Marketing Effect 3

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Marketing Effect 3

The portrayal of Mass Effect 3 in EA's marketing doesn't match the game.

Read Full Article

There's a big difference between near and not too distant. I would expect distant future to be at least 1000 years from now, if not longer. Perfectly acceptable use of the phrase.

Pretty much all the trailers are weak. All they seem to focus on are the combat and Shepard being badass or whatever. It's like a crappier version of Halo's marketing.

"In the not too distant future" always makes me sing the MST3K theme in my head.

I find it odd that they advertise the DLC guns like that, though. Not that I'm a marketing expert, but I wonder if they were attempting to get people to see that they added more selection in ME3 than was in ME2, which honestly was one of my biggest problems with the game... that and the fact that Garrus never fixed that giant hole in his armor (and that you couldn't upgrade anyone else's armor except cosmetically). If so, they chose a weird way to go about it.

Irridium:
Pretty much all the trailers are weak. All they seem to focus on are the combat and Shepard being badass or whatever. It's like a crappier version of Halo's marketing.

I actually found Halo's trailers much more effective and emotional than the entire ME3 marketing. The entire marketing campaign have been awful from the start.

Also, I'm turning "We eat or we starve!" into my new daily catchphrase.

Irridium:
Pretty much all the trailers are weak. All they seem to focus on are the combat and Shepard being badass or whatever. It's like a crappier version of Halo's marketing.

The difference being that the dialogue from the trailer matches the Halo franchise far better.

I understand why it bothers you, but personally I found it to be at least chuckle-worthy.

I think the problem here is pretty obvious. Developers made a game you find to be very deep.

Marketing wants to sell lots of shit. They probably don't know anything about the game. They just want to appeal to the populace, and when CoD is breaking all sales records then of course they want to make it sound like "super shooter awesomesauce" in the hopes that those shooter junkies will pick it up and make them bajillions of dollars.

Shamus Young:
Mass Effect 3 takes place around 2186-ish. So, over a century and a half from now. I don't think even an Asari would call that "near future".

Depends on your point of view, looking at your photo you are about the same age as me. So the odds are that you have known someone who knew someone who was alive 150 years ago. In my case, it was my grandfather who knew his grandfather. 150 years isn't that far away, its just about twice for the average life expectancy for a someone living in a developed county. Personally, I can have reasonable expectations of being alive in 2050 and the odds are someone reading this post could make it to 2100.

At the risk of shilling for another website: http://tinyurl.com/7tjy2hh For those who don't want to (or can't) follow that link, it enumerates the primary problem with Mass Effect 3 DLC: to get all possible DLC for the game requires an investment of approximately $860. As well, nearly all of that is for peripherals or inconsequential fumetti that happens to come with a new and different gun for Commander Shepard to use.

I understand marketing tie-ins and pre-order bonuses. I don't necessarily agree with that manner of "incentive," but I do understand. But this price tag is completely ludicrous. I cannot fathom how it was deemed a good idea to release so much of the game piecemeal over so many unrelated products.

Hi, I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite store on the Citadel!

Shamus Young:
It's the one thing that makes Mass Effect stand out from a lot of other games about a dude in body armor, lugging an assault rifle through a showcase of chest-high walls.

And there's the problem. Standing out makes it unmarketable in a market designed for yearly releases. The market relies on familiarity now because its main focus is on those who decry critical reasoning.

It's a sequel - so you already know you like it. It's like a re-imagining. Nice and safe.

Why do you think they held back on Femshep for so long? And then made her into Samas Aran. People might think it's a new series; and change scares them. They need a name they can trust, that won't let them down, that will be released on the Friday closest to Easter every year, where the main hero comes back from the dead and shephards humanity before...

Hold on...

paronomasiac:
to get all possible DLC for the game requires an investment of approximately $860.

The vast majority of the extra content seems to be "Collector Assault Rifle unlock DLC/Powerup" over and over again. I'm sceptical that it will be possible to upgrade the Collector Assault Rifle 7 times using DLC codes.

And then there's 3 retailer-specific guns. They will almost certainly be the equivalent of the Incisor sniper rifle (preorder bonus) from Mass Effect 2, relatively useless and replaced fairly quickly.

As for the rest, it appears to be largely multiplayer-only and, based on what I've seen of multiplayer, likely either cosmetic or possible to be obtained (or superseded by other gear) by playing the game.

I still don't like retailer-exclusive DLC (or any preorder DLC) but it's not as bad as it looks at first glance.

