Sega on Target Audience

[Rusty Spy]

^ The way I interpret it is that they're only going to put enough effort into a game so that their audience will consider it good, rather than a game that's good overall.

To them, making a great game that everyone will say is good is not their priority, as long as it's good enough to please their target audience, hence why I'm worried the games won't get any better in quality than they are now.

Sure it still rakes in the cash for them, but it's really only going to alienate the rest of the gaming community to the point that Sonic will only be appreciated by the target audience and whatever hardcore fans remain over the years.

Edited August 15, 2009 by VirgoTheCougar

[RainbowLizard]

I think Sonic's biggest problem is he's a victim of the times; FPS's are cool. They sell millions if you get it right. If you were to make an FPS a lot of the time you don't even have to make effort to make it good before people eat it up. Look at CoD and Halo. Halo 1 was good but the other two were overhyped twoddle, but they still sold squillions because consumers and critics alike decided that the FPS was the 'in' thing.

If fast paced platforming was the 'in' thing, Sonic would sell well and be recieved well. Perhaps not Sonic 360, but Sonic Unleashed would be completely eaten up in terms of both sales and reception. Sonic is not 'in' right now, and so is not seen as good by the people.

Not only that, but Sonic does have an unsatisfyable fanbase; blame me for being annoying to those of us who are Sonic fans, but what one Sonic fan says should happen another fan says shouldn't. If Sonic Team listened to some of these fans, they'd fuck everything up. Oh wait, that actually happened. Pardon me.

SEGA have identified the problem; Sonic isn't 'in' right now. They just haven't battled the problem correctly. Right now I feel Sonic is trapped between a rock and a hard place; if he stays how he is, he doesn't evolve with the times and as such will probably die out. If he tries to be 'in' he ends up alienating the fanbase, and also looking like a twit in the process because you know, Sonic 2006 and Shadow.

To sum up; Sonic is a victim of changing in the perception of what is 'good' in videogames, and until the perception changes, Sonic will not be seen as 'good' by anyone, critics or consumers, for quite a long time.

[BlazingTales]

A good game doesn't need an audience? So how is it supposed to sell?

What I mean is is that you don't have to build a game around a particular audience for it to be good. Take NiGHTS for example. Was it built completely for a sepecific audience? No, and it was a terrific game. While it didn't sell very well, it still has a large fanbase to this very day (and half the fans didn't own a Saturn originally). If a game is good, the fans will come from word of mouth.

Marketing, audience, interests, console climate, affordability etc are all VERY important aspects if one wants to make a successful game. The audience in particualar do not 'automatically' come to a game, especially if said game has had little to no advertisment.

Very well put. That's why I mentioned advertising Sonic as 'cooler than guns' in my original post.

[blackherox]

To them, making a great game that everyone will say is good is not their priority, as long as it's good enough to please their target audience, hence why I'm worried the games won't get any better in quality than they are now.

From the article:

It very much is in that under 12 group," Hayes said. "And what we have to do is make a Sonic that is of a quality that delights that audience, first and foremost. I'd argue that we very much achieved that with products like Sonic Heroes on PS2, and I think we did that with Mario and Sonic 1 on Wii and DS. I think we did it some ways with Sonic and the Secret Rings on Wii. I think [the Wii's Sonic and the] Black Knight was a good game."

It makes sense to target hat group first and foremost because they are the target audience, if you can't satisfy that audience your pretty screwed. Platforming is no longer for ''everyone'' anymore. The genre really on appeals to Kids or the already platformed obsessed. And consdiering here less of the latter group, well targeting the former group makes sense. Besides give Kids some credit, there not as stupid as one makes them seem.

From the article:

If you read everything, we need to be all things to all gamers with Sonic, and that's a difficult thing to do," said Mike Hayes, the head of Sega Europe and, as of last month, the head of Sega of America as well. "Trying to put everything into one game and making everybody happy is impossible. And I think that's something clear going forward..

