Drawing on the "COD" crowd on other genres

[NOK222]

Now let me take this opening statement to say this isn't a jab at Bioware, EA or other companies that express similar sentiments.

 

I was lurking BSN and found this.

 

John Epler, A Dragon Age dev

 

Oh hey, someone's misrepresenting the CoD statement again.

 

Time to take a shot.

 

For the record - the statement was, essentially, 'some of the people who almost exclusively play CoD games might enjoy the kinds of games we make and just not know it, so we'd like to entice them in by showing them what we offer'.

 

But, you know, if you'd rather say 'THEY'RE JUST GOING TO MAKE CALL OF DRAGON AGE AND IGNORE US', that's certainly an interpretation of reality you're allowed to make.

 

There was also something that was said much earlier, around DA2's launch.

 

Fernando Melo

 

“We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”

 

What do you guys think of enticing Call of Duty players to RPGs? Good,Bad, just a business practice to stay alive?

Edited October 7, 2012 by NKKKK

[flarglebargle]

i love rpgs they are my favorite type of game avernum,geneforge,morrowind,PS:T, but i like FPS and i enjoyed COD 1&2 BUT FPS and RPGs are nothing alike and mixing them is bad BAD and certin companies that shall remain nameless like to try add cram aspects from multiple game types into 1 game and end up ruining it, by all means obsidian should advertize to the COD crowd and say HEY why not try something new? but they shouldn't add anything to PE that isn't a part of a good RPG

[Tale]

I don't care what games the COD players are interested in. I wouldn't begin to understand how to care about that.

 

If a game is made in a way that lacks appeal to me, then the consequences are self-explanatory. However, if they're just putting out commercials or ads to appeal to a group, I do not care.

[GhostofAnakin]

I think it's a difficult balancing act. In order to appeal to a wider audience, certain features have to be added or changed. Since we're talking about the "CoD crowd", that inevitably results in more shooter elements added, as well as a shift to more focus on MP.

 

But the problem is two-fold:

1-They risk alienating the current fans who like the games as they currently.

2-The changes might still not be enough to draw the newer crowd they're trying to draw in.

 

So the result could be a game that the "CoD crowd" isn't interested in and the old fans losing interest because it's no longer the type of game they like in the first place.

[Humanoid]

I don't know the first thing about marketing, but the main thing I would think of in this situation would be to reverse the roles: what would the shooter marketers do if they were instructed to try specifically to grab the RPG/Adventure/Strategy/whathaveyou crowd. For someone fairly stubborn and set in their own ways, like myself, it's not hard to imagine slipping up and sort of offending me instead. I see this not irregularly with other markets, e.g. an outdoor activities ad campaign that denigrates other tastes like video gaming, the opera, fine dining, etc. I suppose that on the other hand, these people are not your market anyway and you're free to annoy them.

 

I don't think for a moment that everyone's like that, but it's something to keep in mind - doing it "wrong" can put one, or indeed both sides, offside.

 

 

EDIT: I've kind of misread the subject, but anyway - it looks like the debate is one of either simply advertising to the other side, versus adapting (some might say, compromising) your product to try to appeal to the other side.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Humanoid

[Humanoid]

I'm missing a bit of context here because the initial quote talks about "the CoD statement" as a thing, and one I'm not aware about (but can sort of infer). I'd imagine any arguments about the topic aren't about this claim in itself, because ultimately it's pretty mild and obvious. Instead I'd assume it's about any perceived mismatch between that statement and the corresponding direction taken by the games.

 

The quote "....so we'd like to entice them in by showing them what we offer" is not valid if you do the enticement by changing the product that is offered.

[mute688]

And this is why I deleted my BSN account and stopped playing Bioware games. They are honestly bemused by why anyone would be concerned over this attitude.

[alanschu]

I would think of in this situation would be to reverse the roles: what would the shooter marketers do if they were instructed to try specifically to grab the RPG/Adventure/Strategy/whathaveyou crowd.

