Support NeoGAF

[jedimike]

I think "cumulative" graph builds investors' confidence in the company, ie if you can expect good return on current investements in future. That's why Apple or Google announcements are usually met with big enthusiasm, because historically they have made a lot of profit in many markets that they entered.

That's fine, but investors do not buy stocks in the individual divisions... if you want to use that argument, then you'd have to include ALL of Microsoft in that graph whose cumulative profits would may Nintendo look like a mom & pop organization.

 

[legend166]

So Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition sucks when compared to normal RE4, nope? In terms of controls, appealing for non-hardcore gamers, etc.

I suggest to check TTP's video about Move controls in Killzone 3. It works great, and it can add a lot to several hardcore HD genres like FPS or TPS like happened with RE4 in Wii.

So in addition to the casual games, I think a lot of hardcore gamers can be interested in Move. I think it has been already proven it works great for both.

It's going to take a long time to convince people that pointer controls work better than dual analogue, sadly.

Mainly because we've had reviewers who seemingly have Parkinson's Disease reviewing Wii games over the last four years. See the Eurogamer Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition review, where the guy manages to argue the controls are worse, not because of imbalance issues or whatever, but because it's less accurate.

The problem is Sony is making no effort to push the angle of pointing > dual analogue. They could actually do it, because they actually get high profile console FPSs and TPSs on their system unlike the Wii.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Unless my memory is gone I very VIVIDLY remember plenty of members on this board dogging Kinect left and right, saying it was going to under-perform to hell and back because you can't sit down and play, you can't actually move your avatar around, $150 is way too much, blah blah, etc. and Move on the other hand was Wii 2, better graphics, better controls, and was going to sell like hotcakes.

Somehow I can't help but find the analysing of stuff after the events pretty often funny and dishonest.

I mean, now suddenly Move never had a chance and Kinect obviously was gonna fare better. Move was an afterthought, while Kinect is a new platform. Neither of them are in direct competition.... That's not what people thought a few months ago.

Pretty much for both posts above. I just like certain ppl crawling out of the woodwork "calling it". I'm especially fond of the "Move and Kinect are not competing" angle. Kinect was a lol that it would sell anywhere near it has. I'm not too sure about the "ok lets wait and see how much legs Kinect has against move" either but it's all good for the thread.

 

[Bel Marduk]

Don't think this was posted...Disney's happy about Epic Mickey sales.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I figured Kinect was not going to do terribly well until the $500 million number.

Then it became very obvious it would do fine.

 

[Sydle]

I figured Kinect was not going to do terribly well until the $500 million number.

Then it became very obvious it would do fine.

It's as if you're suggesting that Kinect did well only because of its marketing budget, but I know you're not that naive. Soooo...joke post?

 

[Fredescu]

It's as if you're suggesting that Kinect did well only because of its marketing budget, but I know you're not that naive. Soooo...joke post?

They had to have a product that would appeal to people in concept, so it wasn't entirely because of the marketing budget. It certainly wouldn't have done anywhere near as well without it though, that much is obvious.

 

[Jive Turkey]

God bless you Travado. The misguided will soon see the error of their ways.

Oh my God...What's the actual thread where that was posted?

EDIT: Nevermind. Two seconds with "Travado" in the search field gave me what I wanted.

 

[Karma]

I figured Kinect was not going to do terribly well until the $500 million number.

Then it became very obvious it would do fine.

A large marketing push does not guarantee success. Move is proof of that.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

The large marketing push does not guarantee success. Move is proof of that.

I am not going to sit here and argue about whether advertising helps. It obviously does. And the more money you can spend on advertising, the more it helps. It's not like Kinect was actively burning houses down or anything, so obviously advertising does not "guarantee" success, but you can't sit there with a straight face and say $500 million did not significantly add to the pressure that broke the dam.

Move isn't proof of anything. The advertising was bad, sparse, and most importantly, not half a billion dollars.

Edit: You have to have a product that speaks to the audience, it has to work, you have to have advertising, and the advertising has to be good. You people seriously aren't disputing this, are you?

 

[yurinka]

A large marketing push does not guarantee success. Move is proof of that.

Lies. DS and Wii proves it. But like Kinect or everything else, marketing isn't the only thing that sold these devices.

Sony said they weren't going to spend this crazy amount of money in marketing with Move like MS did with Kinect.

