inherit
205
0
1
Oct 16, 2019 18:36:27 GMT -6
1,635
crocodile
1,088
Jun 27, 2015 16:51:30 GMT -6
June 2015
crocodile
|
Post by crocodile on Jul 12, 2016 19:55:08 GMT -6
While I'm sure many will disagree, I think there is a more basic danger in multi-media franchising than most people realize. The way I see it, consumer products respond to consumer hunger: if the hunger is there, consumers will eat the products up; but if you're stuffed, then you won't be eating anything, no matter how good the product is. So, if you launch a game and it's successful, you'll leave people hungry for more, which justifies the existence of the tie-in; but if you launch a game with too many tie-ins, you risk stuffing the consumer base before it's gotten a chance to develop a real hunger for the franchise. With well established franchises like Batman, Spiderman, Star Wars and such, the amount hunger for tie-ins is already well known - and note that these did not exist when the original property was launched. It's similar with Final Fantasy XV: while the game itself is new, the franchise itself is old (and the original property did not have any tie-ins). When you attempt to launch a property as a multimedia franchise, you're making the initial acceptance of the product that much more difficult, because there's already all this "food" before you're even hungry. You've had enough of the game before you've even tried it. This is the gut reaction, I think, but it needs a rationalization. So, the rationalization becomes something like this: which is the main property? The game? The comic? The anime? The book? Why does it need so many mediums? Do I get the full experience if I just get one, or is each designed to lure me into buying others?In the case of a Kickstarter, the rationalization becomes much more straight-forward: they're using my money without my permission. This may not be the case, but it doesn't matter - people are trying to rationalize their dissatisfaction.
Most powerful of all, I think, is this apparent contradiction: if this is a property that needed crowd funding to get off the ground, why is it suddenly a franchise? Now, you can argue that the answer is simple: the crowd funding success is what enabled the property to become a franchise in the first place. But that's not the way people's perception works: the sight of an "independent" game being marketed like "fully-established" property makes the "independent" label seem like a scam, even if it isn't.This is what I ultimately think marketeers misunderstand: it's one thing to bring out tie-ins with the latest installment to an established franchise, and another to launch a new franchise with countless tie-ins to begin with. It goes double for crowd-funded projects. Is this based on any data or just anecdote and "gut"? You're of course right in that its a risk if you try a multimedia approach and the main, anchor product is subpar but there have been too many examples of new IPs or IP launches in new markets (where you aren't guaranteed to replicate success) or significant reboots (significant enough to not have a guaranteed audience) that have successfully launched with a multimedia approach to say issues with demand is a given. One of the boons of trying a multimedia approach is that if your base product is successful, you are already primed to make a lot of money and fast. For some of these IPs, the time to capitalize off them (or at least extract the most money) can pass if you wait for confirmed success before you launch your off-shoots. A multimedia approach also has a reinforcing effect. If your main product is a videogame, having a TV show or a comic or whatever can reach those who aren't interested in videogames but consume those other forms of media to become aware of your IP. That hook may lead them to explore the game itself or other related media. It also allows you to exploit multiple revenue streams from the same person or groups of people. The part I underlined is something I've anecdotally seen in the wild though and its unfortunate because as I said before, it's rarely born out of any truth or reality - just assumptions. It also REALLY reminds me of this picture below (which also applies to a million other cases in life):  Once people decided they hated MN9, literally anything they did was seen in a negative light. Combined with the actually dumb stuff they did, it was not a good time for Inafune et al. I think for KS projects, the most important commodities are goodwill and trust. Because of this, I think a slow burn approach is the best way to go (which I think overall is your point - I just took objection with some of your characterizations of multimedia strategies). Shovel Knight is perhaps the ur-example. Crossovers are super common in the indie world in part because of a shared sense of comradeship ("we are all indies!") and because most indies are very lax with their IP and will loan it out free-of-charge to any fellow indie they like and trust. Shovel Knight however is crossover happy with I think is up to like 14 different game/IP crossovers (Battletoads, God of War, Runbow, Bloodstained, Gunvolt, Indivisble, Starr Mazer, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Cook, Serve, Delicious: Battle Kitchen, The Reward: Tales of Alethrion, Road Redemption, Creepy Castle, Pixel Noir & Move or Die). All those things help build exposure for the Shovel Knight brand. That combined with stuff like the amiibo has really elevated the Shovel Knight IP. That's probably the best avenue to take with Bloodstained just because backer trust can be so finicky. Maybe a small cross media project like a short manga (sorry Goobsausage but I doubt Marvel or DC even know or care about Bloodstained right now - maybe years in the future if the game is a HUGE hit) but launch the game, expand its exposure through the videogame landscape (crossovers) and than build upon that with merch or an OVA leading into or alongside a second game. Something similar to like Inticreates is doing with Gunvolt. |
