Support NeoGAF

[WITHE1982]

I'm in the same boat as a lot of others here. Don't get me wrong I have a lot of time for the big hitting AAA titles (UC4, GTA5 et al) but TBH that's not what keeps me gaming every day.

Without "niche" titles such as Persona , Yakuza, Gravity Rush, The Last Guardian and to some extent Bloodborne I'd probably be looking at another hobby to fill my time.

I think at times developing for a niche market frees up a lot of creativity, as you're not really shackled by having to pander to the mass market and achieve massive sales numbers. You can concentrate more on achieving your artistic vision and knowing that those happy few who invest in that vision will buy your games.

edit: that doesn't mean all niche games are good. there's some disasters out there.

 

[_Rob_]

For me, they seem to be the games that keep me playing.

From that list in the OP, I'm looking forward to every single one of them.
I do enjoy a good AAA title now and again, but I'm also easily bored by them and quite often burn out on them.
What keeps me playing are indeed these "niche" games as well as arcade style games and classics.

I'm with you on this one. I've spent longer playing games like Rocket League, The Legend of Kay and Gang Beasts over the last year than pretty much anything else. It takes a pretty phenomenal game (Uncharted 4 for instance) to entice me into buying a AAA game, especially at full price.

Having said that though, I do feel like the line between "niche" and "mainstream" does tend to be blurring lately. Perhaps due to the success of previously niche genre's (Minecraft as a creative sandbox for example).

 

[Shengar]

Even popular games like Souls, hell Bloodborne despite the series selling millions before it was release was also called a niche game that generally didn't matter and didn't belong in the running as the other games running for GOTY

Again, i feel like the argument is not legitimate to begin with, because it conveniently just dismisses everything not a particular brand of game.

If it doesn't cost a certain amount to make, if its not considered "AAA", if its not a western game(or any combination of these 3 things), then generally speaking you will get these arguments.

Yeah the "it's niche" argument fell flat and ridiculous in the face of Bloodborne performance in just one year.

Let's rephrase the question: how does capitalism negatively impact the diversity and variety of video games? Talking about whether pieces of art and entertainment "matter" makes zero sense to me.

Your question is too goddamned serious for this board. But yeah, it does make more sense in such context.

 

[Oreiller]

I would have bought a Xbox 360 instead of a PS3 if it weren't for Demon's Souls. I wouldn't have bought a Wii U if it weren't for Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2. I may not have bought a 3DS if it weren't for SMT4.

Those games may not have been top sellers but they often play the role of a tipping point in my decision to buy hardware. Saying that they don't matter as a whole is ludicrous.

 

[Shengar]

Gravity Rush 2
Nioh
Nier: Automata
Guilty Gear Xrd
Persona 5
Dragon Quest Heroes/XI
Earth Defense Force 5
Dynasty Warriors series
Samurai Warriors series
King of Fighters XIV
Ace Combat 7
Yakuza series
Yooka-Laylee

Almost everyone of those are blockbuster in PS2 era, now we call them niche.

Exactly. It shows a great shift of perception on what constitute blockbuster title and niche that happened in the 7th Generation.

 

[Theslammer]

Horizon, you silly. =P

Bloodborne sold 2 million+, I believe, not a couple hundred thousand.

 

[2+2=5]

Those games are probably "niche" and? Aren't niche people supposed to play games? The PS4 gives a wider variety of games letting a wider range of people to have fun and so a greater number of people buy it. Wide library, not exclusives, is the main reason why most people(especially those with only one console and more casual gamers) choose a console instead of another.

 

[EventHorizon]

Niche games for the sake of being niche don't help. Size of the market still matters. The evaluation is not just about the total extra sales these games can bring in. That has to be compared to the opportunity costs of not using the resources to make other games that could sell even more.

People are still buying their first 8th gen console, and with that buying big budget AAA titles. Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War are going to sell a ton of hardware. They'll also likely sell more consoles than an equivalent number of niche games made with the same budget. For one thing, the bigger more accessible games can be made into a bundle and marketed. Multiple smaller niche games can't.

What really should be the target for platform marketing dollars should be popular games that are getting under represented. With the move in the industry towards online games-as-a-service type games, promoting mainstream single player games should give a better return on investment than more niche titles. All the same arguments apply that are being used to promote niche games, but in this case would be used for games targeting a much larger audience.