 

[Karma]

I am not going to sit here and argue about whether advertising helps. It obviously does. And the more money you can spend on advertising, the more it helps. It's not like Kinect was actively burning houses down or anything, so obviously advertising does not "guarantee" success, but you can't sit there with a straight face and say $500 million did not significantly add to the pressure that broke the dam.

Move isn't proof of anything. The advertising was bad, sparse, and most importantly, not half a billion dollars.

Edit: You have to have a product that speaks to the audience, it has to work, you have to have advertising, and the advertising has to be good. You people seriously aren't disputing this, are you?

How do you know that? I saw just as many Move commercials as Kinect ones. Also, a ton of the move ads I saw were during expensive football game slots.

 

[Boney]

A large marketing push does not guarantee success. Move is proof of that.

Shouldn't it be like the other way round?

Move is advertised 24/7 down here though, tv, subways, billboards. /rant.

 

[Aika'svyse]

Is there anyway to know how much of the advertising money they spent for Kinect. They could still have millions left.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

How do you know that? I saw just as many Move commercials as Kinect ones. Also, a ton of the move ads I saw were during expensive football game slots.

You're the one alleging Sony has spent as much as Microsoft and thus that proves that the sole differentiators is not advertising, but product. In which case, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Microsoft released their numbers, Sony hasn't.

 

[timetokill]

May I remind people that advertising/marketing is not all print/tv ads?

 

[Karma]

You're the one alleging Sony has spent as much as Microsoft and thus that proves that the sole differentiators is not advertising, but product. In which case, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Microsoft released their numbers, Sony hasn't.

All I said was that it was a large marketing push. I am sure you would agree that the marketing for Move was large. You are the one that said it was not 500 million and I am saying you dont know that.

 

[Fredescu]

Supposedly they spend 2 million pounds on marketing Move in the UK, which seems fairly small. I'm sure the second biggest video game market got a healthy slice of the 500 miillion.

http://www.movemodo.com/news/2010/09/sony_coughs_up_p750000_to_advertise_move_in_first_week

 

[Future]

So then:
Why RE4 sold way better in Wii than in PS2 or GC?
Why people who even had in other platforms bought it again?
If people agreed it improved the experience for these shooter genres why isn't going to be important in a platform where FPS and TPS are really important genres in terms of sales?

Sony has been succesful mainly in Europe with casual games like Singstar, Eyetoy, Buzz, etc. but they always focused in the hardcore market.

Whether a few people think the controls are a little better is irrelevant. This is about what is going to drive Move sales. Having a Move control scheme appended to a few core games is not gonna do it. People aren't gonna see a move picture on Killzone 3 and then rush to buy the thing when they can just use a damn controller. A few might, like a few might buy a gran turismo wheel, but it's not gonna become a new platform for gaming like I'm sure Sony would like it to be.

You need unique experiences designed around the move controller instead. But doing this is even more challenging for Sony, since the move experience is so similar to the wii.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

All I said was that it was a large marketing push. I am sure you would agree that the marketing for Move was large.

No, you tried to position it as equivalent. It was not. This was the point.

 

[Sydle]

I am not going to sit here and argue about whether advertising helps. It obviously does. And the more money you can spend on advertising, the more it helps. It's not like Kinect was actively burning houses down or anything, so obviously advertising does not "guarantee" success, but you can't sit there with a straight face and say $500 million did not significantly add to the pressure that broke the dam.

Move isn't proof of anything. The advertising was bad, sparse, and most importantly, not half a billion dollars.

Add to what pressure? Are you suggesting that marketing can pressure people into buying entertainment devices?

Are you also suggesting that if Sony spent half a billion dollars that Move would have been more successful? That's a bit ridiculous...it's almost as if you're saying that all Sony had to do was throw more money into marketing for Move and success would just happen.

Microsoft was just smart about building awareness of a unique entertainment proposition. It generated a lot of buzz and word of mouth that helped carry it further than any amount of advertising could ever accomplish.

EDIT: And it's not as if success scales infinitely with advertising.

 

[Boney]

Add to what pressure? Are you suggesting that marketing can pressure people into buying entertainment devices?

Are you also suggesting that if Sony spent half a billion dollars that Move would have been more successful? That's a bit ridiculous...it's almost as if you're saying that all Sony had to do was throw more money into marketing for Move and success would just happen.

Microsoft was just smart about building awareness of a unique entertainment proposition. It generated a lot of buzz and word of mouth that helped carry it further than any amount of advertising could ever accomplish.

