charlequin
Banned
Luigi87 said:
Yeah, I mean, the covers do rock. I think if Game Informer just mailed me a poster of their cover every month instead of all those unsightly internal pages it would be my favorite gaming magazine.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BioShock Infinite Game Informer Covers
- Thread starter Rated-Rsuperstar
- Start date
Yeah, I mean, the covers do rock. I think if Game Informer just mailed me a poster of their cover every month instead of all those unsightly internal pages it would be my favorite gaming magazine.
I don't really get the 'early' reveal complaints. 2012 is 15 months away, they haven't specified a month, even if the game is 27 months away, that doesn't seem like such a long announcement to release length.
Of the big games of the moment, Halo Reach was announced 15 months before release, The Other M about the same amount of time, Dead Rising 2 was a few months longer, Castlevania was about 15 months. GT5 was fucking ages ago.
I don't think their announcement is all that early really.
Of the big games of the moment, Halo Reach was announced 15 months before release, The Other M about the same amount of time, Dead Rising 2 was a few months longer, Castlevania was about 15 months. GT5 was fucking ages ago.
I don't think their announcement is all that early really.
StuBurns said:
None of those games were announced (with photos and gameplay and magazine covers) two years before release.
Yeah i know its not exactly two years, but to reveal a game like this when the answer to the question "So this is coming next year" is "No" is dumb.
Like it was said, i dont know whats hard to get, they are showing fuckin gameplay years before release like it matters, its basically an alpha (or even less) version, no need for all this marketing. They are gonna get people burned out on the game.
It bothers me because i dont want this to become a standard.
charlequin said:
Oh, well that's what I meant about slowly torturing us. I can understand complaining because of that! I was referring more to the people who were saying they can't understand why they would want to do this or how this is good marketing strategy. It builds hype early, makes the game feel more like an event when it finally comes.
It makes sense for them, even if it is a huge tease. And personally, I'm not sure I mind. I'm so curious about this game, I'm interested in anything they have to show. I enjoyed the early video walkthroughs of Bioshock and I enjoyed the full game, even though the two were wildly different in some ways.
I do want it to be standard. If you don't want to look at it, that is your choice. That argument is really selfish I think. It's like people who complain albums are too long or TV shows go on too many years. If you don't want it, you can ignore it, for the people who want it, it's there.SalsaShark said:
Video games should mature, we know about films basically the second an agent shops a script, the film industry is so much more mature in terms of the organization behind it, with PR roll outs, strategic releases etc. This is one area video games publishers should be looking to the film industry.
StuBurns said:
That argument can be said pretty much about everything ever, so it isnt really relevant, is it ?
I could pretty much avoid anything that annoys me. I cant complaint over something that doesnt necesarelly affect ME ?
Im not going to lose sleep over this or anything, im just saying i dont like it as a marketing strategy. We´ll talk when the game is released and looks nothing like what will be shown on PAX.
StuBurns said:
Oh i wouldnt mind early announcements and stuff. But i dont want a media overload on something thats so far away. I wouldnt want full trailers years before a movie comes out, im ok with teasers.
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
At first I was hesitant about another Bioshock....
But now I believe.
But now I believe.
charlequin
Banned
stupei said:
I just said why it's a bad marketing strategy: because it's impossible to guarantee that you'll deliver on anything you promise two years out, and pointless to have a magazine cover story where you don't reveal anything remotely interesting about your game because it's all still in a state of flux and might change by the time the game is out.
It's a lot different from the launch trailer. That's all basically fluff and you can put something like that out and then rely on it and other low-content stuff to keep your brand in people's minds for two years while you actually finish the game. Actually going into in-depth magazine previews and stuff just seems ridiculous though.
StuBurns said:
While this is true, video games maturing would also mean less empty magazine-cover puff pieces about ZOMG THIS GAME WILL BE SO AWEXOME!!! so we still wouldn't be having this precise conversation.
The argument is completely relevant. I want it, you don't want me to have it because you don't want it, that train of thought is illogical to me, and selfish.SalsaShark said:
I don't care if the game looks nothing like what they're going to release, in fact, I'd prefer that, I enjoy seeing the work in progress.
As for film trailers, the only reason we don't have those trailers that many years ahead of release is just an issue of not having the film done. They can do the Super 8 thing of making the trailer before making the film, which I don't mind, but it would only really work with very specific titles.
