The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It is becoming more common in a world teeming with media and corporate influence to find sponsored or endorsed games. The question is, why do game developers chose to endorse their products, does it really lead to better games? Or it a simple sales ploy to captivate a larger market?
Endorsement of a game is lending a famous name or corporate brand to promote a game. Tony Hawk's 3 is obviously endorsed by skateboard legend, Tony Hawk. However, how much of a say does Tony actually have in the game? The answer is probably very little. Many developers nowadays simply want the name, as it usually results in increased sales. Tony Hawk's 3 is an example of a great game, which also features endorsement. However, a niche does exist for poor games, which sell well on the basis of the name on the cover.
David Beckham's Soccer has been scorned by magazine previews, as ultimately terrible in contrast with other soccer games on the shelves. Do rage really think they can shift truckloads of copies of a fundamentally poor game by virtue of the David Beckham endorsement? Obviously they do. And with the release tying neatly in with World Cup 2002, Rage are set to make a packet.
So a gamer may get a raw deal, but what about in-your-face raw deals gamers face everyday due to rivalling endorsements? It is becoming all to common to find a Player X in a sports game, and by using backward logic, revealing that he in fact is tied up with another corporate game. Is this really what gamers want? The answer is a blatant no. Gamers want realism yes, but ultimately not corporate wars which result in gaping holes in their favourite games. After all where is the world champion BMX rider Dave Mirra in the Mat Hoffman series of games? Similarly where is Hoffman in Mirra's games? The two BMX gurus are obviously caught in the middle of contractual agreements which ultimately leads to a bunch of question marks forming over puzzled gamers heads.
So how far will corporate endorsement go in pursuit of profit? One day could we be seeing the England squad in our favourite football game having only two genuine members because the rest of the team are bound to their own games? This sort of action could drive soccer fans away by the truckload, and the corporation could actually lose out. I was one of many of the original ISS fans who were infuriated by the makeshift player names which we had to endure.
In a completely contrary view however, endorsement can in many cases prove as a plus to the gamer. It can also benefit endorsees exponentially. I am referring yet again to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Admittedly, I would not have heard of Tony Hawk but for the games, so it has proved a big publicity hit for him in the United Kingdom. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games are also brilliant and lucid games on their merits. They are fun, exciting, and rewarding. The endorsement aspect of Tony Hawk's actually does improve the game in my eyes, and you get the aesthetics of his skater crowd every time you play. This for me is one of the most rewarding aspects of the game, and I hope it continues for a long time into the future. However, if a rival company decided to sign up Bucky Lasek for example, resulting in him failing to appear in the next instalment, I would be more than a little begrudged.
So in summary, endorsement is a major part of the gaming market, and this point is unarguable. Many game developers think (for good reasons) that slapping a famous face on their games will sell copies. In fact endorsement is such a big business that games are beginning to suffer in realism as a result. What can we expect from the future? How long will our favourite games last with all the corporate and media influence? Only time will tell, but endorsement rules should laterally coincide with that of games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Endorsement is not a crime, nor does it have to be detrimental to other games, it just has to be carried out in an empathetic and productive manner that will not upset gamers.
Endorsement of a game is lending a famous name or corporate brand to promote a game. Tony Hawk's 3 is obviously endorsed by skateboard legend, Tony Hawk. However, how much of a say does Tony actually have in the game? The answer is probably very little. Many developers nowadays simply want the name, as it usually results in increased sales. Tony Hawk's 3 is an example of a great game, which also features endorsement. However, a niche does exist for poor games, which sell well on the basis of the name on the cover.
David Beckham's Soccer has been scorned by magazine previews, as ultimately terrible in contrast with other soccer games on the shelves. Do rage really think they can shift truckloads of copies of a fundamentally poor game by virtue of the David Beckham endorsement? Obviously they do. And with the release tying neatly in with World Cup 2002, Rage are set to make a packet.
So a gamer may get a raw deal, but what about in-your-face raw deals gamers face everyday due to rivalling endorsements? It is becoming all to common to find a Player X in a sports game, and by using backward logic, revealing that he in fact is tied up with another corporate game. Is this really what gamers want? The answer is a blatant no. Gamers want realism yes, but ultimately not corporate wars which result in gaping holes in their favourite games. After all where is the world champion BMX rider Dave Mirra in the Mat Hoffman series of games? Similarly where is Hoffman in Mirra's games? The two BMX gurus are obviously caught in the middle of contractual agreements which ultimately leads to a bunch of question marks forming over puzzled gamers heads.