You're hell bent into thinking that he meant that marketing is the only factor affecting sales.

 

[Karma]

No, you tried to position it as equivalent. It was not. This was the point.

What I saw it was equivalent. Sorry that makes you mad. Neither of us know what Sony spent on Move marketing.

 

[Fredescu]

What I saw it was equivalent. Sorry that makes you mad. Neither of us know what Sony spent on Move marketing.

How about this? http://www.movemodo.com/news/2010/09/sony_admits_it_will_never_outspend_microsoft_on_marketing

Sony America's senior vice president of marketing Peter Dille spoke to the Seattle Times about the company's plans for Move's launch in the coming weeks.

Seattle Times: Are you going to spend more promoting Move than Microsoft spends on Kinect?

Peter Dille: I don't think we'll ever outspend Microsoft.

 

[timetokill]

BAM.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

What I saw it was equivalent. Sorry that makes you mad. Neither of us know what Sony spent on Move marketing.

What you saw where? I've asked you several times now to post that.

 

[Brashnir]

I am not going to sit here and argue about whether advertising helps. It obviously does. And the more money you can spend on advertising, the more it helps. It's not like Kinect was actively burning houses down or anything, so obviously advertising does not "guarantee" success, but you can't sit there with a straight face and say $500 million did not significantly add to the pressure that broke the dam.

Move isn't proof of anything. The advertising was bad, sparse, and most importantly, not half a billion dollars.

Edit: You have to have a product that speaks to the audience, it has to work, you have to have advertising, and the advertising has to be good. You people seriously aren't disputing this, are you?

Calling bullshit on the bolded. I saw tons and tons of move ads in high-dollar spots all through the fall. They were all over NFL Sundays pretty much the entirety of November and December. The Ad budget for Move may not have been half a billion dollars, but it was anything but sparse.

Anecdotally, I personally saw about 5 Move commercials on TV for every Kinect commercial, but I understand that I'm probably not watching the sorts of programming that Kinect ads targeted. The place I saw a lot of Kinect advertising but no Move was things like Cereal boxes, Pepsi cases and things of that sort.

 

[Karma]

Sony America's senior vice president of marketing Peter Dille spoke to the Seattle Times about the company's plans for Move's launch in the coming weeks.

Seattle Times: Are you going to spend more promoting Move than Microsoft spends on Kinect?

Peter Dille: I don't think we'll ever outspend Microsoft.

Still does not negate what my original statement was. A large marketing push does not guarantee success. Move did receive a large marketing push. I am sure all would agree with that.

What you saw where? I've asked you several times now to post that.

Ads. Lot and lots of ads. TV, Magazines, online at Subway. Not even sure what you are arguing about.

 

[Future]

Why does everyone spend so much time debating about marketing. Some people still say that halo is only a success due to marketing. Ridiculous

Go to a best buy and experience both demos. One feels like something you have done before, the other doesn't. Take a guess as to which is which. My mom even freaking tried the kinect out and was interested in store.

Microsoft just executed better with the first batch of software. It was technically more impressive and exciting. The move might have more potential or have better games at the end, but Sony needs to get on the ball right now if they are gonna turn heads. Where the he'll is sorcery

 

[Sydle]

You're hell bent into thinking that he meant that marketing is the only factor affecting sales.

I'm just trying to figure out his position. His original statement was that he was concerned Kinect would do terribly until he found out the size of the marketing budget. Seems like he made a one-to-one correlation and now he's back pedaling.

I suppose his concern could have been that not enough people would be aware of its existence, but why not just come out and say it?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'm just trying to figure out his position. His original statement was that he was concerned Kinect would do terribly until he found out the size of the marketing budget. Seems like he made a one-to-one correlation and now he's back pedaling.

I figured Kinect was not going to do terribly well until the $500 million number.

Then it became very obvious it would do fine.

My position had always been that it was going to sell out of the initial shipment and decline from there, however slowly that might be. Once the advertising began to kick in, it was clear Microsoft was intent on making sure the public saw it as the "it" item that Christmas, because they were spending half a billion dollars on persuading people of that.

So, near as I can tell, you're either having a really tough time understanding what the phrase "not terribly well" means or you have some sort of bone to pick about the idea that advertising, particularly in large amounts, can help things sell.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Ads. Lot and lots of ads. TV, Magazines, online at Subway. Not even sure what you are arguing about.

