Do gaming company names have an effect on purchasing games?

[Harmill]

The weight of the developer's impact on purchasing varies from game to game for me. In general, genre will affect my purchasing decision more than who the developer is. I don't like the Elder Scrolls games but if Bethesda decided to work on a JRPG, I'd at least be interested in it and do further research. I love Insomniac (Spyro and Ratchet & Clank are amazing franchises) but I have zero interest in Sunset Overdrive. It's not my type of game. So I'll skip their next project. Monolith Soft is one of my favourite developers because I absolutely loved Xenogears and Xenosaga's story-centered style. So long as they continue to make JRPGs, I'll continue to buy their games.

An unknown developer can come out of left field and announce a new JRPG for the PS3 and that game would have my attention. But I use reviews for unknown games...if the game from the unknown developer gets good reviews on launch, I'll probably buy it. Shovel Knight is something I really want to buy based off its genre and reviews.

I loved Castle Crashers. I started stalking the Behemoth to see what their next game was going to be. Battleblock Theatre didn't really grab my attention when it was announced though...so I didn't buy it.

Hmmm...at risk of offending anyone...I tend to stay away from developers like Compile Heart (Record of Agarest War, Hyperdimension Neptunia). Their games just look very...pervy (busty female characters sucking on popsicles kind of thing) and I want nothing to do with those types of games, even if they are JRPGs. That developer's track record seems to be consistently in that pervy realm so unless they have a change in design direction, I'll probably never buy another game developed by them.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Well, they make my decision making process faster. Faster, just that.


Like if I would get to choose between a game made by the Enix team that made Kingdom Hearts versus a game that was made by somebody I don't know, I'd get the Enix game right away as long as the games doesn't look so much different in terms of whatever info the devs has given.


Now if it's two unknowns for example, I'd spend much more time analyzing things up and deciding up.


Though for me, the game name itself (if it's already a series) has more consideration. Like if it's a kingdom hearts title by Enix, then I'd get that

 

[hian]

When I was a kid I bought games more or less completely based on the cover-art and the pictures of the game-play at the back of the cover.


Now I buy games based on youtube videos. I don't care a squat about the company that made it. I've seen to many companies that made games I loved growing up, dish out ****ty games to think that it would be safe for me to buy a game based only on the company.

 

[steeltamashii]

I feel very odd about this. On the one hand, I bought every Squaresoft PS1 game released in my region after FFVII on the day of its release. I've owned every Nintendo and Sega console after having played and enjoyed my Genesis and SNES greatly. That's the power of branding at its finest: a fan that is willing to buy as soon as they see your name or brand on a product.

At the same time though, I'm careful about every game I buy now, no matter what the brand is, because so many of these companies abuse their brand power to do stupid things, thinking rate of attrition alone will sell games. This never works in any other industry, and it doesn't work in video games either. After my strong distaste for most of every Final Fantasy game released this last generation, I don't buy most Square-Enix stuff on release day anymore, and depending on reviews I don't buy at all. I haven't bought a Sonic game in years aside from Generations, and I have yet to decide if I'll buy a Wii U or not.

Ultimately, I think a game developer should treat branding very seriously, as it is your social proof of quality of voice. Every game you release, it should be consistent with the quality of voice you are trying to portray. That's what lead me to buy by brand back in the day, these companies had a specific voice that I jived with, so i bought their products. Now many of them are trying to please everyone, which sadly isn't possible. Frankly all its done is diminished their voice and their audience. Find the audience you jive with, and cater to them. That's building a strong brand.

 

[Sennie]

I always think about how good a game company is by reading reviews of their games. So for example:

Reviews show that EA makes worse games than R* does. But that is only other people's opinions, I think the best way to judge a game company is to actually by their game and test it out for yourself. But that's just my opinion though...

Hope I helped

Miffy6000.

 

[Jomarcenter]

I am the type of guy who is into "try something new" stuff so I buy stuff even from an unknown company.

 

[Caitlin]

I am willing to take a look at other games that a company I respect puts out, but I do not blindly buy games anymore.  At one point, you couldn't go wrong with a good Squaresoft game, but when they Squareenix, that changed.  It was a change and taking less risks, less zanny games but that couldn't be stopped.  I am more than willing to take a good look at a game of an unknown if the story sounds really good and the art is pretty good, too.  I am willing to drop the art if the story sounds really good.  I am rather picky these days.

 

[IcarusBen]

I really and truly must be the only person here who DOESN'T like Square Enix. The only games I've liked by them (DX: Human Revolution and Just Cause 2) weren't even developed by them (it was Eidos), with the exception of Symphonica on iOS, but that's a rhythm game with classical music. Pretty much an instant win.

I actually have a something-list, wherein I censor the first word of it's name and write down companies I refuse to buy from if they develop it or had a signifigant part in.

Here goes:

Square Enix

EA (DRM and always-multiplayer. Nuff said.)

TT Games (they made Lego games. I don't like Lego games at all, but they keep doing it! Same game, everytime, with different characters.)

Black Isle Studios (Again, I absolutely hate this company. It's only saving grace was that it evolved into Obsidian, who are awesome.)

On the other hand, if Bethesda, Valve or Re-Logic makes it, I'll be more than likely to take a chance and buy (except for TF2, Dishonored and L4D, I'm not a fan of multiplayer, zombies or RATS! RATS! KILL THEM WITH THE FIRE! OR THE ZOMBIES! OR THE MULTIPLAYER! OR THE COMBUSTABLE LEMONS! KILL THEM WITH SOMETHING!)

Ahem. Sorry. I don't like rats.

EDIT: Turn to page 2, sees other people who don't care for SE, feels rather stupid.

 

[hian]

EDIT: Turn to page 2, sees other people who don't care for SE, feels rather stupid.

I'm pretty sure most people who grew up with Squaresoft can't stand Square-enix since they pretty much butchered or forgot about every good thing Squaresoft ever made.

The only good things Square-enix do is when they publish, and hire third-party developers/daughter-companies to do the developing and writing for them.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

To be honest, SE doesn't actually handle that much completely internally anymore anyway. Mostly just the FF series and the KH series.

Even Dragon Quest is done by Armor Project, usually in conjunction with Level 5.

(Also, I get a laugh out of FFX-2 Haters who blame it on SE, considering that it came out in Japan before the merger).

 

[steeltamashii]

I'm pretty sure most people who grew up with Squaresoft can't stand Square-enix since they pretty much butchered or forgot about every good thing Squaresoft ever made.

The only good things Square-enix do is when they publish, and hire third-party developers/daughter-companies to do the developing and writing for them.

I kinda lost alot of interest in Square's games after FFX. FFX kind of marked a new era of JRPG were we ended up watching more cut scenes than playing a game.

To be honest, SE doesn't actually handle that much completely internally anymore anyway. Mostly just the FF series and the KH series.

Even Dragon Quest is done by Armor Project, usually in conjunction with Level 5.

(Also, I get a laugh out of FFX-2 Haters who blame it on SE, considering that it came out in Japan before the merger).

Enix was mainly a publisher anyway, Dragon Quest was done by Chunsoft, Tri-Ace, and Quintet before being worked on by Level 5 and Armor Project.

It's saddening how none of Enix's franchises really carried over the merger. Star Ocean and Dragon Quest was really the only ones, and the last Star Ocean game was horrible. However nowadays I wouldn't trust SE remaking Illusion of Gaia or ActRaiser or Terranigma. They'd probably find a way to screw it up, seeing how they ruined most of Square's franchises.

 

[hian]

(Also, I get a laugh out of FFX-2 Haters who blame it on SE, considering that it came out in Japan before the merger).

The consideration for the merger was first brought up among share-holders in 2000, and had a direct impact on consecutive titles taking a more streamlined design approach to be appealing to a broader audience in Japan, because Square needed to fix their economical situation before Enix would consider merging them (Squaresoft had lost too much money on The Spirits Within).

Quote

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_%28company%29#History)

On May 28, 2002 it was detailed that in Wada's restructuring of the company, that "while Square formally took a development style where teams were formed and dispersed per project, developers will now be fixed into divisions. Source codes and resources will be shared for efficiency, and employees will receive varying bonuses depending on the profit of their division. By settling developers into groups, Square also aims for the developers to re-use the titles they have developed, making game development more cost efficient. Development costs- originally 2-3 Billion yen, are expected to fall to 1 Billion yen." In addition, the company revealed plans to release two Final Fantasy X spinoffs that would later become Final Fantasy X-2.[11][12]

FF X-2 is a direct result of the merger/The Spirits Within - that is to say mismanagement of economy, and the idea that they need to spend less on original/reuse old assets to make up for losses in order to justify the merger to Enix.

