*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process

[Deleted member 13524]

Jeez.. please don't correct what doesn't really need to be corrected..
AFAIK, no ever one said gameplay means nothing and graphics means everything.


Just that it's a lot easier to make eye-popping ads with screenshots and game footage than showing how easy it is to command the player through the controller.

 

[tuna]

Chill.. it's just common logic, since it's a lot harder to show gameplay experience and controller interaction than the game's looks.

Tell that to Nintendo! Or Kinect! Or Guitar Hero!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those aren't general games. How do you sell a new FPS on the quality of its gameplay if it looks weak next to the other FPSes out there? A trailer of weak visuals captioned with interesting gameplay features won't get a visceral reaction.

 

[RobertR1]

Those aren't general games. How do you sell a new FPS on the quality of its gameplay if it looks weak next to the other FPSes out there? A trailer of weak visuals captioned with interesting gameplay features won't get a visceral reaction.

You call it CoD4 and execute with an amazing Beta.

 

[Nesh]

Jeez.. please don't correct what doesn't really need to be corrected..
AFAIK, no ever one said gameplay means nothing and graphics means everything.


Just that it's a lot easier to make eye-popping ads with screenshots and game footage than showing how easy it is to command the player through the controller.

Does this mean screenshots and videos always sell a game better than the quality of the experience itself?

 

[Rodéric]

Does this mean screenshots and videos always sell a game better than the quality of the experience itself?

Are you thinking demo there ?
If so, no, a demo beats anything, but it takes more effort than just clicking "play" in your browser...
(And the dev also need a stable/polished version at that point.)

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Does this mean screenshots and videos always sell a game better than the quality of the experience itself?

No.
Read the original comment.

 

[Nesh]

No.
Read the original comment.

Well.. screenshots + videos sell a lot more than gameplay.

*scratches head*

 

[Nesh]

Are you thinking demo there ?
If so, no, a demo beats anything, but it takes more effort than just clicking "play" in your browser...
(And the dev also need a stable/polished version at that point.)

I was more referring to the actual experience shared after the game is released and also the reviews. Reviews arent just a bunch of screenshots and videos. People dont talk about screenshots and videos when they buy the game. Initial buyers play a game and share experience. If gameplay sucks, word will spread. It wont be long until sales stagnate unless there is a huge name hidden behind which grew from past successes and people continue to buy on trust and past experience. The latter is what made me buy DMC2 despite what reviews said because the first was so awesome and videos showed more awesomeness in the sequel (and regretted it dearly as it was one of the worst games I ever played and the exact opposite of awesomeness). That didnt work for games like Lair though.

His statement would have been more accurate if he said "screenshots and videos help launch sales/initial adoption better than gameplay" because later on people dont longer rely solely on screenshots and videos to decide if they would purchase.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

*scratches head*

A demo requires someone to invest the time to get the experience. The media is a much more passive way to get their interest. While perusing the internet, the ability to communicate novel game experiences is very slim. It typically requires text or a podcast. Visuals are an immediate way to capture someone's attention. Out of all the many, many games made, which ones are the ones I investigate the most? Typically those with the best eye-candy that get my attention (art style as well, not just technical accomplishments).

Furthermore, when I've seen the pictures and movies and read the previews, and am interested in a game, the demos more often than not decrease my interest in a game because it either doesn't live up to expectations, or is buggy and makes me wary of the game proper.

As communicating experiences is hard, devs have to fall back on visuals as the first point of communication with their game. If they have something to say about their game, they need to couple that with a screenshot or similar hook.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Thanks Shifty, I honestly thought that was just common sense, which is why I didn't make a detailed explanation..

Well.. screenshots + videos sell a lot more than gameplay.

Does this mean screenshots and videos always sell a game better than the quality of the experience itself?

Equivalent word twist (just so you understand what you did there):

Well, a good-looking topping in the ice cream attracts a lot more customers than having more cookie..

Does that mean a good topping sells more than having a good all-around ice-cream?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

I remember that at the start of this gen, CELL was believed to be used for physics, lots of complex simulations. Instead it ended up as a GPU add-on -_-'

I remember at the start of this gen, Cell was believed to be terrible at A.I. It was suppose to be FAR less capable than Xenon. Instead, in ended up being much better for A.I. The Cell IS used for more complex physics than other consoles and complex simulations (Killzone 2 & 3, GT5, Uncharted 2 & 3, black hole simulations, etc.). And, it ended up as a secondary GPU compute resource.

 

[Nesh]

A demo requires someone to invest the time to get the experience. The media is a much more passive way to get their interest. While perusing the internet, the ability to communicate novel game experiences is very slim. It typically requires text or a podcast. Visuals are an immediate way to capture someone's attention. Out of all the many, many games made, which ones are the ones I investigate the most? Typically those with the best eye-candy that get my attention (art style as well, not just technical accomplishments).

Furthermore, when I've seen the pictures and movies and read the previews, and am interested in a game, the demos more often than not decrease my interest in a game because it either doesn't live up to expectations, or is buggy and makes me wary of the game proper.

As communicating experiences is hard, devs have to fall back on visuals as the first point of communication with their game. If they have something to say about their game, they need to couple that with a screenshot or similar hook.

You are more specific than he was.
What you are saying is that screenshots and videos are more likely to generate interest than something intangible and I agree. That is initial interest generated before a games release and of course the media is the only safe way for a dev to do it before launch. I didnt challenge that

You are referring to a specific period of generating interest: First point communication and investigation through previews suggest before release interest
But he was very vague and unspecific. What period was he referring to. Was he referring to pre-release interest?
Launch sales?
Total sales and success?
Because once a game is released, your post-release investigation will reveal bugs, gameplay issues, unpolished work (or the opposite) which it was impossible to find before which will have an impact on purchase decision unless you were a first adopter that was eager to buy based on your pre-investigation

Thanks Shifty, I honestly thought that was just common sense, which is why I didn't make a detailed explanation..

Equivalent word twist (just so you understand what you did there):

Why would I have the need to twist your words?Its not like we are in a dispute and I want to piss you off. Its just that you were vague. Nothing more nothing less. Relax. No need to be upset. You dont have to be detailed. Just be clearer.

The way you stated it didnt sound like:
"Well, a good-looking topping in the ice cream attracts a lot more customers than having more cookie.."

You sounded like:
"Good-looking topping in the ice cream sells a lot more than having good ice cream."

 

[Squilliam]

I mean truth be told...the only way I'd believe it was going to be a 6670 is if they decided to totally walk away from the old console model. Old console model being buy Console, use it for 5 years, throw it away and start all over with Console 2, use it for 5 years throw it away and start all over with Console 3, rinse and repeat.

If they instead are going to a fully iOS type model where they release a new piece of hardware whenever they see the need demands it and it's 100% compatible with the previous one, then I would believe a 6670. In other words they release a Xbox 360 Two, you sell your old 360 but everything else is fully compatible so you play all existing software and can play any new stuff that is higher spec supportive. Same games, same gamertag, same everything just like when you buy a new iPhone but now you can also play higher spec apps if any get released. That way they can go cheaper and more frequent hardware releases since the 360 then is no longer a console but a true long term "platform". Then when the 360 Two gets long in the tooth, be it in one year, two years whatever, they release 360 Three that is also fully backward compatible and higher spec still.

Would they even need to call it the Xbox next? Why not call it something like the Xbox 360 bla bla, upgrade the Kinect to 2.0 and slap in said 6670 and another core, keep the price the same and if it fails forget all about it and release a truly hardcore console in a couple of years time. A 6670 would be approximately 2* more powerful than the current Xbox 360, they could pull a Wii I guess.

 

[AlphaWolf]

a 6670 would be more than 2x, closer to (or even over) 3x because it's clocked at 800Mhz.

(and before anyone suggests it wouldn't be clocked as high in a console... then why the hell wouldn't they suggest 6650 which has exactly the same functional units and a lower clock)

 

[joker454]

Would they even need to call it the Xbox next? Why not call it something like the Xbox 360 bla bla, upgrade the Kinect to 2.0 and slap in said 6670 and another core, keep the price the same and if it fails forget all about it and release a truly hardcore console in a couple of years time. A 6670 would be approximately 2* more powerful than the current Xbox 360, they could pull a Wii I guess.

