How much does quality matter when it comes to sales?

[flex wood]

PM Incoming

[saturnfan]

I certainly learn much more towards objectivity when it comes to quality. I believe there is a certain threshold were most can agree that the quality of a product is non-existent, adequately somewhere in between or excellent. Shades of gray, in my opinion could exist somewhere in between, as I could see two people arguing about whether a product is merely adequate or excellent.

For example, I think most people agree that a blender that does not blend is a low quality product.

As for games, quality is sometimes determined in terms of entertainment and not raw technicality. I can think of several NES games that are pretty low quality: stiff controls, bugs, and short. But I still find them entertaining. Today's games are a different breed. I find most games to be well made, but not always fun. Games that are filled with bugs and glitches (event budget titles) are a rarity, but may suffer from uninspiring game play. Are these technically "low quality", or just not fun? Is the distinction even important?

[pnicholas]

Quality of the game is very important though there are those games which rely on buzz and not much how about the game play is going.

I mean, there are those which just rides on the brand to let it take off and sky rocket in terms of units sold. But by the end of the day, you still have to bank on good game play to turn in sales and riding on the bandwagon is not going to get it for you.

[MrPopo]

Quality can never be entirely objective and I have a job. This thread is Wookies on Endor.

You just say that because you're a psych major. I say that quality can be entirely objective, we just haven't figured out the equation yet.

[BRIK]

Games always skyrocket in popularity when they are marketed to be a huge hype machine. Take the game Haze for example, the hype machine for that was one of the biggest I've ever seen. When it came out all the reviews were a 5 or 6 out of 10. Not bad, but because it had so much hype it disappointed a lot of people.
I think it may have faired better in the market if it wasn't hyped up so much, but because of the disappointment no one bought it.

[ZenErik]

Seems like reviewers are getting paid by the publishers too... So many "blockbuster" games now all get pretty much the same score from 50 different reviewers. They'll give a solid JRPG that adds nothing new to the genre a 5 out of 10 but Modern Warfare 17 a 9.

[Zing]

The process of assigning an arbitrary number to represent several factors is dubious at best. How can one number accurately reflect player enjoyment, programming, packaging quality, good game design, and replay-ability?

Reviews should have one ultimate rating: play or do not play. Is the game worth the time to play through? Yes or no. This is what most of us want out of a review. This is subjective, of course, but all reviews are.

There could be an additional rating: buy or borrow. This would rate the game's value. If the game is worth playing, is it worth the extra money to buy or should you rent/borrow it as there is little replay or sentimental value.

[BoringSupreez]

I think, like Apple said, that marketing will always outweigh actual quality. However, I think with how widespread the internet is and how much better informed the average gamer can be compared to 15-20 years ago that any game that is of very high quality will sell at least decently well just by word-of-mouth, with a few exceptions (obscure JRPGs, for example.) The ideal situation, of course, is a combination of good marketing and quality gameplay.

As for the debate as to whether quality is objective or subjective, I'm not going there. I've been reading gaming forums for too many years to fall for that trap.

[BoneSnapDeez]

They'll give a solid JRPG that adds nothing new to the genre a 5 out of 10 but Modern Warfare 17 a 9.

Case in point.............

http://wii.ign.com/articles/111/1112284p1.html

How in the hell does someone become a professional video game reviewer if s/he has never played a JRPG?

[Valkyrie-Favor]

I know people who have over 200 video games, and nearly all of them are terrible. The good ones are just there by chance. Why? Even though they spend so much time gaming, they don't think of games as art and don't care whether they're good as long as they pass the time. I mean, he thinks that Man Vs. Wild game is pretty good.

There's a lot of mentality out there among casuals that all games are the same. The very large casual market is a double-edged sword: It brings in lots of money for developers to make real games, and it makes gaming more socially acceptable. But they're more likely to buy Dog Football than Valkyria Chronicles. At least they know what Dog Football is, right? This probably started on PS1. Back in the "old days," though, most of the people who bought games were hardcore gamers. Not so anymore.

But remember this is the same with anything. Books, music, movies, wine, snowboarding - the more into it you are, the more refined your tastes will be. Of course the bad games are bad, even if someone likes Dog Football. But we are the gaming connoisseurs, eh?