 

[kqedequalsvolvo]

They matter to me as a consumer of games in a few broad ways really.

Firstly, I like a lot of 'niche' games (as an example, I'll be picking up a fair few games noted on OP's list) so they matter to me in a really simplistic sense. But as others have said, niche is still, often, equivalent to a few hundred thousand sales and that has a cumulative impact.

I think there's an ecosystem argument there too where often niche titles and AAA titles compliment eachother, particularly from a marketing perspective. The AAA titles' more 'explosive' content stands apart by comparison to nicher/smaller titles as often being more bombastic, graphically superior...just 'bigger'. It's AAA by comparison. Similarly, niche titles benefit from being things that AAA games are not - often more cerebral, offering an experience that you can't find somewhere else with tighter-knit communities of fans. Sub-consciously or otherwise, I think a lot of gamers enjoy not just niche titles for the content but for those other aspects - aspects that you don't tend to get from AAA titles.

None of that's a hard rule or anything - I just think that there's a mutual benefit for a console platform for maintaining both broad 'types' of game as they fulfill things the other cannot and are more attractive because of how they differ from eachother.

They definitely matter to me in terms of how I perceive the console maker. Supporting a wide range of both niche and AAA games and enabling products to come to your console that have smaller audiences generates a lot of goodwill from me. For example, I'm not a big JRPG fan but seeing the PSN store full of localised games that people I know absolutely love generates that simplistic feeling of "they care about people who love games" - even though they aren't titles that I'd buy myself. That makes me far more likely to purchase a console, or continue with the same company into the next-gen.

 

[michaelius]

Just looking at that list - it should total several milions of copies sold so while any single one of them is not such a big deal when you put them together it's a lot of royalties lost to competing platforms.
Plus people who like them are usually enthusiast gamers which means losing them means another sales lost in other titles and paid online.

 

[Elandyll]

I honestly think that with few exceptions, any single game does not sell a platform. A library sells a platform.

So the more good games the better, whether AAA or not

Personally a lot of the games listed are the reason I got a PS4 in the first place (and the variety of indies why I also have a gaming pc).

 

[deriks]

We need to have all kinda of games. Indie, middle and AAA. If not, the industry will fall apart

 

[michaelius]

Just looking at that list - it should total several milions of copies sold so while any single one of them is not such a big deal when you put them together it's a lot of royalties lost to competing platforms.
Plus people who like them are usually enthusiast gamers which means losing them means another sales lost in other titles and paid online.


Edit: also as an anecdote I was thinking about buying x360 and ps3 in 2008 - but after I saw Valkyria Chronicles I got ps3 without much further dilemma.

 

[Muchi Muchi Pink]

They definitely help me decide whether or not I buy a system, so I guess the sort of matter?

 

[Magic Mushroom]

We need to have all kinda of games. Indie, middle and AAA. If not, the industry will fall apart

Indies basically cover anything from super cheap to AA now. A game like The Witness for example is a 40 dollar game with incredible polish. But I'm really happy to see these Japanese games that won't do massive numbers, but offer something different. And sometimes a niche game like Demon's Souls can kickstart a succesful franchise. Definitely one of the best stories of last gen.

 

[Harmen]

I think they matter. Keep in mind some niche games can bring players to a certain platform that are likely to buy other games/subscribe to services. For example, if a niche game barely breaks even (or even makes a slight loss), but attracts a certain type of gamer that subscribes to the online service and buys several (or even many) other games it can be beneficial to the platform holder regardless of the success of the niche game itself. Netflix does this too to some extent, they fund/revive several niche shows (with ratings that would not suffice on regular tv) that could attract new customers that then stick with the service. A platform holder should not solely focus on the individual numbers of a game.

On top of that, people simply like choice and diversity. Even if the products they ultimately choose to buy are mainly the popular AAA games, having a list of games to pick from will give the consumer a better impression than a barren releaselist.

 

[Dezzy]

Those games are the reason I bought a PS4. I enjoy those types of games way more than the typical AAA stuff. Usually it seems like the less popular a game is, the more I enjoy it.

 

[ar4757]

Matter to who? As long as people enjoy them and people buy them they clearly matter to some.