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jul 13, 2016 0:19:07 GMT -6
Is this based on any data or just anecdote and "gut"? I prefer the term "introspective analysis", but I guess anecdote and gut will do.  You're of course right in that its a risk if you try a multimedia approach and the main, anchor product is subpar but there have been too many examples of new IPs or IP launches in new markets (where you aren't guaranteed to replicate success) or significant reboots (significant enough to not have a guaranteed audience) that have successfully launched with a multimedia approach to say issues with demand is a given. One of the boons of trying a multimedia approach is that if your base product is successful, you are already primed to make a lot of money and fast. For some of these IPs, the time to capitalize off them (or at least extract the most money) can pass if you wait for confirmed success before you launch your off-shoots. A multimedia approach also has a reinforcing effect. If your main product is a videogame, having a TV show or a comic or whatever can reach those who aren't interested in videogames but consume those other forms of media to become aware of your IP. That hook may lead them to explore the game itself or other related media. It also allows you to exploit multiple revenue streams from the same person or groups of people. To clarify, I didn't mean to say issues with the demand were a given - just very likely. I could be wrong, though, but I can't really bring to mind any examples of the multimedia approach having a noticeable effect on a product launch. I'd be happy to hear of some counter examples, of course. It might be that I was away from the western markets too long, but in Japan I saw the multimedia approach a lot and ... my impression was that it mainly worked in instances where there was really no main franchise, so to speak, or when the franchise was niche to begin with. Hobby Japan does it a lot with what I like to call their, uh, kinky portfolio... which is just about all of their portfolio, but the situation's a bit different (they know the products have limited appeal but that people who are into kinky franchises will buy into it just because it's kinky.) The part I underlined is something I've anecdotally seen in the wild though and its unfortunate because as I said before, it's rarely born out of any truth or reality - just assumptions. It also REALLY reminds me of this picture below (which also applies to a million other cases in life): Once people decided they hated MN9, literally anything they did was seen in a negative light. Combined with the actually dumb stuff they did, it was not a good time for Inafune et al. I think for KS projects, the most important commodities are goodwill and trust. Because of this, I think a slow burn approach is the best way to go (which I think overall is your point - I just took objection with some of your characterizations of multimedia strategies). Yeah, damn little bitch probably had Inafune buy her those crackers with the money raised for Mighty Number 9, wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, slow burn approach is good, yes. With Mighty Number 9, I mean, yeah, that was a perfect storm, if ever there was one... you could list the missteps they made one by one, and who was responsible for each, but I think that when you get right down to it, the big difference between MN9 and Bloodstained is that IGA understands the crowdfunding paradigm better than Inafune. I don't mean this as a knock against Inafune, I mean it as a compliment to IGA. He may be a quiet guy, but he's really good at communicating with the fanbase and making them feel like they're a part of the project. Some examples of this: 1. In the crowd funding video, he specified that he had additional, external backing and that the kickstarter was not the full budget for the game, but only something to show that there was a market for the game. 2. He asked the dev team to come up with a new shader based on community feedback, which ended up being the one adopted for the game. The process was so transparent that even the few who dislike the shader have nothing against IGA ( well, I'm sure there must be someone who's angry, but you guys know what I mean). 3. He provided a free demo to backers that he hadn't even promised at the time of the crowdfunding campaign. The demo was extremely successful in that it reassured fans the game was on the right track, while at the same time it offered the developers valuable feedback relatively early in the production cycle (see how he's building trust here?) 4. When he mentioned the possibility of an NX version in place of a Wii U version, he was quick to mention that he wouldn't make a decision on this without consulting backers first. 5. When he mentioned the possibility of spin-off products just now, he clarified that he himself was focused on the game at this point. 6. He chose a great community manager! It's unfortunate that you can basically take each of these examples and find a perfect counter example for Inafune on the MN9 project.  |
|
purifyweirdshard
Administrator
Administrator 
Calling from Heaven
Posts: 3,789
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
inherit
Administrator
210
0
1
Oct 25, 2024 0:03:05 GMT -6
3,660
purifyweirdshard
Calling from Heaven
3,789
Jun 29, 2015 7:24:38 GMT -6
June 2015
purifyweirdsoul
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
|
Post by purifyweirdshard on Jul 13, 2016 8:55:42 GMT -6
There's a bit less stress on establishing a new IP to start up that hunger in Bloodstained's case since it's not entirely a completely new product. The hunger is already there, carried over from Castlevania. It's a bit different in the case of something completely indie that's not necessarily a successor to anything. This same kind of thing could have pushed success of MN9s's franchise, but as been pointed out time and time again, things took a few turns that turned people off.
