By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LordTheNightKnight on 08 April 2010
Squilliam said:

Sales vs Quality, Sales = Quality, Sales != Quality.

You would actually have to define what quality means before you can argue that sales have nothing to do with quality. If you use quality on its own as a term you would have to consider the net positive benefits of the product because the terms quality can only mean the entirety of all the net positive benefits of the product. Value judgements when talking about overall quality as as irrelevant as a single review score in an aggregate of 1,000,000 other review scores.

The result is even clearer especially when talking about products with greater similarity. Take Mario Kart Vs Uncharted 2 for instance. The former has to have more positive qualities than the latter because the former has both far higher sales in relation to overall video game sales and in relation to potential video game sales assuming that the ultimate attach rate for a game is only 100%. As an aggregate Mario Kart has more qualities which the market deems desirable, this requires no value judgement on my part.

The reason why people talk about quality and then never qualify what they mean is that it gives a sense of empowerment to their opinion. If you give unqualified opinions on the quality of something you are effectively passing off your own value judgement as reflective of the market as a whole. This is a self defense mechanism against a world which doesn't share the same values. So of course the PSP is higher quality than the DS, Of course the PS3 is higher quality than the Wii and of course im not going to define what quality im talking about because that leaves room for other people with dissenting opinions to tear down my own.

The best opinions written about quality are of course the qualified opinions of a reasonable mind. These are the educating voices of reason which educate people about desirable qualities and can change the overall value judgements. If you're able to seperate yourself from yourself and speak from a more objective vantage point which is compatible with the value of others you can make a valuable addition to the discussion. However most opinions about quality simply reflect the basic premise of "I like this, I don't like that, I love this, I hate that and etc". The fact that you like or dislike a product does not effect the quality of the product.

So you could say that it's more accurate to state Sales=Value to Consumers. Of course some consumers can be fooled into thinking that a product will fill that value, but that's a slightly separate discussion.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Squilliam on 08 April 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

So you could say that it's more accurate to state Sales=Value to Consumers. Of course some consumers can be fooled into thinking that a product will fill that value, but that's a slightly separate discussion.

I attribute things like brand awareness, advertising, product placement, word of mouth as examples of positive values of a product. So in saying that, value = sales = quality. But only in the sense of talking about quality as some all encompassing value. I don't make distinctions like perhaps between a cigarette and an apple or a sports car vs a camry. 

Cars are actually some of the best examples of the quality vs sales debate.

A Toyota Camry has:

  • Good expected reliability.
  • Suits the customers needs.
  • Gives value for money.
  • Good recognition from peers.
  • Good brand awareness, don't have to think about other brands/options so the choice is simple.
  • etc.

So even if the latest Camry is a piece of junk, it'll still sell well between partly and wholly due to the value and qualities the brand had built up over previous years. In many ways the quality of the future Camry's in the market reflect better how good the present day Camry is than the Camry of today. So yes even if the latest Camry is a piece of junk its still overall a quality product, however if you were to take a specific look at the qualities of the car you could fairly call it an ass for reliability and say people are better off with a Ford.

 



Tease.

LordTheNightKnight on 08 April 2010
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

So you could say that it's more accurate to state Sales=Value to Consumers. Of course some consumers can be fooled into thinking that a product will fill that value, but that's a slightly separate discussion.

I attribute things like brand awareness, advertising, product placement, word of mouth as examples of positive values of a product. So in saying that, value = sales = quality. But only in the sense of talking about quality as some all encompassing value. I don't make distinctions like perhaps between a cigarette and an apple or a sports car vs a camry. 

Cars are actually some of the best examples of the quality vs sales debate.

A Toyota Camry has:

  • Good expected reliability.
  • Suits the customers needs.
  • Gives value for money.
  • Good recognition from peers.
  • Good brand awareness, don't have to think about other brands/options so the choice is simple.
  • etc.

So even if the latest Camry is a piece of junk, it'll still sell well between partly and wholly due to the value and qualities the brand had built up over previous years. In many ways the quality of the future Camry's in the market reflect better how good the present day Camry is than the Camry of today. So yes even if the latest Camry is a piece of junk its still overall a quality product, however if you were to take a specific look at the qualities of the car you could fairly call it an ass for reliability and say people are better off with a Ford.

 

I meant as a separate thing other than quality. So even though some might argue even a good Camry isn't quality (by some standards for different cars), it still objectivly fits those values that a consumer is looking for.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Squilliam on 08 April 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

I meant as a separate thing other than quality. So even though some might argue even a good Camry isn't quality (by some standards for different cars), it still objectivly fits those values that a consumer is looking for.

Ahh I understand now, sorry.



Tease.

LordTheNightKnight on 08 April 2010
Squilliam said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

I meant as a separate thing other than quality. So even though some might argue even a good Camry isn't quality (by some standards for different cars), it still objectivly fits those values that a consumer is looking for.

Ahh I understand now, sorry.

But that was helpful. I would say that can happen with video games, where declining sales can be attributed to customers percieving a series no longer being what they valued.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
FaRmLaNd on 08 April 2010

Sales do not equal quality, but quality can help sales (unless the game is niche).

Games that aren't of tremendous quality can sell if they have a huge marketing budget, just like films. Look at the latest indiana jones movie. The critics and many cinema goes hated it. It still made over 700 million dollars because of brand name and marketing. However its DVD sales were far less then expected which showed that poor word of mouth meant it had a decline in its physical media sales. BUt its DVD/BR sales were still far higher then say Slumdog Millionaires was regardless of the disparity in quality between the two.

