Marketing experts DON'T know what people who aren't currently buying games want to buy in terms of videogames, and it shows clearly, as so few companies have succeeded in expanding their audience in this space.

It's becoming more and more clear what traditional "non-gamers" like to play, and companies are slowly rolling out products that pique the interest of a market that isn't currently gaming. The problem is that this has come too slowly, and there's too much crap targetting the same audience.

Companies just have to realize that it's not a quick fix "Let's just get something to market" deal, and put in the time and effort to build a quality portfolio of accessible, and casual games (at least they need to seem casual, they can have all the underlying depth in the world if it's a welcoming enough package).

Quote: Original post by dashurc
Marketing experts DON'T know what people who aren't currently buying games want to buy in terms of videogames, and it shows clearly, as so few companies have succeeded in expanding their audience in this space.

Simply because someone works in a corporate marketing department doesn't automatically make them an expert. Don't fault all expert knowledge for all commercial failures. Sometimes people—yes, marketing professionals are people, too—don't listen to the experts. Sometimes they do.

Quote: The problem is that this has come too slowly...

I completely agree, but I would also say that's a systemic problem. I have more to say on that matter, but I'll save that for when the organization I'm founding is launched.

Quote: Original post by dashurc
Marketing experts DON'T know what people who aren't currently buying games want to buy in terms of videogames, ...

I'll go a step farther.

NOBODY knows what people who aren't currently buying products will buy.

There is absolutely no way to guarantee that a particular product will be popular or purchased. We can make educated guesses based on past products, market analysis, usage tests, and so forth, but it is still just guesses.

You can't know when which YouTube video will become viral when you post it. You can't know which song will jump to the top of the charts when you're composing them. You can't know which joke will make an audience laugh. You can't tell if a B-grade movie will become a cult-classic. No matter how much research you do, sometimes something that sounds great will be horrible, and something that seems horrible to analysts will be a hit. The best you can do is look at similar products and hope for similar results.

Quote: ...and it shows clearly, as so few companies have succeeded in expanding their audience in this space. It's becoming more and more clear what traditional "non-gamers" like to play, and companies are slowly rolling out products that pique the interest of a market that isn't currently gaming. The problem is that this has come too slowly, and there's too much crap targetting the same audience.

When you leave the mainstream there is less data and more risk. The farther out you go, the faster the risk increases. Branching out to an audience that is so foreign to the existing industry is a huge business risk.

Remember that businesses generally hate risk. Until there is less risk, big companies will continue to limit their investment. Small companies frequently take the risk, and big companies can (and do) buy them up after they find a niche that works.

Your post points out that "so few companies have succeeded", but it isn't from lack of trying. Each new failure slightly increases the business risk, since it means we still don't know what works. Each new success slightly reduces risk since it teaches us something that does work.

It isn't that companies are specifically ignoring the market. Trust me, there is a lot of interest. The issue is that when it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, it is a very high risk investment.

In the current marketplace the best business position is to make a low-risk, low-cost game and hope for a moderate return or minimal loss. Eventually some of those will sell extremely well, resulting in sequels and spin-offs that are well funded due to reduced business risk.

Quote: Original post by frob
Remember that businesses generally hate risk...

Not arguing with you there.

Quote:
Your post points out that "so few companies have succeeded", but it isn't from lack of trying. Each new failure slightly increases the business risk, since it means we still don't know what works. Each new success slightly reduces risk since it teaches us something that does work.

Quote:
It isn't that companies are specifically ignoring the market. Trust me, there is a lot of interest. The issue is that when it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis, it is a very high risk investment.

I work on a team that is attempting to grow our market into new demographics (with mixed results). I know all too well that big companies desperately want to tap into new markets. Trying to take something established and retooling it for a new audience is hard. And yes, minimizing risk is much more appealing to most companies.

I wasn't really trying to argue otherwise. Not sure if that was your impression from my previous post.

Quote: Original post by frob
We can make educated guesses based on past products, market analysis, usage tests, and so forth, but it is still just guesses. ... You can't know when which YouTube video will become viral when you post it. You can't know which song will jump to the top of the charts when you're composing them. You can't know which joke will make an audience laugh. You can't tell if a B-grade movie will become a cult-classic.

Your comments apply specifically to hit-driven business models. Most indies don't have the resources to go down that route, and they aren't required to do so either.

Quote: Until there is less risk, big companies will continue to limit their investment.

Ironically, refraining from, or limiting, investment in innovation is a serious risk itself.