Even from the start in that case - I consider myself a pretty decent Mega Man fan. Really, at no point did I connect with or like Beck's design or that of what I had seen on the campaign page. It didn't appeal to me as much as the style of X or Mega Man Zero, and the gameplay shown/described didn't really impress me either. I imagine a lot of people felt the same way, but backed the game just thinking it would likely be a good Mega Man style game notwithstanding. Bloodstained on the other hand, is about as Castlevania as it can be while also being a new thing, checking almost all of the right boxes. In this game's case, along with how great the campaign was and how it continues to be, the situation is looking much different, with a climate more agreeable to expanding the brand.
All that said, yes, the game is definitely the first and only thing to focus on right now. When it is done and we're moving into staggered content, assuming fan fatigue hasn't set in in any significant way as it did with MN9, we should be all ready to receive any manner of tasteful tie-ins, crossovers and merchandise.
|
|
inherit
205
0
1
Oct 16, 2019 18:36:27 GMT -6
1,635
crocodile
1,088
Jun 27, 2015 16:51:30 GMT -6
June 2015
crocodile
|
Post by crocodile on Jul 13, 2016 11:00:49 GMT -6
You're of course right in that its a risk if you try a multimedia approach and the main, anchor product is subpar but there have been too many examples of new IPs or IP launches in new markets (where you aren't guaranteed to replicate success) or significant reboots (significant enough to not have a guaranteed audience) that have successfully launched with a multimedia approach to say issues with demand is a given. One of the boons of trying a multimedia approach is that if your base product is successful, you are already primed to make a lot of money and fast. For some of these IPs, the time to capitalize off them (or at least extract the most money) can pass if you wait for confirmed success before you launch your off-shoots. A multimedia approach also has a reinforcing effect. If your main product is a videogame, having a TV show or a comic or whatever can reach those who aren't interested in videogames but consume those other forms of media to become aware of your IP. That hook may lead them to explore the game itself or other related media. It also allows you to exploit multiple revenue streams from the same person or groups of people. To clarify, I didn't mean to say issues with the demand were a given - just very likely. I could be wrong, though, but I can't really bring to mind any examples of the multimedia approach having a noticeable effect on a product launch. I'd be happy to hear of some counter examples, of course. It might be that I was away from the western markets too long, but in Japan I saw the multimedia approach a lot and ... my impression was that it mainly worked in instances where there was really no main franchise, so to speak, or when the franchise was niche to begin with. Hobby Japan does it a lot with what I like to call their, uh, kinky portfolio... which is just about all of their portfolio, but the situation's a bit different (they know the products have limited appeal but that people who are into kinky franchises will buy into it just because it's kinky.) The part I underlined is something I've anecdotally seen in the wild though and its unfortunate because as I said before, it's rarely born out of any truth or reality - just assumptions. It also REALLY reminds me of this picture below (which also applies to a million other cases in life): Once people decided they hated MN9, literally anything they did was seen in a negative light. Combined with the actually dumb stuff they did, it was not a good time for Inafune et al. I think for KS projects, the most important commodities are goodwill and trust. Because of this, I think a slow burn approach is the best way to go (which I think overall is your point - I just took objection with some of your characterizations of multimedia strategies). Yeah, damn little bitch probably had Inafune buy her those crackers with the money raised for Mighty Number 9, wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, slow burn approach is good, yes. With Mighty Number 9, I mean, yeah, that was a perfect storm, if ever there was one... you could list the missteps they made one by one, and who was responsible for each, but I think that when you get right down to it, the big difference between MN9 and Bloodstained is that IGA understands the crowdfunding paradigm better than Inafune. I don't mean this as a knock against Inafune, I mean it as a compliment to IGA. He may be a quiet guy, but he's really good at communicating with the fanbase and making them feel like they're a part of the project. Some examples of this: 1. In the crowd funding video, he specified that he had additional, external backing and that the kickstarter was not the full budget for the game, but only something to show that there was a market for the game. 2. He asked the dev team to come up with a new shader based on community feedback, which ended up being the one adopted for the game. The process was so transparent that even the few who dislike the shader have nothing against IGA ( well, I'm sure there must be someone who's angry, but you guys know what I mean). 