For the mag: Information drip-feed

[Dave Shaw]

Hi all!

The news feature for issue 96 will centre upon the many tactics adopted by videogame publishers to publicise their titles before release. Specifically, if any of the myriad approaches taken actually results in greater gamer excitement, or indeed destroys any interest players might have in a videogame before it's even released.

Clearly, everyone here reads videogame magazines/websites, and therefore wishes to gain an insight into their favourite titles before release, but which strategies chime best with you?

Do you prefer your information in short, frequent bursts, a la Street Fighter IV or Batman: Arkham City? Do you prefer Rockstar's model - that is, releasing extremely infrequent trailers and otherwise saying nothing? Do 'teaser' trailers do anything other than frustrate their target audience? Does anyone actually watch 'insider' developer diaries?

What are your views on the above? More information less frequently? Less information more frequently? Very little until release? What say you?

[CherryCokeChaos]

Tiny bits of information, or the same three style screenshots do my nut in, I like it when companies take a different approach, like Ubisoft with their facebook "Assassins Creed Legacy" game.

[Mullered Moose]

I've never liked the publishers going for an all out assault with their press releases; a little bit of good info in any form followed by nowt is better than being constantly bombarded with 'another new screen shot' every 2 or 3 weeks.

[The-Marb]

I dont like it at the time but the Rockstar way is almost the best. It keeps you intrigued right to release day. Ill admit Rockstar can only do that as they are so succesfull though, other smaller developers need to keep the game in the public consiousness.

[ClownTrousers]

In depth previews. Otherwise they degenerate into speculative nonsense.

[CherryCokeChaos]

You could team this up with "FINGS WOT WE ERD FROM PRESS BUT NEVA MADE IT IN2 DA GAME" If you're struggling anything by Molyneux should fill it.

[Tom909]

I dont like it at the time but the Rockstar way is almost the best. It keeps you intrigued right to release day. Ill admit Rockstar can only do that as they are so succesfull though, other smaller developers need to keep the game in the public consiousness.

This.

I've tried to stop taking any notice of pre-release info these days because unless it's a completely non-biased hands on preview then all you get is what the people making the money want you to hear. I don't mind an initial announcement trailer which just gives you a snippet of what to expect and when to expect it but when I hear anything more it just sounds like sales drivel.

It's kind of a shame that it's got to the point where I just ignore as much as possible because it takes away from a lot of the pre-release excitement which I used to love but if you believe everything you're fed these days it only leads to one thing 95% of the time; disappointment.

[j2000_nr]

For me I don't much care for the whole PR thing anyway, as they will be totally biased towards the developers anyway, to me the only information that I actually care for is that found in independent magazines, especially after they have been able to play some of the game. If they can then play further versions on the pre - release code closer to release then even better.

[Bob]

In an ideal world you'd have:

Announcement in news page.
Preview.
Review.

That'd be it. I've gotten a little fed up with preview after preview detailing each bit. I don't want to sound all Werther's Originals (back when all this was paper with no news in between your favoured monthly peroidical turning up on the shelf of your local newsie) but this information overloaded age is really taking it's toll.. to the point where a lot of the time I feel I've almost played the game, had the experience and worn the T shirt without having to go to the trouble of making an actual purchase.

It'd be better to be a bit more Kate Bush about it all. Keep the mystery. Pay for some decent adverts.. Ah.. for the adverts of yesteryear.. but that's a different subject.

[The-Marb]

^^^ i agree Bob. Like i said though, only big devs with big franchises can afford to do it.

Some games need the publicity and media saturation or Joe Public would never know they were out.

sad really.

[BuffAngel]

Drip fed on the front pages of a dozen magazines on the news stand all with identical pictures of a modern soldier looking rough and chiselled. In camo of course.

[Dante3000]

A trailer and then next to nothing. Maybe some drips.

A developer diary is a no no for me, they are filled with lies.
Also, I hate those trailers that dont show any game footage... that may work for teasers but release trailers with that stuff is trash.

[IgTerminals]

Periodic info from announcement to release, but not a preview every month. And I agree with a previous post; more varied screen shots. Having the same 3 shots for months actually ruins the excitement.
Having said that, your mistake was putting SFIV as an example. There was no way I was gonna choose another option.

That'd be it. I've gotten a little fed up with preview after preview detailing each bit. I don't want to sound all Werther's Originals (back when all this was paper with no news in between your favoured monthly peroidical turning up on the shelf of your local newsie) but this information overloaded age is really taking it's toll.. to the point where a lot of the time I feel I've almost played the game, had the experience and worn the T shirt without having to go to the trouble of making an actual purchase.

Whilst info has increased due to the internets, I disagree that it has changed all that much. I used to get monthly mags for my SNES and Gameboy, "back in the day", and they were filled with regular previews and drip fed info from a games announcement until its release.
Ah...SuperPlay. How I loved you.