The Impact of Good Game Design on Popular Licenses?

[Vpenman]

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

 

[Delemental]

Re: Tangent from a closed thread

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

In my opinion one important thing to consider is that the number of people who buy a game is not the same as the number who play it. The secondary market, or those who collect the cards for their monetary value rather than interest in the game, can make a huge difference. Pokemon and DBZ benefitted from wide-market appeal, and thus developed a collector's market. MtG received the same benefit, despite not being based on a license. The audience that would want to collect Buffy or WoT cards is much smaller, not enough to give an appreciable boost to sales.

It also helps that games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are targeted at younger kids, who have far more disposable income than the forty-somethings that read Wheel of Time and remember the original Star Wars movies.

Star Wars and Harry Potter might be examples of having too big of a license. There are so many cool collectibles for Star Wars and Harry Potter, much cooler than cards, that the impetus to collect the CCG is diminished. Everybody knows an original Millenium Falcon from Kenner in the box is worth a gazillion dollars; the five bucks you might get for a foil Star Wars card just doesn't pique the collector's interest. Pokemon is an obvious exception to this, since those little critters ended up on everything. Again, I think the younger target audience contributes to this.

Here's the pattern I saw at the game shop I worked at. Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh, MtG and DBZ saw consistent strong sales because not only did the collectors keep buying, but the gamers did too. Buffy and WoT sold when they first came out, and then died; the few collectors out there got their sets and never came back. Star Wars sold slowly but steadily; a few collectors, but mostly players who stayed with the game because they liked it.

So, will a good license help a game? I'd say yes in the short term, especially if you have a kid-oriented license. In the long term, you need to have a set of mechanics that will hold a player's interest, and of course must be age-appropriate (the mechanics of Pokemon were solid, but easy enough for a seven year old to grasp - an adult would become bored quickly).

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Tangent from a closed thread

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.

1. A good license means a mediocre game will sell well. Not a bad game, IMO.
2. Success is relative. What does this mean, exactly anyway?
3. I'm not sure how this question is materially different from number 1.

That said, I have no interest in CCGs anyway, so I don't care if they are good, bad or indifferent.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Tangent from a closed thread

It also helps that games like Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are targeted at younger kids, who have far more disposable income than the forty-somethings that read Wheel of Time and remember the original Star Wars movies.

Ummm, that's about the oddest statement I've read all day (including in the d20 sex thread!) Younger kids most certainly do not have more disposable income than 40-somethings. That's an absolutely preposterous statement, especially considering that those younger kids' disposable income is almost entirely dependent on their 30 or 40 something parents.

 

[Mark]

Re: Tangent from a closed thread

And then the thread was closed.

This usually bothers Mods when you start a thread up based on stuff from a closed thread. Normally they like a couple of days to go by before a subject is revisited. Not my place to say good or bad, but don't be surprized if this goes the way of the last one.

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.

Wasn't DBZ targetted at the same market segment that was Gaa Gaa over previously successful CCGs, while the others really were not?

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Tangent from a closed thread

I would like to hear other people's views, especially regarding the following:

1. A good license means a bad game will sell well.

Not necessarily, IMHO.

Personally, if you sell a severely flawed product on the false premise that the brand is going to earn you profit, you shouldn't be in business. So there is a lot of fan concern when a company took over the IP right from another company who has been established as the premiere provider of such product.

Of course, there are guys like me who really did not care for the first product, probably welcome a new company and new change.

2. A good game will be successful, even if it has no license (MtG?)

Depends on the quality and appeal of the product. It may not be an overnight success, like Wizkid's MageKnight but they have have been earning a steady stream of income from that product line.

I don't know if the HeroClix games are going to provide the same after the initial hype wears off, but it was smart of them to take advantage of the marketing opporunities (e.g., Spider-Man movie) at the time.

Consumers tend to think that a company is good at one or two things and that is based on the quality products they make. So they may be weirded out when such a company started to branch out, like the d20 Modern core rulebook from Wizards, who is known for publishing D&D 3e fantasy RPG.

3. A good license will help a game, but it will only be a hit if the game is solid.

I favor this statement above the others. Well, slightly above #2. Once you're granted a license to use someone else's IP, it's your obligation to make the product sellable to the consumers. If the product is flawed (two example reasons: the rules system is flawed or it does not adhere to the IP known to consumers), then consumers will complain, and such criticism can be carried through word of mouth or the internet, and people won't be purchasing that product. That also means you're going to have to pay the license's royalty out of your own money.

Sometimes other elements can help you boost your product such as advertising and promotions, but it still falls back to the product itself. Is it enjoyable enough to play? Does it translate the known elements of the IP into the game? Will there be continued support (and I don't mean, "only if the initial product sell well" condition)?

Sorry for the rambling.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Demographics.
Demographics.
Demographics.

Wheel of Time? Stuffy literature.
Buffy? Hipsters.
DBZ? Guys age 8-18 who like action cartoons.
POKEMON? Any kid in the 5-12 range.
MAGIC? Guys in the 10-21 range.
STAR WARS? Old nerds.


Wanna bet which of these were more successful?

It all boils down to who can toss around the most greenbacks. Guys (for some bizarre reason) statistically tend to shell out more dough for things. Especially guys in the early teens. And parents will by almost anything for kids.

It's about giving the biggest wad of people with dough out there something to buy with it that they like.

Kids can get a lot of things.
Guys (esp. teenagers) can get a lot of things.

The rest don't have nearly the DEMOGRAPHIC appeal of the rest.

There's a reason that Comedy Central has The Man Show.

There's a reason that there are more car commercials than...I dunno...real estate commercials.

There's a reason DBZ is doing so well.

And it all has to do with who has the biggest wad of cash to throw at something.

Thank you, come agian.

 

[ced1106]

Re: Re: Re: Tangent from a closed thread

Younger kids most certainly do not have more disposable income than 40-somethings. That's an absolutely preposterous statement, especially considering that those younger kids' disposable income is almost entirely dependent on their 30 or 40 something parents.

**Disposable** income, not income. At the FLGS, there's literally a queue for the Yu-Gi-Oh binder. In my game demos the **best** way to get a sale is to find a game the kid wants to play. And although half the customers (viz. kids) don't have email accounts, enough of them have $20 allowances.

A parent and his wallet are soon parted!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

ps. Feel free to start this thread on RPGnet. Those guys never close anything...

 

[Vpenman]

Re: Re: Tangent from a closed thread

1. A good license means a mediocre game will sell well. Not a bad game, IMO.
2. Success is relative. What does this mean, exactly anyway?
3. I'm not sure how this question is materially different from number 1.

That said, I have no interest in CCGs anyway, so I don't care if they are good, bad or indifferent.

Well, 1 states the game is a bad game. 3 stated the game would only be a hit if it was a solid game.

A hit game is one that sells much better than most other games of its type. Sell well implies it has better sales than most other games of its type.

Maybe it would help to think of "solid" as good and bad as bad. Also think of "hit" as sells extremely well.

The license vs good game issue applies to RPGs and other games, not just CCGs.

Victor

 

[Henry]

I personally have no problem with this thread as long as the topic stays on the merits of a game design versus licensing power, and as long as personal statements about Jim Ward's opinions or personal hygeine stay WAAAAAAYY the heck away from here.