http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141519.html
Not a whole lot of new info, but there are some good quotes..
Not a whole lot of new info, but there are some good quotes..
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gamespot article on why innovation doesn't sell (using psychonauts as an example)
- Thread starter pj
- Start date
CarlosX360
Banned
The game's theme don't appeal to the crowd, but innovation does sell SUBTLELY.
Like most innovative games. Most of the games that are innovative, show subtle innovations, but sell very well.
That's what I think, anyway.
I think the game try too hard with innovation.
Like most innovative games. Most of the games that are innovative, show subtle innovations, but sell very well.
That's what I think, anyway.
I think the game try too hard with innovation.
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
wait a sec, Mario 64 didnt sell?
CarlosX360
Banned
It did.psycho_snake said:
C'mon its a Mario game!
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
But that was innovative and according to Gamespot innovation doesnt sell.Nintendo X said:
I think they were banking too much on Tim Schaefer's name resonating with console gamers. A lot of people that play platform games have probably never touched Grim Fandango or Day of the Tentacle. And platformers don't sell the way they did last gen to begin with.
Azure Dream
Member
psycho_snake said:
There was SO much to pick from at the N64 launch...
Yeah, Gamespot is basically saying new IP doesn't sell, rather than innovation. Just the title is wrongpsycho_snake said:
New IP can only make sales based on initial aesthetic reaction and word of mouth. This is why stuff like Blinx fails, but Shadow of the Colossus succeeds. There is a certain amount of brand loyalty in the industry, but it's impossible to gauge.
Jonnyram said:
Publishers live inside their own little world and are too short sighted. To them the only thing that will sell is what's selling well now, which is why we have so many games about war, sports, modifed cars, shooting things or licenced IP. There was a really good article in Edge a few years ago about it, I remember one quote being something along the lines of publishers shying away from anything different, but if you came in with a pitch of "It's GTA meets Tony Hawk with Spacemen" their eyes would light up.
It's not so much taking risks, but taking risks and getting behind it. Any publisher can try something new and give it no marketing help, leading to it not selling and giving them an easy out when an "innovative" game gets brought to them again. "Oh we tried Game X and it didn't sell, we'll pass". Yet the same game with some push and a bit of publicity could sell decently. Otherwise it's a self fullfilling prophecy - why would you be surprised if a game you didn't advertise doesn't sell?
it sounds like the mainstream movie industry.
i also think part of the problem is most gamers aren't taking risks (especially in existing genres) just as much as publishers/developers, yet they're tiring of sequels. it's a vicious cycle.
'i want a new fps but i don't want to waste my time playing something new that might be crap'
vs.
'the sequel is good, but i'm bored of it, it feels like i've played it before'
developers are in a difficult position.
i also think part of the problem is most gamers aren't taking risks (especially in existing genres) just as much as publishers/developers, yet they're tiring of sequels. it's a vicious cycle.
'i want a new fps but i don't want to waste my time playing something new that might be crap'
vs.
'the sequel is good, but i'm bored of it, it feels like i've played it before'
developers are in a difficult position.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
ziran said:
Exactdemundo!!! How many people didn't buy ICO? Hell I didn't buy ICO because I was scared to take a chance on a new IP and waste my money. Well after playing and buying SOTC I regret what I did years ago.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
That's exactly it. You have your favorite flavor of ice cream and you start to get tired of it, but when you're craving ice cream you don't want to experiment with unfamiliar flavors because they might be bad and bad ice cream doesn't satisfy your craving.ziran said:
Developers know this happens, they know that even if the game is good, it feels like just as much of a risk to us as it does to them, we're both spending money on a novel-sounding idea and hoping it works out. It would be best if they could get everyone to at least try it, but an overcrowded market and cheap used games means that kiosks don't have the power to do that like they used to.
