“In the past several weeks there has been some interesting banter about changing the way games are marketed as we enter the next generation, particularly when it comes to new IP [intellectual property.] But is this really the case? ”

Is it “really the case” that “there has been some interesting banter”? What kind of disjointed opening is this? This may be getting picky, but the inability to even complete a single thought in the very first two sentences of this article is rather troubling, especially if we are expecting the rest of the piece to make some kind of sense.

“According to our numbers, the actual success rate of new IP over the past four years is just seven percent. In other words, 93 percent of new IP fails in the marketplace. ”

No mention of what new IP was studied – only games, or new IP across all entertainment media? If only games – console games? All games including handheld and PC? What determines success or failure here? Is breaking even a failure in this guy’s book? How much money does a new IP need to make to be determined a success by his method of evaluation? None of these questions are addressed which means that this is a garbage statistic, one with no context and therefore no meaning.

“Yet I've never seen a highly anticipated game with a truly powerful concept hurt by a product delay. I've been through a few with the Unreal Tournament franchise and the launch of Neverwinter Nights.”

This contradicts something he says later in the article – that a game can still be successful without a powerful mainstream concept if it comes from one of a handful of elite developers. The list of developers he throws out include Epic Games, the makers of Unreal Tournament, and BioWare, the developer of Neverwinter Nights.

“The Most Important Thing to Get Right is the Concept”

Wrong! Later on, this person says the execution is the third most important thing. He would, of course – he’s a marketer, and he doesn’t think about execution at all. Thankfully, anyone who has actually made a game knows that this is statement is not only wrong: it’s so detached from reality that you look back at his past and think that this might explain why things went so wrong, for so long, at Atari. He goes on to talk about the kinds of concepts that people in our target market want to do (all of the examples of great concepts are, you’ll notice, back-formed from already-successful video game titles). None of the examples will make anyone who truly believes in the potential of videogames excited, but it does sound like the kind of thing marketers would like.

“Conversely, what doesn't our audience fantasize about or respond to? Desolate post apocalyptic wastelands. Werewolves. Vampires. Mechs. Exo-suits. Cybernetic enhancements. ”

Those are some strong words coming from a person who just name-dropped Unreal Tournament and Neverwinter Nights as games “with a truly powerful concept.” What happened? Oh wait, there’s an escape clause coming up: if you’re one of a handful of exceptions, such as the studios that made these games, any concept is fine.

“Innovation doesn't come from the setting. It comes from what you do within a powerful concept. ”

This is actually true. However, note the wording – innovation comes from what you do within a powerful concept. In other words, he is correct, but he doesn’t realize it: innovation comes from the execution of a concept because execution means “what you do”. And therefore, the most important thing to get right is not the concept.

“A great game is one that is a commercial success. Period. ”

I’m not really sure where to begin this one. To be fair it seems like the author is aware that the audience of this piece probably doesn’t agree with him on this point. This perspective, of course, is how he will be judged by his superiors and by the shareholders of the company he works for, so it wouldn’t be good for his own career to believe anything else. But his criteria for a great game – one that keeps him in his job – is not one I think most other people, inside the industry or out, would use, because we don’t generally associate greatness solely with financial success. Ask someone to think of something truly great, then ask them if it made lots of money. They might give you a strange look.

“Begin by developing your game vertically not horizontally. ”

Here is where this author, already on thin ice for all of the comments made above, completely falls through the surface and sinks into the frigid water below. If I can’t simply take umbrage at the audacity of a marketer suggesting development methodology to actual developers, I can at least point out the problem with vertical-slice development: once you’ve created and proven your “slice,” and the all-powerful marketing department approves your creation (my condolences if this is how it works for you), you can only ever make more slices in the same pie, or cake or whatever. In other words, if all the concepts in the game are not proven in the slice, it is difficult to implement them later because sticking to the slice dictates further development and boxes the developer into a set of choices with which they may not be fully comfortable. Usually what happens in this case is that the developer soon realizes this and attempts to break out of the box by making big technical changes or adding new, unproven features, which takes us back to square one of development – therefore the vertical slice method often ends up being not so different from the “E3 demo” method, where a fake version of the game is cobbled together at great cost to the team, only to be largely thrown out during the real production of the game.

“Game development is an iterative process, and only by iterating early and often will you discover the best version of the game that is hidden inside your concept.”

This is true, but the author doesn’t realize that what must be iterated upon isn’t just slices: it’s the entire game. Iterating on slices is a great way to make highly refined and polished slices – nothing more. Stitching those pieces into a larger, coherent experience is at least as much, if not more, work. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that he doesn’t understand this, because he is a marketer, not a developer.

“If during this process, a feature turns out to be just OK and not great, it's decision time. If it's essential, keep at it. If it's a nice-to-have but not a must-have, drop it, or, better yet, save it for the sequel.”

If he truly believes game development is like this, he ought to try it. How hard could it be?

“If developers follow the process I've outlined above, they'll create a product that can achieve the biggest sales possible based on the potential of its concept.”

The irony of statements like these are that as soon as a game actually does do well, marketers are always the first in line to take credit for the resulting success. The game sold well, obviously, due to their campaign, their clever television spots, or viral campaigns. If a game does poorly, however, it was those dumb developers who didn’t come up with a good enough concept. Not once have I seen a marketer pay even fake homage to the notion that good developers can find their own success. But if we look at the companies this man lists as exceptions to his rules, like BioWare and Bungie, we notice something interesting: they often do their own marketing when they can – leaving as little as possible for the publisher to botch.