Dear publishers,
If you're going to offer different preorder bonus content through different retailers, announce all of those offers simultaneously... or at least inform us that further offers are upcoming. Otherwise, you're ensuring that some customers will have to cancel one preorder to place another so they get the specific bonus content they want.
A choice is less of a choice if not all options are on the table when the decision is made.
If physicians take an oath to do no harm, salesman can at least try to avoid needlessly annoying their customers.
I'm looking at you, Warner Brothers.
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marketing. Show all posts
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Coaches vs CEOs
Why do we expect coaches to acknowledge and respect the strengths of their competitors, but we don't expect the same of corporate CEOs?
Here is Alabama football coach Nick Saban after defeating LSU. Notice how he praises his own team while simultaneously complimenting the opposing team.
Would anyone expect Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to praise each other's companies in a similar manner? Why not?
Rather than ignore and belittle the innovations and quality of their competitors' services, corporate leaders should acknowledge excellence in other companies while aspiring to be the best.
E3 is almost here. In the past, console representatives and game publishers have occasionally mocked their competitors. Let's hope they are not so petty this year.
I hope to see quality products from all companies at E3. Competition is good for the entire industry.
Here is Alabama football coach Nick Saban after defeating LSU. Notice how he praises his own team while simultaneously complimenting the opposing team.
Would anyone expect Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to praise each other's companies in a similar manner? Why not?
Rather than ignore and belittle the innovations and quality of their competitors' services, corporate leaders should acknowledge excellence in other companies while aspiring to be the best.
E3 is almost here. In the past, console representatives and game publishers have occasionally mocked their competitors. Let's hope they are not so petty this year.
I hope to see quality products from all companies at E3. Competition is good for the entire industry.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
information dumps are good marketing
Typical game marketing involves revealing features months, if not years, before release and gradually sharing more information with potential players. This is a mistake because it allows people to form perceptions of the game based on incomplete information.
Perceptions are not changed easily. I know we all like to think of ourselves as humble and open-minded, but we're not. Human beings invest pride in even our most trivial opinions. And we are often unwilling to sacrifice time and energy for the sake of clarity in matters we don't know much about.
So if a potential buyer isn't hooked by the first advertisement he or she happens to see, that one ad might be the only sales pitch you're going to get. Some consumers might be interested enough to be open to further information, yes. But others will form an opinion immediately and ignore any future ad campaigns. Or they will form a mental summary through which all further information is filtered.
It makes more sense to provide all information about the game immediately. Features can then be gradually highlighted and illuminated over the course of a campaign.
Game design increasingly takes into account the variety of player personalities. Marketing should, too. Dumping all information in the beginning acknowledges that some potential players are not going to wait for a complete picture before writing the game off.
Providing all features up front also gives fans the resources and confidence they need to pitch the game for you. Word-of-mouth is the most persuasive marketing short of hands-on experience.
Perceptions are not changed easily. I know we all like to think of ourselves as humble and open-minded, but we're not. Human beings invest pride in even our most trivial opinions. And we are often unwilling to sacrifice time and energy for the sake of clarity in matters we don't know much about.
So if a potential buyer isn't hooked by the first advertisement he or she happens to see, that one ad might be the only sales pitch you're going to get. Some consumers might be interested enough to be open to further information, yes. But others will form an opinion immediately and ignore any future ad campaigns. Or they will form a mental summary through which all further information is filtered.
It makes more sense to provide all information about the game immediately. Features can then be gradually highlighted and illuminated over the course of a campaign.
Game design increasingly takes into account the variety of player personalities. Marketing should, too. Dumping all information in the beginning acknowledges that some potential players are not going to wait for a complete picture before writing the game off.
Providing all features up front also gives fans the resources and confidence they need to pitch the game for you. Word-of-mouth is the most persuasive marketing short of hands-on experience.
Monday, October 12, 2009
games at concerts
Brütal Legend releases today! I was surprised to see IGN give a score of 9. I expected good reviews, but that's great. Unfortunately, I didn't receive an early copy from EA and my money is tied up in other pre-orders, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to write my own review.
BlueKae said to me today, "I'm hoping Schafer finally gets a game where the critical and financial successes match up." My reply was that it will boil down to good marketing. EA has been doing a lot to spread the word, as has Jack Black.
I've thought of another, less traditional way to market the game. Advertise at concerts. Afterall, Brütal Legend has a number of rockstars with character roles in the game as well as a tracklist with dozens of bands. Don't you think those musicians would be open to idea of selling the game alongside the band T-shirts and all the other paraphernalia that usually gets sold at concerts? At the very least, posters could be placed at these concerts pointing out that the performing bands are included in the game.
Many games could do this, from music games like Rock Band to games with track lists like Crackdown or Saints Row 2. But even other games could advertise at concerts. People go to concerts to have fun -- they're on the lookout for fun. I'd bet that the vast majority of people at any rock concert are gamers (if only occasional gamers), and most rock musicians probably are as well.
It seems like a lot of untapped marketing potential to me.
BlueKae said to me today, "I'm hoping Schafer finally gets a game where the critical and financial successes match up." My reply was that it will boil down to good marketing. EA has been doing a lot to spread the word, as has Jack Black.
I've thought of another, less traditional way to market the game. Advertise at concerts. Afterall, Brütal Legend has a number of rockstars with character roles in the game as well as a tracklist with dozens of bands. Don't you think those musicians would be open to idea of selling the game alongside the band T-shirts and all the other paraphernalia that usually gets sold at concerts? At the very least, posters could be placed at these concerts pointing out that the performing bands are included in the game.