So how far will corporate endorsement go in pursuit of profit? One day could we be seeing the England squad in our favourite football game having only two genuine members because the rest of the team are bound to their own games? This sort of action could drive soccer fans away by the truckload, and the corporation could actually lose out. I was one of many of the original ISS fans who were infuriated by the makeshift player names which we had to endure.
In a completely contrary view however, endorsement can in many cases prove as a plus to the gamer. It can also benefit endorsees exponentially. I am referring yet again to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Admittedly, I would not have heard of Tony Hawk but for the games, so it has proved a big publicity hit for him in the United Kingdom. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games are also brilliant and lucid games on their merits. They are fun, exciting, and rewarding. The endorsement aspect of Tony Hawk's actually does improve the game in my eyes, and you get the aesthetics of his skater crowd every time you play. This for me is one of the most rewarding aspects of the game, and I hope it continues for a long time into the future. However, if a rival company decided to sign up Bucky Lasek for example, resulting in him failing to appear in the next instalment, I would be more than a little begrudged.
So in summary, endorsement is a major part of the gaming market, and this point is unarguable. Many game developers think (for good reasons) that slapping a famous face on their games will sell copies. In fact endorsement is such a big business that games are beginning to suffer in realism as a result. What can we expect from the future? How long will our favourite games last with all the corporate and media influence? Only time will tell, but endorsement rules should laterally coincide with that of games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Endorsement is not a crime, nor does it have to be detrimental to other games, it just has to be carried out in an empathetic and productive manner that will not upset gamers.
Page:
It is becoming more common in a world teeming with media and corporate influence to find sponsored or endorsed games. The question is, why do game developers chose to endorse their products, does it really lead to better games? Or it a simple sales ploy to captivate a larger market?
Endorsement of a game is lending a famous name or corporate brand to promote a game. Tony Hawk's 3 is obviously endorsed by skateboard legend, Tony Hawk. However, how much of a say does Tony actually have in the game? The answer is probably very little. Many developers nowadays simply want the name, as it usually results in increased sales. Tony Hawk's 3 is an example of a great game, which also features endorsement. However, a niche does exist for poor games, which sell well on the basis of the name on the cover.
David Beckham's Soccer has been scorned by magazine previews, as ultimately terrible in contrast with other soccer games on the shelves. Do rage really think they can shift truckloads of copies of a fundamentally poor game by virtue of the David Beckham endorsement? Obviously they do. And with the release tying neatly in with World Cup 2002, Rage are set to make a packet.
So a gamer may get a raw deal, but what about in-your-face raw deals gamers face everyday due to rivalling endorsements? It is becoming all to common to find a Player X in a sports game, and by using backward logic, revealing that he in fact is tied up with another corporate game. Is this really what gamers want? The answer is a blatant no. Gamers want realism yes, but ultimately not corporate wars which result in gaping holes in their favourite games. After all where is the world champion BMX rider Dave Mirra in the Mat Hoffman series of games? Similarly where is Hoffman in Mirra's games? The two BMX gurus are obviously caught in the middle of contractual agreements which ultimately leads to a bunch of question marks forming over puzzled gamers heads.
So how far will corporate endorsement go in pursuit of profit? One day could we be seeing the England squad in our favourite football game having only two genuine members because the rest of the team are bound to their own games? This sort of action could drive soccer fans away by the truckload, and the corporation could actually lose out. I was one of many of the original ISS fans who were infuriated by the makeshift player names which we had to endure.
In a completely contrary view however, endorsement can in many cases prove as a plus to the gamer. It can also benefit endorsees exponentially. I am referring yet again to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Admittedly, I would not have heard of Tony Hawk but for the games, so it has proved a big publicity hit for him in the United Kingdom. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games are also brilliant and lucid games on their merits. They are fun, exciting, and rewarding. The endorsement aspect of Tony Hawk's actually does improve the game in my eyes, and you get the aesthetics of his skater crowd every time you play. This for me is one of the most rewarding aspects of the game, and I hope it continues for a long time into the future. However, if a rival company decided to sign up Bucky Lasek for example, resulting in him failing to appear in the next instalment, I would be more than a little begrudged.