The reason we have basically two massive periods of release, the build to late November, which is the inflated holidays spending budget placement, and around March, which is the end of fiscal year for most of the publishers. This is a completely fucked system that is moronic and needs to die, it can't however, because the industry, unlike the film industry does not have the communication between the publishers and first parties, and because projects are not made public with enough time.
Gears 3 will sell five million + units because it has been moved away from Halo: Reach, had they both shipped within a month, Gears sales would suffer. Because they have the same publisher, this was possible, it makes both studios more cash, and the publisher happy. The whole industry needs to do this though, not just the individual publishers, everyone needs to know years a head of time when something like Halo 4 is shipping, so they can build their release schedule and PR roll out with those things in mind.
There is also the issue of the publisher being the one to decide the ship date, if you are Activision, and you have CoD:MW3 releasing next November, but you also have Bungie's next game ready for around the same period, you own the IP on one of them, and that one is likely to sell better, so maybe you move the Bungie title's release date to a much worse release window, because of that their title under performs, their studio is worth less and because of your contract, you're now in a position to possibly purchase the studio. That is the kind of shit that is happening (of course, that is a over the top example with very famous IPs and studio). Things like this are a direct result of the awful industry focus on secrecy. Activion, TakeTwo, EA, Ubisoft etc, they should not be competing at all, they should be coordinating so everyone is nice and rich.
All of that is reliant on games being announced a lot earlier than they generally are. If we can get something closer to that, I'll take announcements ten years before a game goes gold. However, you are right in that the projects announcement does not have to be accompanied with media. If TakeTwo were cool with it, Irrational could show nothing till a month or two before release, and I'm sure there are people who would rather that be the case, but just personally, I'd love to see it, as early as possible.
Yes, do you consider this cover to be mass marketing?Krev said:
StuBurns said:
I dont know where you are trying to get. This is how opinions are formed, you want something, i dont, how am i selfish for not wanting it ?
If i dont want something to exist, but you do, and i still dont, im being selfish ?
Its going to exist anyway, there´s nothing i can do about it, i dont like the decision, but you do, and thats it.
Im still going to get the game, man, i just dont like the marketing decision.
Commercial airs:
-"lol that commercial was a piece of shit!"
-"hey i liked it!"
-"well i dont, its the wrong way of doing commercials"
-"but i do, you are being selfish! if you dont like it look elsewhere!"
I dont get what you are saying, of course im gonna look elsewhere, im just saying that I wouldnt be happy if this become the standard, its not being selfish, its an opinion.
Everything else on your post is just a matter of opinion, you are saying how you would like game marketing to work and where do you want it to move forward, i respect that decisions and you have some points, i just dont agree and dont like this. Again, me, i, dont like this.
We agree in no media though
Buckethead
Banned
I like Game Informer's minimalist look, but they should radically change the cover/typeface everytime.
This is awesome.
This is awesome.
Maybe I wasn't clear, if so I apologize. You not wanting to see it is perfectly cool of course, but you don't want it to even exist, you don't want me to see it. I'm obviously cool with you deciding what you want to see, I just don't want you deciding what I get to see.SalsaShark said:
Basically, if it's out, you can choose to not see it, you are getting what you want, and I get what I want. If it's not out, you still get what you want, but I don't. I don't understand why you'd rather no one have it, than someone have it but you don't despite not even wanting it yourself.
StuBurns said:
NONE SHALL HAVE IT IF I DONT LIKE IT!
Nah man, seriously, were getting mixed wires here, im just saying that i wouldnt like it if say.. a sequel to a game im very excited about gets announced 2 years before release, with screens, video, etc and i get all excited. Then result material is nothing like ive been seeing so far. Hype over nothing. Its just that. You can compare it to your movie example by thinking it as if you were shown say a.. Matrix trailer, with green screens, and wires and shit. Instead of CGI. Sure we all appreciate being shown the creation process, but would you really rather have that than the fully realized trailer that does look like the actual movie ?
MrTroubleMaker
Member
that's cool
If the product is improving, I want to see it in development, if the product is getting worse, like MGS4 for example, yeah, I'd rather go without I think.SalsaShark said:NONE SHALL HAVE IT IF I DONT LIKE IT!
Nah man, seriously, were getting mixed wires here, im just saying that i wouldnt like it if say.. a sequel to a game im very excited about gets announced 2 years before release, with screens, video, etc and i get all excited. Then result material is nothing like ive been seeing so far. Hype over nothing. Its just that. You can compare it to your movie example by thinking it as if you were shown say a.. Matrix trailer, with green screens, and wires and shit. Instead of CGI. Sure we all appreciate being shown the creation process, but would you really rather have that than the fully realized trailer that does look like the actual movie ?