 

[LePie]

Phew, if even series like Guilty Gear, Dragon Quest and Ace Combat are considered "niche" by today's standards we may have to invent completely new terms for the likes of Touhou or Avernum >.>

 

[Kill3r7]

We are having a discussion about niche games on a videogame message board, of course they matter to us. Do they matter from a software sales perspective? Probably not.

Also, Horizon, KH and DQ are certainly not niche games.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Niche games essentially determine what console I buy simply because pretty much everything else is multi-platform.

 

[Abilidebob]

There's quite an absurd number of Gaffers that think games like LoL, DOTA 2 or World of Tanks are "niche games", so...

 

[EGM1966]

They matter - technically all game do if you're trying to teach the broadest audience.

Basic consumer behaviour dictates they will buy a console not for the device in and of itself but based on their perception of its broader ecosystem (games and services).

Simply put, a broad and diverse library combined with broad global availability gives best chance of reaching small groups of demographics.

Another way of looking at it is as a variation of the "but US is biggest market" arguments you hear in many sales threads - the assumption being small markets don't matter. Yet in reality total worldwide sales show they do but as accumulative whole.

It's the same for more "niche" titles: individually they seem inconsequential next to big titles but as a cumulative whole they can play a significant role in which console sells the most worldwide.

 

[black070]

They absolutely matter.

 

[EventHorizon]

Just looking at that list - it should total several milions of copies sold so while any single one of them is not such a big deal when you put them together it's a lot of royalties lost to competing platforms.
Plus people who like them are usually enthusiast gamers which means losing them means another sales lost in other titles and paid online.


Edit: also as an anecdote I was thinking about buying x360 and ps3 in 2008 - but after I saw Valkyria Chronicles I got ps3 without much further dilemma.

You are not thinking about opportunity costs. All those games together might sell a decent amount, but if you spent the same development dollars on more mainstream titles you'd sell even more. In addition, your enthusiast argument doesn't hold up. A sale is a sale. If your niche game enthusiasts really bought that many titles then the niche games wouldn't be niche anymore. They'd just be normal games. In addition, an enthusiast who buys a lot of games by definition is likely to already own the platform regardless if niche games are available.

One final thing. Big tent pole games are the ones that push consoles. The bigger the market you create for those games the more of them you can afford to create. Consider this thought experiment of two console platforms, Pop and Niche. Pop has invested in mainstream games while Niche has a mixture between popular and niche games. As a result Pop's audience is focused on popular games, while Niche is more focused on niche games since any gamer wanting a popular game would buy the Pop console that focused on them.

With that breakdown in their install base, a Pop exclusive game will sell more than a Niche exclusive game. That's because all of Pop's customers are concentrated in the one market they target, while Niche's is split between two. That means Pop can spend more per game or just make more games than Niche. With that greater quantity/quality catalog, the Pop console will be more attractive to the much larger general gaming audience...which means Pop will sell more consoles than Niche...which means Pop can make better games then Niche...which means Pop will sell even...and so on.

 

[eizarus]

To me, they're really important. In an industry where, now more than ever, AAA games tend to play it safe and follow known formulas, it's the niche games that breathe some fresh air into the industry. When one of them does well, it just shows other devs that they can take risks rather than just produce cookie cutter games.

My 2 pence.

 

[Triteon]

They matter to the core, the core influence early adoption, higher sales, primary development platforms, better ports, more coverage and may become the "default" machine for the generation.

Specifically for me aa japanese games like yakuza and persona are the only reason i own a PS4. I prefer the Xbox controller and i have a good PC so i usually buy multiplat there. So they got a sale from me for those niche titles.

 

[black070]

You are not thinking about opportunity costs. All those games together might sell a decent amount, but if you spent the same development dollars on more mainstream titles you'd sell even more. In addition, your enthusiast argument doesn't hold up. A sale is a sale. If your niche game enthusiasts really bought that many titles then the niche games wouldn't be niche anymore. They'd just be normal games. In addition, an enthusiast who buys a lot of games by definition is likely to already own the platform regardless if niche games are available.

This is a headscratching statement.

 

[13ruce]

Core gamers love them most good niche titles are cult classics for them so if companies made a profit on them why not continue.