For a while Sony was doing well, their dominance in the market helped their demo discs effectiveness in presenting new ideas like Ape Escape, but now demo appeal is lacking as well (though, the SOTC demo sealed the deal for me). Variety and seeking originality is a mindset you have to force yourself into, don't stick with what's comfortable when you're know it's just going to be comfortably boring. So, the moral of the story is this: Buy Katamari
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I think it's different when the hardware itself is designed for innovation. Games can be underpromoted or simply lost in the overcrowded market, but with hardware it gets promoted every time a game on the platform is promoted, it's unavoidable.Xrenity said:
That's why I love what Nintendo is doing with DS and Revolution, it's like they realized the trap everyone was in and just invited them into a new world of gaming where both developers and gamers take risks, where everyone's imaginations are challenged. A place where people don't evaluate the quality of a game based on it's comformity to the mold of an established genre, but in fact such a conformity may be seen as a danger or weakness.
to launch a new franchise and make it successful there are a couple of factors involved, first you have to launch it at the right time in the right place like brain training, second you must give players something they haven't played or experience before like Nintendogs and third advertise it, you can't expect word of mouth to carry the title you need to send the message "a new franchise is here and it's something you haven't experienced before" not as cheesy as that of course but something among those lines.Grug said:
i agree.Dice said:
the interesting thing about the ds is i'm prepared to take far more risks than on other consoles. the price of the games helps, but i bought a ds expecting something new and psychologically i think i understood this would come with risks, which also has rewards. the feeling you get when you've played an innovative gem, that you've taken a risk on, is great.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
Xrenity said:
Actually it got a pretty decent TV push IIRC. I remember being pleasently surprised seeing several commercials were running when it first came out, and thinking Schafer's new baby was gonna do pretty well afterall. Hearing how badly it flopped is a shame. Maybe it was poor advertising (indeed the actual ad doesnt ring a bell), but it certainly got exposed to some degree.
Juxtapose that with something like Ico which I believe actually ended up doing well over half a mil worldwide (and most sales were in the US) on basically word of mouth alone, no ad presence whatsoever. This is a hard business to generalize sometimes.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Jonnyram said:
The problem can be looked at from the perspective of game theory (not video game theory...the thing in economics). No individual publisher has much incentive to innovate. It's a lot of risk for potentially no reward. They can just wait for some other developer to take the risks, and if something really popular comes along the publisher can then release a knockoff or two and reap the benefits.
The problem is that the industry as a whole is hurt when there's little innovation. Gamers, in general, will increasingly get turned off gaming completely (look at the latest NPD figures for some early symptoms, or even the Japanese gaming industry). So the industry as a whole certainly has enough incentive to innovate--it's just that no individual publisher does.
This ties back in with game theory. If everyone tries to make big money with little risk, they go for rehashes--and as a result, everyone is worse off. If publishers tacitly co-operated and each assumed some risk by publishing some innovative titles, the industry as a whole would be better off, and all publishers would benefit by drawing in more gamers and probably even having their innovative games sell more than in today's industry.
soundwave05
Member
I think it works like this ...
Most innovative games do flop or go on to become "cult" classics.
However, the innovative games that are successful are really successful. See Brain Training, The Sims, Super Mario 64, Pokemon, GTA, etc.
So its a risk reward for devs. Its like swinging for a home run instead of going for a safer base hit.
Most innovative games do flop or go on to become "cult" classics.
However, the innovative games that are successful are really successful. See Brain Training, The Sims, Super Mario 64, Pokemon, GTA, etc.
So its a risk reward for devs. Its like swinging for a home run instead of going for a safer base hit.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
soundwave05 said:
True...but notice something about the games you listed? All of them had minimal risk. Brain Training and Pokemon were incredibly cheap to develop; the Sims shared some brand recognition from the popular SimCity and was from Will Wright, a proven hitmaker; Super Mario 64 was one of two launch games for the N64, it was by Nintendo, and it had the Mario name; and GTA continued an already-popular franchise.
Compare that to other innovative games. They have tons of risk with no real mitigating factors (Psychonauts, for example, had Tim Schafer's somewhat-known name, and nothing else). It's little wonder developers are leery. Sure, they MIGHT get lucky, but the odds are severely against them turning a decent profit unless they load the dice like with the games above.