So your data that Sony has spent a lot, just like Microsoft, is entirely anecdotal? That's what you've been arguing about?

Okay, sorry. I didn't mean to engage you if I had known you were basically saying nothing.

 

[Karma]

So your data that Sony has spent a lot, just like Microsoft, is entirely anecdotal? That's what you've been arguing about?

Okay, sorry. I didn't mean to engage you if I had known you were basically saying nothing.

Yeah, I am sorry too. I didnt mean to upset you so much.

 

[szaromir]

That's fine, but investors do not buy stocks in the individual divisions... if you want to use that argument, then you'd have to include ALL of Microsoft in that graph whose cumulative profits would may Nintendo look like a mom & pop organization.

True, but the bulk of their profits is generated by Windows & Office, ie. thei core business since forever. Microsoft isn't seen as a growth company evon though their revenues and profits have been raising steadily.

 

[Fredescu]

Move did receive a large marketing push. I am sure all would agree with that.

Sony spent £2 million on marketing in the second largest video game market. Microsoft spent $500 million world wide. If the former is large, the second is gigantic. They don't appear to be on the same scale. "I saw X amount of ads" isn't terribly relevant.

 

[timetokill]

Sony spent £2 million on marketing in the second largest video game market. Microsoft spent $500 million world wide. If the former is large, the second is gigantic. They don't appear to be on the same scale. "I saw X amount of ads" isn't terribly relevant.

Careful, soon he'll think he's hurting your feelings too.

 

[Sydle]

My position had always been that it was going to sell out of the initial shipment and decline from there, however slowly that might be. Once the advertising began to kick in, it was clear Microsoft was intent on making sure the public saw it as the "it" item that Christmas, because they were spending half a billion dollars on persuading people of that.

So, near as I can tell, you're either having a really tough time understanding what the phrase "not terribly well" or you have some sort of bone to pick about the idea that advertising, particularly in large amounts, can help things sell.

I work in marketing and I spend money on advertising every day, I know its power. It helps build awareness and perceived value when done right, but it can't make people interested in something they don't want. And it certainly doesn't scale infinitely with the size of the budget (I wish it were that easy). It wouldn't have become an "it" item unless people thought it was a good product.

Are you suggesting that, given a half billion dollar budget, that Sony could have made Move the "it" item?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Careful, soon he'll think he's hurting your feelings too.

I am crying and eating ice cream, anything to make the pain go away.

 

[Karma]

Careful, soon he'll think he's hurting your feelings too.

I do.

Sony spent £2 million on marketing in the second largest video game market. Microsoft spent $500 million world wide. If the former is large, the second is gigantic. They don't appear to be on the same scale. "I saw X amount of ads" isn't terribly relevant.

Sorry to you too. It really isnt that important to me. I believe that the marketing of Move is large. I believe this from seeing so many ads. Many of them on expensive NFL slots.
Believe what you like and I will do the same.

 

[Littleberu]

How about this? http://www.movemodo.com/news/2010/09/sony_admits_it_will_never_outspend_microsoft_on_marketing

That's Sony of America, of course they won't out spend Microsoft.

I'm not saying Sony will, but Worldwide, 500 millions is not that much. It's only because that's the number we have right now, and we usually don't get marketing numbers.

FYI : 500 millions is also the amount Microsoft put for the first Xbox.

Halo 2 was : " 'tens of millions of dollars,' perhaps more than the cost of developing the game itself (which the company will not divulge). "

Sony spent £2 million on marketing in the second largest video game market.

That's only UK, though, and for the weeks leading to Christmas. Microsoft is taking it worldwide, and that probably includes everything in which they included the Kinect.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I work in marketing and advertising is what I do every day. It helps build awareness and perceived value, but it can't make people interested or just willing to buy anything. And it certainly doesn't scale infinitely with the size of the budget (I wish it were that easy). It wouldn't have become an "it" item unless people thought it was a good product.

Are you suggesting that, given a half billion dollar budget, that Sony could have made Move the "it" item?

No, I am saying it helped.

Edit: You have to have a product that speaks to the audience, it has to work, you have to have advertising, and the advertising has to be good.

Do you dispute this?

Sony's advertising, even if they spent the money, did not have an advertising campaign that resonated with the audience. Their advertising campaign basically boiled down to "You know that thing Wii families do? HERE IS KEVIN BUTLER SAYING YOU CAN DO IT ON PS3!"

