Don Bradman Cricket 14 General Discussion

[blockerdave]

Rugby 15 has been awful with social media and marketing in general: I don't see them having done anything different to what DBC did.

Add to this that it was, by most accounts, a poor game compared with DBC reviews, coupled with the fact that Rugby and Cricket are very similar in terms of market... and you have to wonder why they have fared so much better.

I can only conclude that the things they did the same are no factor, and only the differences can explain the disparity in sales.

well, for one i would say there wasn't a "toxic" competitor game released just prior that may have switched a lot of people away from a game of their sport...

 

[Chief]

well, for one i would say there wasn't a "toxic" competitor game released just prior that may have switched a lot of people away from a game of their sport...

Yep: that's another difference. But not sure that many would abandon the only game available of "their sport" because a different game came out on a different platform and was awful. I'd say that it had a minimal impact on sales. The only impact it might have had was with any people outside of games or Cricket that might have got confused: Anyone likely to buy DBC would have known the difference.

 

[blockerdave]

Yep: that's another difference. But not sure that many would abandon the only game available of "their sport" because a different game came out on a different platform and was awful. I'd say that it had a minimal impact on sales. The only impact it might have had was with any people outside of games or Cricket that might have got confused: Anyone likely to buy DBC would have known the difference.

I agree it would have had zero effect on cricket fans.

I think it unquestionably had an impact on retail orders and probably impacted on the botched UK release. It may well have put off more casual people who may have come across the game knowing background noise about a "rubbish cricket game"

 

[MattW]

Rugby 15 has been awful with social media and marketing in general: I don't see them having done anything different to what DBC did.

Well point by point:
Rugby 15 has a website - Homepage - RUGBY 15 - PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, Xbox One, Xbox 360, PC, PS Vita which does a particularly good job in the features section, by going through point by point and using an image example. DBC's feature list itself is far more impressive, but conveyed as just that repeated block of text, if you manage to find it.

Rugby 15 has a dedicated twitter feed for the game, even if they stopped using it after the release (probably because the game is a buggy mess that they aren't fixing). DBC kinda have Big Ant's twitter, but it doubles as Ross' personal account and has to deal with questions on a bunch of different games, which makes the useful DBC responses hard to filter through.

I also think that Rugby 15's launch trailer is more effective than DBC's - again, despite Rugby 15 being rubbish, they've managed to pull out 'features' and promote them effectively. DBC's trailer was longer but didn't show off features anywhere near as effectively - no one could tell by watching DBC's trailer that there's a career mode and the best batting and bowling controls in any cricket game. Plus there wasn't one at all for the PS4/Xbox One re-release, a big missed opportunity to counter the impression that nothing was changed.

Rugby 15's an awful, awful game, but they far excel on marketing.

 

[Biggs]

Rugby 15's an awful, awful game, but they far excel on marketing.

That's basically the Ubisoft model. Trade on a licence that used to be once great and legendary... now a shell of cash-grabbingness and bloated, boring gameplay all wrapped in the guise of fancy trailers, posters and social media marketing. The argument to make is that BigAnt put all their money into the game with nothing left over for whiz-bang trailers and posters... I think the trade-off is acceptable for me because I got a great game out of it, the downside is many people are only now discovering it because it's got the PS4/XBONE treatment...

But it honestly matters not to me. I got a sweet PC copy, I'm happy. Just fix the fielding/bowling AI and we're good to go.

 

[Chief]

... The argument to make is that BigAnt put all their money into the game with nothing left over for whiz-bang trailers and posters... I think the trade-off is acceptable for me because I got a great game out of it, the downside is many people are only now discovering it because it's got the PS4/XBONE treatment...

The marketing is on the publisher: I don't know what the deal was obviously, but it seems to me that they acted more like a distributor only in this instance: the marketing was next to nothing. Again, hopefully rectified next time around.

 

[Chief]

Well point by point:
Rugby 15 has a website - Homepage - RUGBY 15 - PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, Xbox One, Xbox 360, PC, PS Vita which does a particularly good job in the features section, by going through point by point and using an image example. DBC's feature list itself is far more impressive, but conveyed as just that repeated block of text, if you manage to find it.

Rugby 15 has a dedicated twitter feed for the game, even if they stopped using it after the release (probably because the game is a buggy mess that they aren't fixing). DBC kinda have Big Ant's twitter, but it doubles as Ross' personal account and has to deal with questions on a bunch of different games, which makes the useful DBC responses hard to filter through.

I also think that Rugby 15's launch trailer is more effective than DBC's - again, despite Rugby 15 being rubbish, they've managed to pull out 'features' and promote them effectively. DBC's trailer was longer but didn't show off features anywhere near as effectively - no one could tell by watching DBC's trailer that there's a career mode and the best batting and bowling controls in any cricket game. Plus there wasn't one at all for the PS4/Xbox One re-release, a big missed opportunity to counter the impression that nothing was changed.

Rugby 15's an awful, awful game, but they far excel on marketing.

Yeah, the launch trailer is a big difference to be fair: I hadn't seen that. And you're right: I guess Rugby did tick a few boxes. Still woeful mind.

 

[blockerdave]

The marketing is on the publisher: I don't know what the deal was obviously, but it seems to me that they acted more like a distributor only in this instance: the marketing was next to nothing. Again, hopefully rectified next time around.

And they f'd up that, too.

 

[Biggs]

...in the cricketing countries that matter, they didn't

 

[scouser]

...in the cricketing countries that matter, they didn't

The distribution in Australia was top notch

 

[Biggs]

...as was New Zealand. The distribution plan matched the cricketing prowess of the relevant nations. By that account, Bradman Cricket 16 will meet release schedules in Afghanistan, before England.

 

[MattW]

...as was New Zealand. The distribution plan matched the cricketing prowess of the relevant nations. By that account, Bradman Cricket 16 will meet release schedules in Afghanistan, before England.

Well they certainly did well distributing in the UAE.

 

[Biggs]

@MattW for the win...

 

[blockerdave]

...in the cricketing countries that matter, they didn't

but they messed up in the mighty USA for PS4...

 

[Chief]

And they f'd up that, too.

Always hard to manage. At Codies we used to have different distributors in various parts of the world, but luckily they were all wonderful to work with. Sadly I don't think they are still going: there are so many fewer options these days for distribution and it's really hard to find good partners.