Many games could do this, from music games like Rock Band to games with track lists like Crackdown or Saints Row 2. But even other games could advertise at concerts. People go to concerts to have fun -- they're on the lookout for fun. I'd bet that the vast majority of people at any rock concert are gamers (if only occasional gamers), and most rock musicians probably are as well.
It seems like a lot of untapped marketing potential to me.
Friday, September 04, 2009
fan feedback
Ethic from Kill Ten Rats said this on Twitter today: "Reading MMO forums sucks the life AND magic out of the games." I completely agree.
It's not just the rampant pessimism and bickering on forums. It's that approaching a game from a designer's view steals some of the fun. It's easier to accept or ignore flaws when you're not thinking about how the game could have been better, how it might be improved. It's more fun when you accept a game as a finished product.
That's a major issue with MMOs, but it applies to all games. These days, all games have forums and fansites. Developers of all games request feedback from would-be players. Feedback is great. It's important. But it's also a double-edged sword.
The more you invite players to be armchair designers, the more difficult it will be for those players to enjoy your game.
That said, feedback isn't the only benefit. If a fan community is well attended to and not heavily moderated, with developers interacting with fans directly, that fosters personal connections. And personal relationships can be a factor in whether or not someone decides to give a game a chance. Still, I think developers should be careful in encouraging players to take on the role of design consultant.
Let players be players.
It's not just the rampant pessimism and bickering on forums. It's that approaching a game from a designer's view steals some of the fun. It's easier to accept or ignore flaws when you're not thinking about how the game could have been better, how it might be improved. It's more fun when you accept a game as a finished product.
That's a major issue with MMOs, but it applies to all games. These days, all games have forums and fansites. Developers of all games request feedback from would-be players. Feedback is great. It's important. But it's also a double-edged sword.
The more you invite players to be armchair designers, the more difficult it will be for those players to enjoy your game.
That said, feedback isn't the only benefit. If a fan community is well attended to and not heavily moderated, with developers interacting with fans directly, that fosters personal connections. And personal relationships can be a factor in whether or not someone decides to give a game a chance. Still, I think developers should be careful in encouraging players to take on the role of design consultant.
Let players be players.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
marketing secrets
I missed it. *minor spoiler ahead*
I did find the body of Ra's al Ghul in Batman: Arkham Asylum, but I didn't notice that it had later disappeared.
If you can fill your game with secrets, do it. Make some easy to find, and others near-impossible. Secrets get players talking about the game. The more secrets and the better they're hidden, the more talk there will be and the longer it will last.
Secrets can be a great marketing tool.
I did find the body of Ra's al Ghul in Batman: Arkham Asylum, but I didn't notice that it had later disappeared.
If you can fill your game with secrets, do it. Make some easy to find, and others near-impossible. Secrets get players talking about the game. The more secrets and the better they're hidden, the more talk there will be and the longer it will last.
Secrets can be a great marketing tool.
Monday, June 22, 2009
blog compensation and the FTC
Apparently, the Federal Trade Commission has decided to start policing bloggers.
Companies increasingly include bloggers in their marketing drives. The FTC is concerned that not all bloggers reveal their relationships with these companies while consumers turn to the blogs for product reviews. Basically, the FTC believes consumers have a right to full disclosure when receiving product advice.
I'm generally not a fan of government regulatory agencies, but the FTC proposal certainly makes sense under current law. It's more a clarification of how existing laws apply to blogs than a creation of new rules. There's ample room for regulatory abuse, but I expect it will generally be business as usual.
In any case, this seems like a good time to talk about my own site's company relationships. I've spoken about them with fellow bloggers from time to time, but never explicitly discussed it on here.
First, you've probably noticed the "Partners" section in my sidebar. I used to have it labeled as something else, though I don't recall the label. For five or six months now, I've received a small amount of revenue in the form of monthly payments for including hypertext ads in that section for various companies and organizations -- enough money to buy one or two games each month. The advertisers are found through a middleman company, and I accept only ads that I think are somewhat relevant to my site.
When I started this blog years ago, I never dreamed I'd be able to make any money or derive any benefits from it. Now that I do, I'm a little stricter with myself about posting almost every weekday, but you can peruse my archives and see that the content is basically the same. I have had to consider how commercial I'll let the site become, though.
I think my priorities are pretty clear. If money was my top priority, I'd be spamming and posting all over the internet, writing more about news, writing many articles per day, etc. But money is not my top priority for this site, nor will ever be. That's why most my articles are still philosophical and niche, why I only write one article per day, and why I rarely mention my site apart from POTD (Post of the Day) links on Twitter.
Over the years, I've been given beta access directly by developers, given interview opportunities, given products and prizes to give away in contests, and have even received a few review copies of games. On a few occasions, I've been solicited for design advice by developers; and I briefly worked for a European developer (primarily as a reviewer). I continue to link to CrosuS, a product which I contributed to in a small way, but more because it is unique and respectable than because I have any affiliation with it (my contribution to CrosuS was negligible).
Most relations I've had with marketers have been brief, but I've been an EA Contact for months now. EA has given me exclusive screenshots, interview opportunities, a heads-up on new web content, and a few free review copies. In return, I offer to review particular games and help games I like gain exposure... usually by incorporating details of the game into a philosophical discussion typical of Anyway Games. I only review and market games I'm truly interested in. I've rejected offers concerning many games, from EA and others, such as THQ's Dragonica Online.