Well Xbox is the brand, that's the word that needs to be in there somewhere. So like apple's phones are the iPhone 3, iPhone 3gs, iPhone 4s, etc (iPhone is the brand, postfix is the model), Microsoft can keep the Xbox prefix there. Personally I think the reusable platform is the direction they will go next gen, it just makes sense given how many devices they have out there, how many more they will have, how many more markets there are to grow into (cars, etc), and how to me it behooves them to make it easy for coders to get their code working on every device and hence give coders a piece of every possible revenue stream in as simple a way as possible. I like that with xna already, I just put out a game for Windows Phone and I can easily recompile it to work on Xbox 360 and PC today, and presumably tablet tomorrow. That's just a really nice advantage. What I'm curious about is how they will handle the transition from the 360. I don't think they had this all planned out at the time of the 360...whereas I expect Xbox Next to have the platform strategy in mind from day one so future hardware upgrades will be easier. Maybe they will offer "360 greatest hits" as downloadables, to where publishers can rebuild games to make sure they are compatible with Xbox Next, and have them as digital download only. Who knows, but that's the step I'm curious to see how they handle.

The other advantage to going with a long term platform strategy is they don't have to put all their eggs in one basket. Nothing stops them from releasing two sku's, a low end 6670 model for $199 and a high end 7950 model for $399. Unlike the old console model you can get royally screwed if people don't buy your expensive model as Sony painfully learned. But this way if they don't buy the $399 model then no big deal, there is still a $199 model that plays everything. I think they need to keep this in mind as the hardcore gamers are no longer the ones driving growth.

 

[TheChefO]

I think they need to keep this in mind as the hardcore gamers are no longer the ones driving growth.

The definition of hardcore gamer is up for debate, but people are obviously shifting away from Wii and still buying HD consoles. There was also a significant spend in PC components with the introduction of a game which finally took advantage of hardware built after 2005.

So if Hardcore is no longer driving growth, this would mostly be due to the fact that there isn't much of a hardcore offering to drive. The "hardest core" consoles available are still showing growth, while Wii isn't able to muster yoy flat sales even with a $100 bundle.

If there were a hardcore console available which was showing weak sales, I'd agree with the notion, but with xb360/ps3 being as good as it gets these days for the hardcore gamer (while keeping in mind that pc game hardware did see a pickup at the 2nd half of 2011) and the sales of those consoles still going strong in the face of declining Wii sales, tells me the opposite is true.

Casuals are potentially leaving toward tablets, phones, facebook, but the core gamers are still looking for deep & rich experiences.

The way to capture this casual audience is with a cheap kinect+xb360 bundle and with tablet + phone "live" games.

Ferrari knows that family sedans sell a ton more than sports cars, but they don't go scrapping their lineup and replacing them all with sedans. Instead, they add a Ferrari FF. Just as Porsche added the Cayenne when the SUV became super popular, but didn't scrap their lineup either.

Diluting the product lineup at the sacrifice of what lures customers to a company in the first place is a recipe for brand failure.

 

[Acert93]

perhaps but it will only work if all console makes agree to do it together

Who will blink first? I could see some collusion lawsuits forthcoming... GameStop versus MS, Sony, Nintendo, and 3rd party publishers ...

Barring that...going with a 6670 for an old console model framework of 2013-2020 lifespan? No friggen way.

We had a poll on this recently and thankfully enough consumers are platform agnostic that many would jump ship if such a thing happened.

Here's a question, If PS4 released 12months after Xbox 720 buy was 50% more powerful but was $100-200 more expensive, Would you buy it?

Or would you consider $100-200 more then the extra performance is worth?

The poll indicated if there was such a scenario (and not a trojan non-core console gaming device inflating console costs) most of us would wait.

Would the PS4 be getting the game franchises I enjoy to play such as Gears / Halo / controller-free motion-based games ?

