Most games are generic crap. I've seen crap games make money, but I haven't seen a great game fail. People see Flappy Bird and want to imitate it because it's easy. Those who work hard don't rely on luck can still build a sustainable business. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=45&v=1BCg31KVJok
It is falsifiable though. All you'd need is for someone to notice that a game that has been lingering in obscurity for years is actually great and start bringing attention to it.
There many games that only achieved success years after release (for example Psychonauts). It's the same thing as with films (my favourite: Blade Runner).
This is logical nitpicking and I don't even think you're right. It just implies that of all the games I've seen no great one failed. A game can be great by an arbitrary measure and still fail comercially.
I agree for the most part, but great games do fail even on the AAA side. See Psychonauts, Beyond Good & Evil, Okami... Critically acclaimed and loved by gamers, but commercial failures.
I'd guess it's more common in mobile and indie, but don't know for sure. I'd be really curious to see an in-depth analysis of it.
Also thanks for your comment, that's the reply I was hoping for. I think a lot of the reasons why and how games fail (commercially) have changed with things like social media and increased usage of stock game engines. Unfortunately most of the post mortems of failed (indie) games I've read are of rather bad games. This is what I've meant when I said I've never heard of a great failed game. The most vocal group are people with a bad game who feel like they're entitled to earn millions (rethoric hyperbole intended).
Okami was rereleased on a newer console at one point wasn't it? I think it probably did a little better.
But yeah, in general, I think that because AAA games cost so much to make and usually cost more to buy, they have to cater to the masses more in order to be successful, whereas indie game devs are more like startups.... lean and mean. So, they don't require the same level of sales to be a success, and they are also free to make more niche and obscure games.
Being "great" (whatever that means) has nothing whatsoever to do with success. There are plenty of "great" things, games included, that fail. The whole idea of "building a better mouse-trap and people will beat a path to your door" is a fantasy. And this is particularly true for any app --game or not-- in something like Apple's App Store.
You can take crap, add great marketing and turn it into solid cash-flow.
In an ecosystem like the app store any app without a solid and aggressive marketing program is almost guaranteed to fail.
Yes, "great" is better than "lame" but they don't succeed or fail on their own.
Agreed. This point comes up frequently, and nobody's able to point to more than the tiniest handful of genuinely great games that have failed commercially. I think we can at least say that 99.9% of failed games are not very good.
Regardless, if you're making something special, you're in a much better position to be able to promote it. In business terms, go for the niche that's not currently being served, and execute well.
Do that, and the marketing is easy. Games journalists want to know about unique games that they'll love. They definitely don't want to cover the ten thousandth mediocre clone of whatever's popular at the moment.
Battlecruiser 3000AD, Beyond Good & Evil, Brütal Legend, Grim Fandango, The Last Express, Psychonauts, and Shenmue are often said to be pretty good.
Also, 500 iOS games per day. Mostly, games fail because it's cut-throat. Yeah, a lot are generic, but some are probably pretty good.
What's the standard of "great"? Popular? Well reviewed? In your opinion? Because there's well-reviewed games that flopped, and there's games I've personally liked that didn't make much money. There's even reasonably popular games that are complete commercial failures.
Yes, if you have a AAA company, and a AAA marketing budget, it will drive some sales. But even then, they can flop.
