marketing

to quote boba ls,

"Make loads of money by releasing the same version of a game that you know people will buy because of your reputation, but with small updates"


ok... why dont they take more time, an extra year mabye. Add all the things they are going to add in future versions. and put it all in into the one perfect gp game.

and then charge £60 instead of £30. that would get them their profits without milking more cash out of the public. and also get more in the game.

Yo Sup

"ok... why dont they take more time, an extra year mabye. Add all the things they are going to add in future versions. and put it all in into the one perfect gp game. "

Cos if its perfect they cant improve on it and they cant release more games then they dont get as much money off of us.




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

Don't confuse the wishes, needs and obligations of the developer and the publisher of games.

The developers (Geoff and Co) are funded by a fixed amount by the publisher, and that amount of cash ticks in every month as long as their contract is valid. So the interest of the developer is to have funding from the publisher for as long as possible, and that actually means long development times. And they also want to create good products, because good products means a good rep in the industry, and a good rep in the industry means the possibilty to sign further contracts for other products, and hence more funding.

The publisher on the other hand would want as many products from the developer as possible, because more products means more retail, and more retail means more more cashflow. And more cashflow means larger profits. Furthermore they would want to have the lowest funding expenses possibly, since the lower the funding, the better the this equation looks: Cashflow - funding - other expenses (like the box) = Profits.

People like Geoff and Co have very good reps, so they can ask for pretty high fundings. Now if you really want to reduce funding to a minimum, compared to the profits, and you can't cut the monthly amount, you cut the amount of months!! It is that simple.

Geoff and Co could care less if the 5 year plan only produced one ultimate game or 10 games. The funding is basically the same. But the publisher would probably go bankrupt if they only had one product to generate cashflow after 5 years of funding. Seriously how many people are ready to pay 150£ for a computer game, when the competition are offering a similar and slightly worse, but still very good product for 30£?

We could also say that they published a game every other year. Again, how many people are ready to pay 60£ for a computer game, when the competition are offering a similar and slightly worse, but still very good product for 30£? The only reason I can see for Geoff and Co to agree to produce 1 game per year, is that is what the publisher demanded it as a part of the the contract, and hence a condition for funding.

So whats Geoff gonna do in the final negotiations? The FIA license is for 5 years. Should he take the contract and produce 5 games? Or should he decline the contract and spend time finding a new publisher? Remember that while he would be looking for a new publisher there can be no game development since there are no funds to pay the bills. So if he found a new publisher willing to sign a different deal after 10 days, things would be fine. But if he found a new publisher after 1 year, he would have lost a year of development (not to mention a year of salary too!), since there would only be 4 years left in the FIA license. And in the end, the final GP version of the game would be 1 year of development poorer.

As I said at the beginning: Don't confuse the wishes, needs and obligations of the developer and the publisher of games. They have very different agendas!

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

They won't do that because in the end the release date is set by Big Brother - in this case Infrogrames. GC may not actually be able to give it another year cos of this.

also, would you EVER pay £60 for a game?! I mean Microsoft charge 45 but their the scum I wipe off my shoe...no one would buy it.

Basically, the whole Marketing Mix has to be considered in such situations
Price
Place
Promotion
Packaging
can't remember the other one

They are of varying importance. Obviously the average consumer isnt going to buy a product, even with a strong market position and brand image like gpx has, when its main rival, EA are selling (or will be) a game for half the price with a couple less features...and up to date, using 2002 season etc.

Place is fixed (game shops) no one has an advantage there, but packaging is initially quite important, it must be eye catching but not overly so.
Promotion will only be in computer mags, again no advantage. Basically its all down to price and the fifth factor (damn, wish I could remember it).

Sorry guys... Slipped into Business studies mode there!

Chris J

aw, crap. Chris J shows what a slow typer he is AGAIN.

Chris J

"Basically, the whole Marketing Mix has to be considered in such situations
Price
Place
Promotion
Packaging
can't remember the other one"

Product.

but that doesnt really relate to this...

9 minutes!?! That is kinda slow Chris... Want some tuition from MEGA-POST-MAN?

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

I need help, MEGA-POST-MAN, I can't touch type like you!

Thanks jordangp2001! product, eh? I'll try and remember that for my business studies exam later this term.

I think I hold the record for longest time taken on tiny posts!

Chris J