Sup Forums will defend this

Sup Forums will defend this

defend your right to spew retardation without mod intervention?

You damn right

explain this to a brainlet

neogaf

So heavily shilled shitty games make more than hidden gems?

>paying for reviews generates better reviews
>marketing means better sales
>no mention of quality
I didn't know they had an obvious panel at GDC

It's a three-dimensional graph about how well critics about a game are, how much has the game been marketed, and the subsequent revenue of said game for a period of 3 months.

I seriously think developers should be concerned about making a good game instead of grabbing as much shekel as possible you fucking Jews.
It's perfectly possible to make a good game with low budget and low marketing. Look cuphead, undertale, or simply mods and free games like afraid of monsters, cave story...

A bad game with lots of marketing will end up being more successful than a good game with little marketing. It does not matter how good a game is, it's the advertising that sells.

But for every indie game that succeeds, there's a thousand that don't, and a large number that were worthy of enormous success but flopped.

Space Engine, Ring Runner, and Magicka are all well-polished games that deserve enormous success due to their uniqueness, but they're all very obscure.
Although Magicka isn't even an indie game.

>marketing is an important part of the business of video games

Yes, and?

>It does not matter how good a game is, it's the advertising that sells.
>the good games columns sell roughly triple the amount of their corresponding bad counterparts.

And the well marketed games sell roughly sextuple the amount of their corresponding badly marketed counterparts.
Quality matters, but marketing matters twice as much.

>You: It does not matter how good a game is, it's the advertising that sells.
>You now: Okay, it does matter how good a game is.

I think what it's trying to convey is, while people will often blame marketing for ballooning budgets and ultimately making games fail, that money is usually well spent because overmarketing a game is far less harmful than undermarketing it.

While everyone has heard about that bad game which was overmarketed, and some people might buy it just because they recognize the name. No one has heard of that good game that was undermarketed so no one is going to buy it at all.

Which review scores are they counting, IGN ?
You can't tell me shilled garbage like CoD or AC is in the top 33% of review scores.

>It does not matter how good a game is
Do you ignore the difference between 29,2MM and 83,2MM completely?

explanation for retards:
BAD MARKETING+BAD REVIEWS = BLUNDER
BAD MARKETING+GOOD REVIEWS = ALMOST BLUNDER
GOOD MARKETING+BAD REVIEWS = OK
GOOD MARKETING+GOOD REVIEWS = GREAT

So the takeaway is, the game can be shit but as long as you market it you take minimum risk and maximize profits. Any experienced consumer could figure it out already.

The graph posts revenues like that matters. A heavily marketed game is probably AAA and -needs- those absurd revenues to turn a profit. A low advertised game might have a budget of five hamburgers and make more profit, percentage-wise.

The data is also incomplete. The good but low advertised probably spent fucking nothing. The bad but well advertised game spent a large amount more and may well have lost money as a result.

The real question is why do games cost $100,000,000 and have teams in the hundreds now?

Whatever happened to the days when a game was made by a dozen dudes for $750,000 and it's failure wouldn't bankrupt the company? Why can't games on that scale work anymore?

Tell that to Ghostbusters, Battleborn, etc...

>Whatever happened to the days when a game was made by a dozen dudes for $750,000
and in 80's games were usually done by 3 people, cost $20k and only took couple of months to make.

>Why can't games on that scale work anymore?
they still make games like that but those are mostly forgotten. consortium is a good example.