Imagine a Wii U without wonderfull 101, Bayonetta 2, Hyrule Warriors and more.
Same goes for PC, Xbox and PS.
Imagine no DMC no Metal Gear Rising etc.
Dunno if metroid counts but if so also that.

 

[Peroroncino]

I'm not sure how they matter in the grand scheme of things, but on a more personal level, they definitely matter to me, Yakuza series for example is my favroite series Playstation brand has to offer, so my first platform of choice will always be Playstation just because of it, and since I'm a core gamer, I always play most games that release so they get the money from me regardless thanks to this one niche franchise.

Of course the fact that Sony likes to invest in more niche titles as GR, Nioh, Nier or Demon's Souls back in the day [when it was considered 'niche'] is always a welcomed boon and makes it easier on me to decide which gaming device will remain in my household as 'the main one'.

Nioh is shaping up to be another [hopefully] series that will glue me to Playstation brand for another solid chunk of foreseeable future, so I hope Sony jumps on that and doesn't make the same mistake as they did with Souls.

And since I'm a self-proclaimed core gamer, it's only natural that I bought Xbox One right? But you know with what games in mind I bought it? Sunset Overdrive, Scalebound [eh] and State of Decay 2, and since Scalebound is out of the picture and I played the shit out of Sunset Overdrive, I'm selling my Xbox as soon as I've had my fill with SoD2. Why? Because there's nothing else for me on XO, and with the SB cancellation MS clearly showed to me that they are not ready to commit to a more niche games if it means a loss to them. I was also a little interested in Phantom Dust remake, but that went away as soon as they cancelled it and revived it as a remaster.

 

[Ahasverus]

They absolutely matter. Their most interesting aspects are often adopted into the AAA mainstream, which brings variety.

 

[kqedequalsvolvo]

You are not thinking about opportunity costs. All those games together might sell a decent amount, but if you spent the same development dollars on more mainstream titles you'd sell even more. In addition, your enthusiast argument doesn't hold up. A sale is a sale. If your niche game enthusiasts really bought that many titles then the niche games wouldn't be niche anymore. They'd just be normal games. In addition, an enthusiast who buys a lot of games by definition is likely to already own the platform regardless if niche games are available.

One final thing. Big tent pole games are the ones that push consoles. The bigger the market you create for those games the more of them you can afford to create. Consider this thought experiment of two console platforms, Pop and Niche. Pop has invested in mainstream games while Niche has a mixture between popular and niche games. As a result Pop's audience is focused on popular games, while Niche is more focused on niche games since any gamer wanting a popular game would buy the Pop console that focused on them.

With that breakdown in their install base, a Pop exclusive game will sell more than a Niche exclusive game. That's because all of Pop's customers are concentrated in the one market they target, while Niche's is split between two. That means Pop can spend more per game or just make more games than Niche. With that greater quantity/quality catalog, the Pop console will be more attractive to the much larger general gaming audience...which means Pop will sell more consoles than Niche...which means Pop can make better games then Niche...which means Pop will sell even...and so on.

I might be misunderstanding the point but I think that analysis misses out on how often niche and AAA titles are interconnected in how a console is perceived. There's lots of layers to that but I think the main one that is missing from that Niche/Pop example is that most popular AAA titles are multiplatform. Exclusives (timed or otherwise) may bring a chunk of an audience to one platform over another, but I think in far more cases the scale of the library is a really important factor for people's purchasing decisions too - it's far more of a mix. I think console manufacturers would look at sales in terms of the longer term engagement with their platform - the often higher value of getting gamers onboard who purchase nicher content but do so regularly. Snaring the person who buys COD and FIFA once a year is valuable, but so is the person who's on the fence about a console selection and will purchase, say, ten or more games for the platform per year - they're both valuable and consoles need to attract people from both of those broad categories to be sustainable.

Or in short - AAAs sell consoles but so does a diverse, well-respected library of game content (including 'niche' stuff) and with it, higher value customers. If you're on a fence, a lot of gamers will side with the console with the widest library. It's the centre of Playstations "for the players" campaign tone.

 

[petran79]

Today's niche is tomorrow's mainstream and vice versa. Especially for video games

 

[kqedequalsvolvo]

Today's niche is tomorrow's mainstream and vice versa. Especially for video games

True, you don't know when something is going to blow up and how something niche can transition to something far more popular. I'm sure there are better examples but Demon/Dark Souls comes to mind.

 

[EventHorizon]

I might be misunderstanding the point but I think that analysis misses out on how often niche and AAA titles are interconnected in how a console is perceived. There's lots of layers to that but I think the main one that is missing from that Niche/Pop example is that most popular AAA titles are multiplatform. Exclusives (timed or otherwise) may bring a chunk of an audience to one platform over another, but I think in far more cases the scale of the library is a really important factor for people's purchasing decisions too - it's far more of a mix. I think console manufacturers would look at sales in terms of the longer term engagement with their platform - the often higher value of getting gamers onboard who purchase nicher content but do so regularly. Snaring the person who buys COD and FIFA once a year is valuable, but so is the person who's on the fence about a console selection and will purchase, say, ten or more games for the platform per year - they're both valuable and consoles need to attract people from both of those broad categories to be sustainable.

Or in short - AAAs sell consoles but so does a diverse, well-respected library of game content (including 'niche' stuff) and with it, higher value customers. If you're on a fence, a lot of gamers will side with the console with the widest library. It's the centre of Playstations "for the players" campaign tone.

This discussion is more complicated than I portrayed. I simplified it down to target the general idea being put forward in this thread that niche games based solely on being niche is good for a platform to promote. The size of the market still matters. I am not saying don't make less popular games that target a smaller, but still significant, audience. I am saying that trying to justify a very low selling game by calling it niche and lumping its sales will all other low selling niche games doesn't work.

A sale is a sale. If small niche audiences really bought a lot of games then they wouldn't be a small niche audience. By definition that group has less buying clout than the mass market. If you've maxed out selling to that mass market then by all means target smaller and smaller markets. However note that size still matters as that strategy involves targeting those markets in descending order of their size.

Putting this in practice, I've already stated what I think the best strategy should be. With third parties focusing in on online multiplayer, platform holders should fill in the holes by making single player games that appeal to a larger audience. That has all the same benefits people are giving to making smaller niche gamers, but is applying it to a larger market.

This is a headscratching statement.

Which scenario do you think will sell more consoles and games?

Scenario #1: Make Horizon Zero Dawn
Scenario #2: Don't make Horizon Zeo Dawn. Instead use the same money to fund 2-3(?) niche games targeting smaller audiences

I say Scenario #1. A single highly desired game makes a great opportunity for a bundle, and bundles have proven to move consoles. Also a single high selling game game is more efficient with advertising dollars for the simple reason that you'd have fewer games to promote.

 

[Opa-Pa]

They're the true system sellers for me, and I'm sure there's a couple hundreds more like me at least. They also help a console's library seem more varied and obviously more attractive to some, so that's something.

I love how sometimes they can go from niche to industry phenomenon. Just look at Demon's Souls, not even its own publisher gave a shit about it, and then it gave birth to Dark Souls, which has influenced mechanics in a lot of games, made pretty decent numbers and became a pretty respectable force on PC.

 

[Shengar]

Which scenario do you think will sell more consoles and games?

Scenario #1: Make Horizon Zero Dawn
Scenario #2: Don't make Horizon Zeo Dawn. Instead use the same money to fund 2-3(?) niche games targeting smaller audiences

I say Scenario #1. A single highly desired game makes a great opportunity for a bundle, and bundles have proven to move consoles. Also a single high selling game game is more efficient with advertising dollars for the simple reason that you'd have fewer games to promote.

Games are creative product. It doesn't have exact science or formula like what you're implying.

 

[killatopak]

Niche is required because they always bring something new to the table that may be the next big thing.

Demon souls was a niche and has since expanded into the souls series which has a large following albeit not as big as the staples such as cod yet.

 

[Peroroncino]

Niche is required because they always bring something new to the table that may be the next big thing.

Demon souls was a niche and has since expanded into the souls series which has a large following albeit not as big as the staples such as cod yet.

Yup, a pretty good point. You never know what will skyrocket straight to mainstream.

 

[farisr]

Yup, a pretty good point. You never know what will skyrocket straight to mainstream.

Speaking of skyrocket, Rocket League is such an example. Its predecessor was niche and lowkey. But now it's one of the biggest earners and most played multiplayer games.

 

[Astral Dog]

A lot