I'll add that a marketing person still has an important role in informing onlookers about the game. A good number of games flop because the screenshots and trailers fail to convey what the game's strengths are, and who the audience is. A glass of orange juice tastes disgusting if you take a blind sip and expect it to be milk.
Avowed got pretty mixed reception initially because people expected an epic Skyrim-like RPG, but really it's a smaller game that has more focus on lore, plot, and worldbuilding.
I’ve been thinking about some of these ideas recently so this is cool! Especially when considering recent examples like Veilguard’s disappointing sales compared to its solid reviews, this feels like a timely article.
One thing I’ve been considering with games compared to other forms of media is the time investment that games require. While true success does require high NPS scores in most if not all media, I feel like that burden is greater in games. I’m much more likely to watch a middle of the road movie thats only two hours long than pick up a middle of the road game that requires tens of hours to complete.
To me that would make metrics like NPS much more important for games compared to shorter and cheaper entertainment experiences. Do you have any thoughts on this maybe?
100% agree the burden is higher for games. Even free-to-play games require a VERY strong WoM because players have learned that they'll likely have to invest many hours into them to get the real payoff.
1) How representative do you think a game's NPS score during the early stages is of the final NPS when the game is live?
2) How much do you think marketing can actually influence the NPS itself?
I think you'd want to test NPS regularly if possible, but the results are going to be heavily influenced by timing. There's also some influence that marketing has on taking a game to the upper NPS echelons -- particularly if you extend the definition of marketing to include the entire player experience.
For 1), it's a great question... one thing I've seen is that people tend to be overly generous with their responses the earlier you are with your game... whereas they're more honest once you're live. It probably depends on the target audience you're going for and how spicy they are. Either way, it's probably best to pair NPS with something like the "40%" test question Sean Ellis came up with for measuring product-market fit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product-market_fit
2) I have no idea. If you make a really amazing shareable asset like a trailer that definitely facilitates sharing and WOM. But I don't know that the marketing's impact would show up in the NPS itself.
This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. I began with the assumption that it seemed likely one could make a great game that still "falls through cracks". But I had trouble coming up with any concrete examples of a game that definitively deserved a large audience but struggled to find one. Based on its glowing reviews, "Arco" is probably the best candidate (it's doing better, I think, but nowhere near a breakout success).
In reality I think it is more likely for a not-great game to find success than the other way around. It feels odd to say that, but I've seen not-great games capture the attention of players and online magazines, usually due to a mechanic or topic that strikes a chord in that cultural moment.
I'll add that a marketing person still has an important role in informing onlookers about the game. A good number of games flop because the screenshots and trailers fail to convey what the game's strengths are, and who the audience is. A glass of orange juice tastes disgusting if you take a blind sip and expect it to be milk.
Avowed got pretty mixed reception initially because people expected an epic Skyrim-like RPG, but really it's a smaller game that has more focus on lore, plot, and worldbuilding.
Avowed isn't a Skyrim-like? You're telling me this for the first time.
I’ve been thinking about some of these ideas recently so this is cool! Especially when considering recent examples like Veilguard’s disappointing sales compared to its solid reviews, this feels like a timely article.
One thing I’ve been considering with games compared to other forms of media is the time investment that games require. While true success does require high NPS scores in most if not all media, I feel like that burden is greater in games. I’m much more likely to watch a middle of the road movie thats only two hours long than pick up a middle of the road game that requires tens of hours to complete.
To me that would make metrics like NPS much more important for games compared to shorter and cheaper entertainment experiences. Do you have any thoughts on this maybe?
Thanks for your time, it was a great read.
100% agree the burden is higher for games. Even free-to-play games require a VERY strong WoM because players have learned that they'll likely have to invest many hours into them to get the real payoff.
another table banger for PtoT
I think I'd agree with angle here.
1) How representative do you think a game's NPS score during the early stages is of the final NPS when the game is live?
2) How much do you think marketing can actually influence the NPS itself?
I think you'd want to test NPS regularly if possible, but the results are going to be heavily influenced by timing. There's also some influence that marketing has on taking a game to the upper NPS echelons -- particularly if you extend the definition of marketing to include the entire player experience.
Wassup Mark! Glad to see you here.
For 1), it's a great question... one thing I've seen is that people tend to be overly generous with their responses the earlier you are with your game... whereas they're more honest once you're live. It probably depends on the target audience you're going for and how spicy they are. Either way, it's probably best to pair NPS with something like the "40%" test question Sean Ellis came up with for measuring product-market fit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product-market_fit
2) I have no idea. If you make a really amazing shareable asset like a trailer that definitely facilitates sharing and WOM. But I don't know that the marketing's impact would show up in the NPS itself.
Agree with your points.
This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. I began with the assumption that it seemed likely one could make a great game that still "falls through cracks". But I had trouble coming up with any concrete examples of a game that definitively deserved a large audience but struggled to find one. Based on its glowing reviews, "Arco" is probably the best candidate (it's doing better, I think, but nowhere near a breakout success).
In reality I think it is more likely for a not-great game to find success than the other way around. It feels odd to say that, but I've seen not-great games capture the attention of players and online magazines, usually due to a mechanic or topic that strikes a chord in that cultural moment.
We need more curators that handle 7-8/10 games!