...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.
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.
clap