I still don't see the problem because for the most part its true. The amount of stuff that the Sonic community and online gaming community ask/demand of Sega for there Sonic games in quite a lot of cases is not almost impossible, but inadvisable and also very contradictory. You can't please everyone, especially the sonic fan community as diverse as it is. That is fact.

Sure it still rakes in the cash for them, but it's really only going to alienate the rest of the gaming community to the point that Sonic will only be appreciated by the target audience and whatever hardcore fans remain over the years.

The rest of the gaming community seem to be more interested in the latest *insert generic RPG/FPS here* anyway.

From BLAZINGTAILS

While it didn't sell very well

Well what goud is that? If you make a quality game and have an apparently ''large'' fanbase that talks about the game via word of mouth, yet it doesn't perform well as far as sales goes, what good is that? It doesn't show any interest at all. Theres no point in making a quality title if no ones interested in it.

Edited August 15, 2009 by BlackHeroX

[Rusty Spy]

It makes sense to target hat group first and foremost because they are the target audience, if you can't satisfy that audience your pretty screwed. Platforming is no longer for ''everyone'' anymore. The genre really on appeals to Kids or the already platformed obsessed. And consdiering here less of the latter group, well targeting the former group makes sense. Besides give Kids some credit, there not as stupid as one makes them seem.

What I'm saying is that from what the article says, it doesn't sound like they are willing or determined to make an all round good game, and are just going to settle on a certain level of quality so that their target audience will remain happy.

If you look at Mario, it's target demographic is also kids, but his games are still some of the best out there, and even enjoyed by a lot more people. Why can't Sonic be the same?

atahe rest of the gaming community seem to be more interested in the latest *insert generic RPG/FPS here* anyway.

But, again, if you look at Mario, many people don't give him much stick because his games are still very good and in turn, well recieved, and people respect him for that.

[BlazingTales]

Well what goud is that? If you make a quality game and have an apparently ''large'' fanbase that talks about the game via word of mouth, yet it doesn't perform well as far as sales goes, what good is that? It doesn't show any interest at all. Theres no point in making a quality title if no ones interested in it.

Perhaps NiGHTS wasn't the greatest example. Shenmue maybe. Shenmue did not sell very well, yet it still has a large fanbase. If another Shenmue game was made, chances are that it will sell decently. What I was trying to get across is that a game doesn't need a core audience to be GOOD. It needs some sort, not even a core, to SELL however.

[Rusty Spy]

Well what goud is that? If you make a quality game and have an apparently ''large'' fanbase that talks about the game via word of mouth, yet it doesn't perform well as far as sales goes, what good is that? It doesn't show any interest at all. Theres no point in making a quality title if no ones interested in it.

All games have to start somewhere. All games start with little to no fanbase, the only form of fanbase will most likely be the ones who are already frequent consumers of the company making the game. That's why you need to make a really good game that will catch people attention, and thus become more recognizable, and make more money.

The only reason NiGHTS and Shenmue didn't sell well was because they were on very short lived consoles. NiGHTS was on a console that not many people bought to begin with.

I can almost guarantee you that if they were on more popular consoles that lasted longer, they'd have a better exposure and be more popular.

Shenmue would sell just as badly as the first two if a third one was released. The game isn't for everyone(by everyone im talking about gamers, theres no way a non gamer could ever play it )

Neither are RPGs and look how well those are.

Edited August 15, 2009 by VirgoTheCougar

[ShadiWulf]

Shenmue would sell just as badly as the first two if a third one was released. The game isn't for everyone(by everyone im talking about gamers, theres no way a non gamer could ever play it )

[blackherox]

What I'm saying is that from what the article says, it doesn't sound like they are willing or determined to make an all round good game, and are just going to settle on a certain level of quality so that their target audience will remain happy.

Well each to their own, but i'm not getting that from there.

If you look at Mario, it's target demographic is also kids, but his games are still some of the best out there, and even enjoyed by a lot more people. Why can't Sonic be the same?

But, again, if you look at Mario, many people don't give him much stick because his games are still very good and in turn, well recieved, and people respect him for that.

He doesn't exactly much competition now does he? What other platformers are out there that are being so successful other than Super Mario Galaxy? Nintendo and Sega are in different situations (which I really don't want to go into), so the Sonic cannot get the ''same'' treatment ''Mario can. Theres also the fact that the online Mario community is not only smaller, but less diverse and are more less willingly to accept anything they get, unlke the sonic fanbase hence ''can't please everyone''. And ''everyone'' is still Kids and the already platforming obsessed. Mario or Sonic.

All games have to start somewhere. All games start with little to no fanbase, the only form of fanbase will most likely be the ones who are already frequent consumers of the company making the game. That's why you need to make a really good game that will catch people attention, and thus become more recognizable, and make more money.

And what if your first few good games don't sell well. Were are you going to get the money to make more, esepcially of not a lot of people are interested in it? All games have a strta, bt the most successful games have the facilities and resources to be so and to remain so. If yo do not have said resources the chances of your game being said success are very low. Harsh reality.

The only reason NiGHTS and Shenmue didn't sell well was because they were on very short lived consoles. NiGHTS was on a console that not many people bought to begin with. I can almost guarantee you that if they were on more popular consoles that lasted longer, they'd have a better exposure and be more popular.

Those were just examples, you can find better examples on the Wii.

Edited August 15, 2009 by BlackHeroX

[ShadiWulf]

Neither are RPGs and look how well those are.

Not happening. Shenmue is way different from any RPG, not to mention very expensive. Gamers would expect it to have high quality visuals, it would look dated on the Wii, and on HD platforms it would be way too expensive, It costed over 70 million dollars to make on the Dreamcast. Can only imagine how much it would cost to develop it on a HD platform, not to mention it would bomb no matter which platform it is on.

Just be happy with Yakuza 3 and make sure you buy it when it comes west if you want SEGA to keep bringing unique games to the west.

[Rusty Spy]

He doesn't exactly much competition now does he? What other platformers are out there that are being so successful other than Super Mario Galaxy? Nintendo and Sega are in different situations (which I really don't want to go into), so the Sonic cannot get the ''same'' treatment ''Mario can. Theres also the fact that the online Mario community is not only smaller, but less diverse and are more less willingly to accept anything they get, unlke the sonic fanbase hence ''can't please everyone''. And ''everyone'' is still Kids and the already platforming obsessed. Mario or Sonic.

What I'm saying is that people still revere Mario because his games are good. He'd still be held up as highly as he is now, even if he did have competition.

And what if your first few good games don't sell well. Were are you going to get the money to make more, especially of not a lot of people are interested in it? All games have a strta, bt the most successful games have the facilities and resources to be so and to remain so. If yo do not have said resources the chances of your game being said success are very low. Harsh reality.

...That is exactly what I just finished saying.

NiGHTS and Shenmue didn't sell well because they were on short lived consoles (read: resources) and thus, didn't get enough exposure due to more popular consoles out on the market at the time, and, as I said, the console itself died quickly.

Edited August 15, 2009 by VirgoTheCougar

[Joseppi]

I always thought of Sonic as the cooler version of Mario. Back then, Sonic was very much comparable to the Mario games. I use to be a strictly Mario gamer when I first started gaming. And that is what made me give Sonic a chance. It was a lot like Mario to me. And I loved it.

I am at least happy to hear that Sonic Team are going to try to please us older gamers who grew up with Sonic. When I first started reading that, I got the impression that they don't care about us. WE (the older gamers) are what made Sonic so popular. That's right, WE MADE YOU SONIC! And the thing is, going after the younger crowd only would be a big mistake on Sega's part. The DS has a tun of games that are marketed to the younger crowd. Like the Petz series and shit like that. And I think they realize that marketing only to younger gamers is a bad idea. Just because we're older doesn't mean we want Mature Sonic. (i.e. Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic 2006.) Hell, that's the last thing I want.