 

Ironically I find that many other types of games already do things that do catch the eyes of people that like RPGs. For example, I haven't picked up a sports game in years to actually focus on playing the sports aspect of the game. There's some level of GM mode (where you can try to focus on improving the players, the team, the market) that has always intrigued me, and even more recently the idea of "Be A Pro" where there's character progression by accomplishing milestones and performing while that leads to character growth.

 

While NBA 2k11 totally did the "I'm going to get Allan to buy this game" by making game modes that revolved around Michael Jordan's career, the MyPlayer mode is what kept me coming back. It was improved upon in 2k12, allowing more variability in how the player directs his career including even negotiating salaries and frankly just making the mode deeper all around. 2k13 seems to be upping it up a notch even more, by really expanding the level of options the player has OFF the court. Including little details like getting feedback from fans on Twitter and deciding which companies you wish to endorse for extra money (which can be converted into training sessions for more attributes, or doing charity events to raise your fan awareness and stuff like that).

 

It looks insanely deep and I'm really looking forward to it, and it's pretty much the only reason why I'll be picking up the game.

 

A lot of other games offer RPG like elements with character progressions and whatnot, including XCOM (the new AND the old... although the new seems to focus a bit more on it!), various shooters (going back, there's ones like NOLF2, Deus Ex, and DEHR... the Deus Ex ones arguably being just First person RPGs in many ways).

 

 

With respect to "enticing the CoD crowd" (or perhaps more generally, atypical RPG players), part of the motivation is that they are already playing games that feature some level of RPG elements and (unfortunately) there is a stigma that many have towards RPGs just based on their reputation going back which makes people avoid them when really many of the same elements that they like in other games are present in RPG. So yeah, DA2 was a bit of an experiment in that regard. One that didn't seem to hit its mark, unfortunately.

 

Looking at the other BioWare game, I think ME3 did a bit better with it. Say what you will about the story itself, but I think offering "Story mode" and "Action mode" are interesting elements that, if designed from the beginning, shouldn't take away too much from the "RPG mode" since they're just leveraging assets that exist for the standard RPG mode. I think the MP is an interesting idea too because it is mildly related to the story, allows the level of character progression, and has a more "viral" effect in that friends will be proactive in encouraging friends to pick up the game so they can play together (although I think I may overestimate this. I am constantly surprised by the impression that most people seem to associate MP gaming with playing with random people, which is something I almost never do...). It's also had a benefit of giving some of the "core" fans more enjoyment, as there are definitely non-trivial numbers of people that have stated they weren't really too keen on MP being included, but after playing it have really enjoyed it. I am curious if there are any that picked it up because they were always sort of on the fence, and MP tipped the scales for them the same way MyCareer tips the scales for me in NBA 2k13. If so, do any of them decide to go back and pick up the previous games after playing ME3's single player?

 

I'm not saying MP is necessarily the way to go, but I think from a mechanics point of view, it's probably a way to experiment with alternative gameplay styles without disrupting the core single player experience. Annoying EMS dependencies not withstanding... (so glad that's finally resolved).

Edited October 7, 2012 by alanschu

[NOK222]

I think it's a difficult balancing act. In order to appeal to a wider audience, certain features have to be added or changed. Since we're talking about the "CoD crowd", that inevitably results in more shooter elements added, as well as a shift to more focus on MP.

 

But the problem is two-fold:

1-They risk alienating the current fans who like the games as they currently.

2-The changes might still not be enough to draw the newer crowd they're trying to draw in.

 

So the result could be a game that the "CoD crowd" isn't interested in and the old fans losing interest because it's no longer the type of game they like in the first place.

 

Which is pretty much what happened.

 

Mass Effect is a game that can have multiplayer, I don't think Dragon Age is though.

Edited October 7, 2012 by NKKKK

[Hurlshort]

It's good for Bioware and probably bad for us, I suppose. I think the CoD audience is also a much easier target to hit.

 

I knew I was no longer the target audience as soon as blood splatter became a major selling point.

[NOK222]

It's good for Bioware

 

Except it wasn't, at least with Dragon Age.

