Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by Kaze In summary: If you don't like mass marketed and cookie cutter games STOP BUYING SEQUELS. On the other hand, supply and demand depends a lot upon supply. If publishers pushed original IP as much as they pushed their franchises, perhaps people would buy the stuff. Once upon a time I used to go to the computer game shop and each game would have 1 copy on the shelf, and browsing through to find interesting games was easy. Now the big names cover most of the shelf space and the smaller games have trouble even getting into the shops. It's no wonder that the average consumer (as opposed to perhaps a more discerning consumer) is always buying the big hits, as they're the games put right in front of them.

I'm sorry, but the "problem" of retailer selection is nothing of the sort: retailers have always catered to the lowest common denominator. They simply do not have the space to display every single game out there, nor do they want to. Stock takes up valuable retailing space and it makes perfect sense to ensure the only stock you buy is the stock you're damned sure you'll be able to move. The longer it sits in your warehouse, the more money it's costing you! This simply isn't going to change without a radical rethink of how bricks-and-mortar retailing works.

The "average consumer" wants those sequels! As has been pointed out before, millions of these games sell every time. It's a low-risk, guaranteed win for the publishers; why the hell should they be forced to stop catering to those millions? Are those millions not worthy of having fun too? Most of the gamers who loved the original, (often quite risky) release are likely to buy the sequel -- a similar effect is seen in the movie industry, but consider that TV programming is almost entirely comprised of serials, not one-off dramas. Why? Because people like their comfort zones. They really do want more of the same. Pushing the envelope and trying new things is inherently risky for consumers too: what if they find out they don't like curry / special fried rice / Ico? That's valuable time they're never going to get back again. (And probably good money too.)


The "more discerning consumer" has the entire internet, sites like Amazon and Play.com, all those review sites and magazines, word-of-mouth and more. There is no excuse at all for not knowing about new IP and small games. How many full-page ads have you seen for "Pretty Good Solitaire"? How many TV spots were run for "Braid"? Yet people still found them, played them and bought them! It's not rocket science, people.

Even the outlying consumer wants sequels. When the gold box engine was popular, I'd play anything for it; the supplied content wasn't enough. Same thing with the infinity engine games. If someone would make a modern equivalent and release more than 1 game a year, I'd be all over them. Same with Disgaea. Same with a lot of games.

I want good games. Innovative is nice, but in the end it comes down to fun. With the lack of competent demos, and the general inability to try before you buy the best way I know that a game will be fun is if its predecessor was fun.

As the Internet expands and flourishes, and vehicle/fuel prices soar into the sky, shelf space will start to lose meaning, along with boxing and expensive publishers.

Warning: Based on my hopeful imagination.

Quote:

Original post by stimarco Quote: Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by Kaze In summary: If you don't like mass marketed and cookie cutter games STOP BUYING SEQUELS. On the other hand, supply and demand depends a lot upon supply. If publishers pushed original IP as much as they pushed their franchises, perhaps people would buy the stuff. Once upon a time I used to go to the computer game shop and each game would have 1 copy on the shelf, and browsing through to find interesting games was easy. Now the big names cover most of the shelf space and the smaller games have trouble even getting into the shops. It's no wonder that the average consumer (as opposed to perhaps a more discerning consumer) is always buying the big hits, as they're the games put right in front of them. I'm sorry, but the "problem" of retailer selection is nothing of the sort: retailers have always catered to the lowest common denominator. They simply do not have the space to display every single game out there, nor do they want to. Stock takes up valuable retailing space and it makes perfect sense to ensure the only stock you buy is the stock you're damned sure you'll be able to move. The longer it sits in your warehouse, the more money it's costing you! This simply isn't going to change without a radical rethink of how bricks-and-mortar retailing works. The "average consumer" wants those sequels! As has been pointed out before, millions of these games sell every time. It's a low-risk, guaranteed win for the publishers; why the hell should they be forced to stop catering to those millions? Are those millions not worthy of having fun too? Most of the gamers who loved the original, (often quite risky) release are likely to buy the sequel -- a similar effect is seen in the movie industry, but consider that TV programming is almost entirely comprised of serials, not one-off dramas. Why? Because people like their comfort zones. They really do want more of the same. Pushing the envelope and trying new things is inherently risky for consumers too: what if they find out they don't like curry / special fried rice / Ico? That's valuable time they're never going to get back again. (And probably good money too.) The "more discerning consumer" has the entire internet, sites like Amazon and Play.com, all those review sites and magazines, word-of-mouth and more. There is no excuse at all for not knowing about new IP and small games. How many full-page ads have you seen for "Pretty Good Solitaire"? How many TV spots were run for "Braid"? Yet people still found them, played them and bought them! It's not rocket science, people.