Who knows where this will go, but here goes. We were just talking about this at work today...
As much as it hurts, the hardcore gamer is the minority. Hardcore gamers are generally the ones who will give the smaller, lesser-known, or risky game a chance and evangelize them, whereas most casual gamers (I hate categorizing like this, but for the sake of my argument, it will have to do) tend to gravitate towards franchises they recognize, or licenses that appeal to them. It's close to Christmas. Walk into Best Buy and look who's in the videogame section... I was there today, and I saw more moms w/ strollers buying primarily licensed titles over anything else... okay, maybe Nintendogs. Around this time, it's pretty much SpongeBob > SOTC.
As one who has been through the greenlight process on several occasions, let me tell you that it's hard to get the average Biz Dev, Marketing, or PR person's head around a new concept. It was interesting to note that when the name "Treasure" was named in one of those meetings as a potential contract (whom I consider to be incredible innovators of bygone genres), everyone in there got a sour look on their face and said, "Stretch Panic was terrible." I asked, "Did you ever play Gunstar Heroes, Silhouette Mirage, Radiant Silvergun, or Ikaruga?"
Blank stares.
You mention Ikaruga here, most people know exactly what made that game great and what differentiated it from all other shooters. Think the average PR girl at a big publisher can tell you? Probably not. If they can, marry her.
Seriously, though, frames of reference for new games becomes even more difficult when your audience doesn't understand the game concepts you're referring to. As others have said, a vicious cycle indeed.
It's a Catch-22... while innovation is good, trying to tell someone about it who doesn't play that many games to begin with (or at all, for that matter) generally gets you nowhere. I tried telling my Marketing Manager why we should've been looking at games like SF3:3S as the benchmark for a potential fighting game, and their reply was, "I think we should try to be like Kakuto Chojin." Sigh.
And beyond all this, trying to get that person to convey to the public what exactly is so special about the game (if it gets this far) is also an exercise in frustration.
The videogame industry is very much like the movie industry, as others have said. Perhaps like the movie industry, after the razzle dazzle of big-budget spectacle wears off, we'll see more in the way of quality, lasting content from independents. I see signs of it already, and that's a nice thing to think about. We just need more publishers to support this way of thinking, who are rule breakers that welcome risk for the potentially great reward.
As much as it hurts, the hardcore gamer is the minority. Hardcore gamers are generally the ones who will give the smaller, lesser-known, or risky game a chance and evangelize them, whereas most casual gamers (I hate categorizing like this, but for the sake of my argument, it will have to do) tend to gravitate towards franchises they recognize, or licenses that appeal to them. It's close to Christmas. Walk into Best Buy and look who's in the videogame section... I was there today, and I saw more moms w/ strollers buying primarily licensed titles over anything else... okay, maybe Nintendogs. Around this time, it's pretty much SpongeBob > SOTC.
As one who has been through the greenlight process on several occasions, let me tell you that it's hard to get the average Biz Dev, Marketing, or PR person's head around a new concept. It was interesting to note that when the name "Treasure" was named in one of those meetings as a potential contract (whom I consider to be incredible innovators of bygone genres), everyone in there got a sour look on their face and said, "Stretch Panic was terrible." I asked, "Did you ever play Gunstar Heroes, Silhouette Mirage, Radiant Silvergun, or Ikaruga?"
Blank stares.
You mention Ikaruga here, most people know exactly what made that game great and what differentiated it from all other shooters. Think the average PR girl at a big publisher can tell you? Probably not. If they can, marry her.
Seriously, though, frames of reference for new games becomes even more difficult when your audience doesn't understand the game concepts you're referring to. As others have said, a vicious cycle indeed.It's a Catch-22... while innovation is good, trying to tell someone about it who doesn't play that many games to begin with (or at all, for that matter) generally gets you nowhere. I tried telling my Marketing Manager why we should've been looking at games like SF3:3S as the benchmark for a potential fighting game, and their reply was, "I think we should try to be like Kakuto Chojin." Sigh.