Have these relationships affected the honesty of my reviews and comments? I don't believe so. You might note that, while I gave Dead Space and Spore good reviews and have praised many EA games (just look at their present list of upcoming titles -- impressive), my reviews were not so kind to other of the publisher's games, like The Godfather II (which I received a review copy of) and Mass Effect. In fact, I am one of the few who have been very critical of Mass Effect, despite acknowledging that it's a good game overall (I'll be writing about hopes for the sequel this week).
Pandemic is responsible for one of my favorite games of all time, Star Wars: Battlefront. Recently, I've been helping them to advertise The Saboteur because it looks like a potentially awesome game. But I wrote a rather scathing review of another Pandemic title, LOTR: Conquest.
The point is that I am a brutally, compulsively honest person. I have Asperger Syndrome and am a reasoned Catholic. Put those two together, and the result is an extremely stubborn commitment to truth and morality. I care more about truth, God and my fellow human beings than profit and rewards. And I reject the common notion that moral rules change depending on whether one is acting in or outside of business. I certainly am not always right or accurate, but I try very hard to be honest with myself and others.
I also try to be open. So I've added a note in this site's heading for readers who don't communicate with me regularly. I try to make my biases plain, but please feel free to ask me if ever you'd like to know where I'm coming from.
Companies increasingly include bloggers in their marketing drives. The FTC is concerned that not all bloggers reveal their relationships with these companies while consumers turn to the blogs for product reviews. Basically, the FTC believes consumers have a right to full disclosure when receiving product advice.
If the guidelines are approved, bloggers would have to back up claims and disclose if they're being compensated — the FTC doesn't currently plan to specify how. The FTC could order violators to stop and pay restitution to customers, and it could ask the Justice Department to sue for civil penalties.
Any type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in reviews.
.... the guidelines also would cover the broader and common practice of affiliate marketing, in which bloggers and other sites get a commission when someone clicks on a link that leads to a purchase at a retailer.
I'm generally not a fan of government regulatory agencies, but the FTC proposal certainly makes sense under current law. It's more a clarification of how existing laws apply to blogs than a creation of new rules. There's ample room for regulatory abuse, but I expect it will generally be business as usual.
In any case, this seems like a good time to talk about my own site's company relationships. I've spoken about them with fellow bloggers from time to time, but never explicitly discussed it on here.
First, you've probably noticed the "Partners" section in my sidebar. I used to have it labeled as something else, though I don't recall the label. For five or six months now, I've received a small amount of revenue in the form of monthly payments for including hypertext ads in that section for various companies and organizations -- enough money to buy one or two games each month. The advertisers are found through a middleman company, and I accept only ads that I think are somewhat relevant to my site.
When I started this blog years ago, I never dreamed I'd be able to make any money or derive any benefits from it. Now that I do, I'm a little stricter with myself about posting almost every weekday, but you can peruse my archives and see that the content is basically the same. I have had to consider how commercial I'll let the site become, though.
I think my priorities are pretty clear. If money was my top priority, I'd be spamming and posting all over the internet, writing more about news, writing many articles per day, etc. But money is not my top priority for this site, nor will ever be. That's why most my articles are still philosophical and niche, why I only write one article per day, and why I rarely mention my site apart from POTD (Post of the Day) links on Twitter.
Over the years, I've been given beta access directly by developers, given interview opportunities, given products and prizes to give away in contests, and have even received a few review copies of games. On a few occasions, I've been solicited for design advice by developers; and I briefly worked for a European developer (primarily as a reviewer). I continue to link to CrosuS, a product which I contributed to in a small way, but more because it is unique and respectable than because I have any affiliation with it (my contribution to CrosuS was negligible).
Most relations I've had with marketers have been brief, but I've been an EA Contact for months now. EA has given me exclusive screenshots, interview opportunities, a heads-up on new web content, and a few free review copies. In return, I offer to review particular games and help games I like gain exposure... usually by incorporating details of the game into a philosophical discussion typical of Anyway Games. I only review and market games I'm truly interested in. I've rejected offers concerning many games, from EA and others, such as THQ's Dragonica Online.
Have these relationships affected the honesty of my reviews and comments? I don't believe so. You might note that, while I gave Dead Space and Spore good reviews and have praised many EA games (just look at their present list of upcoming titles -- impressive), my reviews were not so kind to other of the publisher's games, like The Godfather II (which I received a review copy of) and Mass Effect. In fact, I am one of the few who have been very critical of Mass Effect, despite acknowledging that it's a good game overall (I'll be writing about hopes for the sequel this week).
Pandemic is responsible for one of my favorite games of all time, Star Wars: Battlefront. Recently, I've been helping them to advertise The Saboteur because it looks like a potentially awesome game. But I wrote a rather scathing review of another Pandemic title, LOTR: Conquest.
The point is that I am a brutally, compulsively honest person. I have Asperger Syndrome and am a reasoned Catholic. Put those two together, and the result is an extremely stubborn commitment to truth and morality. I care more about truth, God and my fellow human beings than profit and rewards. And I reject the common notion that moral rules change depending on whether one is acting in or outside of business. I certainly am not always right or accurate, but I try very hard to be honest with myself and others.
I also try to be open. So I've added a note in this site's heading for readers who don't communicate with me regularly. I try to make my biases plain, but please feel free to ask me if ever you'd like to know where I'm coming from.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Natal and TV viewing
I suggested on Geoff Keighley's blog that Microsoft should advertise Project Natal, when they release it, alongside their Netflix and on-demand movie services. Hopefully, they'll also have live TV deals by then, like they made in Britain with Sky.