I know I'm talking about movies here but I know more about film the games and the same is applicable.



WereKitten on 09 April 2010
Squilliam said:

Sales vs Quality, Sales = Quality, Sales != Quality.

You would actually have to define what quality means before you can argue that sales have nothing to do with quality. If you use quality on its own as a term you would have to consider the net positive benefits of the product because the terms quality can only mean the entirety of all the net positive benefits of the product. Value judgements when talking about overall quality as as irrelevant as a single review score in an aggregate of 1,000,000 other review scores.

The result is even clearer especially when talking about products with greater similarity. Take Mario Kart Vs Uncharted 2 for instance. The former has to have more positive qualities than the latter because the former has both far higher sales in relation to overall video game sales and in relation to potential video game sales assuming that the ultimate attach rate for a game is only 100%. As an aggregate Mario Kart has more qualities which the market deems desirable, this requires no value judgement on my part.

The reason why people talk about quality and then never qualify what they mean is that it gives a sense of empowerment to their opinion. If you give unqualified opinions on the quality of something you are effectively passing off your own value judgement as reflective of the market as a whole. This is a self defense mechanism against a world which doesn't share the same values. So of course the PSP is higher quality than the DS, Of course the PS3 is higher quality than the Wii and of course im not going to define what quality im talking about because that leaves room for other people with dissenting opinions to tear down my own.

The best opinions written about quality are of course the qualified opinions of a reasonable mind. These are the educating voices of reason which educate people about desirable qualities and can change the overall value judgements. If you're able to seperate yourself from yourself and speak from a more objective vantage point which is compatible with the value of others you can make a valuable addition to the discussion. However most opinions about quality simply reflect the basic premise of "I like this, I don't like that, I love this, I hate that and etc". The fact that you like or dislike a product does not effect the quality of the product.

As I said in a previous post, that's one legit way out: you define the value simply as the pure market one estabiished by sales. You define the overall product quality as equal to this value. You make away with any needed crtique or analysis for this overall "quality", all you need is sales charts.

It's a tautological cop out, though, and as all tautologies it adds nothing to our understanding or knowledge. I may as well don't bother definining "quality" this way because it's empty fluff.

Your "sales-based-overall-quality" is, simply put, of little human interest because it is detached from the experience of the product which is the base for all user defined quality concepts. The cigarettes with the most addictive chemicals would be tagged of being of "higher quaiity" but - medical and moral issues aside - their buyers could not even be conscious of why they are buying them instead of another brand, and actually find them worse in taste than other brands of which they buy less packages.

Well, you know where this all goes: advertising and brand power can as well be discordant with any experienced a posteriori subjective overall quality, etc. etc.

While I often don't agree with Malstrom's sheepish adoption of intellectual tools instead of trying to refine them for the context he wants to use them in, it's still more rich and interesting than this kind of semantic surrender :)



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

bazmeistergen on 09 April 2010
Smashchu2 said:
UncleScrooge said:
And he actually thinks marketing isn't "brainwashing" people? How cute is that! That's like saying marketing doesn't influence people's behaviour, which it clearly does. Look at these very forums and tell me marketing can't brainwash people.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, OK. I don't think you even know what brainwashing is.

Kults brainwash. Marketers persuade. Everything in marketing is about getting people to buy the product and keeping them as customers. To call it brainwashing would be the same as myself convincing you that honey is delicious.

Also, it it was true brainwashing, it's not very good. Marketing does not make a good product. Marketing works so long as the products is usable and meets the consumer's needs. Marketing tries to show you the need they fulfill. Look at an Allstate comercial. They always tell you how they have good plans to protect you. Their tag line is "Are you in good hands?" They are saying "Do you feel safe with your insurance. Well, buy ours and you will be." Marketing is just trying to convince you, not brainwashing you.

It's more than persuasion, it's manipulation and sometimes lying. Take the claims that cigarettes were healthy, that they will make women free... that's not simply persuasion, is it?



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

Sky Render on 09 April 2010

This is why scientists prefer working with quantitative data, you realize: because the value of qualitative data changes based on the context of who's observing it. Quantitative data, in its raw form, can't really be manipulated (though misleading charts and graphs sure as hell do their damnedest to try), whereas qualitative measures are easily manipulated since they lack any hard numbers (and no, MetaCritic does not count as an exception to this; tallying qualitative-based measures in a quantitative fashion does not remove the fact that you started with qualitative data).

There are so many measures of "quality" that it's downright ludicrous to try to stick to any one definition and claim it's the alpha-omega one. Every person has a different idea of what "quality" means. For some, it's a direct corollary to utility (by which measure an expensive-yet-fragile luxury car is far lower on the quality scale than a low-cost pickup truck). For others, it's a measure of how expensive something is (a mindset that allows businesses like Monster Cables to even exist when exact equivalents can be bought of their products for far less). For most, the measure falls somewhere between those two extremes, and isn't necessarily consistent for all things being considered, either.

Me, I tend to favor utility over expensiveness, which is why I happen to agree that higher sales indicates higher quality. The thing about video games: at least in the US, a game with low utility will have many copies sold back to retailers, and the sales of the game will drop off as more users opt to buy a used copy for less and as word-of-mouth gets around that the game isn't going to provide much of an overall experience. If a game can actually manage to keep selling new copies for a long period of time, that indicates to me that the game has exceptional utility, and thus exceptional quality.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

KungKras on 10 April 2010

I don't like people that try to force their moral onto others.

But Malstrom's arguments about quality and ciggarettes really scares me.



I LOVE ICELAND!