And beyond all this, trying to get that person to convey to the public what exactly is so special about the game (if it gets this far) is also an exercise in frustration.
The videogame industry is very much like the movie industry, as others have said. Perhaps like the movie industry, after the razzle dazzle of big-budget spectacle wears off, we'll see more in the way of quality, lasting content from independents. I see signs of it already, and that's a nice thing to think about. We just need more publishers to support this way of thinking, who are rule breakers that welcome risk for the potentially great reward.
psycho_snake
I went to WAGs boutique and all I got was a sniff
Id have to say nintendo took a large risk when they made mario 64. They were relying on two launch title games to sell their latest product, one of which was mario 64, but it looked completely different to what it looked like before. Changes put people off, just look at the initial reaction for Rev. Half of the people were in disbelief that Nintendo would do such a thing. Nintendo did take a risk by making a very famous game 3d with mario 64, especially when you consider that 3d wasnt really tested before.Chairman Yang said:
There are some innovative games that do take off. I think Shadow of the Colossus sold very well, but there are few original or innovative titles that would be as successful as the SotC
Jonnyram said:
Take it from someone who is looking to actually get into the industry, but I entirely agree with this. Its this notion that you brough which make me upset at the NA development community than asian(particullary japanese).
My problem with the NA development scene; unlike thier asian and Japanese peers who are more opt take risk with new styles of play, genres and franchises, the NA scene is in a rut. I mean, how many freaking FPS's that are nothing but Doom and Half-life wanna-bes and gimmick games like GTA are we going to get before we really say enough is enough? If anything, its hurting the NA community.
As for innovation, I have no problem with sequels and I have no problem with license as oppose to original IP's.
I'm loving Square Enix approach to doing FFVII sequels which is genious(something I hope is imitated more) while game based on a license whether it be Transformers or whatever is just as good a original IP even to the point of providing the synergy. The problem is however, the unwillingness of NA developers taking the risk to try something artistically and gameplay-wise.
btw, theres a great article where an NA developer lashing out against other NA developers:
http://www.igda.org/montreal/reports/summary_Dec05.htm
I'm glad to people like Jason Ruben and Warren Spector see problems with the NA community.
norinrad21
Banned
I will never stop saying games like ICO and Wanda should have been on a Nintendo console. We would have pimped both games to death until everyone and their mother had a copy.
hell we pimped viewtiful Joe all the way until capcom fucked us over with Joe 2 ending up on the PS2. People also forget the N fan base always makes you pay when you fuck us over.
yeah yeah am sure someone is going to dispute this and call it absurd but its the god damn truth.[waiting for Mr x1
]
Innovation FTW
hell we pimped viewtiful Joe all the way until capcom fucked us over with Joe 2 ending up on the PS2. People also forget the N fan base always makes you pay when you fuck us over.
yeah yeah am sure someone is going to dispute this and call it absurd but its the god damn truth.[waiting for Mr x1
]Innovation FTW
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wonder what Schafer thinks about the Revolution. After losing so much money with Macesco, I highly doubt MS will give him a deal, or even Sony for that matter. Nintendo could help him out imo.
Why o why didn't that article mention the Revolution?
Why o why didn't that article mention the Revolution?
Willie Dynamite
Member
The problem with Psychonauts was not the ads or the marketing or even the game itself, but the fact that it was nearly impossible to find in stores. Distribution for Psychonauts sucked. Many people might have actually bought it if there was a Psychonauts box, on a store shelf, somewhere.
I live in Europe so I asked a friend from California to get me a copy. He had to go to three different stores, and they had like 1 copy. (This was a week after release.)
I live in Europe so I asked a friend from California to get me a copy. He had to go to three different stores, and they had like 1 copy. (This was a week after release.)
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Chairman Yang said:
I doubt Pokemon was that cheap to develop, it had been in development for 6 years before the first games came out. For a Gameboy game I'd guess it was as expensive as they come, given the time and the size of it.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
The pitch line of this article is incorrect, though the content is pretty spot on in general.