So in summary, endorsement is a major part of the gaming market, and this point is unarguable. Many game developers think (for good reasons) that slapping a famous face on their games will sell copies. In fact endorsement is such a big business that games are beginning to suffer in realism as a result. What can we expect from the future? How long will our favourite games last with all the corporate and media influence? Only time will tell, but endorsement rules should laterally coincide with that of games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Endorsement is not a crime, nor does it have to be detrimental to other games, it just has to be carried out in an empathetic and productive manner that will not upset gamers.
Endorsement of a game is lending a famous name or corporate brand to promote a game. Tony Hawk's 3 is obviously endorsed by skateboard legend, Tony Hawk. However, how much of a say does Tony actually have in the game? The answer is probably very little. Many developers nowadays simply want the name, as it usually results in increased sales. Tony Hawk's 3 is an example of a great game, which also features endorsement. However, a niche does exist for poor games, which sell well on the basis of the name on the cover.
David Beckham's Soccer has been scorned by magazine previews, as ultimately terrible in contrast with other soccer games on the shelves. Do rage really think they can shift truckloads of copies of a fundamentally poor game by virtue of the David Beckham endorsement? Obviously they do. And with the release tying neatly in with World Cup 2002, Rage are set to make a packet.
So a gamer may get a raw deal, but what about in-your-face raw deals gamers face everyday due to rivalling endorsements? It is becoming all to common to find a Player X in a sports game, and by using backward logic, revealing that he in fact is tied up with another corporate game. Is this really what gamers want? The answer is a blatant no. Gamers want realism yes, but ultimately not corporate wars which result in gaping holes in their favourite games. After all where is the world champion BMX rider Dave Mirra in the Mat Hoffman series of games? Similarly where is Hoffman in Mirra's games? The two BMX gurus are obviously caught in the middle of contractual agreements which ultimately leads to a bunch of question marks forming over puzzled gamers heads.
So how far will corporate endorsement go in pursuit of profit? One day could we be seeing the England squad in our favourite football game having only two genuine members because the rest of the team are bound to their own games? This sort of action could drive soccer fans away by the truckload, and the corporation could actually lose out. I was one of many of the original ISS fans who were infuriated by the makeshift player names which we had to endure.
In a completely contrary view however, endorsement can in many cases prove as a plus to the gamer. It can also benefit endorsees exponentially. I am referring yet again to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Admittedly, I would not have heard of Tony Hawk but for the games, so it has proved a big publicity hit for him in the United Kingdom. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games are also brilliant and lucid games on their merits. They are fun, exciting, and rewarding. The endorsement aspect of Tony Hawk's actually does improve the game in my eyes, and you get the aesthetics of his skater crowd every time you play. This for me is one of the most rewarding aspects of the game, and I hope it continues for a long time into the future. However, if a rival company decided to sign up Bucky Lasek for example, resulting in him failing to appear in the next instalment, I would be more than a little begrudged.
So in summary, endorsement is a major part of the gaming market, and this point is unarguable. Many game developers think (for good reasons) that slapping a famous face on their games will sell copies. In fact endorsement is such a big business that games are beginning to suffer in realism as a result. What can we expect from the future? How long will our favourite games last with all the corporate and media influence? Only time will tell, but endorsement rules should laterally coincide with that of games such as Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Endorsement is not a crime, nor does it have to be detrimental to other games, it just has to be carried out in an empathetic and productive manner that will not upset gamers.
Yes! endorsements are becoming more and more popular, and no doudt companys' sell more games because of this.
But how mutch more do WE pay for the game.
Games are overpriced? The makers would disagree, they would tell us about the (high) costs of Developing, Testing, Marketing, Packaging etc. And of-course Endorsements.
But do we really need them. If a game is good it will sell, won't it!
Or are Endorsments just an excuse to keep game prices high?
But how mutch more do WE pay for the game.
Games are overpriced? The makers would disagree, they would tell us about the (high) costs of Developing, Testing, Marketing, Packaging etc. And of-course Endorsements.
But do we really need them. If a game is good it will sell, won't it!
Or are Endorsments just an excuse to keep game prices high?
ARGH! typo typo typo
I knew I shouldn't have uninstalled StarOffice.
Sorry.
I knew I shouldn't have uninstalled StarOffice.
Sorry.
Are you going to be writing quality posts EVERY morning?