People who play games infrequently, and even not at all, are already attracted to the Netflix service. I have two non-gaming relatives who use Xbox 360s exclusively for Netflix and renting movies in high definition. Consumers who own or are interested in the Wii will be attracted to Natal games. But it's a combination of both Natal gaming and cheap, on-demand movie/TV services in 360 advertising that will convert Wii owners and tap into the irregular-gamer/non-gamer market.
This leads me to a point made my Peter Molyneux about Project Natal. The new hardware, Molyneux argues, opens up possibilities beyond traditional genres and applications.
What about TV interaction? Microsoft could position their next console to become as universal as DVD players if it enables TV viewers to interact with average, non-gaming TV shows somehow.
People who play games infrequently, and even not at all, are already attracted to the Netflix service. I have two non-gaming relatives who use Xbox 360s exclusively for Netflix and renting movies in high definition. Consumers who own or are interested in the Wii will be attracted to Natal games. But it's a combination of both Natal gaming and cheap, on-demand movie/TV services in 360 advertising that will convert Wii owners and tap into the irregular-gamer/non-gamer market.
This leads me to a point made my Peter Molyneux about Project Natal. The new hardware, Molyneux argues, opens up possibilities beyond traditional genres and applications.
What about TV interaction? Microsoft could position their next console to become as universal as DVD players if it enables TV viewers to interact with average, non-gaming TV shows somehow.
Monday, June 08, 2009
multiple trailers
It's a good idea to make one short trailer just to catch interest, and a second trailer to deliver the actual information once interest is caught.
Case in point: Global Agenda's new trailer. Seeing that trailer inspired me to watch the also-new interview video.
Just make sure the info you want to advertise is immediately obvious and doesn't have to be searched for. It's even better if the hook and the game features explanation reference each other.
Case in point: Global Agenda's new trailer. Seeing that trailer inspired me to watch the also-new interview video.
Just make sure the info you want to advertise is immediately obvious and doesn't have to be searched for. It's even better if the hook and the game features explanation reference each other.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
replay systems
I recently joined GameDev.net. Lots of good discussion there and good resources for new developers. The following's a carryover of my comments there.
Recordings of player moments (screenshots, video clips, etc) are great both in terms of player enjoyment and marketing. But a distinction should be made between planned and unplanned clips.
On the one hand, you have player-scripted events; machinima. Spore and The Sims 2 offer players in-game tools for this. Alternatively, World of Warcraft is commonly used but through external tools not provided by Blizzard. Such recordings are popular, but the planning and interface know-how required limits their user appeal.
On the other hand are unexpected events which the player discovers and wants to memorialize. Replay systems are more rare, but also, I think, more valuable. NCAA Football '08, for example, automatically records every play and allows players to select from those recordings events for permanent memory. That means that if something unintentional or unexpected excites the player, it can be recorded after-the-fact. The game also allows the player to view the event from different angles. Similar systems allowing cropping and editing, but the simplest systems have the broadest appeal.
Of the two kinds of recordings, planned and revisited, the latter appeals to more gamers. It is more useful for marketing as well, since the recorded events represent actual, unscripted gameplay which any player might hope for.
I wonder if there might also be occasional value in audio recordings. At this time, apart from music, audio in games is rarely worthy of memory. Undoubtedly, some game enthusiasts have favorite lines of dialog and such which they would happily preserve, but game audio is not dynamic enough to offer individual experiences -- the primary basis of personal recordings. How to make it so is worth consideration.
Recordings of player moments (screenshots, video clips, etc) are great both in terms of player enjoyment and marketing. But a distinction should be made between planned and unplanned clips.
On the one hand, you have player-scripted events; machinima. Spore and The Sims 2 offer players in-game tools for this. Alternatively, World of Warcraft is commonly used but through external tools not provided by Blizzard. Such recordings are popular, but the planning and interface know-how required limits their user appeal.
On the other hand are unexpected events which the player discovers and wants to memorialize. Replay systems are more rare, but also, I think, more valuable. NCAA Football '08, for example, automatically records every play and allows players to select from those recordings events for permanent memory. That means that if something unintentional or unexpected excites the player, it can be recorded after-the-fact. The game also allows the player to view the event from different angles. Similar systems allowing cropping and editing, but the simplest systems have the broadest appeal.
Of the two kinds of recordings, planned and revisited, the latter appeals to more gamers. It is more useful for marketing as well, since the recorded events represent actual, unscripted gameplay which any player might hope for.
I wonder if there might also be occasional value in audio recordings. At this time, apart from music, audio in games is rarely worthy of memory. Undoubtedly, some game enthusiasts have favorite lines of dialog and such which they would happily preserve, but game audio is not dynamic enough to offer individual experiences -- the primary basis of personal recordings. How to make it so is worth consideration.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
E3 revived - spectacle is good
The beast is back this year, and everyone's wondering if it's a good thing.
When E3 was a made a small, pitiful industry get-together, as I understand it was originally intended to be, I commented to a number of people that the industry's bound to have a huge marketing extravaganza one way or another. The ESA could only decide whether or not that inevitable extravaganza would be theirs.
Of course, the bad news is that the presence of any big industry bazaar disrupts the development of many games by way of distraction; forcing developers to produce marketing materials, rather than ultimate gameplay. Marketing stunts like E3 are largely responsible for the industry's crunch time pandemic.
But let's talk about why this annual orgy of gaming news is good, too. Keighley raises the criticism that piling so much big news into such a small timeframe leads to good games being overshadowed by more sensational news. That's true, but it's also true that many games reach a much larger and more diverse audience because of E3's size and noise.
