Quote from: J Arcane;315158So that's it then? Profit is all that matters, creative impact is a completely irrelevant consideration, we should all just pander to the easiest demographics and not put more than a second's thought towards making sure any of it is quality?

Shouting at the top of your lungs that "Everyone does it!  It makes money!" doesn't really in anyway discount the effects it nevertheless has.

I've pointed out why I think this kind of marketing bull is detrimental creatively and qualitatively.  All you're doing is frothing at the mouth, which I'd note you seem to be doing a lot today.  This is the third thread you've stormed into and started screaming at everyone hysterically.

You seriously need to calm the fuck down before you blow a damn vessel.

Marketting drives the market. It is a fact of life. It controls not only business, but the justice system and the political system. The same methods used to package cars and tampons is used to sell politicians.

The type of sudies done to determine the proper way to display orange juice in ads are also used by specialists to judge the selection of jurors and expert witnesses (this is a fact-they were pioneered by a research grant to a university in Maryland).

The fact that you dislike it is immaterial The simple fact is that the pool of people to reach is so large that any message is expensive to send, and thus must be tuned to reach the maximum number of viewers.

And as any ad exec or political manager knows, image shapes reality. Most politicians only face a serious challenge in order to secure office; incumbants, regardless of their track record, enjoy a significant advantage in retaining their office.

Its how the world works. And while you are right as to the relation to quality, this is immaterial.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;315178Marketting drives the market. It is a fact of life. It controls not only business, but the justice system and the political system. The same methods used to package cars and tampons is used to sell politicians.

The type of sudies done to determine the proper way to display orange juice in ads are also used by specialists to judge the selection of jurors and expert witnesses (this is a fact-they were pioneered by a research grant to a university in Maryland).

The fact that you dislike it is immaterial The simple fact is that the pool of people to reach is so large that any message is expensive to send, and thus must be tuned to reach the maximum number of viewers.

And as any ad exec or political manager knows, image shapes reality. Most politicians only face a serious challenge in order to secure office; incumbants, regardless of their track record, enjoy a significant advantage in retaining their office.

Its how the world works. And while you are right as to the relation to quality, this is immaterial.

So tell me this smart guy:  How did the PS2 become the biggest selling console platform in history, despite ignoring the "Casual/hardcore" split that has become a cornerstone of this generation?  

After all, if this kind of artificial marketing segmentation is so "necessary", surely it should've bombed horribly, doomed to an inability to address the market.

I love this attitude I keep seeing crop up that just because something is new it's automatically the best way to do something despite no one else or historical evidence being completely to the contrary.  The 4e fanatics treating 4e as the be all end all of game design, the Xbox Live people valiantly defending the multiplayer tax as "obviously" the best way to do online play despite a dizzying variety of contrary examples, and on and on.

I'll put it this way:  By comparison to historical example, the supposedly "necessary" current marketing strategy of "hardcore vs. casual" is a fucking failure.  Even as well as the Wii is doing, all three consoles are still behind the PS2.  Sony decided to shoot for the "hardcore" market exclusively, and as a result they've sold over 120 million units less than the previous generation.  

Sell tell me again how "necessary" it is to adopt this bullshit?

Quote from: J Arcane;315180So tell me this smart guy:  How did the PS2 become the biggest selling console platform in history, despite ignoring the "Casual/hardcore" split that has become a cornerstone of this generation?  

After all, if this kind of artificial marketing segmentation is so "necessary", surely it should've bombed horribly, doomed to an inability to address the market.

I love this attitude I keep seeing crop up that just because something is new it's automatically the best way to do something despite no one else or historical evidence being completely to the contrary.  The 4e fanatics treating 4e as the be all end all of game design, the Xbox Live people valiantly defending the multiplayer tax as "obviously" the best way to do online play despite a dizzying variety of contrary examples, and on and on.

I'll put it this way:  By comparison to historical example, the supposedly "necessary" current marketing strategy of "hardcore vs. casual" is a fucking failure.  Even as well as the Wii is doing, all three consoles are still behind the PS2.  Sony decided to shoot for the "hardcore" market exclusively, and as a result they've sold over 120 million units less than the previous generation.  

Sell tell me again how "necessary" it is to adopt this bullshit?

Because while its not perfect, it works far more often than it fails.

You can, and obviously have, hunted up examples of where it has not, but that involves a handful of products out of millions.