Note that I'm not saying theirs anything wrong with big name franchises, I think most of the changes in newer games is a overall improvement by removing bad game play.
I just think its dumb to only acknowledge games TV commercials, magazines and internet hype compel you to buy and then complain that their over marketed.

Quote:

Original post by stimarco I'm sorry, but the "problem" of retailer selection is nothing of the sort: retailers have always catered to the lowest common denominator. They simply do not have the space to display every single game out there, nor do they want to.

Why exaggerate? Nobody suggested displaying every single game. But it's a fact that often large areas of shelving are taken up with repeated copies of the same game. Yes, consumers want that game, and yes, they may want that game in that proportion, but that doesn't require that many physical empty boxes on the shelves. The boxes are doing nothing but catch the eye, when that space could be used for other games. So that's purely a marketing decision, not supply and demand.

Quote:

Stock takes up valuable retailing space and it makes perfect sense to ensure the only stock you buy is the stock you're damned sure you'll be able to move. The longer it sits in your warehouse, the more money it's costing you!

I'm not talking about warehouse space, I'm talking about shelf space, which are quite different propositions. Slow-selling items can be stocked in smaller quantities, giving you product diversity at little expense. And there is plenty of precedent for distribution models that allow you to return units you can't shift.

Quote:

This simply isn't going to change without a radical rethink of how bricks-and-mortar retailing works.

No, it will change when the game industry changes. This isn't some fundamental of retail. Go to somewhere that sells DVDs, books, or music, and although you'll still see a bias towards the new and popular, you'll also see a lot of classics and less popular works. Yes, the public want blockbusters and sequels. But they also want classics, and art pieces, and cult hits. Unfortunately gaming retail does a much poorer job of selling those things to you than music retail, film retail, book retail, etc. There's little depth in what we present to the consumer, so it's no surprise that the consumer comes back to us expecting little depth.

Quote:

The "more discerning consumer" has the entire internet, sites like Amazon and Play.com, all those review sites and magazines, word-of-mouth and more. There is no excuse at all for not knowing about new IP and small games.

More hyperbole. There are lots of people out there who don't know that they'd like something until they discover it. They may not even know that such a thing exists and is worth seeking out. Every day, people discover new bands and new television programmes that they enjoy. On one hand, this implies that these things are potentially discoverable, but on the other hand, it implies there is a source of people who would actually like something but who haven't found it yet. It doesn't mean those ignorant people would prefer to stick with the same old tv or music by any means. It means we're doing a poor job of showing them what is available.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kylotan No, it will change when the game industry changes. This isn't some fundamental of retail. Go to somewhere that sells DVDs, books, or music, and although you'll still see a bias towards the new and popular, you'll also see a lot of classics and less popular works. Yes, the public want blockbusters and sequels. But they also want classics, and art pieces, and cult hits.

There's a slight difference in that respect, because electronic games is a rather young profession, and because it turned into an industry during its infancy. People wrote (fiction) books, composed music and made movies for (at least) decades before that became part of the late 20th century "mass entertainment industry".

There was enough time for the classics and quality standards to develop and become appreciated.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan But it's a fact that often large areas of shelving are taken up with repeated copies of the same game. Yes, consumers want that game, and yes, they may want that game in that proportion, but that doesn't require that many physical empty boxes on the shelves. The boxes are doing nothing but catch the eye, when that space could be used for other games. So that's purely a marketing decision, not supply and demand.

From my dealings with publishers, this is entirely the truth. A store like GameStop or Walmart doesn't just say, "Let's see here ... we'll face out 8 copies of this, 5 copies of this, etc". Instead, a publisher goes to the distributor and pays for x amount of shelf space for x amount of weeks. A distributor works out their shelf layout based on these deals. This is why retail stores get diagrams from corporate for where to put what games, movies, magazines, etc.

Quote:

Stock takes up valuable retailing space and it makes perfect sense to ensure the only stock you buy is the stock you're damned sure you'll be able to move. The longer it sits in your warehouse, the more money it's costing you! I'm not talking about warehouse space, I'm talking about shelf space, which are quite different propositions. Slow-selling items can be stocked in smaller quantities, giving you product diversity at little expense. And there is plenty of precedent for distribution models that allow you to return units you can't shift.

You have to look at it from a business perspective. Retailers aren't there to prove they have eclectic tastes or to pitch 'widest variety' - neither of those are really money making propositions. Shelf space is finite. Why put a bunch of questionable stock on the shelf when they can put stuff they know will sell?

Quote:

This simply isn't going to change without a radical rethink of how bricks-and-mortar retailing works. No, it will change when the game industry changes. This isn't some fundamental of retail. Go to somewhere that sells DVDs, books, or music, and although you'll still see a bias towards the new and popular, you'll also see a lot of classics and less popular works. Yes, the public want blockbusters and sequels. But they also want classics, and art pieces, and cult hits. Unfortunately gaming retail does a much poorer job of selling those things to you than music retail, film retail, book retail, etc. There's little depth in what we present to the consumer, so it's no surprise that the consumer comes back to us expecting little depth.

The retail stores still do sell the 'classic' games. Diablo, Sim[VERSION], The Sims, etc all still have shelf space because people still want to buy them. Chess, Tetris, Racing/Kart games, MahJong, and other basic 'classics' are all in the bargain rack off to the side. There's a limit to 'classics', though, and that limit is technology. Books are still books - the tools to use the content don't change. Videos are still videos. When the popular video player changes, the video is reproduced on the new medium. With games, it is entirely different. Some games simply will no longer run on newer machines. Some 'classics' and 'cult hits' are rejected by the consumers because it is an older format, older graphics or older technology.

You can't dump the blame on the retailers. It's a changing technology and a fickle consumer base. Fable 2, Fallout 3, Deadspace... massive hype and people will play the heck out of them for 3-6 months. Occasionally you get something like HALO or UT or Half Life where people will play the same game over and over for years... and those are still on the shelves. Do you really think anyone will be playing or even caring about Deadspace this time next year? When was the last time you fired up Bioshock? How many of the following games... Game of the Year games... are people still playing:
http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/
http://bestof.ign.com/2007/pc/22.html
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29286.html
http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/gameoftheyear/index.html?page=2

The ones they are still playing are still in stores. There's truly no reason to stock the others.

Quote:

Original post by Talin Quote: Originally posted by Kylotan No, it will change when the game industry changes. This isn't some fundamental of retail. Go to somewhere that sells DVDs, books, or music, and although you'll still see a bias towards the new and popular, you'll also see a lot of classics and less popular works. Yes, the public want blockbusters and sequels. But they also want classics, and art pieces, and cult hits. There's a slight difference in that respect, because electronic games is a rather young profession, and because it turned into an industry during its infancy. People wrote (fiction) books, composed music and made movies for (at least) decades before that became part of the late 20th century "mass entertainment industry". There was enough time for the classics and quality standards to develop and become appreciated.

Yes, time where the works were available. That's because we didn't dispense with Metropolis, Casablanca, or High Noon, or Beethoven, Mozart, or J.S. Bach, after a short period on the shelves. They weren't pushed aside for the next hit like we try to do in the games industry. You had a chance to see a work in the context of its peers over a much wider period than a few months and the classics stood out as a result.

Quote:

Original post by LynxJSA Some 'classics' and 'cult hits' are rejected by the consumers because it is an older format, older graphics or older technology.

This is another point where I would strongly disagree. Again, I think there's a large part of the industry that deliberately wants to compete on technology and therefore pushes that aspect, when in my opinion most customers would actually be perfectly happy with better games using the same old technology. We attempt to train them to want the newer, shinier game, because many developers can't put forward a game that is better in any other way. Yet all around the world people are buying Wiis, DSes, PSPs, GBAs, despite these being technically inferior platforms. And the biggest growing market is the so-called 'casual' sector dominated by Popcap and the like. The technology wars are a deliberate distraction.

Quote:

The retail stores still do sell the 'classic' games. Diablo, Sim[VERSION], The Sims, etc all still have shelf space because people still want to buy them.

You know something? I've been after Diablo for months now. But it actually has no shelf space in our retailers here. Diablo 2 is there. But not Diablo. Diablo 2 is only there because it's shelved with a range of re-releases from the same publisher, which in turn is probably there because they paid 'market development' fees to get shelf space. Yet I can't get the original Diablo. Is that down to a wider lack of demand? Who knows... maybe there are people like me up and down the country who can't buy that game. Without these stores having at least 1 solitary copy on the shelf for the crazy people like me to buy, how will they ever know?

Quote:

You can't dump the blame on the retailers. It's a changing technology and a fickle consumer base.

I don't blame the retailers, I blame the industry. That includes the retailers, but also extends to journalists and publishers. There's a failure of leadership throughout.

Quote:

There's truly no reason to stock the others.

That's clearly wrong though. Again, take the typical DVD or music store and go through a lot of the stuff on their shelves. Some of it has sat there for months. But the fact it's there broadens the appeal of the store and of the entertainment type in general. It's a portfolio. Nobody is expected to like all of it. But it allows for impulse purchases and for customer discovery of new franchises. Just because it's not flying off the shelves doesn't mean it has no value. Holding small amounts of second-tier stock is not expensive!

Quote:

Yet all around the world people are buying Wiis, DSes, PSPs, GBAs, despite these being technically inferior platforms. And the biggest growing market is the so-called 'casual' sector dominated by Popcap and the like. The technology wars are a deliberate distraction.

Stop for a minute and look at what you are saying.

First of all, I specifically stated that I was talking about the 'classics' and 'cult hits'. I did not at any point say that someone would not buy a current game for a current platform solely because of graphics.

Second, if a PSP 2 came out today, how many people would be buying an old PSP two months from now? With the GBA currently out, how many people buy a monochrome GameBoy Classic?

Third, Casual games are really fun games to play for FREE on the web. Very few people actually buy them in a store. For the few people that do buy them, I already stated that they are stocked in the stores and are all in the bargain rack off to the side. You can walk into any Wal-Mart, Frys, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc to see that for yourself.

Your issue seems to be one with Evil GlobalGameCorp and that really is affecting your ability to look at this objectively.

Quote:

You know something? I've been after Diablo for months now. But it actually has no shelf space in our retailers here. Diablo 2 is there. But not Diablo. Diablo 2 is only there because it's shelved with a range of re-releases from the same publisher, which in turn is probably there because they paid 'market development' fees to get shelf space.

Honestly, it's not some insidious plan by game companies to dictate what the world buys. It's what they'd like to do, but it all comes down to the consumer in the end.

Quote:

Yet I can't get the original Diablo. Is that down to a wider lack of demand?

Yes. Uncategorically, yes. People love D2. Given the choice of Diablo or D2, msot people would rather play D2. Don't believe me? Do a poll... anywhere. Why stock something that only one guy within 50 miles of the store wants?

Quote:

"There's truly no reason to stock the others." That's clearly wrong though. Again, take the typical DVD or music store and go through a lot of the stuff on their shelves. Some of it has sat there for months. But the fact it's there broadens the appeal of the store and of the entertainment type in general.

IF the game playing consumerbase was interested in diversity of titles or a wide selection of games, then that would be of value. They are not. You need to accept that fact before you go any further. It will greatly help in your understanding of all of this. Now, do not confuse that with not wanting more new titles. Every gamer would tell you that they would like a wider selection of new titles. NEW titles. Older titles they don't care about.

I ask that you look at the last paragraph of my last post again for the data that supports that.



By the way, you can get Diablo in plenty of places online. Here's a few links for you. I would suggest going for Diablo 2, though, unless there was something in particular that you enjoyed about the first one.

http://www.google.com/products?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=diablo+battle+chest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=diablo&x=0&y=0