Innovation DOES SELL. But only cutting edge innovation, when blended into a high quality experience.
GTA - cutting edge level/world design and first time non-linear gameplay was taken to such a scale in a third person action/adventure game type.
Doom 3 - cutting edge visuals and technology
Mario 64 - cutting edge game design
Tomb Raider - cutting edge game design merged with possibly first intelligent (girls can relate) and potentially hot (guys can salivate) heroine
Half Life - cutting edge in-game story telling, plus high quality gameplay experience at its time
Street Fighter 2 - cutting edge fighting game design
Ridge Racer - arcade quality cutting edge tech on a home console
I don't even like some of these games, but regardless the above is true whatever way you look at it. See if you can add to the list. The only weak examples I see in here so far are the sequels, as they have a marketing advantage.
Innovation DOES SELL. But only cutting edge innovation, when blended into a high quality experience.
GTA - cutting edge level/world design and first time non-linear gameplay was taken to such a scale in a third person action/adventure game type.
Doom 3 - cutting edge visuals and technology
Mario 64 - cutting edge game design
Tomb Raider - cutting edge game design merged with possibly first intelligent (girls can relate) and potentially hot (guys can salivate) heroine
Half Life - cutting edge in-game story telling, plus high quality gameplay experience at its time
Street Fighter 2 - cutting edge fighting game design
Ridge Racer - arcade quality cutting edge tech on a home console
I don't even like some of these games, but regardless the above is true whatever way you look at it. See if you can add to the list. The only weak examples I see in here so far are the sequels, as they have a marketing advantage.
Advertise! Advertise! Advertise! If you have something new, you have to explain the benefits of it.
And in the correct places. G4's viewers are all gamers: your target audience, but there aren't many G4 viewers. Try some channel(s) with viewers. Per capita, not as many of them will be gamers, but if you use SRDS correctly, you'll still be reaching more people who play video games than you will with G4.
And for what it's worth, Ico eventually sold 250,000 copies in North America almost entirely on word of mouth.
And in the correct places. G4's viewers are all gamers: your target audience, but there aren't many G4 viewers. Try some channel(s) with viewers. Per capita, not as many of them will be gamers, but if you use SRDS correctly, you'll still be reaching more people who play video games than you will with G4.
And for what it's worth, Ico eventually sold 250,000 copies in North America almost entirely on word of mouth.
Andrew2 said:
It's not about being "first." It's about being the one to bring the genre to the masses. Nintendogs isn't the first puppy-sim. It is the puppy-sim to bring the genre to the masses, though. (At least, it's the first one I've played, and that's probably what a lot of people can say.)
Jonnyram said:Yeah, Gamespot is basically saying new IP doesn't sell, rather than innovation. Just the title is wrong
/thread
When comparing the number of new IPs in a generation to the number of successful new IPs in a generation, this is definitely the case. Nintendo has the special card of "put Mario in there somewhere," and it's guaranteed at least a few more copies will sell, though. Pikmin 2 needed playable Game & Watch games (it had the Game & Watch system, so why not?) and some Mario/Luigi dolls to collect. Maybe a whole Mushroom Kingdom level. It may not fit with the rest of the game, but it would've sold more copies.
norinrad21 said:
If Nintendo fans' enthusiasm for exclusive games on Nintendo platforms could sell games, every exclusive would be a million seller.
norinrad21 said:
Unfortunately (fortunately?), you are correct. Revolution may partially be a back-handed attempt to prevent that and have more third-party games sell. Any third-party game that really uses the system would almost have to be exclusive.
norinrad21 said:I will never stop saying games like ICO and Wanda should have been on a Nintendo console. We would have pimped both games to death until everyone and their mother had a copy.
hell we pimped viewtiful Joe all the way until capcom fucked us over with Joe 2 ending up on the PS2. People also forget the N fan base always makes you pay when you fuck us over.
yeah yeah am sure someone is going to dispute this and call it absurd but its the god damn truth.[waiting for Mr x1
Innovation FTW
in the other hand if nintendo's management haven't made bunch of ultra-conservative,short-sighted business decisions(like choosing cartridge over cd thus loosing s-e &final fantsy) nintendo consoles would still have a large userbase that can provide good business for companies like capcom. And then maybe you wouldn't have to pimp games to death or make companies somebody pay ,maybe you could just relax and enjoy playing your ico and zelda on the same console at peace
Larry Bird
Member
Andrew2 said:
I think it has to do alot with the appeal.
