Back To Special Features
A few months ago, I wrote a feature called Where's The Hype?. This feature examines the advantages and disadvantages of hyping a game months before its release, with 3D Realms' Duke Nukem Forever serving as a case study. In the end, I concluded that the disadvantages out-weigh the advantages in most cases. Of course, there are two sides to every story, and who better to tell the other side of this story than a marketing executive at a major video game publisher? What follows below is an interview I recently conducted with Infogrames' Tom Richardson. Ivan Trembow: To start off, can you summarize why you believe that the advantages of hyping a game throughout its development cycle out-weigh the disadvantages? Tom Richardson: Video games are generally not impulse purchases for gamers. This is primarily due to their cost and the investment of time to play a game. Therefore, gamers are often very interested in receiving information about a game well in advance of its release date in order to form an opinion on it before it hits store shelves. Sales figures substantiate this by showing that most games sell most of their copies in the first few months of release. Building interest throughout the development cycle has a few key benefits. Besides helping gamers form an opinion before the release date, it also gives retailers an understanding of what games are coming and what they should plan on stocking. It also generates feedback that can be incorporated in the continuing development of the game. Plus, if there is a demo that will be released prior to the ship date, it promotes that. Ivan: Is getting feedback from consumers based on pre-release information really a valid approach? How qualified can any consumer possibly be to provide feedback on a game based on screen shots and press releases rather than actual gameplay? Tom: Feedback is useful, but you are correct that feedback from someone who has only seen a few screen shots is only marginally useful. We take the feedback we get from the press, who have played early versions of the actual game, very seriously. On many occasions, this feedback has gone back to the development teams and has been taken into consideration. However, consumer feedback is very important to us as well. We make use of formal processes, such as focus groups, that are designed specifically for end-users and involve gameplay. For example, Looney Tunes Racing for the PlayStation has had two big events where end-users played in- development versions and gave written feedback to the development team. Ivan: Building interest with retailers is a nice side effect of hype for many games, but does it really make a difference with highly-anticipated games like Duke Nukem Forever? Do you think it's accurate to say that retailers will stock games like DNF and consumers will buy them regardless of how little they're hyped? Tom: While the need to build anticipation for a marquee title is not necessarily as strong as it is for an unknown title, I don't think building anticipation is ever a mistake. Consumers are constantly being offered up different forms of entertainment, whether it's video games, movies, or web sites, which creates an enormous amount of competition for mindshare. Therefore, a very passive marketing strategy is risky. Solid pre-ship anticipation could very possibly impact retailers' pre-orders for products. Ivan: How valid is the argument that not hyping a game actually adds mystery and intrigue to a project? Do you think there are a significant number of consumers out there thinking to themselves, "I have no idea what 3D Realms is doing with DNF, but I can't wait to find out"? Tom: This entire discussion really comes down to the concept of hyping. Hyping a game implies creating an inflated sense of excitement or value, and I think this rarely is a wise strategy in this industry. Gamers are a pretty savvy group of people who respond to quality and not hype. Heavily- hyped games that really aren't that good may sell well out of the gate, but the hype won't carry them very long. Now that I've defined hype, let me answer this question specifically. Shrouding a project can be useful if it is highly anticipated, such as your DNF example. It's more of an art than a science to determine the difference between intrigue that grows anticipation and silence that ultimately causes people to lose interest. The bottom line is that restricting pre-launch information only makes sense with a highly sought after title, but complete silence is most likely counter-productive. Ivan: One of the biggest complaints about game hype is that it spoils many moments in games that would otherwise be complete surprises. Do you agree with the idea that games as a whole would be a lot more surprising if they weren't hyped as much? Tom: This is highly dependent on the type of game. If it's a game that involves an unfolding story, then pre-launch info should be metered out carefully. one in the Dark: The New Nightmare is an unfolding story, so we have not dissected the game ahead of time. Conversely, we have been wide open about Demolition Racer: No Exit because the fun is based completely on the aspect of plowing into cars and causing damage. Explaining all the cars, tracks, and music doesn't take away from the experience, it just makes the attributes more clear. Ivan: In the case of companies like 3D Realms, do you think it makes sense to not show their games at E3 in any way, shape, or form, or should an exception be made for the biggest video game show of the year? Tom: The right E3 strategy for a game depends on its release schedule. While it is the biggest video game show of the year, the timing may not mesh well with the game's timeline. Building anticipation too early can result in a stream of criticism from the press and gamers alike if they feel things are moving too slowly. E3 is a great opportunity to showcase a game, but it also requires significant amounts of time and money. Developers and publishers typically weigh the pros and cons very carefully before committing one way or another. Ivan: It seems like every year, "The Game of E3" is not an actual game, but a teaser video of a game. This was true in 1997 with Metal Gear Solid, 1999 with Freelancer, and this year with Metal Gear Solid 2. Is it tempting to release lots of teaser videos for upcoming games when they seem to generate even more interest than playable demos? Tom: Teaser videos can be a powerful cocktail of breathtaking visuals and early insight into a new title. Like E3, they are theatrical in nature and can be, as you astutely pointed out, very influential in that venue. We aren't tempted to release lots of them because it needs to be a simultaneous combination of the right title, the right time, and the right venue. They also take resources to produce, so the decision to make one is pretty well thought out. Ivan: In much the same way that giving away specific gameplay details can spoil games, do you believe that teaser videos do as well? For example, I was absolutely amazed by Resident Evil: Code Veronica's intro, but I would have been even more impressed if I hadn't already seen it before the game's release. Tom: It's a lot like movie trailers. If it gives away the entire plot, it may be interesting but it may significantly hurt your enjoyment of the full-length movie. There is no scientific formula for how much to give away, but there is one concept to keep in mind. Gamers get a lot of their information through word-of-mouth. Your particular experience may have been diminished by seeing something early, but when you share your impressions with your readers and your friends, it has a ripple effect that can build interest in general. Ivan: Do you believe that hyping games de-values the work of developers because it reveals their work to competitors? Would the amount of re-hashes decrease if everyone played their cards a little closer to their chest? Tom: Competitive issues are definitely a concern to developers and publishers. I know I sound like a broken record or a skipping CD here, but everyone involved with a game has to reach a happy medium. No publicity will result in no anticipation, no shelf space, and no sales. I doubt that tight secrecy would reduce re-hashes. If you look at why companies do me-too products, it's not because they found out about the concept while it was in development and whipped something together. They typically see a million-seller out on the market and then do their own version. Ivan: What are your thoughts on 3D Realms' strategy of never announcing a release date for Duke Nukem Forever? Do you think it makes more sense to set a release date and build up the marketing towards it, or to not set a release date at all? Tom: Generally, we set release dates for products and plan marketing accordingly. There are times when that may not make sense, and this may be the case for Duke Nukem Forever. It all depends on many factors, so I can't comment on this case specifically. In general, I think people outside of a project should be less quick to criticize the development process. Perhaps people were slinging arrows at Tolstoy because he was spending too much time finishing some book called War and Peace... Ivan: How much does it hurt a game if you publicly announce a release date and then the game gets delayed? Tom: Well, look at Diablo 2. Theoretically, the delays in that product hurt it, but it has gone down in history as the most successful launch of a PC game ever. I don't think there are any tidy, absolute rules for anything we're discussing here. The best any developer or publisher can do is make a quality product, support it with appropriate "anticipation marketing," and avoid the "H" word. It's best for the consumer and best for the company's bottom line. Send your thoughts on this interview to ivan@mastergamer.com
© 2001 ivan@mastergamer.com