Oh, I don't mean to imply that anything beyond the $10 'From Dust' is integral to the complete game experience, or even useful to players. My complaint is that it exists at all. I can't think of another game that, even considering multiple pre-order bonuses and collectors editions, came anywhere near that incomprehensible price tag.

Shamus Young:
Why was so much rage aimed at Portal 2, and so little aimed at Mass Effect 3?

Wait, what?

You, uh.... you don't spend much time on forums, do you?

There's been a lot of rage.

Congrats, it took you 2 pages to explain that a Gamestop commercial is terrible. Anyone could have said that. And this next thing I say without sarcasm since you seem to be trying to avoid spoilers. People ARE pissed at ME3. Very very pissed. Portal 2 was nothing.

Sheesh, it's just a 30 second commercial that's meant to be funny. It's just a punchline, the actual dialogue doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of people watching will have a reaction to the reveal of Garrus being the voice over, and not pay attention at all to what he actually says.

That's not bad marketing.

Shamus Young:
Why was so much rage aimed at Portal 2, and so little aimed at Mass Effect 3?

Wiat, there isn't tones of rage being leveled at ME3? When did it all drop away, is it noew hidden somewhere?

On a more serious note, this isn't overly new for EA. Remember the marketing for DA:O? Remember how most of it was a decent representation of the game? No you don't because the marketing had very little in common with the game. They used the tagline from a song "This is the new shit" to market a return to older styled RPG's.

Well regarding the trailers, I just think it's a way to expand the playerbase. Let's say you've got a fan of the first 2 games, did all the side quests, talked to all the characters and actually thought and weighted the outcome of every answer in conversations. THAT dude (or dudette) is the person that would jizz in it's pants with a "well written" trailer. The thing is, that person has already been marketed to, throughout two entire games. He/she will buy ME3, the trailer makes no difference to him/her.

Now, you have to assume any person that doesn't live under a rock and wasn't born yesterday has heard of the mass effect series and decided he/she didn't care about it. Maybe that person likes more action packed, testosterone oozing, one liner spouting explosion fests. And that's OK. But it is also an untapped audience.

If you have a finite amount of money to make the most amount of costumers, do you market to the people that will already buy the game or the others?

This is still a business, and this ain't no assassins creed. Maybe people would buy an ME4 but I'd wager the cost/benefit to even try to milk this cow dry isn't worth it. They probably have to make the most bang for their buck this time.

PD:
Also that last trailer isn't so bad, i mean, the few seconds that we see Destiny Ascension coming to help earth leaves you thinking just how somebody convinced the asari to risk their flagship to help the poor earthlings. And that's more thinking that most seconds have any right to produce.

If you aren't finding any rage about EA's marketing on ME3, you have clearly been looking in the wrong places.

Personally, Shamus, I think you might be looking too far into the 'severity' of this trailer. It's EA merely selling a product at its base; if BioWare did make this trailer, then I guess there's a problem, but it's really a commercial first and an advertisement on the decency of the game later.

I can see where people may have some problems, but the problem is that I saw that commercial several times before you brought it up, and I didn't have any problem with it beforehand. No offense, but this DOES feel like a bit of an overreaction.

Despite the obvious past ineptness of EA's marketing department, I'm not really sure I see what the issue is here. Just because something is not being marketed to you does not make the marketing itself bad, it just means you're not the target. In fact, based on the fact that you're saying you already know you're buying the game despite the thrust of the advertising says as much. The advertising is targetting those who aren't already hooked on the deeper aspects of the series (characters, story, extremely solid RPG/Shooter fusion gameplay, etc.). They don't need to sell you the game because they already have.

As for the Garus ad, I found it funny. To me, it actually came across as a parody and felt like it was making fun of both the gun and the idea of preorder bonus weapons.

LOL I got a good laugh out of that commercial, it looked like they had some kids in highschool shoot and direct the thing. As for Garrus pitching the dlc rifle, i got a good BWAHAHAHAHA from that, so I say good job on the commercial.

As for the game itself well... lets just wait until it comes out

They do that because they think people like games that are dumb are loud so they make games that aren't either look like both so that they sell. Since ME3 is the third game, people who know it's not dumb or loud will buy it anyway since they're already invested in the previous two games so they're focused on the (possibly imaginary) demographic of drooling CoD fans, which they imagine to be very large and have a great love of manly men who shoot manly guns. And it's the job of the marketing department to sell it to people who might not buy it otherwise, as opposed to people who will buy it anyway. And it's not like this is an isolated thing that can only happen on a EA-published game.

ME3 is doing not if not trying to please everyone. They have an ACTION mode for people who find choosing from a dialogue wheel to be too taxing on their minds and a story mode that I was sorry to learn is just super easy difficulty, as opposed to a mode in which action sequences are replaced by a block of text that reads AND THEN SHEPARD WENT DOWN AND SHOT THE ALIEANS. I'm not making fun of the concept, that mode is what I actually want because I still don't know who let those boring shooty bits in my game about interstellar diplomacy/boning.

And yeah, I for one saw plenty of rage over the day one DLC and similar stuff. I'm especially amused by the rage following the Protean character, since people assume it went like this:

Marketing exec: FOOLISH WRITER, WHAT IS THE MOST INTERESTING PART ABOUT YOUR PUNY GAME?
Writer: P-please don't hurt me, sir! We have a Protean character, he's very cool!
Marketing exec: YES, MY EVIL FOCUS TESTING TELLS ME SUCH A CHARACTER IS PROFITABLE. I COMMAND YOU TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE GAME SO WE MAY SELL HIM ON LAUNCH DAY, SEPARATELY.
Writer: Please, sir, don't! That character is essential to the story!
Marketing exec: THAT WILL MEAN PEOPLE WILL NEED TO BUY THAT CONTENT TO PLAY THE GAME PROPERLY, WHICH IN TURN MEANS WE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE ABLE TO CHARGE MORE! SUCH A MOVE IS CERTAIN TO MAKE OUR DARK MASTERS MORE MONEY! NOW BEGONE, BEFORE I DEVOUR YOUR SOUL!

...When it probably went like this:

Marketing exec: We want a day one DLC. Is there something interesting you can use in it?
Writer: Uh, there's a Protean. They are supposed to be dead for millenia. But it's just a character that shows up briefly.
Marketing exec: Dead for millenia, eh? I think the fans will go crazy for it. Give the DLC team all you have on him and tell them to make him a full fledged party member.
Writer: OK. See you at home then, dear.
Marketing exec: Bye, love you.

(SURPRISE TWIST!)

The commercials are bad because the marketing people at EA think their audience is the kind of crowd that craves trailers like that. Sin to Win and Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2 have already shown, quite clearly, that whoever Bioware is actually making games for, EA marketing thinks they're making them for the kids who give XBL a bad name.

Not really surprising. Still disheartening, but not surprising.

This became a gears clone last iteration. Why are people still surprised they're focusing on chest-high walls?

Aren't the gamestop made by someone else?
Like that retarded "zomg get power armor nowz!!!" gamestop ad that has haunted video streaming sites.

I see where you're coming from here. I thought the Garrus add was pretty funny myself, but taken in that light I understand why people wouldn't like it. I do agree with the whole, "Oh look! We have shiny guns!" thing going around. So far, the only DLC weapon that I found to be useful was the Locust you get with Kasumi in Mass Effect 2. And she wasn't part of any preorder thing. Most of these preorder bonus weapons are just jokes to me. You can't release a weapon on day one that completely breaks the game, so none of these new weapons will be amazing.
I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, but it's never been stated that the Reapers can't be beaten. Or at least Sheperd has never said it, nor has anyone on her team. All the way back in Mass Effect, Vigil says that the Reapers win because they cut down the leaders in a surprise attack. They know that if the races of the galaxy unite, they will lose. It's why Sovereign didn't attack straight away, because he would blow the Reapers' cover.

Sniper Team 4:
I see where you're coming from here. I thought the Garrus add was pretty funny myself, but taken in that light I understand why people wouldn't like it. I do agree with the whole, "Oh look! We have shiny guns!" thing going around. So far, the only DLC weapon that I found to be useful was the Locust you get with Kasumi in Mass Effect 2. And she wasn't part of any preorder thing. Most of these preorder bonus weapons are just jokes to me. You can't release a weapon on day one that completely breaks the game, so none of these new weapons will be amazing.
I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, but it's never been stated that the Reapers can't be beaten. Or at least Sheperd has never said it, nor has anyone on her team. All the way back in Mass Effect, Vigil says that the Reapers win because they cut down the leaders in a surprise attack. They know that if the races of the galaxy unite, they will lose. It's why Sovereign didn't attack straight away, because he would blow the Reapers' cover.

well some dlc weapons where usefull...like the black hole gun

Zhukov:

Shamus Young:
Why was so much rage aimed at Portal 2, and so little aimed at Mass Effect 3?