Edited October 7, 2012 by NKKKK

[GhostofAnakin]

It's good for Bioware and probably bad for us, I suppose. I think the CoD audience is also a much easier target to hit.

 

I knew I was no longer the target audience as soon as blood splatter became a major selling point.

 

It's good for BioWare financially if it works. But, has it? How many from the CoD crowd have started purchasing BioWare games after they started changing their games to fit a broader audience?

 

(I'm honestly asking, not being sarcastic)

[Nonek]

I would suspect that with pre orders and the limited development time that Dragon Age 2 worked at least in the short term, there seems to be a lot of negativity raised over the game however and I admit that if i'd known it was to be an action rpg I would have waited and bought it on a steam sale rather than pre ordering the signature edition, so they may well have sacrificed the long term viability of the franchise for those short term profits.

 

However if they knock it out of the park with Dragon Age 3, then all might be forgiven, as most businesses are judged on their last viable success. There's a certain portion of their old audience however whom I think they might have alienated inextricably.

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty sure Dragon Age 2 was good for Bioware. It had a short development cycle and sold 2 million plus copies.

 

Forum users like us represent a very small fraction of the customer base. We may be unhappy with the game, but that doesn't really mean it's bad business. The ratings took a hit, but not a tremendous one. It will be difficult to tell how that will affect the bottom line until DA3 comes out.

 

It's pretty hard to figure out if these customers are CoD players without some sort of polling method. I can say that when I stood in line for ME3 at my local game shop, I was horrified by the conversations people were having about Dragon Age 2. It was lowest common denominator stuff, and I imagine these are the large CoD base that Bioware is hoping to pull in.

[Zoraptor]

It didn't sell 2 million+ copies though, that's Vologic- it shipped 2 million copies and that there was never a DA2: Ultimate Edition specifically due to lack of retailer interest, presumably because that initial shipment did not shift. That's in contrast to DAO which had at least four shipments to retail.

 

DA2 may have done OK financially due to the short dev cycle reducing costs but it had a more negative reception both critical and fan, and sold worse than DAO- which was Bioware's most successful title without having much artificial CoD crowd appeal.

[Hurlshort]

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding any very concrete sales figures, you might be right about missing that 2 million mark.

 

I really wish there was more transparency about sales figures and development costs. It would make arguing on the internet much better

[Magnum Opus]

EDIT: I've kind of misread the subject, but anyway - it looks like the debate is one of either simply advertising to the other side, versus adapting (some might say, compromising) your product to try to appeal to the other side.

I don't know... I thought you read it right. Not least because I personally see the above quotes in the OP as being more than a little disingenuous: While they speak of "just showing" how there are a scant few and threadbare RPG elements in the CoD-audience games, they've also been openly moving to shooter-style combat -- or at the very least, hyperactive twitch action combat -- while at the same time sweeping those RPG elements they're claiming to have under the rug like some dirty little secret.

 

Maybe they were just speaking hypothetically, in which case I can't fault the above quotes, but what they've actually been doing has been a lot more than "just showing", from where I've been sitting.

[AGX-17]

The prescient issue is that they're simply changing the commonly-held definition of the term "RPG" in order to defend the *ahem* "casualization" of their products in the face of criticism from the admittedly smaller, (and thus less profitable,) RPG-focused community, If adding RPG elements actually led CODBLOPS fans to play more RPGs, RPG sales would be up and games like DA2 would be more like BG than a dating-sim set in a complex of concrete cubes. It simply hasn't worked because it was never meant to.

Edited October 7, 2012 by AGX-17

[NOK222]

and thus less profitable,

 

And this in itself is troublesome, are RPG fans really unprofitable? Or this just corporate jargon that comes from a lack of understanding of genres and gamers?

[Zoraptor]

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding any very concrete sales figures, you might be right about missing that 2 million mark.

