Don Bradman Cricket 17 General Discussion

[Gamer Pradosh]

why do you think it's such a poor license?

also, they've confirmed previously likelihood of regional box stars under the DBC license - e.g. a madden-style arrangement

Yeah correct..But not sure the player they have got for that though..

 

[blockerdave]

Yeah correct..But not sure the player they have got for that though..

whisper on the underground grapevine is: Europe: Mike Hendrick; South Africa: Khaya Majola; Asia: Mahes Goonatilleke; Aus/NZ: Carl Rackemann

 

[Chief]

why do you think it's such a poor license?

Oh I don't think it's a poor license as such - I do think that it's great for the core audience. But I really think it limits the sales outside of the niche audience that is already established (and will buy it irrespective of what's on the box!).

 

[blockerdave]

Oh I don't think it's a poor license as such - I do think that it's great for the core audience. But I really think it limits the sales outside of the niche audience that is already established (and will buy it irrespective of what's on the box!).

I'd like to know your thought process on that though. For example I've bought Madden a number of times not knowing who either Madden or the "box star" is: and I'm by no means a gridiron core supporter. Why do you think someone who might buy a cricket game deciding against based on a Bradman license (with or without alternative regional box stars)?

 

[UnknownSoul]

I've always thought that licenses aren't the be all and end all.. as most games that don't have full licenses have a work around anyway.. if i enjoy a certain sport/game ill buy it regardless of who's on the box or license... i.e even if warner was on the dbc box I'd still buy it. They just add that extra bit of gloss to the game... even tho it's a money blackhole i guess. I don't really know how it goes but id rather the money that goes towards licenses being put to the game features and such instead of say a huge coverstar for example.

 

[Ajh1977]

Players come and go, get dropped, retire or get injured.
I'd rather have the above in the game than worry about who's on the box. Also the Don is to cricket like Babe Ruth in baseball, people who don't follow the game know the name.

 

[Biggs]

For example I've bought Madden a number of times not knowing who either Madden or the "box star"

Yeah, this.

It's pretty obvious what they're doing with the title. I expect it to be rebranded "Bradman Cricket" sooner than later as the IP evolves.

[HASHTAG]#VOTEBIGGS[/HASHTAG]

 

[Chief]

Why do you think someone who might buy a cricket game deciding against based on a Bradman license (with or without alternative regional box stars)?

People don't NOT buy a game based on the license, but they they entertain the idea of buying a game if it's endorsed by someone they know. Bradman isn't that guy. He's wonderful, yes and I have nothing but respect for his legacy, but he's Bobby Charlton or Geoff Hurst - darling to his countrymen but means nothing to people beyond that country or time.

 

[Allrounder18]

Players come and go, get dropped, retire or get injured.
I'd rather have the above in the game than worry about who's on the box. Also the Don is to cricket like Babe Ruth in baseball, people who don't follow the game know the name.

Whose babe roth?

 

[Biggs]

but they they entertain the idea of buying a game if it's endorsed by someone they know

You can have a game called "Bradman Cricket" and stick Joe Root on the cover.

"Bradman Cricket" is the IP, they're not putting him on the cover again. Ross talked about this over a year ago as they evolve the license it moves towards "Madden" style branding.

 

[blockerdave]

People don't NOT buy a game based on the license, but they they entertain the idea of buying a game if it's endorsed by someone they know. Bradman isn't that guy. He's wonderful, yes and I have nothing but respect for his legacy, but he's Bobby Charlton or Geoff Hurst - darling to his countrymen but means nothing to people beyond that country or time.

Mandela's first question on leaving prison was "is Bradman still alive?". So I think he certainly transcends time and place.

 

[Chief]

Mandela's first question on leaving prison was "is Bradman still alive?". So I think he certainly transcends time and place.

If 72yr olds were a good guide as to who will buy video games, I'd agree.

 

[Biggs]

...how is it any more divisive a title than "Ashes Cricket?" which is irrelevant across 80% of the cricketing nations. At least even the most blue-and-orange-painted BCCI payrolled hellicopter shot t-shirt wearing India fan would agree Bradman is a better choice than that. Bradman is pretty much universally recognised as the greatest to ever play the game, across all nations and I would say even those kids wearin' their baseball hats backwards have heard of the name, if not have a passing knowledge of the man.

[HASHTAG]#MakePlanetCricketGreatAgain[/HASHTAG]

 

[Chief]

...how is it any more divisive a title than "Ashes Cricket?" which is irrelevant across 80% of the cricketing nations.

But relevant in a huge percentage (Im guessing, but like 90%?) of key cricket-games-buying territories.

I see what you're getting at, and I'm right there with you, but commercially I just think it's wrong. Even if "Ian Botham" or "Brian Lara/Graham Gooch/Shane Warne/whoever from the last 20 years" buys you nothing, it buys you the attention of a lot of journos who otherwise really don't care. They see more recent datapoints as relevancies as they've been in their newspapers more recently and think their readership will care about them. Therefore they will do stories.

The biggest issue that DBC14 had was that it didn't capture much attention at all outside of the core market (who already knew about it). If it hadn't been for IGN AU, it barely registered on any of the big sites. I do think that's got a lot to do with the publisher, but mostly because it just wasn't a story they cared about.

NB: "Best Cricket game ever made" was bandied around a lot - so why the heck didnt anyone get to hear about it? It deserved better - the problems weren't in the game...

 

[Biggs]

Even if "Ian Botham" or "Brian Lara/Graham Gooch/Shane Warne/whoever from the last 20 years" buys you nothing, it buys you the attention of a lot of journos who otherwise really don't care.

...a game titled Botham, Gooch or Warne Cricket or would move less off the shelf. I think of the games problems, it's name wasn't one of them. The marketing was clearly sub-par and that's no fault of the title. The only complaints I've read of the title have solely come from UK-based folk, which pings my storm-in-a-teacup-ometer.

The biggest issue that DBC14 had was that it didn't capture much attention at all outside of the core market (who already knew about it)

That's cricket gaming. You know it's never going move billions of units or make game of the year YouTube videos. It's a niche sport, sits outside Rugby, League and the "Big Three" of Baseball, US Football and Soccer. I think any attempt to "capture attention outside of the core market" are delusions of grandeur. The only hope is to grow that core market by attracting younger fans who are into T20 and the like, but not playing it on their Xbox or PS3. Changing the title doesn't do that, because those younger fans have Dads and Mums who know Bradman and love cricket and so on. They're paying the bills...

You're going to move units and grow the market by having flying stumps, glowing bails and stumps, cheerleaders and digital advertising boards and sight-screens in the game because it LOOKS exciting in a trailer. If the game has those flashing lights, then it'll be fine for those kids. The core market is still going to demand a mechanic to grind out an 80 ball 35 to save the test.

...am I more likely to buy a game that has the Bradman name to it now? Absolutely, the last one was great. I've told people and word of mouth on any sequel will do the rest. The key isn't to change the name but market the IP as current for a new generation, tying into the history of Bradman and the mark of quality that comes with his name. A name that NO OTHER player in the history of cricket has or ever will again.