E3 is a circus, and many acts get attention only at a circus. Its concentration of so much interesting news, so many new videos and interviews, convinces many people to make that news a higher priority than they would normally consider it. It's like the Super Bowl. Countless people who haven't watched every regular season game, if they've watched any at all, tune in because of the epic nature of the event. Suddenly, they care about things they didn't care about before, welcoming all sorts of information that would normally fall under "Eh, I'll read about it some other time".
What I'm saying is that many game interviews and previews will be read, many trailers watched, because E3 makes games the temporary focus of consumers who normally pay attention to such things only occasionally, if at all.
And each year, non-gaming mainstream news outlets have payed more and more attention to this event, exactly because it is the gaming event of the year. Now we have a recession and those news outlets will want to tell stories about the industry that's charging forward despite. They'll want to capture their stressed-out audience with the stunning visuals, crazy technologies, and epic experiences this industry has to offer.
I disagree with Croal and the others. Publishers shouldn't hold themselves to a few choice announcements at E3. This is a rare time when you'll have the attention of occasional gamers and lapsed gamers. This is a time when regular gamers will devote more time to reading and watching gaming news. Market your smaller announcements by tying news of them to your larger announcements, and by making those smaller advertisements your most intriguing. Think of Super Bowl ads; how everyone looks forward to them because they're not typical ads.
The spectacular nature of E3 is definitely a burden, but it's also a blessing. The extravagance is a source of opportunity.
I received a priority code for E3 registration this year, but I'm assuming I'd still have to pay the $500 for a pass (not to mention plane tickets, hotel reservations, food, beer, etc). I can't afford to go this year. But I might plan ahead so I can go next year.
When E3 was a made a small, pitiful industry get-together, as I understand it was originally intended to be, I commented to a number of people that the industry's bound to have a huge marketing extravaganza one way or another. The ESA could only decide whether or not that inevitable extravaganza would be theirs.
Of course, the bad news is that the presence of any big industry bazaar disrupts the development of many games by way of distraction; forcing developers to produce marketing materials, rather than ultimate gameplay. Marketing stunts like E3 are largely responsible for the industry's crunch time pandemic.
But let's talk about why this annual orgy of gaming news is good, too. Keighley raises the criticism that piling so much big news into such a small timeframe leads to good games being overshadowed by more sensational news. That's true, but it's also true that many games reach a much larger and more diverse audience because of E3's size and noise.
E3 is a circus, and many acts get attention only at a circus. Its concentration of so much interesting news, so many new videos and interviews, convinces many people to make that news a higher priority than they would normally consider it. It's like the Super Bowl. Countless people who haven't watched every regular season game, if they've watched any at all, tune in because of the epic nature of the event. Suddenly, they care about things they didn't care about before, welcoming all sorts of information that would normally fall under "Eh, I'll read about it some other time".
What I'm saying is that many game interviews and previews will be read, many trailers watched, because E3 makes games the temporary focus of consumers who normally pay attention to such things only occasionally, if at all.
And each year, non-gaming mainstream news outlets have payed more and more attention to this event, exactly because it is the gaming event of the year. Now we have a recession and those news outlets will want to tell stories about the industry that's charging forward despite. They'll want to capture their stressed-out audience with the stunning visuals, crazy technologies, and epic experiences this industry has to offer.
I disagree with Croal and the others. Publishers shouldn't hold themselves to a few choice announcements at E3. This is a rare time when you'll have the attention of occasional gamers and lapsed gamers. This is a time when regular gamers will devote more time to reading and watching gaming news. Market your smaller announcements by tying news of them to your larger announcements, and by making those smaller advertisements your most intriguing. Think of Super Bowl ads; how everyone looks forward to them because they're not typical ads.
The spectacular nature of E3 is definitely a burden, but it's also a blessing. The extravagance is a source of opportunity.
I received a priority code for E3 registration this year, but I'm assuming I'd still have to pay the $500 for a pass (not to mention plane tickets, hotel reservations, food, beer, etc). I can't afford to go this year. But I might plan ahead so I can go next year.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
free-to-play content placement
FreeRealms is a good game. It's worth checking out if you don't mind cartoony games, especially if you have young kids. But its method of generating revenue will ruffle some feathers.
It's not a bad method, but it has a significant problem. Non-paying players are likely to be annoyed by the pay-to-play content staring them in the face all the time.
Losing a non-paying player matters because that players can tell people he or she knows about the game, and those people might end up being paying customers. Non-subscribers are a significant part of your marketing.
Another reason is that some players might not enjoy the game enough to pay early on, but become willing to pay after they have invested more time in their characters or experienced more content. For example, I didn't come across FreeRealms' tower defense games until after having played and explored a good bit. I enjoyed those mini-games a lot, and my hands-on experience with the full variety of mini-games in FreeRealms would factor heavily in my decision of whether or not to subscribe.
Obviously, you don't want the pay-to-play content to be "out of sight, out of mind" either. But there's more customers to be had than the ones you hook immediately. Smart placement of DLC and incentives in a "free" game includes focusing on the players who you won't catch right away or even at all. Try not to annoy players by advertising what they don't have access to every two minutes.
It's not a bad method, but it has a significant problem. Non-paying players are likely to be annoyed by the pay-to-play content staring them in the face all the time.
Losing a non-paying player matters because that players can tell people he or she knows about the game, and those people might end up being paying customers. Non-subscribers are a significant part of your marketing.
Another reason is that some players might not enjoy the game enough to pay early on, but become willing to pay after they have invested more time in their characters or experienced more content. For example, I didn't come across FreeRealms' tower defense games until after having played and explored a good bit. I enjoyed those mini-games a lot, and my hands-on experience with the full variety of mini-games in FreeRealms would factor heavily in my decision of whether or not to subscribe.