You enjoy controller-free motion based gaming

I think they need to keep this in mind as the hardcore gamers are no longer the ones driving growth.

I do see how there would be some business savvy in going with a more phone-like strategy where you have bi-yearly model upgrades and the software is designed to run on all models. Say in 4-6 years some new games may only run on the newest models or whatnot but in general it becomes a dynamic platform that is every improving. The hardcore could buy the new model every 2 years and always have the greatest and the bestest graphics and framerates and the platform becomes more stable and larger in general as a revenue stream.

As for hardcore gamers not driving growth, yes. But they do drive early adoption, they buy a ton of content, they are social trend setters and are pretty vocal, and importantly they are a significant market share.

I don't think the hardcore would be so easily dismissed if this scenario had occurred:

Nintendo released the Wii.
MS released an upgraded Xbox with Kinect.
Sony released the PS3.

Sony would have captured well over 50% of the market and revenues for HD gaming would look impressive. The market would consider HD, HD video playback, web browsing from the TV, market places and downloadable movies and streaming, etc as where the core audiance is and the gateway to maturing markets and media and would give a nod to the fact there is always a place for "console toys and family entertainment devices" like the Wii/Kinect. Infact Sony would have also been in a much better position to leverage their install base to also swoop in on more of those sales as well.

Nintendo basically made a good hunch, leveraged technology that excited consumers, marketed to a core demographic and a neglected demographic, and found a path of least resistance which the competition fortified in both pricing structure and marketing. Nintendo is the Disney of gaming: family friendly. They earnest that reputation but next gen won't be a free meal and I don't think Disney-Moms will be next big market. I think penetrating the casual "Smart Phone User" market will be IMO. People familiar with technology, who may do some gaming (more casual) but are looking for something that seemlessly connects them to media (paid and free) and all their social networks.

I think this could appeal to core gamers as well... I am hoping the next consoles takes ideas from Halo 3 and have standard DVR and editing tools on-console so gamers can do their own montages and whatnot.

 

[liolio]

Core gamers are driving adoption. That's a disputable statement. They did for the wii?
I expect them to do as people like won't buy either a 399$ and more system.
Could ms or sony managed to get the hype surrounding the wii at launch with an expansive system and with a production capped at 10 millions for a year and may be more?
Having core driving adoption is also the result of business decision not a fact true by it self.
The truth is mor "core gamers have driven the adoption of expansive systems whose potential sales atlainch are constrained".

 

[Prophecy2k]

I agree that core gamers do drive adoption of both consoles and sales for both MS and Sony.

For Nintendo it's not so straight forward, as more casual gamers have a greater knowledge and awareness of Nintendos games and thus more readily buy into Nintendo's software, and thus hardware. The Wii, the DS and now 3DS are seeing growth driven through a sustained core userbase that are fans of Nintendo software, but at the same time their family-friendly appeal, and long-time establisment as a gaming brand, lets parents and casual gaming users also buy into their products through a familiarity with both the companies prior HW and software.

MS, and Sony to a lesser extent, do not have the estabilished history, game characters (mascots) or games to see the kind of growth through casual adoption that Nintendo does. MS is managing to do it now however with Kinect, but not without a significant marketing investment, alongside the newness and innovation that the technology behind the device brings.

Sony enjoyed the same kind of casual adoption with the PS2 merely by being the defacto development console. So high selling casual targeted titles like Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, Singstar etc were developed solely for that console. The console also had the benefit of a mass market price.

The problem MS and Sony will face next gen will be that without any further technological innovation (as Move and Kinect are no longer "new"), and without the established mascot characters that Nintendo has, they can only look to their core audiences with their established core IPs to drive growth of their new platforms.

For them it WILL be the core that drive growth. So, they will have to make a decision whether to abandon their core audience and design a reasonably low spec machine, alongside some brand new technological innovation in control interface or something else, or go head-to-head with a high spec machine in the traditional console model that guns first for the hardcore and then attempts to extend its growth later on with something to appeal to the casual user once the console cost comes down and they have some kind of new fangled innovative casual cash cow.