I think there was a twinkle in my eye when I saw that they are going to make games more like the older ones. But then I started thinking about New Super Mario Bros. Although I love the classic Mario games, NSMB was pretty mediocre compared to the older ones. And if Sega are going to make classic-style Sonic games, I hope they're better than the Sonic Advance series. I didn't enjoy those games to much. The Advance games had horrible level design in my opinion. I just hope they have some good level design if they make class-style games. I did however really like the Sonic Rush games.

I think it would also be pretty cool if they remade the classic Sonic games with new graphics and some more in-depth story with some cut scenes. That would be great as along as they make some new ones too.

Sega has been sitting on a goldmine for the past few years and sometimes they've been pulling a little bit of shit covered gold off of their sphincters and giving us some halfway decent Sonic games. And other times they are pulling out nothing but feces and throwing it at us calling it Sonic.

I still stand by my belief that Sonic will return to glory eventually. And from what I've just read, my hopes just got higher.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Joseppi

[blackherox]

What I'm saying is that people still revere Mario because his games are good. He'd still be held up as highly as he is now, even if he did have competition.

Why is the announcement of Super Mario Galaxy 2 having such a mixed reaction on gamers and critics? While I' not debating the Mario has quality the amount of it is very small (which some people are actually starting to pick up now). Other than Super Mario Galaxy, most of there Other Mario titles this gen have either received mixed receptions or critical disdain. Nintendo themselves aren't currently being revered that much either.But I don't want to turn this topic into another ''If Mario can do it, so can Sonic type of topic''

If your first few good games don't sell well Were are you going to get the money to make more?, especially of not a lot of people are interested in it? Its also a risk assuming that the fanbase of said game are just automatically my word of mouth going to get bigger and bigger. A lot of the big naes now, are either already pre established franchises or had enough resources to generte enough hype and advertisement to sell enough of there game. All games have a start, but the most successful games have the facilities and resources to be so and to remain so. If yo do not have said resources the chances of your game being said success are very low. Harsh reality.

..That is exactly what I just finished saying.

Sorry Fixed.

[Phos]

Ok, a few things:

He's basically saying that their target demographic is kids who don't know better. Like a pretty big portion of Sega, he seems to be under the bizarre impression that a Sonic game that appeals to older fans wouldn't be marketable to younger fans, and seems to be using this concept as justification for the quality of recent Sonic games.

NiGHTS was the best selling game on the Saturn. The poor sales of JoD was the result of the game being terrible. Shenmue 1 sold pretty well on the DC, but bombed on the Xbox. Not sure exactly why, but it might have something to do with the kind of market the Xbox attracted.

Shadi: Yakuza 3 is never coming to the West. The game's producer basically prima donna-ed all over the idea of the game coming to the west.

[Candescence]

Why is the announcement of Super Mario Galaxy 2 having such a mixed reaction on gamers and critics?

Because it's a sequel. The very notion of a straight sequel these days is garenteed to have this mixed reception, regardless of the quality of the previous instalment, if it isn't something completely new, people will BBAAAAAAAAAAWWWWLLL.

While I' not debating the Mario has quality the amount of it is very small (which some people are actually starting to pick up now). Other than Super Mario Galaxy, most of there Other Mario titles this gen have either received mixed receptions or critical disdain.

I'm sorry, but this is false. The only Mario game this gen that has had anything other than a generally positive critical response is Mario Party 8, but come on, it's a Mario Party game.

Edited August 16, 2009 by The Sniper

[Remy]

Why is the announcement of Super Mario Galaxy 2 having such a mixed reaction on gamers and critics? While I' not debating the Mario has quality the amount of it is very small (which some people are actually starting to pick up now). Other than Super Mario Galaxy, most of there Other Mario titles this gen have either received mixed receptions or critical disdain. Nintendo themselves aren't currently being revered that much either.But I don't want to turn this topic into another ''If Mario can do it, so can Sonic type of topi

You cannot put Mario in the same boat as Sonic. mainline Mario games have not had a single misstep since Super Mario 64, and contrary to the critical disdain from the entire world for Sonic, Mario's releases have all been quality.

The spin offs have been getting steadily shittier yes, but those are spin offs, and hardly representative of his platform games.