3. He provided a free demo to backers that he hadn't even promised at the time of the crowdfunding campaign. The demo was extremely successful in that it reassured fans the game was on the right track, while at the same time it offered the developers valuable feedback relatively early in the production cycle (see how he's building trust here?) 4. When he mentioned the possibility of an NX version in place of a Wii U version, he was quick to mention that he wouldn't make a decision on this without consulting backers first. 5. When he mentioned the possibility of spin-off products just now, he clarified that he himself was focused on the game at this point. 6. He chose a great community manager! It's unfortunate that you can basically take each of these examples and find a perfect counter example for Inafune on the MN9 project. I would argue its more common for movies but pretty much every big movie, regardless if its a new IP or not but more a function of how much money was spent on it, has crossover deals with stores and restaurants. You could argue in that case its less the perceived quality of the movie that might be a selling point then but rather the studio/directors/actors involved. To that end though - few hit products come out of absolutely nowhere with no selling point attached to them (be it just talent involved) and that certainly wouldn't be the case with Bloodstained or MN9 which are successors to beloved franchises with many of the important talent at the helm. Back to movies, those more aimed for kids have often launched with video games or toys at the same time or just before the release of the movie. With regards to videogames, the toys/merch/TV show launched all at the same time or just before the game when Pokemon and Digimon came over. I distinctly remember watching the Pokemon anime before I could buy the games. Granted the anime came out a year after the game release in Japan but as I said before, there was no guarantee the game would be a hit in the States. It still cost them money and time to bring the TV show and other stuff at the same time as the game in the States that would have gone to waste if Pokemon flopped. B) I think its important to note, and this isn't to try to downplay the smart moves Iga et al have made, that MN9 was a learning experience for many. Inticreates is behind both MN9 and Bloodstained. They know what shit went down with MN9 better than most so they are going to be eager and prone to avoid the same pitfalls. To some of the points you made - It was both a good idea an necessary that Iga was upfront about the goal of the Kickstater, that they had a publisher on board that would provide funds, etc. (There are spots he could have been a bit extra clear but I 'd still say he passed the bar). However, crowdfunding campaigns that get extra money or work out deals after the fact are very common. Inafune didn't do the same at the start of the MN9 campaign because couldn't. He only got Deep Silver involved at a later time. Some backers got upset but honestly they had no right to. They were still set to get what they paid for and working out deals to replace all physical backings with the physical copies that were set for retail is something I've never seen done for any other kickstarter and is a hassle I feel many underestimate. I can understand disappointment (you are paying more to get a "faux" physical version) but that's not cause be angry with the campaign - such a demand wasn't realistic and there is no precedent to my knowledge.
- Yes this was something super smart they did and I think it had to do with the fallout for MN9. Many of the complaints about MN9 were due to the graphics that it makes sense that they would want to alleviate concerns for Bloodstained by being VERY proactive in involving the community here and early.
- MN9 also had a demo that went out to backers quite some time before the final release. Whereas the Bloodstained demo has been received very positively, I had heard mixed things about the MN9 demo. So it seems Inticreates didn't or couldn't respond to feedback to it for the final game? Or didn't set up a good system to collect feedback? I'm not sure what went down there. I would note that demos/betas for crowdfunding projects are perhaps not the norm but they aren't uncommon either (though they are planned or have already been released for every game I've recently crowdfunded).
- MN9's issue was that it was promised for too many platforms but that never involved Inafune going behind backers or not communicating that properly. Obviously what Iga has said/done in this respect is the right call but I'm not sure how it relates to what went wrong with MN9. Or are you just using it as an unrelated example of something Iga did right?