If it wasn't for the praise it gets here in GAF I would have never bought Ico. No matter how much advertising they would throw at my face.
You cannot blame all on Marketing ,really. Marketing only gets you so far, it only gives awereness of the product to the consumer and then its up to him to buy the product.
I saw lots of in magazine ads for Beyond Good and Evil, they were like 2 page long ads. Yet the game sold like 200k combined on all plataforms. It would have sold decently had it been released sometime after the post-Xmas craze. The reason I didn't bought it was because I didin't like the graphics, yep as superficial as that may sound.
Games like SotC have fared well on the charts. Unlike Ico, SotC has a bigger appeal. Take down bosses so big they don't even fit on the screen. All of my friends (most are casual gamers) have seen the game and they have talked about how awesome it is. Even a non-believer that complained about the lack of mini-enemies stared at it in awe when I showed them the game. Combined with actual marketing (and good marketing BTW) its no wonder how the game has already, in 2 months, sold half of what Ico did in its lifetime.
Games like Nintendogs have even bigger appeal, they got good marketing and the word of mouth couldn't be better. Once kids see the game they won't stop asking for it until they have it. The timing couldn't be better. We are in times when even dogs gotta have clothes and their own shrinks, thanks to Paris Hilton's chihuahua....
Innovation is not the main risk. The problem is how do you sell your game to the masses.
If it wasn't for the praise it gets here in GAF I would have never bought Ico. No matter how much advertising they would throw at my face.
You cannot blame all on Marketing ,really. Marketing only gets you so far, it only gives awereness of the product to the consumer and then its up to him to buy the product.
I saw lots of in magazine ads for Beyond Good and Evil, they were like 2 page long ads. Yet the game sold like 200k combined on all plataforms. It would have sold decently had it been released sometime after the post-Xmas craze. The reason I didn't bought it was because I didin't like the graphics, yep as superficial as that may sound.
Games like SotC have fared well on the charts. Unlike Ico, SotC has a bigger appeal. Take down bosses so big they don't even fit on the screen. All of my friends (most are casual gamers) have seen the game and they have talked about how awesome it is. Even a non-believer that complained about the lack of mini-enemies stared at it in awe when I showed them the game. Combined with actual marketing (and good marketing BTW) its no wonder how the game has already, in 2 months, sold half of what Ico did in its lifetime.
Games like Nintendogs have even bigger appeal, they got good marketing and the word of mouth couldn't be better. Once kids see the game they won't stop asking for it until they have it. The timing couldn't be better. We are in times when even dogs gotta have clothes and their own shrinks, thanks to Paris Hilton's chihuahua....
Innovation is not the main risk. The problem is how do you sell your game to the masses.
I truly wish the Revolution could do kinda like the DS is doing and then probably defy this vicious circle some poster is talking about up there.
2 crowds in home videogaming is possible (and i'm actually waiting for this day) I believe in the "small movies are feeding the big ones" theory and it could apply for gaming.
2 crowds in home videogaming is possible (and i'm actually waiting for this day) I believe in the "small movies are feeding the big ones" theory and it could apply for gaming.
Jumping Flash had some cool ideas, and I dug the music. Some of those triple-high jumps were pretty fun! Some people like to dilute SM64 for not being the first, and JF is always referenced as the first "true" 3D platformer, like we should bow down to it or something. But come on, anyone who's played either of those games knows which one was (a) better, and (b) industry-changing. And don't say JF. :lol I think companies are still trying to duplicate what made SM64 so great, in the same way that many ARPG games ape OOT.Ristamar said: