say the metascore was generous and they'll get a full refund, but maybe they'll buy another 60/70 meta game and try their luck again. Maybe they'll keep spending the same $60 on medium metascore games until they find one they like and want to keep? But with no refund there will be no sale to 60/70 meta games because the perceived risk of buying a lemon will be too high, so they will stick to the 80/90 meta games.

Refunds rebalances the unfairness of the distortions created by the over emphasis on greed vs amber coloured review scores.

.

The market is never unfair. It's always neutral and will always react in a predictable way.

You make a good and appealing game, it'll sell. I mean, a game like Dark Souls has it flaws (graphics at the time were not super impressive, but they are serviceable, 30fps lock and inconsistent framerate), but the game design in that game is SOOOO good it's unbelievable. I'm now so conditioned when I see a row of closed doors I immediately sense a trap.

Fairness? I think that when politics get injected into the market (into a game) that it's unfair to gamers and the game creators. 

The gaming market is highly competitive and because of that, mistakes are costly. One of the most notable mistakes I see devs and publishers make is not marketing their game well or at all.  

Which leads us directly to the unfair part, because only the big publishers have the means to fund big marketing campaigns. Smaller or independent devs will never get such sales no matter how good their game is unless they have the one-in-a-billion chance that the whole internet goes gangbusters about them like with Minecraft and basically does the advertising for them.

Which I consider also a failure in the vast majority of gamers themselves. Instead of properly informing themselves they wait for the next bullshot hype trailer to sway them over, no matter how crappy the final product is. Worse, they preorder the game, complain how crappy it is after they got it and then preorder the next one because that one's bullshot trailer swayed them again