- From an optics standpoint this was the right thing to do but again I feel the issues with MN9 had little to nothing to do with Inafune being too busy with the multimedia stuff to focus on the game. Multi-tasking and delegation aren't outside a good producer's scope
- Yes I agree with this, Mana has been doing a great job
 I will say though, I still don't entirely understand what went down with the CM they initially got for MN9 and every time I try to get it explained to me or read up about it, I feel more sympathy for her than I do the backers :/
There's a bit less stress on establishing a new IP to start up that hunger in Bloodstained's case since it's not entirely a completely new product. The hunger is already there, carried over from Castlevania. It's a bit different in the case of something completely indie that's not necessarily a successor to anything. This same kind of thing could have pushed success of MN9s's franchise, but as been pointed out time and time again, things took a few turns that turned people off. Even from the start in that case - I consider myself a pretty decent Mega Man fan. Really, at no point did I connect with or like Beck's design or that of what I had seen on the campaign page. It didn't appeal to me as much as the style of X or Mega Man Zero, and the gameplay shown/described didn't really impress me either. I imagine a lot of people felt the same way, but backed the game just thinking it would likely be a good Mega Man style game notwithstanding. Bloodstained on the other hand, is about as Castlevania as it can be while also being a new thing, checking almost all of the right boxes. In this game's case, along with how great the campaign was and how it continues to be, the situation is looking much different, with a climate more agreeable to expanding the brand. All that said, yes, the game is definitely the first and only thing to focus on right now. When it is done and we're moving into staggered content, assuming fan fatigue hasn't set in in any significant way as it did with MN9, we should be all ready to receive any manner of tasteful tie-ins, crossovers and merchandise. Regardless of what gameplay mechanics the title sought to employ, the aesthetics, characters and narrative of MN9 were clearly meant to replicate the original Mega Man series and not X or Zero. If you were more a X or Zero fan than it makes sense that Beck and crew wouldn't be super appealing to you. The sense I have is that Classic Mega Man is the most popular version and it had a bit of a renaissance with Mega Man 9 & 10 so that is likely why Inafune aimed for that. This is all conjecture on my part though and not based on hard data (which I feel I could probably look up but I'm way too lazy/busy to do that right now). |
|
purifyweirdshard
Administrator
Administrator
Calling from Heaven
Posts: 3,789
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
inherit
Administrator
210
0
1
Oct 25, 2024 0:03:05 GMT -6
3,660
purifyweirdshard
Calling from Heaven
3,789
Jun 29, 2015 7:24:38 GMT -6
June 2015
purifyweirdsoul
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Example 2
|
Post by purifyweirdshard on Jul 13, 2016 11:12:43 GMT -6
Oh, I certainly think that's what they were going for, but for me subjectively and even objectively I don't think they really nailed the spirit of classic Mega Man so well. Rock (and the robot masters) usually never had the so obviously cliché Lost in Space/Bender from Futurama robot limbs and the blocky, dull cartoon robot designs otherwise. The designs were instead smooth and colorful, while maintaining Rock being somewhat identifiable as almost a "real boy" while being a machine since he appeared to perhaps just be wearing a suit.
I played the X games more and those are my favorite, but I think they were still off a bit =/
edit: To be more clear, I brought up X/Zero not as much related to the character designs, but the overall feel of those products and as sequel series/getting things right. |
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jul 13, 2016 17:25:00 GMT -6
B) I think its important to note, and this isn't to try to downplay the smart moves Iga et al have made, that MN9 was a learning experience for many. Inticreates is behind both MN9 and Bloodstained. They know what shit went down with MN9 better than most so they are going to be eager and prone to avoid the same pitfalls. To some of the points you made - It was both a good idea an necessary that Iga was upfront about the goal of the Kickstater, that they had a publisher on board that would provide funds, etc. (There are spots he could have been a bit extra clear but I 'd still say he passed the bar). However, crowdfunding campaigns that get extra money or work out deals after the fact are very common. Inafune didn't do the same at the start of the MN9 campaign because couldn't. He only got Deep Silver involved at a later time. Some backers got upset but honestly they had no right to. They were still set to get what they paid for and working out deals to replace all physical backings with the physical copies that were set for retail is something I've never seen done for any other kickstarter and is a hassle I feel many underestimate. I can understand disappointment (you are paying more to get a "faux" physical version) but that's not cause be angry with the campaign - such a demand wasn't realistic and there is no precedent to my knowledge.
- Yes this was something super smart they did and I think it had to do with the fallout for MN9. Many of the complaints about MN9 were due to the graphics that it makes sense that they would want to alleviate concerns for Bloodstained by being VERY proactive in involving the community here and early.
- MN9 also had a demo that went out to backers quite some time before the final release. Whereas the Bloodstained demo has been received very positively, I had heard mixed things about the MN9 demo. So it seems Inticreates didn't or couldn't respond to feedback to it for the final game? Or didn't set up a good system to collect feedback? I'm not sure what went down there. I would note that demos/betas for crowdfunding projects are perhaps not the norm but they aren't uncommon either (though they are planned or have already been released for every game I've recently crowdfunded).
- MN9's issue was that it was promised for too many platforms but that never involved Inafune going behind backers or not communicating that properly. Obviously what Iga has said/done in this respect is the right call but I'm not sure how it relates to what went wrong with MN9. Or are you just using it as an unrelated example of something Iga did right?
- From an optics standpoint this was the right thing to do but again I feel the issues with MN9 had little to nothing to do with Inafune being too busy with the multimedia stuff to focus on the game. Multi-tasking and delegation aren't outside a good producer's scope
- Yes I agree with this, Mana has been doing a great job I will say though, I still don't entirely understand what went down with the CM they initially got for MN9 and every time I try to get it explained to me or read up about it, I feel more sympathy for her than I do the backers :/
Personally, I see some things here a bit differently, perhaps. I think IGA's personality was far more important here than IntiCreate's experience with MN9. While I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'd like to elaborate on why I think this is so, though in the end anything short of asking IGA himself will settle the matter. OK, so IntiCreates was behind MN9 and is behind Bloodstained, right? So on the surface it seems logical to think they'd use they experience to their advantage: you mess up MN9. you won't mess up Bloodstained. My problem with the argument is that IntiCreates did not mess up MN9, in as much as the mistakes made with MN9 were on the project management and PR sides, both of which fall squarely on Comcept's - that is, Inafune's - shoulders. IntiCreates could have learned a bit from the production side, but they already knew about this. What they may or may not have done, based on their experience with MN9, is say " please don't promise more than x platforms because it killed us on MN9" - but that's assuming it even needed to be said to IGA, and I doubt it. I mean, you don't have to be a genius to realize the number of platforms for which the game was promised was just unrealistic. Inafune himself said he'd never done so many different SKUs for a single product at Capcom - common sense dictates you shouldn't promise as an independent developer what you've never done as a mega-publisher. But I digress. The point is that I don't think IntiCreates could do much about MN9's PR, and they couldn't do much about the goals Inafune set - and these two are, in my opinion, the causes of the game's woes. Comcept hadn't even finished blundering the PR for MN9 by the time Bloodstained was a success: remember, the Red Ash debacle came after Bloodstained had been very comfortably funded. They couldn't have learned from that experience. Note also that, as far as disclosing publisher relationship beforehand, Shenmue III kinda messed up the PR for that, too, and it launched after Bloodstained. So, to me, the biggest difference is not the hindsight as much as the guy in charge. Do I think Inafune was "distracted" by making multimedia deals, and that it had an effect on the quality of MN9? No. The game's woes in terms of production, and ultimately quality, had already been decided from the start of the campaign by the sheer number of SKUs they'd promised. But I think that it was a bad PR move to announce them when the game was experiencing that much difficulty just getting to the market. Heck, even on the eve of launch, Inafune was going on about how he felt like making a sequel even if the game didn't sell. He hadn't learned his lesson. At this point, the user base felt used by him. He should have picked up on it and acted accordingly. |
|
JeffCross
Shadow of the Night
Ancient Legion 
[TI0] Die monster!!!!!!
Posts: 1,365
inherit
Shadow of the Night
46
0
Aug 2, 2019 16:52:01 GMT -6
711
JeffCross
[TI0] Die monster!!!!!!
1,365
Jun 9, 2015 16:58:57 GMT -6
June 2015
jeffcross773
|
Post by JeffCross on Jul 17, 2016 10:05:00 GMT -6
Ok let me throw my 2 cents in... lol
First I love that Iga-sama is focused on the game and only the game right now. Even with companies offering movies, manga, anime and even figurines... I doubt he will be directly apart of that even if he agrees to do one or more of those options. But I think if he does decide to do something I personally would love to see the team focus on just one thing, like a one shot manga or really short anime that focuses on how Miriam and Gebel met (or how they were tricked into becoming sacrifices) but just one, so someone (again I doubt it won't be Iga himself) can really keep an eye out the quality. That person can report to Iga and keep him updated.
Though AFTER the game comes out I would love to see a series of anime or manga, maybe a complete set of figurines (yes I still want a toy). I'm ok if they never make a movie unless it has the original backers and they have a strong roll in creating it.
Well that's just one dude's opinion.
|
|
inherit
208
0
1
Apr 23, 2022 13:01:48 GMT -6
124
jboogieg
172
Jun 28, 2015 0:21:17 GMT -6
June 2015
jboogieg
|
Post by jboogieg on Jul 17, 2016 11:15:24 GMT -6
B) I think its important to note, and this isn't to try to downplay the smart moves Iga et al have made, that MN9 was a learning experience for many. Inticreates is behind both MN9 and Bloodstained. They know what shit went down with MN9 better than most so they are going to be eager and prone to avoid the same pitfalls. To some of the points you made - It was both a good idea an necessary that Iga was upfront about the goal of the Kickstater, that they had a publisher on board that would provide funds, etc. (There are spots he could have been a bit extra clear but I 'd still say he passed the bar). However, crowdfunding campaigns that get extra money or work out deals after the fact are very common. Inafune didn't do the same at the start of the MN9 campaign because couldn't. He only got Deep Silver involved at a later time. Some backers got upset but honestly they had no right to. They were still set to get what they paid for and working out deals to replace all physical backings with the physical copies that were set for retail is something I've never seen done for any other kickstarter and is a hassle I feel many underestimate. I can understand disappointment (you are paying more to get a "faux" physical version) but that's not cause be angry with the campaign - such a demand wasn't realistic and there is no precedent to my knowledge.