Obviously, you don't want the pay-to-play content to be "out of sight, out of mind" either. But there's more customers to be had than the ones you hook immediately. Smart placement of DLC and incentives in a "free" game includes focusing on the players who you won't catch right away or even at all. Try not to annoy players by advertising what they don't have access to every two minutes.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
review timing
Yesterday, I spat out a couple theories (like I do every day) about game reviews, and I want to see what y'all think of them.
Any reviewer's fairness to a game diminishes with his or her workload. The more games a person has to review at one time, the more difficult it is to be patient with your thoughts and not rush to judgment on any one of those games. Time pressures can also discourage you from settling into a natural pace of play.
Also, any person is likely to be less fair in reviewing a game if he is playing that game while eager to play another game. For example, I think Medal of Honor: Airborne is a great game. But if I had bought it the same week that I bought Call of Duty 4, then I probably would have been much more critical of it. Even now, I don't like to play them back-to-back.
So, basically, timing matters. That means how long it's been since the last game you really loved, what similar games are released around the same time, what dissimilar games are released around the same time, how your playtime happens to be interrupted by life in general, etc.
Any reviewer's fairness to a game diminishes with his or her workload. The more games a person has to review at one time, the more difficult it is to be patient with your thoughts and not rush to judgment on any one of those games. Time pressures can also discourage you from settling into a natural pace of play.
Also, any person is likely to be less fair in reviewing a game if he is playing that game while eager to play another game. For example, I think Medal of Honor: Airborne is a great game. But if I had bought it the same week that I bought Call of Duty 4, then I probably would have been much more critical of it. Even now, I don't like to play them back-to-back.
So, basically, timing matters. That means how long it's been since the last game you really loved, what similar games are released around the same time, what dissimilar games are released around the same time, how your playtime happens to be interrupted by life in general, etc.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
official websites
I have no training in marketing/advertising, but here are some basic criticisms I have of many official game sites.
No automatic animation, no Flash menus, please. Sure, that stuff grabs some people, but I bet it annoys just as many. Sound isn't so bad if you bring it in gradually, thereby offering some warning and time for folks to turn down the volume. Animations and Flash tricks can make the page loads considerably slower. Some people check out a game site with only mild interest because there was a link in an article or email, and those people aren't going to wait long for the page to load.
And most importantly, fancy stuff like that often delays the real hook, the real meaning. While there's something to be said for ads that slowly but methodically suck the audience in, it's generally better -- in a world ever fuller of advertising noise -- to start with the punchline.
It's a mistake to make news about the game the intro page. The vast majority of gamers reading your news have already been hooked, regardless of how recently. That's secondary, peripheral information; details. The first thing visitors should see is the game's core concept -- one or a handful of primary selling points. Returning visitors can either bookmark the news page or skip the old info with one click.
If your game is for a mature audience, don't make the first thing visitors see an age verification prompt. In some cases, that might be unavoidable, but in many cases it isn't. Your intro page doesn't have to be part of the main framework; it doesn't have to be one section of many (News, Media, Forums, etc). It can be separate from the comprehensive site. If possible, show what you can that's age-agnostic and make your main pitch on this separate intro page... then let the player pass to the comprehensive site through an age verifier. As I've said, this doesn't make sense for all games, but at least consider it for yours.
When I say to start by showing the game's core concept, I don't mean just a tagline or text alone, obviously. What exactly is optimal depends greatly on your particular game. Some games must be seen in action to believed, in which case embedding a video (just one, and not automatically played) might be a good inclusion. Don't let the structure and design of your site as a whole over-influence the design of the intro page. If you've got a Media section with screenshots and videos, don't let that deter you from including or even repeating a screenshot or video on the intro page.
On the other hand, a game's core concept might be represented well by something other than facts or footage. Destroy All Humans! is an example of a game that could be advertised with a simple graphic along with the title, since the gameplay is fundamentally defined by the silly setting.
Anyway, what do you think? Do you disagree with any of that? Do you have any ideas for making official sites more inviting, more informative, and generally more effective than what we usually see?
No automatic animation, no Flash menus, please. Sure, that stuff grabs some people, but I bet it annoys just as many. Sound isn't so bad if you bring it in gradually, thereby offering some warning and time for folks to turn down the volume. Animations and Flash tricks can make the page loads considerably slower. Some people check out a game site with only mild interest because there was a link in an article or email, and those people aren't going to wait long for the page to load.
And most importantly, fancy stuff like that often delays the real hook, the real meaning. While there's something to be said for ads that slowly but methodically suck the audience in, it's generally better -- in a world ever fuller of advertising noise -- to start with the punchline.
It's a mistake to make news about the game the intro page. The vast majority of gamers reading your news have already been hooked, regardless of how recently. That's secondary, peripheral information; details. The first thing visitors should see is the game's core concept -- one or a handful of primary selling points. Returning visitors can either bookmark the news page or skip the old info with one click.
If your game is for a mature audience, don't make the first thing visitors see an age verification prompt. In some cases, that might be unavoidable, but in many cases it isn't. Your intro page doesn't have to be part of the main framework; it doesn't have to be one section of many (News, Media, Forums, etc). It can be separate from the comprehensive site. If possible, show what you can that's age-agnostic and make your main pitch on this separate intro page... then let the player pass to the comprehensive site through an age verifier. As I've said, this doesn't make sense for all games, but at least consider it for yours.
When I say to start by showing the game's core concept, I don't mean just a tagline or text alone, obviously. What exactly is optimal depends greatly on your particular game. Some games must be seen in action to believed, in which case embedding a video (just one, and not automatically played) might be a good inclusion. Don't let the structure and design of your site as a whole over-influence the design of the intro page. If you've got a Media section with screenshots and videos, don't let that deter you from including or even repeating a screenshot or video on the intro page.
On the other hand, a game's core concept might be represented well by something other than facts or footage. Destroy All Humans! is an example of a game that could be advertised with a simple graphic along with the title, since the gameplay is fundamentally defined by the silly setting.
Anyway, what do you think? Do you disagree with any of that? Do you have any ideas for making official sites more inviting, more informative, and generally more effective than what we usually see?
Monday, March 23, 2009
TV spectating: the question
The Sci-Fi channel has apparently taken the leap into game spectating. From what I've read, though, their WCG Ultimate Gamer show is as much reality TV as spectating. I don't like that idea, but it raises the question of what sort of show could make game battles popular on TV.
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
pay-to-play events
It seems strange to me that DLC always takes the form of permanent content... always as objects, rather than events.
In the case of MMOs, it would be hard to charge for events after so many years of including that service in the subscription package. But I'm surprised games like Call of Duty 4 and Rock Band 2 don't have pay-to-play events.
It could take any number of forms. Tournaments could offer real prizes, which were bought with entry money. Music games could offer songs as temporary downloads (surely, record labels would make more songs available then). This stuff could be offered for pennies.
In the case of MMOs, it would be hard to charge for events after so many years of including that service in the subscription package. But I'm surprised games like Call of Duty 4 and Rock Band 2 don't have pay-to-play events.
It could take any number of forms. Tournaments could offer real prizes, which were bought with entry money. Music games could offer songs as temporary downloads (surely, record labels would make more songs available then). This stuff could be offered for pennies.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
iTunes for games
It seems foolish at this point for any game to not be sold in download form (though I think hard copies still make sense as well). Downloads have an inherent advantage: they're more conducive to impulse purchases.
Get gamers used to buying games online and you're all but guaranteed to sell games via impulsive decisions. In less than two minutes, a person can buy a game on a site like Direct2Drive. It's so much easier to coax a person into buying something momentarily than to get them to plan a later purchase.
The game industry desperately needs something like iTunes, one place where every product from every company can be downloaded. In fact, I no reason to settle for something like iTunes... start signing deals with Apple, and Amazon. Do that, and sales will increase exponentially.
Get gamers used to buying games online and you're all but guaranteed to sell games via impulsive decisions. In less than two minutes, a person can buy a game on a site like Direct2Drive. It's so much easier to coax a person into buying something momentarily than to get them to plan a later purchase.
The game industry desperately needs something like iTunes, one place where every product from every company can be downloaded. In fact, I no reason to settle for something like iTunes... start signing deals with Apple, and Amazon. Do that, and sales will increase exponentially.
Friday, February 06, 2009
game theaters
Thinking about how the game industry's employment models relate to the film industry's models (I'm not sure the two are similar enough to use the same methods), I got to wondering if the game industry could make use of a theater system or something similar.
Ultimately, films end up on DVDs, iTunes, TV, etc. That's where long-term profits come from. But the film industry relies heavily on short-term sales in the form of movie theater tickets. Generally speaking, films are not available as ownable copies until after they have had a run in theaters.
Could games use a similar financial model?
Right now, games go straight from development to ownable copies. It could almost certainly be different, but should it be? What are the alternatives?
Theater gaming could work. Whereas 50+ people can view a movie in a theater, far fewer can simultaneously play a game (currently, anyway). That said, more and more multiplayer games can support 16-32 simultaneous players. I expect charging that many people for an hour or two of playtime on a giant screen in a dark theater (perhaps with rumbling seats, scoreboards on the back of seats or on the walls, permanent theater records, etc) before a game's release to discs and downloads could prove profitable. How many people would pay to join a theater tournament for a new game, ala Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, for both the experience and for a chance to hold that particular theater's permanent records for that game's competitions? Many, I'm sure.
What are some other possibilities?
Ultimately, films end up on DVDs, iTunes, TV, etc. That's where long-term profits come from. But the film industry relies heavily on short-term sales in the form of movie theater tickets. Generally speaking, films are not available as ownable copies until after they have had a run in theaters.
Could games use a similar financial model?
Right now, games go straight from development to ownable copies. It could almost certainly be different, but should it be? What are the alternatives?
Theater gaming could work. Whereas 50+ people can view a movie in a theater, far fewer can simultaneously play a game (currently, anyway). That said, more and more multiplayer games can support 16-32 simultaneous players. I expect charging that many people for an hour or two of playtime on a giant screen in a dark theater (perhaps with rumbling seats, scoreboards on the back of seats or on the walls, permanent theater records, etc) before a game's release to discs and downloads could prove profitable. How many people would pay to join a theater tournament for a new game, ala Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, for both the experience and for a chance to hold that particular theater's permanent records for that game's competitions? Many, I'm sure.
What are some other possibilities?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Hulu and YouTube
You might have already read by now that Microsoft is at least considering integration of web services like Hulu and YouTube into Xbox Live. I see this as a big deal.
HULU
First, Hulu has a different business model than Netflix. Users can view content (TV and films) at no charge, the shows being paid for by advertisements. It includes a number of triple-A and top-notch TV shows (like NewsRadio), and browsing them is simpler than with Netflix. Hulu even has an integrated tool for selecting clips and emailing them to friends. I love Hulu. I much prefer its quick and easy TV-on-demand service with relatively few commercials in lieu of a traditional cable or satellite subscription.
The first complication I see is that Xbox Live currently charges users to rent content which can be viewed for free (through advertisements) on Hulu, such as Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. My gut says Microsoft would screw us and not allow Hulu to show anything we're charged for now, but it's possible Microsoft would take the high road and allow us the paid-by-ads alternative.
Microsoft would almost certainly place its own ads in Hulu's content. That strikes me as the absolute best marketing tool the company would have for reaching XBL users. I bet most users are more likely to watch a good TV show or movie with game advertisements in them than to download trailers and video interviews for every game they might enjoy. Ads in Hulu via the 360 would reach more Xbox users than ads anywhere else.
And contracting with Hulu would be a major selling point. Yes, it's available online, but most people would rather watch free, on-demand shows on their television than on their computer. TVs can be hooked up to PCs, but that's not a mainstream practice (it's common among tech junkies only, who are not that big a chunk of society as a whole).
Hulu would benefit greatly by attracting more advertisers with the 360 user community. Their services would consequently expand and become more attractive to users and marketers. More film studios who currently contract with TV broadcasters might see Hulu as a viable partner. Because Hulu would finally be playing on the televisions of millions, rather than on computers, the company could finally become a direct competitor to subscription television.
Of course, if Hulu was ever big enough to compete directly with them, the Hulu business model would probably change; either they'd gradually increase ad interruptions, as TV broadcasters have over the years, or they'd start charging a subscription of their own. But we can hope their present model would stand for a while.
YouTube
Videos of Halo and other games already cover YouTube. More gamers would watch those sort of videos if it could be done while already focused on games (engaged on their gaming console). YouTube integration would greatly facilitate game tutorials and walkthroughs. It might even make gaming tournaments more viable.
YouTube integration could significantly affect the design of many games. Community and Arcade games would use YouTube most frequently, but I'm talking mainly about the design of triple-AAA titles. And I don't mean like Spore either, which enables players to share their creature creations. No, I'm talking about dynamics. What makes games like Halo and MMOs so popular on YouTube is their room for fresh, personal experiences. It's the ability to still see new and exciting stories months or even years after the game is released. It's the revelation of personal preferences and personal adventures -- stories which are individually representative.
YouTube play-session stories are excellent marketing. Ads are more effective when they're recommended by friends. Videos of unique and exciting experiences encourage lengthy conversations between friends -- conversations which embed the ads to memory, inform, and stoke anticipation. YouTube integration could greatly increase impulse purchases of downloadable content.
Anyway, long story short, I hope Microsoft can work out satisfactory contracts with both YouTube and Hulu. Those deals could be as sweet for gamers as for Microsoft and advertisers.
HULU
First, Hulu has a different business model than Netflix. Users can view content (TV and films) at no charge, the shows being paid for by advertisements. It includes a number of triple-A and top-notch TV shows (like NewsRadio), and browsing them is simpler than with Netflix. Hulu even has an integrated tool for selecting clips and emailing them to friends. I love Hulu. I much prefer its quick and easy TV-on-demand service with relatively few commercials in lieu of a traditional cable or satellite subscription.
The first complication I see is that Xbox Live currently charges users to rent content which can be viewed for free (through advertisements) on Hulu, such as Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. My gut says Microsoft would screw us and not allow Hulu to show anything we're charged for now, but it's possible Microsoft would take the high road and allow us the paid-by-ads alternative.
Microsoft would almost certainly place its own ads in Hulu's content. That strikes me as the absolute best marketing tool the company would have for reaching XBL users. I bet most users are more likely to watch a good TV show or movie with game advertisements in them than to download trailers and video interviews for every game they might enjoy. Ads in Hulu via the 360 would reach more Xbox users than ads anywhere else.
And contracting with Hulu would be a major selling point. Yes, it's available online, but most people would rather watch free, on-demand shows on their television than on their computer. TVs can be hooked up to PCs, but that's not a mainstream practice (it's common among tech junkies only, who are not that big a chunk of society as a whole).
Hulu would benefit greatly by attracting more advertisers with the 360 user community. Their services would consequently expand and become more attractive to users and marketers. More film studios who currently contract with TV broadcasters might see Hulu as a viable partner. Because Hulu would finally be playing on the televisions of millions, rather than on computers, the company could finally become a direct competitor to subscription television.
Of course, if Hulu was ever big enough to compete directly with them, the Hulu business model would probably change; either they'd gradually increase ad interruptions, as TV broadcasters have over the years, or they'd start charging a subscription of their own. But we can hope their present model would stand for a while.
YouTube
Videos of Halo and other games already cover YouTube. More gamers would watch those sort of videos if it could be done while already focused on games (engaged on their gaming console). YouTube integration would greatly facilitate game tutorials and walkthroughs. It might even make gaming tournaments more viable.
YouTube integration could significantly affect the design of many games. Community and Arcade games would use YouTube most frequently, but I'm talking mainly about the design of triple-AAA titles. And I don't mean like Spore either, which enables players to share their creature creations. No, I'm talking about dynamics. What makes games like Halo and MMOs so popular on YouTube is their room for fresh, personal experiences. It's the ability to still see new and exciting stories months or even years after the game is released. It's the revelation of personal preferences and personal adventures -- stories which are individually representative.
YouTube play-session stories are excellent marketing. Ads are more effective when they're recommended by friends. Videos of unique and exciting experiences encourage lengthy conversations between friends -- conversations which embed the ads to memory, inform, and stoke anticipation. YouTube integration could greatly increase impulse purchases of downloadable content.
Anyway, long story short, I hope Microsoft can work out satisfactory contracts with both YouTube and Hulu. Those deals could be as sweet for gamers as for Microsoft and advertisers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