:)
:)
I dont think endorsements are becomming more popular, they've been used to promote products for decades with, it would appear, enough success for them to continue giving individuals large sums of cash for the ability to use their name with a product.
With computer games themselves, endorsments have been with us almost since the beginning... Daley Thompsons Decathlon and Sam Fox's strip poker come to mind... and definitly as long as movie tie-ins...
I think the idea is that when you have the name you have the image, something immediatly identifiable to the public.
would Tony Hawks have been as popular without his endorsement. I understand its a half-decent title, so it probably would have generated a saolid fanbase, but I dont doubt the added moniker boosted initial sales, and attracted a wider audience to the product.
With Beckham football game, given that he is such an identifiable star, and the world cup is fast approaching, I can see it as acrewing a goodly sum for Rage (not Rare, not Rare, not Rare) over the World Cup period, which may be all they are after?
With computer games themselves, endorsments have been with us almost since the beginning... Daley Thompsons Decathlon and Sam Fox's strip poker come to mind... and definitly as long as movie tie-ins...
I think the idea is that when you have the name you have the image, something immediatly identifiable to the public.
would Tony Hawks have been as popular without his endorsement. I understand its a half-decent title, so it probably would have generated a saolid fanbase, but I dont doubt the added moniker boosted initial sales, and attracted a wider audience to the product.
With Beckham football game, given that he is such an identifiable star, and the world cup is fast approaching, I can see it as acrewing a goodly sum for Rage (not Rare, not Rare, not Rare) over the World Cup period, which may be all they are after?
I'd never heard of Tony Hawk before I played the demo of Tony Hawks 1 on the DC. I loved the game, so I bought it. Not for the name, but because the game was good fun.
Some people will buy the David Beckham soccer just beacuse it has his name on, but at the end of the day, if the game is crap it's their fault that they've wasted their money.
There are so many options for looking into games before you buy them. Magazines and the internet offer so many independant reviews that there really is no excuse for buying a crap game.
As for the point you make about soon an England football game will only have 2 proper players in, that won't happen. Developers would get the rights from the FA, who can always use ALL of the players names, even if they are in another game.
For example, Beckham may not be used to promote the next FIFA game, as he is in his own game, but his name and likeness will still be used in FIFA, if you see what I mean.
Some people will buy the David Beckham soccer just beacuse it has his name on, but at the end of the day, if the game is crap it's their fault that they've wasted their money.
There are so many options for looking into games before you buy them. Magazines and the internet offer so many independant reviews that there really is no excuse for buying a crap game.
As for the point you make about soon an England football game will only have 2 proper players in, that won't happen. Developers would get the rights from the FA, who can always use ALL of the players names, even if they are in another game.
For example, Beckham may not be used to promote the next FIFA game, as he is in his own game, but his name and likeness will still be used in FIFA, if you see what I mean.
Sodding Idiot wrote:
> There are so many options for looking into games before you buy them.
> Magazines and the internet offer so many independant reviews that
> there really is no excuse for buying a crap game.
I dont think most people care... if the average guy wants to buy a game he/she will be more likely to go into EB/Game/etc and see whats on the shelf rather than spend time trawling through months worth of mags to find the interview...
At most I would suspect he would read the reviews at Amazon, etc..
If your not 'into' gaming (hobbyists?) I suspect most people would think they had better thing to do with their time?
> There are so many options for looking into games before you buy them.
> Magazines and the internet offer so many independant reviews that
> there really is no excuse for buying a crap game.
I dont think most people care... if the average guy wants to buy a game he/she will be more likely to go into EB/Game/etc and see whats on the shelf rather than spend time trawling through months worth of mags to find the interview...
At most I would suspect he would read the reviews at Amazon, etc..
If your not 'into' gaming (hobbyists?) I suspect most people would think they had better thing to do with their time?
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> If your not 'into' gaming (hobbyists?) I suspect most people would
> think they had better thing to do with their time?
Fair point, but if I was spending £30+ of my hard earned, and make damn sure I was going to enjoy the game.
At the very least I'd pop on the 'net and have a look at a couple of reviews. Most shops have web-sites with customer reviews on, so I'd have a look at that, decide from there what game I want, and then go down the shop to buy it.
Failing that, they have magazines in the shop so you could pick a game you want, then have a quick flick through the magzine to see a review score - you wouldn't even have to buy the mag!