- Yes this was something super smart they did and I think it had to do with the fallout for MN9. Many of the complaints about MN9 were due to the graphics that it makes sense that they would want to alleviate concerns for Bloodstained by being VERY proactive in involving the community here and early.
- MN9 also had a demo that went out to backers quite some time before the final release. Whereas the Bloodstained demo has been received very positively, I had heard mixed things about the MN9 demo. So it seems Inticreates didn't or couldn't respond to feedback to it for the final game? Or didn't set up a good system to collect feedback? I'm not sure what went down there. I would note that demos/betas for crowdfunding projects are perhaps not the norm but they aren't uncommon either (though they are planned or have already been released for every game I've recently crowdfunded).
- MN9's issue was that it was promised for too many platforms but that never involved Inafune going behind backers or not communicating that properly. Obviously what Iga has said/done in this respect is the right call but I'm not sure how it relates to what went wrong with MN9. Or are you just using it as an unrelated example of something Iga did right?
Well, it should be remembered that Inticreates isn't a new studio. They've been around for quite awhile and have a number of solid titles under their belt. So if you add that to the equation wouldn't it be easier to believe it's less about them learning from mistakes with MN9 and more about the direction from outside being less than stellar? |
|
inherit
205
0
1
Oct 16, 2019 18:36:27 GMT -6
1,635
crocodile
1,088
Jun 27, 2015 16:51:30 GMT -6
June 2015
crocodile
|
Post by crocodile on Jul 19, 2016 16:25:48 GMT -6
Personally, I see some things here a bit differently, perhaps. I think IGA's personality was far more important here than IntiCreate's experience with MN9. While I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'd like to elaborate on why I think this is so, though in the end anything short of asking IGA himself will settle the matter. OK, so IntiCreates was behind MN9 and is behind Bloodstained, right? So on the surface it seems logical to think they'd use they experience to their advantage: you mess up MN9. you won't mess up Bloodstained. My problem with the argument is that IntiCreates did not mess up MN9, in as much as the mistakes made with MN9 were on the project management and PR sides, both of which fall squarely on Comcept's - that is, Inafune's - shoulders. IntiCreates could have learned a bit from the production side, but they already knew about this. What they may or may not have done, based on their experience with MN9, is say " please don't promise more than x platforms because it killed us on MN9" - but that's assuming it even needed to be said to IGA, and I doubt it. I mean, you don't have to be a genius to realize the number of platforms for which the game was promised was just unrealistic. Inafune himself said he'd never done so many different SKUs for a single product at Capcom - common sense dictates you shouldn't promise as an independent developer what you've never done as a mega-publisher. But I digress. The point is that I don't think IntiCreates could do much about MN9's PR, and they couldn't do much about the goals Inafune set - and these two are, in my opinion, the causes of the game's woes. Comcept hadn't even finished blundering the PR for MN9 by the time Bloodstained was a success: remember, the Red Ash debacle came after Bloodstained had been very comfortably funded. They couldn't have learned from that experience. Note also that, as far as disclosing publisher relationship beforehand, Shenmue III kinda messed up the PR for that, too, and it launched after Bloodstained. So, to me, the biggest difference is not the hindsight as much as the guy in charge. Do I think Inafune was "distracted" by making multimedia deals, and that it had an effect on the quality of MN9? No. The game's woes in terms of production, and ultimately quality, had already been decided from the start of the campaign by the sheer number of SKUs they'd promised. But I think that it was a bad PR move to announce them when the game was experiencing that much difficulty just getting to the market. Heck, even on the eve of launch, Inafune was going on about how he felt like making a sequel even if the game didn't sell. He hadn't learned his lesson. At this point, the user base felt used by him. He should have picked up on it and acted accordingly. Irregardless of how much blame you want to assign to Inticreates vs. Comcept for how MN9 turned out, they (and Iga) were paying attention and they still learned something. I'm not 100% certain (nor are you of course) but I see nothing to suggest that Inticrates are just a bunch of code monkeys with no say or input into the project and communication be it for MN9 or Bloodstained. I do think it matters that Iga is at the helm and not Inafune but I think you're underselling Inticreates? B) I think it was Dangamer who mentioned that Inticreates was petty adamant on not going crazy with platforms? I don't doubt Iga attentive was to this pitfall (again I'm sure watching MN9 helped) though but again I think you're underselling Inticreates. C) I'm not sure what Shenmue III has to do with this - there wasn't a shortage of previous crowdfunded projects that went