It's one thing to say something should be marketed to the mainstream, but another altogether to actually accomplish it in a way that will lead to significantly more sales.
doomed1 said:
I'll not go into your other points, since we've already discussed this and you'll just continue to misunderstand me.
Irregardless, as to the bolded, this has already been done, and failed at. So called "casual" games that had solid initial showings have depreciating sales over releases. Ubisoft alone has 4 of 5 failed titles aimed at the new audience for every Just Dance (which by the way is a decent game WITH a very impressive marketing campaign). If it was as easy as "just make casual games", Ubisoft would be making hand over fist and EA would be selling so much Madden All Play. They're not though, because those low budget "casual" games aren't the kinds of cash cows you're making them out to be.
Shit, these fucking 500 errors...
I think you misunderstand when I say low-budget. I don't mean shovelware. If you are implying those 4 out 5 casual games are failures, I don't even want to think about how bad it is for core games. I mean 'low' compared to what it would cost to produce a high budget core game. You yourself say that 3rd parties are not trying to make good core games on Wii, while I wouldn't totally disagree with that, a good core game will invariably involve a higher budget. I believe MadWorld was considered a good game was it not? Yet it bombed(I'll admit I don't recall the marketing behind it, so you can argue this if it pleases you). I do not make out all casual game out all out to be "cash cows". However, with their generally lower budgets they are less risky. Not to mention that is what the Wii audience has
generally shown interest in.
Even if by some sort stroke of luck you are right and there are millions of Wii owners laying dormant for that AAA 3rd party core game, there is no evidence to support it. No publisher will take on an enormous risk like that when there is a large proven core market elsewhere. Even if there are enough core games to make a game somewhat profitable on Wii, that is irrelevant. Companies don't have unlimited resources. Any rational company will allocate their resources as efficient as possible. No reason to make a Wii game if evidence shows you can make more on 360/ps3/pc. (opportunity costs)
As for me misunderstanding what you said in the other thread...I don't think I did. I'll run through it again. The only way I could have misunderstood was if your
original one audience argument was something as trivial as, and I quote your last post "When discussing the Wii audience, the only other qualifier is that they all own a Wii and are interested in purchasing games for it"...That's basically the definition of an overall market, the overall audience. In order for your one audience theory to hold water, there would have to be no distinct segments in the Wii market, namely that there isn't anyone that primarily buy casual games, or that primarily buy hardcore games. Of course, the casual and hardcore segments are not mutually exclusive, there are gray areas.
(ultimately this audience discussion is not that important, what matters are the sales at the bottom line)
Back to your original post:
doomed1 said:
The Wii market is not NEARLY as cut and dry as people would think, but it IS reachable via appropriate marketing. The majority of people, myself included, typically ignore internet banner ads and magazine ads. They need video advertising on youtube and television as these are the two most effective methods of reaching the widest audience. Furthermore, I don't think that the downstream market is necessarily exclusive to downstream games like "Let's Dance" and it's ilk, it's just that consumers don't generally lose interest in genres they like, so while Soccer Mom Cathy has discovered the excitement and drama of The Legend of Zelda and Tales of Symphonia: DotNW, she'll still like and enjoy Wii Fit Plus and Wii Sports Resort. In addition, Jake the teenage son is going to enjoy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Pro Evolution Soccer, Jill the younger daughter will still like Harvest Moon and Endless Ocean, and Dad will get his kicks in with some nostalgic Virtual Console and Tales of Monkey Island. And then maybe once a week they all get together to try and tackle another level of New Super Mario Bros Wii or a family jam in Guitar Hero. The truth is that the Wii is a FAMILY console in every respect, but family doesn't immediately mean 'child-friendly', it means accessible to every member of the family, no matter the interests. Each household with a Wii will theoretically contain several different potential demographics. They just need to be reached, because quite honestly, they probably all don't pay as close attention to game releases as us enthusiasts on this site. They need to be GIVEN a reason to buy the games, not completely ignored and hope that they see them on the shelf and buy them. $50 is NOT an impulse buy.
Those bolded statements...You seem to be saying all it takes for the soccer mom to buy NMH is advertising. I'll say this again: "Somebody that likes to play Wii Fit doesn't necessarily want to play No More Heros. Just like I like to play Uncharted 2 but couldn't give a rats ass about Wii Fit. It's no different. They buy what they think is fun, I buy what I think is fun. It's like somebody advertising a tampon to a guy. They have no use for it."
You are implying that ads breaks down the barriers between market segments. Yeah...maybe in every advertisers dream.
As for you family console theory being indicative of the entire market...You seem to be trying to say that every family has a member that is 'into' certain games. That is true for some families. But first of all, only ~55% of households have what could be somewhat considered a family(2 or more members)(2000 census). I believe there was data once that said 5x% of Wii owners had children(sorry off memory). Add on to that not everyone keeps their Wii in the living room. Then, not everyone in the household even uses the Wii for casual games, yet alone for core games. Most families as well probably would not be too happy with "Jake" taking up the TV slicing fools up in MadWorld. If a family buys it as a tool for their family to use, chances are they will stick to family friendly(which tend to be casual) games. I am sure there are some, many in fact, instances in which your "family console" is true. However you cannot confidently conclude that it is a common enough occurrence for it to be extrapolated to the entire market...I mean, do you normally play your Wii in the living room at your parents house? It's an interesting theory and it sounds nice, but it is not realistic.
Perhaps most importantly...The majority of people purchase a Wii for its casual nature(motion control, simple and innovative games like Wii Sports).
That's what Wii is known for, that's its allure, that's why it's so popular and successful. It only makes sense that people will purchase games that are in line with the reason they purchased the console in the first place. No amount of advertising is going to change somebody's mind if they are not in the target segment.
Perhaps as a hardcore gamer ,who I assume games primarily on Wii, you take offense when someone calls Wii a "casual console"...You shouldn't let that bother you. There's nothing wrong with casual games at all. It's just a very broad category of games that Wii happens to excel at. It's not a negative term.
Should you be upset that publishers aren't releasing more core content? As a gamer you should, sure(even I am, as a gamer). But you need to realize there are reasons they aren't. They don't have a vendetta against us, they just need to serve the market where it appears the majority of core gamers reside...Ultimately they have to make the best decisions with the limited knowledge they have.
If that tells them to not release core games(or any games in general) on Wii, regardless if there are unknown unknowns out there that would make the Wii a better candidate, so be it. You make the best decisions you can with the information at hand.
Now I typed this up rather hurriedly...don't focus on little errors or 'heated' statements(I respect you for having a viewpoint at all, don't take offense) or little individual things. Just keep in mind the big picture. View the whole situation from a publishers perspective, and think what you would do in their situation. If after this post, and Pachter's OP, you still have the same opinion...very well.