Are Buzzwords and Lies Effective at Getting Gamers to Buy In?

I would say It has to do with the pedigree of the studio/developer. After all, games are not, for the most part, all tangible. Thus, the consumer can't feel or touch the experience at a concept and basic level. Therefore, it should behoove game developers/publishers to create and distribute a quality product every time it can, in order to establish a vaunted pedigree. Where I believe marketing fails is in the proof of concept. No one buys into the very first attempt or the second or third lousy attempt. Instead it takes a savvy and thoughtful approach to sell some of us on a quality product. Be as honest and earnest as possible. Why must we sit through the buzz words and talking points. Just tell me exactly what I can and/or can't do in-game. Then you can cover it in as much superficial icing as you want. 

The experience will be like no other experience before it. The world will be "so" vast. The player will be able to do what ever they want. Then, with grandiose expectations, the final product, based on what amounted to market speak concepts, is flat, bland, derivative and restrictive. Where is my do anything I want? why can't I do the unreasonable or the relatively reasonable tasks of which I was promised?  And I get it, proof of concept is not typically a term associated with the conceptualization that the marketers are pushing; it is what developers typically sell to the publishers and the publishers sell to the board, yes? Well, I'm attempting to approach this subject from a different angle, so please bear with me. What I'm getting at, is that the relationship fostered between player/consumer and developer/publisher is, in fact, important.  


The market teams and whoever else  comes up with selling us(the potential buyer) on the game, must essentially sell us on a concept. There is no product during the phase in which the publisher is churning out the most of its propaganda. Therefore, I ask does it work? Does the stream of, sometimes corrosive, advertisement and viral campaigns, work? I think it has to do with the relationship pre-established between the player and the entities behind the game.  Think about it, concepts never before experienced would naturally be harder to place a value on, especially given there mostly abstract nature. Even the things that have concrete and very physical applications or existences can be obscure to those who have never experienced them, or are unfamiliar with their existence or regularity. I believe that the louder pockets of sum developers may reach more ears, that doesn't answer the question of how effective on a per budget average their buzz words and proof of concepts are--how do customers react. Lets imagine we shift the budgets of an indie game developer with the deep pocketed budget of a large publisher. In this instance, where the indie developer could now reach a wider audience, would there level of authenticity increase or decrease their sales. Or would they loose the motivation to just sell the very basic ideas of the game and convert to flirtatious rambling with no substance.

I think that the indie developer would improve sales and that a larger budget would be at the purview. The problem is that it would come down to solely the budget and not the fluff, and out right market lies and half truths, that would do the selling. The indie developer tends to come off as more humble and earnest in it approach to game design. The fans, I would imagine, greatly appreciate this and are very wiling to consider their support of the developer a support of carefully crafted, honest workmanship. This is with a previous production completed--and in some cases without. Fans won't need to be overwhelmed, then, with the buzzing and hissing of nonsensical marketing. Instead just tell me honestly what are you attempting to make, not what you are attempting to make up. Yes, I asked the question, would a larger budget ruin the approach of an indie dev., but who can say for sure. What can be said, is that I think it is the marketing budget-- the ability to reach more eyes and ears--and not the crap marketing ploys and tactics that cloud the future expectations and integrity of a game. This integrity and pedigree though means that even without a large budget smaller developers, with honest concrete "this is possible/that is not" conceptions that are reasonably close to the final product, can essentially, relative to their budget create reliable sales and relationships with their fans/players/consumers. That establishment creates a positive cycle of consumer and dev/publisher interaction, making us more likely to purchase the next iteration based in confidence. 

Can the relative budget to honest, delivered marketing results,  increase sales? because it seems as though some publishers would rather spit out buzz words and grandiose conceptions, than actually deliver on a solid product. That solid product might not be as ambitious as Skyrim,but it would, in my opinion, establish an integrity and pedigree that would be hard to ignore. 

*These are just some quick and rough thoughts. I am sure I will think of ways to re-think and revise them.

*Thanks for reading. Let me know what you think. More to come, so stay tuned.