both well or poorly before Bloodstained but after MN9 to learn from. As an aside, the reason the Shenmue III KS went the way it did was because it was run by Awesome Japan and if you look at their history, they kind of suck. If it was any other project, that KS would have failed. D) Yeah Red Ash turned out to be a big mistake. I don't think having the intention to make a MN9 sequel is a problem though as long as he doesn't try to crowdfund it. Well, it should be remembered that Inticreates isn't a new studio. They've been around for quite awhile and have a number of solid titles under their belt. So if you add that to the equation wouldn't it be easier to believe it's less about them learning from mistakes with MN9 and more about the direction from outside being less than stellar? Making a crowdfunded game is different that making a publisher funded game. For one, the interaction with backers is crucial in a successful crowdfunded project - that doesn't mater with a publisher funded game. That's what I mean by "lessons learned". MN9 was their first crowdfunded project. |
|
dareka
Dhampyr
Loyal Familiar
Posts: 345
inherit
Dhampyr
1332
0
Mar 8, 2023 13:21:18 GMT -6
724
dareka
345
Jun 17, 2016 16:09:16 GMT -6
June 2016
dareka
|
Post by dareka on Jul 19, 2016 18:02:47 GMT -6
Well, I wouldn't want this particular debate - one that has no means to reach an objective conclusion - to end up dominating the original discussion, but I do think I should answer one point in particular... A) Irregardless of how much blame you want to assign to Inticreates vs. Comcept for how MN9 turned out, they (and Iga) were paying attention and they still learned something. I'm not 100% certain (nor are you of course) but I see nothing to suggest that Inticrates are just a bunch of code monkeys with no say or input into the project and communication be it for MN9 or Bloodstained. I do think it matters that Iga is at the helm and not Inafune but I think you're underselling Inticreates? I said that I thought IGA himself probably had more to do with the game avoiding many of the pitfalls that affected MN9 than IntiCreate's previous experience with Kickstarter. I said that Inti are primarily a developer and that PR and project management are not things they have the ultimate say on (while acknowledging that it's something they can offer their input on). That's quite different from saying that "Inticrates are just a bunch of code monkeys with no say or input into the project and communication be it for MN9 or Bloodstained", and honestly I'm not sure just how you came up with that interpretation  |
|
Torabi
New Blood
[TI0]
Posts: 29
inherit
1216
0
Jul 11, 2022 23:06:58 GMT -6
21
Torabi
[TI0]
29
Mar 5, 2016 6:00:41 GMT -6
March 2016
torabi
|
Post by Torabi on Jul 27, 2016 6:14:38 GMT -6
I think that the quality of any potential tie-ins is critical in terms of their effect on the franchise as a whole, which may seem like an obvious statement. Less obvious, however, is that the strength of that effect is somewhat proportional to the amount of time between releases. Poor-quality tie-ins have little effect on an established franchise, but when you're launching something new, every bit of exposure has the chance to either attract more interest, or destroy it. People's perceptions are strongly influenced by first impressions, and it can be really hard to overcome that. Front-loading a franchise in an attempt to generate interest can fail spectacularly if insufficient attention is given to those tie-ins, but providing that attention can also siphon away from the main product, either delaying its release, or preventing it from meeting its other goals. Focusing on one thing at a time can sustain interest over a long time by releasing a succession of high-quality products, while spreading yourself too thin equals burnout for both creator and audience, while producing poor products that have no lasting value.
|
|
BloodyTears92
Loyal Familiar
[TI1]It is time for darkness. It is a blood banquet.
Posts: 342
inherit
959
0
Jan 28, 2020 3:45:53 GMT -6
438
BloodyTears92
[TI1]It is time for darkness. It is a blood banquet.
342
Dec 7, 2015 22:34:49 GMT -6
December 2015
bloodytears92
|
Post by BloodyTears92 on Jul 27, 2016 17:38:14 GMT -6
Just to chime in on the idea of expanding the IP, I agree it should be done after the game launches and is confirmed to be a success, and I'm happy that IGA is open to the idea but is focusing on making his new game first and foremost. As for what kind of expansion, I'd agree with Goob. I'd LOVE to see perhaps a graphic novel series that further expands on the lore of the universe as opposed to just retelling the game. IGA really seems to be putting work into this world and its lore and if we can get something to flesh that out, especially in regards to some event or history that might not make for a great game but would make for a good story, I'd love to see it.
Just as a fast example: Gebel's rise to power and destruction of the Alchemist's guild might not make a good game, but it could work as a comic book or a manga and that would be a great way to flesh things out without having to pour money into games.
|
|
I will say though, I still don't entirely understand what went down with the CM they initially got for MN9 and every time I try to get it explained to me or read up about it, I feel more sympathy for her than I do the backers :/
yey