 

I really wish there was more transparency about sales figures and development costs. It would make arguing on the internet much better

It certainly would. Best you can do most of the time is draw inferences from things like the total shipped, as you know that if there are additional shipments then the bulk of the initial one must have sold and the publisher will happily tell you about it too since it's Good News, else it's all trawling through quarterly reports and the like or VGChartz style guestimates. For DA2 the only really solid numbers were the numbers shipped and the very high number of pre-orders, plus the admission that retailers weren't interested in restocking it.

[Gorth]

and thus less profitable,

 

And this in itself is troublesome, are RPG fans really unprofitable? Or this just corporate jargon that comes from a lack of understanding of genres and gamers?

They seem unprofitable for AAA budgets. Publishers are always looking for best ROI. If you got $100m to invest, you are going to invest them in the 300% return rather than the 150% return (arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air). It's how business works. Providers will irresistibly drift towards a singularity where they imagine the holy grail is (i.e. something all gamers would want) at the expense of niches. Nothing mysterious about it. Look at all the companies having wet dreams about getting a share of the WoW crowd.

[Grimlorn]

What do you guys think of enticing Call of Duty players to RPGs? Good,Bad, just a business practice to stay alive?

A desperate move to sell copies so EA doesn't close down Bioware and/or roll their studios into EA.

 

I also find the comment by Epler funny. Pretty sure most gamers would agree that people interested in FPS games like COD aren't going to be interested in RPGs. Even games like DA2 where there is a lot of dialogue and managing a party in combat. He makes that comment about interpreting reality wrong, but apparently they don't even understand the COD fanbase and choose to "believe" they'll be interested in a game like DA2.

 

It's really just a comment to catch CODtards attention and get them to check out DA2 by saying it's something they would like. Of course it didn't work.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Grimlorn

[pmp10]

What do you guys think of enticing Call of Duty players to RPGs? Good,Bad, just a business practice to stay alive?

A desperate move to sell copies so EA doesn't close down Bioware and/or roll their studios into EA.

 

I also find the comment by Epler funny. Pretty sure most gamers would agree that people interested in FPS games like COD aren't going to be interested in RPGs. Even games like DA2 where there is a lot of dialogue and managing a party in combat. He makes that comment about interpreting reality wrong, but apparently they don't even understand the COD fanbase and choose to "believe" they'll be interested in a game like DA2.

 

It's really just a comment to catch CODtards attention and get them to check out DA2 by saying it's something they would like. Of course it didn't work.

That's an interesting view point.

Would you say that there is no chance of mass-effect appealing to COD audience as well?

[Orogun01]

What do you guys think of enticing Call of Duty players to RPGs? Good,Bad, just a business practice to stay alive?

A desperate move to sell copies so EA doesn't close down Bioware and/or roll their studios into EA.

 

I also find the comment by Epler funny. Pretty sure most gamers would agree that people interested in FPS games like COD aren't going to be interested in RPGs. Even games like DA2 where there is a lot of dialogue and managing a party in combat. He makes that comment about interpreting reality wrong, but apparently they don't even understand the COD fanbase and choose to "believe" they'll be interested in a game like DA2.

 

It's really just a comment to catch CODtards attention and get them to check out DA2 by saying it's something they would like. Of course it didn't work.

That's an interesting view point.

Would you say that there is no chance of mass-effect appealing to COD audience as well?

I thought of ME2 as well when reading that comment, the game certainly has a distinctive GOW feel to it with some Rpg elements. It seems something that might appeal to a core FPS player looking to branch out. Whether DA2 was affected by this change in target demographic or if this change came about because of pressure from higher up is a different matter. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the direction of the game midway.

[alanschu]

I wouldn't say that the direction of DA2 changed midway, though I would agree that there was some level of influence from ME2 (looking at things like imports and whatnot in particular), as well as some general feedback that was received from people that played DAO and even the ME games.

 

I'd say that the transition worked well for the most part for ME2 played a part in us being more aggressive in our changes than we probably should have been.

 

 

EDIT: I'm trying to remember when Fernando made his comments, and what is specific role with the company was at that time. He is responsible for "general post launch support" type stuff now, and if he was when that comment was made then his statement arguably doesn't apply to just DA2 but both franchises.

Edited October 8, 2012 by alanschu