Wait, what?

You, uh.... you don't spend much time on forums, do you?

There's been a lot of rage.

And he doesn't really seem to understand the gaming cultural phenomenon that is hats. If people are stupid enough to spend actual money on trivial aesthetic embellishments, then one must question the scruples of the purveyor of said embellishments.

In that sense, Valve is the mean kid on the playground that makes the slow kid run his head into a tree. And not a Fluttershy tree, a tree with a beehive on it.

I don't really see the problem. We are not the target audience of this ad. We already know about the series, have played the previous games, and are likely to buy the next one. EA had no reason to make a TV ad for this game to get my attention than Bethesda did for Skyrim. The ad doesn't need to be to play out in a manner consistent with the plot; it needs to sell Mass Effect 3 to people who have not played Mass Effect before. And just to be sure that the game appeals to people other than us, there is a new option to skip all those burdensome dialogue choices that you have to make, so you can just get to the action and enjoy a cut scene or two every now and then.

Again, there's nothing wrong with the ad. It's just not meant for you.

Vivid Kazumi:

Sniper Team 4:
I see where you're coming from here. I thought the Garrus add was pretty funny myself, but taken in that light I understand why people wouldn't like it. I do agree with the whole, "Oh look! We have shiny guns!" thing going around. So far, the only DLC weapon that I found to be useful was the Locust you get with Kasumi in Mass Effect 2. And she wasn't part of any preorder thing. Most of these preorder bonus weapons are just jokes to me. You can't release a weapon on day one that completely breaks the game, so none of these new weapons will be amazing.
I feel like a jerk for pointing this out, but it's never been stated that the Reapers can't be beaten. Or at least Sheperd has never said it, nor has anyone on her team. All the way back in Mass Effect, Vigil says that the Reapers win because they cut down the leaders in a surprise attack. They know that if the races of the galaxy unite, they will lose. It's why Sovereign didn't attack straight away, because he would blow the Reapers' cover.

well some dlc weapons where usefull...like the black hole gun

And the Mattock. Oh, sweet Jesus, the Mattock.

ravenshrike:
There's a big difference between near and not too distant. I would expect distant future to be at least 1000 years from now, if not longer. Perfectly acceptable use of the phrase.

Yeah, I think this is a very subjective point too. Personally I think 100 years is the distant future, but I can completely see how you might not think that. The thing that bothered me about the trailer was the use of that over-used phrase in the first place. Then again, it might have been self-parody. Then again (again), I didn't like the whole overall tone of the trailer anyway. Still seems like an odd thing to rag on though.

Shamus Young:
Marketing Effect 3

The portrayal of Mass Effect 3 in EA's marketing doesn't match the game.

Read Full Article

Have to agree with you. The over-marketing of this game has pretty much killed my enthusiasm for it. Oh, I'll play it, but it's not particularly high on my 'to do' list any more.

Coupled with the fact that if I buy the game, I know I'm not going to have the same stuff as the people who pre-ordered it, bought extra DLC, or any of the cross platform games. Intellectually I know I'm buying what should be considered the whole game... it's just that there's so much extra crap it feels like I'm getting the cheap version. Not exactly what I wanted to feel like loading up the end of this trilogy.

You're right... gong to wait for the EA 'hype' machine to shut up first, then let my actual enthusiasm for the game build again. Assuming they don't keep piling on the DLC and extras, in which case I might feel like it's too much to bother with.

Shamus Young:
Marketing Effect 3

The portrayal of Mass Effect 3 in EA's marketing doesn't match the game.

Read Full Article

I understand what you mean when you reference Portal 2 Shamus, but it seems some people just don't get it.

With Portal 2, people whined about the purely optional, co op only hat thing. The people who did bomb it, are just irrational haters of the idea, but are too stupid to understand that it's purely fucking optional and has no effect on the main game.

With Mass Effect, it should be receiving far more ridicule for this DLC shit because it very well could affect how the game plays. When the the DLC extras start affecting the game as a whole, people should be upset over it and not upset over some stupid fucking optional hats that don't change anything. Now since none of us have played it yet, we can't be certain that any of this DLC will change anything. If it does, we should all draw the line there. Nobody should have their game experience altered from the intended product because we didn't go out and buy some stupid action figure to get a gun in the game.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)