Just saying. I personally like the game for what it is - but pretending as if Squaresoft would have made FFX-2 if they had no plans to merger, is just not true. Also, the impact FF X-2 has had on company policy in regards to future products has been extremely detrimental (to be fair, X has to share some of the blame though)

FFX and Kingdom Hearts sent Squaresoft to a economical peak, and FF X-2 was proof that you could carry over large incomes from previously released titles at smaller production costs by making sequels and spin-offs , and therefore set a precedent for future productions that you see reflected today.

(I get real sad whenever I think about how awesome the line-up of Squaresoft's games would probably have looked today if they never made "The Spirits Within", and never merged with Enix.)

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

What's The Spirits Within?

 

[Touchfuzzy]

That had more to do with Spirits Within crumbling like the Wall of Jericho. FFX-2 was an intentional cost saving measure, related to the fact that they just hemorrhaged money on a terrible attempt to make a movie, and the very favorable reaction of fans to the Eternal Calm Video at the end of FFX International, and not directly related to the merger.


It was still Squaresoft at the time, therefore, it was the actions of Squaresoft that made FFX-2. I doubt they would have made the same decision if Spirits Within had done well, and if fan reaction to Eternal Calm wasn't high, regardless of the merger. And I'm pretty sure it would have happened without the merger as well.

 

[steeltamashii]

What's The Spirits Within?

A really bad Final Fantasy movie.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Ah that movie... yeah, it was awful...

 

[Mage Heart]

If is says NISA then I will 100% buy it.

 

[IcarusBen]

I find I prefer WRPGs to JRPGs (I prefer more open design) so I typically buy from companies that make good WRPGs (Bethesda, Obsidian, Lionhead) as opposed to JRPG companies (SE, Game Freak, etc.) Still, I'll branch into JRPGs every once in a while.

 

[Nivlacart]

I try to look up games every time before I make a judgement whether I think it's good or not, but there have been instances where I picked up a game I've never seen before at a game store, and read the 'ATLUS' logo on it, and went 'Oh this has to be a good game then.'

As much as I'd hate to admit it, company names do have a slight hold on me.

 

[Southclaw]

TL;DR - "Yes. Also, I just realised that I'm kind of old."

When I was a young lad, I used to game on the C64 and the Amiga. Anyone who's under 30 is probably webskilled enough to research those machines if they care to. Anyone over 30 has probably heard of them, if not used them. Moving on.

There were two companies I would watch in particular, and they both affected my buying habits quite strongly - it was VERY hard to buy games where I lived at the time, so research (honk if you remember ZZap!64 or Amiga Format) was VERY important.

Ocean Software - they basically specialised in what is now called 'shovelware'. Most games by them were a big no-no for me. Notable Exceptions: The Bubble Bobble trilogy, and Wizball. AWESOME.

Gremlin Graphics (later Gremlin Interactive) on the other hand...they were more like an Indie company. Sure, they ALSO did some 'shovelware', but they mixed it up with a fair bit of innovation - or at least different angles on tired genres. Thing On A Spring, Venus The Flytrap, The Monty Series - maybe not ground breakers, but good fun with strong character design. Anyone who gamed at that time, consider this tidbit of nostalgic trivia: Technocop was a proto-GTA.

(I feel so old right now.)

So, 'Ocean - Bad', 'Gremlin - Good'. MAJOR effect on purchasing games for me. I did NOT spend my weekend delivering catalogues to pay good money for a dodgy movie tie-in with formulaic and staid 'gameplay'.

I know it's simplistic, but I still put game companies in those same boxes - To me, for my play experience, I call Bethesda or EA 'Ocean' companies. And Valve and Obsidian are 'Gremlin' Companies. Ocean and Gremlin are long gone, but their mark lives on, in my mind. Not in the sense of the games, but in the ethics and behaviour of the companies.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that any of the above companies games are all good or all bad, I'm just demonstrating how powerful an effect that the company names had on me, and how they continue to.)