Microsoft took a lot of money and used it wisely. Neither half of that sentence would have created the same buzz independently.Sony took a lot of money, but nowhere near as much, and used it poorly.

 

[itxaka]

I called it to be big if MS managed it correctly! You can find my posts in the first page of the e3 reveal thread!

 

[spwolf]

That's Sony of America, of course they won't out spend Microsoft.

I'm not saying Sony will, but Worldwide, 500 millions is not that much. It's only because that's the number we have right now, and we usually don't get marketing numbers.

FYI : 500 millions is also the amount Microsoft put for the first Xbox.

Halo 2 was : " 'tens of millions of dollars,' perhaps more than the cost of developing the game itself (which the company will not divulge). "

yikes. 500mil is shit load of money.... todays kiddies man.

 

[Littleberu]

yikes. 500mil is shit load of money.... todays kiddies man.

They spent 500 millions for the Xbox 1 in 2001.

Halo 3 marketing cost more than 40 millions. And that's for one game.

Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's not that much when you're launching a new brand.

Apple's "total advertising budget for 2008 came to $486 million." What did they launch in 2008? Iphone 3G.

In 2010, they " spent $691 million on advertising in the year that launched both iPad and the new iPhone 4. "

Yeah, 500 millions is a lot, but it's not crazy by tech and gadget standards.

Sony, the entire company, spent 5 billions last year in Marketing.

Additionally, Microsoft "new Xbox marketing guy (ranked 22nd in Ad Age's list of power marketers based on his budget) has $945 million to spend advertising Microsoft's entertainment products [in 2006]."

 

[Sydle]

No, I am saying it helped.



Do you dispute this?

Sony's advertising, even if they spent the money, did not have an advertising campaign that resonated with the audience. Their advertising campaign basically boiled down to "You know that thing Wii families do? HERE IS KEVIN BUTLER SAYING YOU CAN DO IT ON PS3!"

Microsoft took a lot of money and used it wisely. Neither half of that sentence would have created the same buzz independently.Sony took a lot of money, but nowhere near as much, and used it poorly.

I'd say they had the advertising to resonate with the product offering of a bunch of patched games and Wii game clones. I believe Move's product strategy was to appeal to the existing user base and stave off ideas of buying into Wii or Kinect.

If Sony's intention was to bring in a new audience then I'd say they fucked up from a product strategy perspective first. No amount of marketing, no matter the budget or creativity, could fix that -- you can't fool people into buying something.

 

[SlipperySlope]

I'd say they had the advertising to resonate with the product offering of a bunch of patched games and Wii game clones. I believe Move's product strategy was to appeal to the existing user base and stave off ideas of buying into Wii or Kinect.

If Sony's intention was to bring in a new audience then I'd say they fucked up from a product strategy perspective first. No amount of marketing, no matter the budget or creativity, could fix that -- you can't fool people into buying something.

Pet rock?

 

[Fredescu]

Spending as much on marketing as Apple "not that much" says forum poster

 

[Littleberu]

Spending as much on marketing as Apple "not that much" says forum poster

Oh come on, you know what I'm saying. I'm saying they launched a new brand this year, and they went all in, like any other company that's launching a new brand these days.

That's my point.

If Sony is not matching Microsoft, it's because they don't see Move as being a direct competitor for it. And if they do, then they'll need to roll up their sleeves.

 

[Dabanton]

Oh come on, you know what I'm saying. I'm saying they launched a new brand this year, and they went all in, like any other company that's launching a new brand these days.

That's my point.

If Sony is not matching Microsoft, it's because they don't see Move as being a direct competitor for it. And if they do, then they'll need to roll up their sleeves.

I think they did see Kinect as a direct competitor then saw how much MS was willing to spend to launch it and said thanks but no thanks.

Ever since then it seems that Move has been persona non grata over at Sony. I hope we see some new developments for it at GDC as exciting as using it for stuff like KZ3 is i'd like some experiences created from the ground up for it. Sorcery is a good start but that's one game.

 

[Sydle]

Pet rock?

Really?

Are you suggesting that people were fooled into buying a rock as a pet? I don't want to dive too deep on this, but you do understand that the idea behind the pet rock is not one of entertainment or even a gag, right?

I'm not sure where you could possibly take the comparison, but I'm ready for a laugh if you're willing to try and explain it away...