I just don't feel sorry for people that out, buy any old game without looking into at all, and then complain that it's crap. It serves them right for being stupid, is my view.
> If your not 'into' gaming (hobbyists?) I suspect most people would
> think they had better thing to do with their time?
Fair point, but if I was spending £30+ of my hard earned, and make damn sure I was going to enjoy the game.
At the very least I'd pop on the 'net and have a look at a couple of reviews. Most shops have web-sites with customer reviews on, so I'd have a look at that, decide from there what game I want, and then go down the shop to buy it.
Failing that, they have magazines in the shop so you could pick a game you want, then have a quick flick through the magzine to see a review score - you wouldn't even have to buy the mag!
I just don't feel sorry for people that out, buy any old game without looking into at all, and then complain that it's crap. It serves them right for being stupid, is my view.
My GAD winning post called 'The Frankie Dettori Pizza' had similar ideas.
The pizza company used a well known Italian to endorse their pizzas hoping that he would attract lots of custom, similar to games developers signing up someone like David Beckham; a big name to endorse a product, hoping to shift copies by the brand name alone, forgetting to make a good pizza or game.
Fifa mainly relies on its official sponsorships and endorsements to sell many a game. Its main selling point is those official names and the actual game engine (the most important part) has pretty much remained the same for the last 4 or 5 years apart from steady graphical improvements. All footie game purists know that ISS is better, despite less advertising & hype.
Some endorsemants, like the Colin McCrae series work because they are good games that have had technical knowledge provided by drivers and car manufacturers, others, like Harry Potter, are merely cash-ins and offer a shallow gaming experience.
The pizza company used a well known Italian to endorse their pizzas hoping that he would attract lots of custom, similar to games developers signing up someone like David Beckham; a big name to endorse a product, hoping to shift copies by the brand name alone, forgetting to make a good pizza or game.
Fifa mainly relies on its official sponsorships and endorsements to sell many a game. Its main selling point is those official names and the actual game engine (the most important part) has pretty much remained the same for the last 4 or 5 years apart from steady graphical improvements. All footie game purists know that ISS is better, despite less advertising & hype.
Some endorsemants, like the Colin McCrae series work because they are good games that have had technical knowledge provided by drivers and car manufacturers, others, like Harry Potter, are merely cash-ins and offer a shallow gaming experience.
Sodding Idiot wrote:
> Fair point, but if I was spending £30+ of my hard earned, and
> make damn sure I was going to enjoy the game.
>
> At the very least I'd pop on the 'net and have a look at a couple of
> reviews. Most shops have web-sites with customer reviews on, so I'd
> have a look at that, decide from there what game I want, and then go
> down the shop to buy it.
>
> Failing that, they have magazines in the shop so you could pick a
> game you want, then have a quick flick through the magzine to see a
> review score - you wouldn't even have to buy the mag!
>
> I just don't feel sorry for people that out, buy any old game without
> looking into at all, and then complain that it's crap. It serves them
> right for being stupid, is my view.
I know what you mean... its second nature to me to, at the very least, check on-line reviews for a game before I pay up...
On the other hand, I'd be hard pushed to not spend more than 30quid when I'm out for the evening...
I suppose it depends on personal values? ... I usually invest quite a bit of time and energy into games playing, so its important I know what I'm buying... But to other people its may well just be a way of passing a few Saturday afternoons?
> Fair point, but if I was spending £30+ of my hard earned, and
> make damn sure I was going to enjoy the game.
>
> At the very least I'd pop on the 'net and have a look at a couple of
> reviews. Most shops have web-sites with customer reviews on, so I'd
> have a look at that, decide from there what game I want, and then go
> down the shop to buy it.
>
> Failing that, they have magazines in the shop so you could pick a
> game you want, then have a quick flick through the magzine to see a
> review score - you wouldn't even have to buy the mag!
>
> I just don't feel sorry for people that out, buy any old game without
> looking into at all, and then complain that it's crap. It serves them
> right for being stupid, is my view.
I know what you mean... its second nature to me to, at the very least, check on-line reviews for a game before I pay up...
On the other hand, I'd be hard pushed to not spend more than 30quid when I'm out for the evening...
I suppose it depends on personal values? ... I usually invest quite a bit of time and energy into games playing, so its important I know what I'm buying... But to other people its may well just be a way of passing a few Saturday afternoons?
Page: