Are Sales > Quality?

[TheBookkeeper]

Yes but the great thing about TF2 is that it's free.

How much more accessible can you get! A great game that everyone with a steam account can play for free.

I've also got a huge amount of respect for Valve for putting their creative bods on great side projects.
I can't believe they came up with portal with some down time between two major title developments.

Madness. Good but utterly mad!
I don't think any other developer could make the games that Valve does!

 

[Strain42]

No, I don't think it does. Because if Sales was equal to Quality, then it wouldn't apply to just games.

And by that logic Avatar would be the greatest movie ever made, simply because it made the most money.

People can try to deny it all they want, but hype is what creates sales.

Anyone who says "I didn't buy this game because of the hype, I bought it because it looked like a good game, and it is." is full of crap. What made it look like a good game? Hype. Advertising. People spent money making the game appealing, whether it's through commercials, gameplay trailers or even the box art. Even something as small as a friend recommending it to you is a form of hype.

Naturally in some cases, something that sells a lot did so because it is good. But it got that way because either a lot of advertising went into it to get people to buy it, or they had a really successful earlier product.

The fact that we've got an avalanche of games with the number 3 in the title this year is proof of that.

 

[Imper1um]

Lets take MW3 for example. A lot of its haters say it sells well because of the hype and the majority of its fans say it sells well because its a good game. So who here is right and who here is wrong?

MW3 is the biggest example of the issue with "iterative friend cycles." See, when someone plays an iterative title that is great, they get used to it, and they generate friends. For example, I used to play CoD1, CoD2, CoD4, and then MW2. I played MW2 because my friends played CoD4. CoD4 was a genuinely great game, with an amazing storyline and pretty great multiplayer (shut up, it worked incredibly well on X360, you PC hackers can keep to yourselves). However, in MW2, it was kind of the same thing...a big letdown. It was also about that time I started examining the titles I was playing (World of Warcraft), and realized I was doing the same fights over and over again.

It was then that I realized that this "iterative friend cycle" exists, and these companies bank on you having it. People buy expansion upon game upon DLC for the same IP because their friends are expected to play it. They look past all the really bad aspects of the game, convincing themselves that they are having fun. The problem is, very little of them add up the pluses and minuses of the titles, and figure out what is really bad about the game, and figure out the minuses are actually more than the pluses, and they should leave.

Such is the case of the Call of Duty series lately. Every single new game has just been a cash in. CoD players are no longer buying the game because of new, interesting storyline, or amazing gameplay- they are purchasing it because their friends will chastise them if they do not, and why would you want to be left on the curb? Personally, I'm hoping that, as people figure out that Activision is just cashing in on the "iterative friend cycle," that less people will buy it next year.

Perhaps, one day, it will sell less than the previous title, and Activision will be forced to come out with a good game that isn't "the next year's iteration."

I'm looking forward to Call of Duty 2014's sales numbers. I hear they are going to add in 4 more guns, and make explosions sometimes BLUE instead of RED! And, popular from CoD2013, they are going to give you the ability to pay to see if you won or lost the last match.

 

[C2Ultima]

Sales are what matter to publishers, but the quality of the game is more important to everyone else. Let's take your exanple. Modern Warfare 3.

MW3 is a good game, and you cant argue otherwise. However, it really is starting to feel like they don't want to change a thing (apart from campaign). I like MW3 a lot, but I can't help feeling like the next sequel will be nothing but a pallete swap.

And don't bother quoting with anything along the lines of "MW3 already is a pallete swap".

 

[Jegsimmons]

So escapist, I'm generally curious about what you think about sales versus quality.

Personally it seems were moving further away from quality. All these formula's to print money (IE Modern Warfare 3!) are creating a nasty little situation where it's probably more profitable to not do something interesting or new.

Does this mean sales mean more now? How long before this bubble bursts?


Lastly, if something breaks sales records a short short shorrrtttt time after it's released... What does that say? That hype sells better then quality?







should eansfig <---- What the hell is this captcha telling me?

if Avatar makes 2.8 billion and scott pilgrim makes 30 mil under its budget, then i say fuck the sales figure.

so yes, i say hype sells, they were hyping this game since BEFORE black ops. So im thinking the average person has no concept of art or quality and will buy shit just to feel like part of the crowd.
Personally, fuck the crowd, the crowd is stupid and will lead to your demise. I would say that people need to be themselves, but popularity is dictating so much that they don't even know WHO they are at all and can't tell what they like for themselves.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Quality every time.
You'd think that the most popular things would generally be the highest quality but this is pretty obviously untrue.

Just look at the music industry...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well ideally Quality = Sales, so the higher the quality the more sales, but clearly it doesn't seem to be working that way for some strange reason.

 

[Palademon]

The trouble will measuring quality through sales is simply that you can't judge something before you pay for it.

Millions of people buying a game on launch day means nothing, since for all they know so far, there's a turd in the case.

 

[NiPah]

I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain that low quality games don't sale. Games that make tons of cash may be not very creative for formulaic but aren't low quality. It takes lots of man hours to amke them and they lots of work goes into them.

Cough minecraft cough farmville cough

 

[Phishfood]

No, I don't think it does. Because if Sales was equal to Quality, then it wouldn't apply to just games.

And by that logic Avatar would be the greatest movie ever made, simply because it made the most money.

People can try to deny it all they want, but hype is what creates sales.

Anyone who says "I didn't buy this game because of the hype, I bought it because it looked like a good game, and it is." is full of crap. What made it look like a good game? Hype. Advertising. People spent money making the game appealing, whether it's through commercials, gameplay trailers or even the box art. Even something as small as a friend recommending it to you is a form of hype.

Naturally in some cases, something that sells a lot did so because it is good. But it got that way because either a lot of advertising went into it to get people to buy it, or they had a really successful earlier product.

The fact that we've got an avalanche of games with the number 3 in the title this year is proof of that.

Exactly. 100% right. Hype > Brand Recognition > Quality. Here is the sad fact and basic underlying problem. You only find out the quality AFTER you buy the thing. Once you have parted with your money no-one cares if you like it or hate it. Now, if we got to watch a film THEN decide on payment the world would be a very different place.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

not now at least.

theres too much money and too many people afraid of loosing it.

and the artists of today have families, you can't blame them for protecting that by playing it safe.

What is happening is institutionalisation, art is now built it is a product and quality is congruent to sales and people buy well...you saw MW3's sales figures.

although i would very much like to blame them.(sighs)

 

[xXBanisherXx]

Sales > Quality to whose getting the money.

If you take a big franchise that has at least 1 great game, then make a giant hype about the new one that comes out, you could put shit in the box and sell millions until people see what they're buying.

 

[emeraldrafael]

For the producer, sales are more important than quality, and if they dont understand that, thats all well and good for the consumer, but there is something deeply wrong in the company that needs to be corrected in a way the consumer wont care for.

For the consumer, quality is better.

as to what that quality is equal to I have no idea and is subjective, but I imagine qaulity is better, unless you're investing in the company.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Personally, I think quality is all. I would say, however, that its increasingly become more about sales than quality. After all, a company can sell millions of units on just the franchise name.

 

[Electrogecko]

The real question is what is quality? Is quality what you find good or is quality what the guy down the street finds good? How do we determine when a games sells because of hype or its quality?

Lets take MW3 for example. A lot of its haters say it sells well because of the hype and the majority of its fans say it sells well because its a good game. So who here is right and who here is wrong?

They're both right. The game wouldn't be selling nearly as well if it wasn't so hyped, nor would it sell as well if it wasn't good.

There's something to be said about the fact that about 7 million people bought MW3 on day 1. What % of those people does everybody think actually bothered to look up reviews or assure themselves of the games quality in any way?

 

[Smooth Operator]

For the acountant sales are everything, if they could just sell you shit instead of game disks they would be infinitely happier, until the next year comes around and they haveto find ways of selling you less shit for more money.

And for the consumer quality should be everything, you really shouldn't be the one who cares about sales.

And then there is the developer in the middle, they want to make a game that blows everyones mind but also make a decent buck off it, so they juggle both sides for the optimal effect.

 

[spartandude]

Look at sales for Modern Warfare 3

Now look at sales for the vastly superior Metro 2033. there is your answer

 

[ResonanceGames]

The entire premise is false. There are more original, interesting games than there have ever been in history. But they're hitting places like Steam and app stores, and gamers often shit on them for some reason.

AAA games have usually stayed on the safe side for as long as the concept has existed. Doom? Newer, better Wolfenstein. Baldur's Gate 2? Newer, better Baldur's gate. Final Fantasy 7? Mario? Zelda? All those are classic franchises that also had frequent, iterative installments. Just like today.

But you know what else we've gotten over the last few years? Mirror's Edge. Human Revolution. Portal.

In ten years you won't remember all the bad, generic games that are out now -- just the good ones -- and you'll be pining for the golden days again. Except the golden days will be the days that you're complaining about now right now. And thus the cycle continues.

 

[ACman]

I'd say the MW3 is of very high quality. Finely tweeked and tuned like a finely cut diamond. It's just not very innovative.

Battlefield 3 is set in the same setting as MW3 with more dynamic multiplayer gameplay let down by a phoned in story campaign and a poor matchmaking system. It's a big but flawed diamond. High in carats but low in quality.

Then there is Skyrim. A game that while amazing has game killing bugs. It's a bag of uncut semi precious and precious stones. Lacking in refinement but definitely as worthwhile.

 

[Legendsmith]

I'd say the MW3 is of very high quality. Finely tweeked and tuned like a finely cut diamond. It's just not very innovative.

I wouldn't call it a diamond. Remember, it's the same engine that they used for COD4.
MW3 is like a semi precious stone that has been cut well and then polished and buffed until it's shining like a diamond, then set in gold.
But it's not a diamond.

B

attlefield 3 is set in the same setting as MW3 with more dynamic multiplayer gameplay let down by a phoned in story campaign and a poor matchmaking system. It's a big but flawed diamond. High in carats but low in quality.

BF3 has a matchmaking system?

Anyway, I'd say BF3 isn't flawed, it's just cut rough. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.