It is though? Getting an occasional trailer/tweet every now and then is the definition of a slow burn. Zelda is no different. A slow burn marketing cycle is still going to have the patented final push that Nintendo has perfected at this point.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about exactly
I'm saying that I don't think Splatoon deserves this sort of marketing cycle. I don't like it with Zelda, but at least that franchise has the prestige and sales to warrant it. Splatoon, in my opinion, has neither of those things, and as a result the marketing has been a faceplant so far for me.
It sounds like you aren't the intended audience of the marketing? There's an incredibly hungry and devoted fanbase out there who enjoy and decipher the "cryptic" nature of this marketing, especially in JP. As you said in your initial post, the game is huge in Japan, so thus it follows that the marketing would be directed at that market. Other markets are just getting translations of that marketing effort because we live in the age of the internet anyhow
but why though? why does it need the sales to be announced early? I don't get what you're saying at all
I'm aware, hence why I mentioned this in my initial post. Doesn't mean I need to like it or think it's the best decision for the series.
Because I don't think the popularity is strong enough in the west to support such a slow marketing cycle. There's basically no hype for this game outside of the Splatoon community, and that's pretty much entirely on Nintendo for showing so little of it. It works in Japan because the prestige for the franchise allows this type of marketing to function.
???????
I thought the Zelda marketing cycle was silly before Breath of the Wild too. Now that it's earned the reputation of being a blockbuster smash hit, while I still don't like how they handle marketing whatsoever, I can at least somewhat understand it.
And Splatoon isn't? The last game sold over 13 million!
Breath of the Wild sold double that, and I still think the marketing for the sequel is questionable.
I had dreams of a space in the starfield that day.
I'm not saying that though? I quite literally said I understand why they went with the marketing cycle they did specifically because of Japan. I just don't think that this form of marketing translated well outside of Japan at all, and as a result the interest in Splatoon 3 has yet to really take off at all in the west.
...what's the difference though? this way the community is hyped and it's given the switch a future tentpole for advertising the future of support
Had the announcement been pushed to later on and the information been more condensed, I do believe that the hype would be stronger than it currently is, yes.
but they haven't shared yet? the direct that will change this is literally in two days
I hope it does, but I firmly believe that interest in the game could have been significantly higher has the marketing cycle been handled differently up to this point.
Maybe so, but I’m honestly not super convinced about the sales in the west yet. Don’t think it’s entirely impossible that a large portion of Splatoon 2’s sales came from early adopters looking for something to play.
I mean that's just plain wrong, the game in his first quarter sold 3.5 mil copies and it went on to sell over 13 mil copies in the following years.
this is absolutely the case
When Famiboards tells you that Xenoblade and FE are massive franchises but Splatoon isn't, it becomes pretty obvious what the thread's preferences are.
NGL, I do get a little annoyed when people complain about MULTIPLAYER FOCUSED games not having good single player options. Splatoon, the Mario Sports games, Mario Kart, Switch Sports. Like that's not the focus of the games lol. It's like complaining that BOTW doesnt have multiplayer or that Mario Odysseys multiplayer sucks.
I dunno if bias is the word I’d use. The board is definitely skewed away from the general consensus (I.E. Xenoblade is a much bigger deal here than for the general audience) but the multiplayer/casual stuff is still well represented on here I’d say.
absolutely. big fan of knowing what's coming without knowing much about it
I think it depends on the specific games. With Strikers for example I don’t really see the benefit of having a big single player campaign. For Splatoon, I think many people see the potential the mechanics and the world has, and they just wish to explore them better with a single player campaign. Since Nintendo doesn’t do spin-offs for most of their IPs, a single player mode or DLC is the only real option for that.
wouldn't it be sooo much better and more popular if it was made by game freak tho?
YES, it would also have better marketing so people here would not doom the game.
I 100% agree. I mean of course im not a sales analyst and im sure they re more suited than i am to decide this, but splatoon isnt a content packed game, a expansive world. They could have announced this yesterday and released it next month lol.
If that isn't the case then what's the problem of the marketing?
Beyond the single player bias of the forum, I think, to an extent, a lot of that is expectations set by prior entries or competitors in the genres. Splatoon genuinely has a great single player, the Camelot Mario sports titles were split between multiplayer focused console games and single player focused handheld games, Mario Kart DS had mission mode and other Kart racers have had more substantial single player. Something like Splatoon fits, but I kinda get where certain groups are coming from to an extent?
This is tangential to the greater point you're making, but I wish Discord wasn't used as a big knowledge hub. Discord keeps all that private. It's good for community but terrible for information.
I do think it will have a negative effect on sales. That does not mean I think the game will be a flop. I just think the game could possibly sell more with a stronger initial marketing campaign.
Ah ok.