But ultimately hype is on the individual, you did choose to click on this thread (or possibly the other one, but you get what I mean I hope). I know there is always the temptation though, I try to go on 'media blackout' for basically every game I'm looking forward to, and always fail without exception, but I can't really blame the publisher/developer, I can't help myself watch every scrap of Portal 2 footage I see, despite knowing I'd get it day one regardless and all I am doing is making the wait seem longer and hurting my experience of the game by having more prior knowledge than I'd like.
So yeah, I guess I understand where you're coming from, as you said, some crossed wires is all.
sixteen-bit
Member
interesting covers
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
Truant said:
Wasn't it suppose to have mutants and nazi?
Poimandres
Member
Truant said:
I have a feeling that development on this title has been a a lot more focused. They have the time, and the resources. Hopefully what's shown will be pretty on track for what we're going to get.
Maybe.
charlequin said:
I think you are giving the incredibly wide audience being targeted by Game Informer/Game Stop too much credit. The point isn't to impress the people on GAF; that's not who they are targeting with this money. The average person who gets Game Informer in the mail isn't going to remember every single detail of what they read in this article two years from now, let alone express outrage that expectations weren't met. Bioshock wasn't a niche game, and the target audience isn't small. They're just making sure as many people as possible (ie. the ones who aren't already following game sites on the internet) are aware of the announcement we all already saw: that the game exists.
Honestly, that's all I think it is. They are targeting millions of people who don't know the teaser or website exists. They can't advertise on TV yet, so they have to provide in-depth details so they can get on the cover and grab people's eye. In the meantime, there's a little bit more info for those of us already curious, and they keep it looking stylish too.
Could some people on the internet end up mad that things we read about here aren't in the final build? Sure. Will that be a significant percentage of the millions this is going to sell? Probably not.
So again: I can see why some people on GAF might not be thrilled that it's so early, but I can't see how this is actually bad for them at all. Game magazines have always had information that didn't end up in the final build; it doesn't tend to have a negative impact.
Those covers are incredible. Props to the artists and the magazine for printing them.
Maybe they feel they need to make up for the name reveal. I mean, the name sounds very creatively vapid. I don't know about anyone else but it made the entire game seem cheap and creatively lackluster. These covers however prove the exact opposite.
charlequin said:
Maybe they feel they need to make up for the name reveal. I mean, the name sounds very creatively vapid. I don't know about anyone else but it made the entire game seem cheap and creatively lackluster. These covers however prove the exact opposite.
Absolutely stunning stuff, although we expected no less from Irrational. In that first image, I take it Elizabeth is stroking one of the flying beasts mentioned in the preview. One thing that struck my mind was that she was stroking Columbia itself and that Columbia was a living life form, rather than a floating hot air balloon. I love all of the period adverts, I loved that about Bioshock too.
Completely and utterly entranced by this game, 2012 is a long way off.
Completely and utterly entranced by this game, 2012 is a long way off.
Pizza Luigi
Member
What a birthday present this is, I'm going to try to get these, seeing that I live in The Netherlands. Astonishing.
KefkaTaran
Member
Draft said:
It must get exhausting remembering to type up that same post every month.
KefkaTaran
Member
Draft said:
Cute.
These covers are like a twist of the knife in my ribs. Two years still... Damn!
And in the reveal thread I posted that I sensed some "The Maltese Falcon" vibe from the story: a private detective, ex-pinkerton, searching a girl; and the vials of Murder of Crows shaped similar to the Maltese Falcon. Now with the last two covers I am certain that someone at Irrational was reading Chandler and Hamett...
And in the reveal thread I posted that I sensed some "The Maltese Falcon" vibe from the story: a private detective, ex-pinkerton, searching a girl; and the vials of Murder of Crows shaped similar to the Maltese Falcon. Now with the last two covers I am certain that someone at Irrational was reading Chandler and Hamett...
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think anyone actually buys Game Informer for the articles. :lol It's essentially a Playboy.
KefkaTaran
Member
Rez said:
I'll let Andy know you dig his picture in the front.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
Posters need more dogs in wheelchairs.
charlequin
Banned
stupei said:
If you assume the broad audience is basically stupid, though, that cuts both ways: there's also no reason to do a big cover story with no real content now when they could just buy giant ads and stick huge banners at events the way Ubi did with Assassin's Creed.
Shurs said:
oh no people are assuming a poorly-written magazine will continue to be poorly-written in the future