On a side note, why the hostile attitude & profanity?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;315060*This is why D&D's market share of RPGs is significant to no one in government. Are they a monopoly? Well, if RPGs are really a distinct market, then yes, Wizard's dominance of the RPG space is as total as Microsoft's is over the OS market.

I would have thought that, contrary to how it might sometimes seem on here, RPGs aren't nearly as essential to our everyday lives as computers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;315158So that's it then? Profit is all that matters, creative impact is a completely irrelevant consideration, we should all just pander to the easiest demographics and not put more than a second's thought towards making sure any of it is quality?

This hobby is in no danger of lacking "creative impact" and in immense danger of lacking profit. So I think your protestations are kind of misdirected.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;315253This hobby is in no danger of lacking "creative impact" and in immense danger of lacking profit. So I think your protestations are kind of misdirected.

RPGPundit

Are you saying 4E is a good thing for the hobby?

Quote from: J Arcane;315180So tell me this smart guy:  How did the PS2 become the biggest selling console platform in history, despite ignoring the "Casual/hardcore" split that has become a cornerstone of this generation?  

The PS2 was the cheapest DVD player in the market. Also, Sony doesn't give a shit about pirated PS2 videogames, so long as it keeps selling consoles. Thus the PS2 boom in developing markets at the expense of Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox.

Quote from: RPGPundit;315253This hobby is in no danger of lacking "creative impact" and in immense danger of lacking profit.

Exactly.

Quote from: JongWK;315266The PS2 was the cheapest DVD player in the market. Also, Sony doesn't give a shit about pirated PS2 videogames, so long as it keeps selling consoles. Thus the PS2 boom in developing markets at the expense of Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox.

The PS1 sold nearly as many systems, and it didn't have a DVD player.  It played CDs, but CDs were hardly a new technology by the time the PS1 came out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;315253This hobby is in no danger of lacking "creative impact" and in immense danger of lacking profit. So I think your protestations are kind of misdirected.

RPGPundit

All the more reason not to adopt a marketing strategy that has so far proved a dismal failure.

Quote from: Benoist;315265Are you saying 4E is a good thing for the hobby?

I think that if 4e had succeeded in radically increasing the player base for the hobby, and had made the vast fortune Hasbro was no doubt hoping it would, it would certainly have been good for the hobby.  I pretty much predicted it would do neither, though, because it was badly planned and even more badly executed.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;315252I would have thought that, contrary to how it might sometimes seem on here, RPGs aren't nearly as essential to our everyday lives as computers.

RPGPundit

Difference is, Microsoft is a major provider to the US Gov't. The General Services Administration (which handles procurement for just about all federal agencies with a few small exceptions) is about their largest single customer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;315253This hobby is in no danger of lacking "creative impact" and in immense danger of lacking profit.

The hobby doesn't need a profit. The industry wants one.

I disagree. If there's no profit in the business of RPGs, then there's no future for the hobby, in the long term, besides being a dead game played by a handful of dying old men.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;315382I disagree. If there's no profit in the business of RPGs, then there's no future for the hobby, in the long term, besides being a dead game played by a handful of dying old men.

Eh, I think there will always be folks who produce content as a hobby, expecting little to nothing in return for their work save - perhaps - some amount of recognition from the community.

The meme that is D&D is still out in the wild. I'm 22, and even over the past couple months, I have run into a handful of folks who have absolutely no experience with the game - beyond having heard of it - that are interested in getting into it. I think that that would seem to indicate that the zeitgeist is still out there in some form, and so long as that's around, the hobby will survive in at least some fashion, and not just as a game played by a handful of dying old men.

Compare RPGs to wargaming. I think I've been approached by one person, in the past four years, asking about 40k. I've heard vague mentions of "historical wargaming" and other such weird things, but then I also frequent gaming forums and my immediate family is into that kind of thing. Where I don't hear about it is out in the wild: I have yet to run into folks on campus, at a bar, or at a 24-hour diner who are looking to get into a minis game (these all being places that I have gotten into conversations about D&D with people who are completely unfamiliar with anything about it beyond the name).

That would seem to indicate, at least to me, that the zeitgeist of wargaming has largely faded from the public mind, making it the dying hobby that it is. D&D (and, by extension, TTRPGs) do not seem to suffer from the same problem.