Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
>> And I'm sorry if it sounds elitist, but the game requirements (hardware,
>> drive space, DirectX version, etc.) are written on the bottom of the box.
>
> I really wasn't calling you elitist - more "us" (as in the newsgroups)
> where we think everyone should just be able to open the case and pop in a
> graphics card. One poster in this thread likened building a computer to
> legos.
Certainly not like Legos, I'd agree. Many of us have years of experience and
workarounds under our belts just to get Windows and our assorted hardware to
work the way we want them to.
>
>> Caveat emptor, or "let the buyer beware."
>
> Again, agreed. But that's not how the marketing world works.
>
>
In my experience, I'd say that's how it works. If people have any buying
sense at all, they don't allow themselves to get repeatedly burned in their
purchasing decisions (in general). As far as marketing is concerned,
unscrupulous places like Blockbuster can scream and shout their monthly
specials to me all they want, but they will *never* get my business again
based on my past experience with them. This may also be a similar deterrent
for many folks with computer games -- they have had bad experiences in the
past and therefore don't bother with them (or choose to go the console route
instead). My point is there are many other purchasing decisions to consider
beyond whether or not a game will run well on a particular computer.
> I don't think Soccer Mom Suzy is
>> going to pick up Doom III for Lil' Johnny's birthday gift. "See son, you
>> get to fight legions of demons spawned from Hell. Sez so right here on
>> the box." C'mon. Same thing for Far Cry, Half-Life 2, etc. The action
>> game genre doesn't appeal to most consumers.
>
> ???
My point here is that it goes back contextual clues within the point-of-sale
marketing fluff on the packaging. Gotta know what you're buying.
> The type of people that action games do
>> appeal to (males, ages 15 to forty-something) are willing to open up
>> their boxes and upgrade if necessary.
>
> Again ??? I don't think most 15 to 40 y/o men who own a computer have
> opened them. I would guess less than 10% have.
Their loss then. Goes back to my "computers as exclusionary equipment"
point. By way of analogy, you wouldn't expect to soup-up a vehicle yourself
without popping the hood. Alternatively, you could buy a prebuilt hot rod.
Alienware, anyone?
I also don't know any guy within that age range that doesn't like to tinker
with stuff or at least buy a top-of-the-line product in order to have
bragging rights to the "best and baddest." And if they don't have that type
of personality then they probably don't play action-based computer games.
>> Computers have always been exclusionary pieces of equipment.
>
> They used to be. They aren't marketed that way anymore. They are marketed
> to... what did you call her... Soccer mom Suzy
>
Yes, they're marketed that way, but I don't believe they function that way.
Have you never had to help install a printer (an external device, mind you)
for a non-technical savvy friend or relative? It's relatively painless these
days for people like us, but there are still usability and technical issues
for the average user.
> It's just these
>> days there are so many things you can do on them that they are almost
>> getting as ubiquitous as television sets.
>
> Like buying a computer.
>
Everyone may have one, but that doesn't mean they know how to use it.
Another analogy: Most everyone has a VCR, but they probably only know how to
operate the simple buttons on the front of the player or on the remote.
Setting up a VCR to record a show while they're away would probably boggle
their mind.
> In this same vein, most games suited for "the
>> family computer" run fine on three to five year old hardware.
>
> Not true. Even The Sims 2 is a hog.
You got me there.
However, I'd be curious to see the demographics on
people who purchased The Sims 2. I would assume they would be technically
savvy enough to check and see if their computers would run the game. Am I
wrong to assume someone would verify a purchase will work out for them
before they plunk down $50? Again, caveat emptor. Maybe I'm just more
careful with my money.
> Consider the
>> poor folks who have "switched" to Macs and must special-order their
>> software these days instead of being able to pop into BestBuy and pick
>> something up (and I should know b/c I have a Mac as a second computer at
>> work).
>>
>> I also don't see how our collective hobby is suffering either.
>
>
> Look at the shelves of your local retailer.
They look as barren as ever.
Probably due to my po-dunk surroundings. I
get more information from online gaming sites than I do browsing local
retail shop shelves. I also often have to order stuff online. I'm adapting
to perpetuate my hobby.
I'd also suggest this is due to the marketing efforts on the part of the
game publishers.
>
> Last year was
>> great for PC gaming and this year is shaping up to be *almost* as good,
>> too. If developers continue to make money at something, they will
>> continue to produce (the level of quality is subjective, of
>> course...people vote with their wallets). And if you can't walk into your
>> favorite store to find a game, I suggest you order it online. I have to
>> resort to doing it for older titles.
>
> If it's not available in stores, that means it's not profitable to carry
> them. A bad sign.
To your point I'd argue that not every game is a winner and has the same
marketing budget or retail presence behind it based on the publisher.
Therefore, the fact that a game isn't on a storeshelf doesn't necessarily
mean it wouldn't be profitable for a retailer.
- f_f
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram