How much does quality matter when it comes to sales?

[Erik_Twice]

DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE AN ART RELATIVIST (IT'S NOT BAD IF SOMEONE LIKES IT) THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR YOU. THIS THREAD IS BUILT UNDER THE PREMISE THAT QUALITY IS OBJECTIVE, IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT IT THERE'S NOTHING FOR YOU TO DO HERE GO AWAY AND GET YOURSELF A JOB YOU USELESS HIPPIE!.

Thank you. You can insult me on PM if you want to.



Tell me. How much do you think quality matters? Do you think that Valve games sell because they are good? What about Nintendo? Did people buy Mario Galaxy because it was good or because of their succesful marketing?

It may look like mental masturbation but I think I'm onto something here. You see, everyone regards Waterworld as a failure. But was it? Was it really any different than your usual Howllywood lackluster?

I think not. I think that given a big uneducated market something is keen to be popular bigger or later thanks to a snowball effect. This is why so many bland games sell so much today, I don't think it happened before. I can't name any crappy game of the NES or Golden age of Arcades eras that sold as much as the quality games. I think that as the market grows so does the ratio of sales/quality and that's kind of sad.

I'm not saying that some bad games didn't sell well or that games were better back then, it's just that I don't think they competed with quality games as hard as they do now.

It seems to me that quality matters in relation to two factors: market size and competition. With a growing market like ours competition suffers because costumers do not know enough to look for a good product, there are always enough naïve parents to sell a game to so once you hit a certain point market size seems to be the most important factor.


Anyways, what do you think? How do you think quality influences sales?

[Zing]

Maybe more bland games are selling compared to the NES days simply due to the market being much wider. When the NES hit the streets, you had to be middle class or higher to afford one. It became more affordable and mainstream as time went on, but games were relatively expensive. Now, even very poor people have a 360 or PS3. Games are relatively cheap, especially if you "rent" them from GameStop by trading in last month's new game for this month's new game. The type of people buying games now are very different from the type of people buying games then.

[o.pwuaioc]

You might want to actually define your objective criteria if you're going to say quality is objective.

[AppleQueso]

Marketing matters far more than quality when it comes to sales. Always has, always will.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I guess I'm a useless hippy that needs a job?!

Kthxbai

In all seriousness, there are certain game mechanics that are fundamentally bad and fundamentally good. I think marketing overshadows these mechanics.

[neilencio]

Marketing matters far more than quality when it comes to sales. Always has, always will.

QFT.

Marketing will always trump quality when it comes to sales. Even for works that were not promoted by the creators, but became popular through word of mouth. Word of mouth is just another means of marketing. Marketing is not always the big budget hypefests that companies these days use. It's simply a means to present your product to people (if people don't know about your product, nobody will buy it, no matter how good it is).

Also, successfully marketing something that is of low quality is not without its punishment. The more people buy your crappy product, the more people who will most likely remember your brand as crappy and refuse to buy the next one. Also, there's that thing about scamming and ripping off people that has its own risks.

[markeconrad]

The hubris coming from this post is off the charts.

[Erik_Twice]

Maybe more bland games are selling compared to the NES days simply due to the market being much wider. When the NES hit the streets, you had to be middle class or higher to afford one. It became more affordable and mainstream as time went on, but games were relatively expensive.

That's a factor I didn't tought of! Games being cheaper probably leads to a less demanding market, after all, if you don't like it you can buy another one. Probably people also play more than they did before and buy more games for similar results.

It's something really to consider, yes.

Also, successfully marketing something that is of low quality is not without its punishment. The more people buy your crappy product, the more people who will most likely remember your brand as crappy and refuse to buy the next one. Also, there's that thing about scamming and ripping off people that has its own risks.

I agree. I think that companies that try to push mediocre products foward are doomed to fail in the long-term. As you say, it will slowly sink in the minds of your costumers that your product is not that good and probably not buy your new products.

Or rather, perhaps it's just that mediocre games don't create brand recognition. If you only make mediocre games you are keen to fail sooner or later because there's no real reason to buy your games over another bland game.

I also noticed that companies that choose to produce mediocre games will soon find themselves unable to make good games as their skilled staff leaves and quality dries up.

[J T]

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

[jfrost]

Marketing matters far more than quality when it comes to sales. Always has, always will.

That doesn't say anything regarding the impact of quality on sales. That's the question here, not if there is another factor which is more important than quality.