Just before the 900 Words threads was shut down, we had gotten into a discussion about the relative value of good game design vs. a good license.
The excerpts below are taken from that thread. Each is taken a little out of context, although I tried not to change the meaning.
I am interested in how this would have played out, so I am bringing this topic up again. The comments are below, followed by a couple of questions.
DocMoriartty:
"DragonballZ cardgame would be a winner no matter who put it out. That was a cash cow waiting to happen."
Vpenman:
"To pick one of your other comments: "DragonballZ cardgame would be a winner no matter who put it out. That was a cash cow waiting to happen."
"Like "Buffy", "Wheel of Time", and other popular IPs turned into CCG's were cash cows waiting to happen?
"One of the things that people who lack actual experience in the game industry don't get is that there is no such thing as a sure thing.
"Lots of extremely popular books, movies, TV programs, etc. have been turned into games that just didn't sell well. This is because gamers buy good games, not "hot properties".
"When one of these does sell well, it is more because of the game than because of the name."
WizarDru:
"A valid point, but I don't think that's really comparing apples to oranges, market-wise. DBZ's appeal is what brought young boys in the target age category of, say, 8-12 into the game. A reasonable mechanic would keep them there. WoT and Buffy don't regularly attract (or attempt to attract) that audience, nor are they multimedia sensations in the same fashion. One doesn't go into party city and get a WoT or Buffy set of party 'goodie bags', with matching hats, tablecloth, paper plates and cups. With the exception of the occasional T-shirt, there is little in the way of vast marketing tie-ins for those two series, while DBZ's cross-marketing is legendary. Further, neither of those two prior series have ever received the same level of marketing push that Bandai has thrown behind such properties as DBZ or Pokemon. Consider how many toy commercials alone that DBZ has produced. It's the synergy that really drove DBZ."
DocMoriartty:
"Are you really saying that WOT - A large indepth novel, Buffy - a move turned to serial tv show, and Dragonball Z - lighthearted anime action cartoon, are all the same thing? They are nothing alike and nothing suggests that they all have the same marketability.
"DragonballZ came out during a card game craze and was carried by items like Pokemon. In fact the two are very similar in origins and backgrounds with huge fan bases. Pokemon proved that DragonballZ would work. The number of card games out there means it is not that much great work to create rules for it based off similar card games."
And then the thread was closed.
I wanted to point out that neither the Star Wars card game nor the Harry Potter card game did as well as the DBZ card game. Each of those other games had much bigger licenses with a lot more merchandising (toys, hats, etc.) behind it. To me it is absolutely clear that the quality of the game design and not the license name, available toys, or any other marketing ploy is what determines if a game is successful or not.
I would like to hear other people's views, especially regarding the following:
1. A good license means a bad game will sell well.
2. A good game will be successful, even if it has no license (MtG?)
3. A good license will help a game, but it will only be a hit if the game is solid.
Please chime in.
Victor
EDIT - Victor, I edited your title to be a little more on-target. Henry
The excerpts below are taken from that thread. Each is taken a little out of context, although I tried not to change the meaning.
I am interested in how this would have played out, so I am bringing this topic up again. The comments are below, followed by a couple of questions.
DocMoriartty:
"DragonballZ cardgame would be a winner no matter who put it out. That was a cash cow waiting to happen."
Vpenman:
"To pick one of your other comments: "DragonballZ cardgame would be a winner no matter who put it out. That was a cash cow waiting to happen."
"Like "Buffy", "Wheel of Time", and other popular IPs turned into CCG's were cash cows waiting to happen?
"One of the things that people who lack actual experience in the game industry don't get is that there is no such thing as a sure thing.
"Lots of extremely popular books, movies, TV programs, etc. have been turned into games that just didn't sell well. This is because gamers buy good games, not "hot properties".
"When one of these does sell well, it is more because of the game than because of the name."
WizarDru:
"A valid point, but I don't think that's really comparing apples to oranges, market-wise. DBZ's appeal is what brought young boys in the target age category of, say, 8-12 into the game. A reasonable mechanic would keep them there. WoT and Buffy don't regularly attract (or attempt to attract) that audience, nor are they multimedia sensations in the same fashion. One doesn't go into party city and get a WoT or Buffy set of party 'goodie bags', with matching hats, tablecloth, paper plates and cups. With the exception of the occasional T-shirt, there is little in the way of vast marketing tie-ins for those two series, while DBZ's cross-marketing is legendary. Further, neither of those two prior series have ever received the same level of marketing push that Bandai has thrown behind such properties as DBZ or Pokemon. Consider how many toy commercials alone that DBZ has produced. It's the synergy that really drove DBZ."
DocMoriartty:
"Are you really saying that WOT - A large indepth novel, Buffy - a move turned to serial tv show, and Dragonball Z - lighthearted anime action cartoon, are all the same thing? They are nothing alike and nothing suggests that they all have the same marketability.
"DragonballZ came out during a card game craze and was carried by items like Pokemon. In fact the two are very similar in origins and backgrounds with huge fan bases. Pokemon proved that DragonballZ would work. The number of card games out there means it is not that much great work to create rules for it based off similar card games."
And then the thread was closed.
I wanted to point out that neither the Star Wars card game nor the Harry Potter card game did as well as the DBZ card game. Each of those other games had much bigger licenses with a lot more merchandising (toys, hats, etc.) behind it. To me it is absolutely clear that the quality of the game design and not the license name, available toys, or any other marketing ploy is what determines if a game is successful or not.
I would like to hear other people's views, especially regarding the following:
1. A good license means a bad game will sell well.
2. A good game will be successful, even if it has no license (MtG?)
3. A good license will help a game, but it will only be a hit if the game is solid.
Please chime in.
Victor
EDIT - Victor, I edited your title to be a little more on-target. Henry
Last edited by a moderator: