New cover? - Page 4

DominionsFan · #31 October 16th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Dominions II. looks better imho.

Richard · #32 October 16th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psitticine:
Branding is important, and consistancy is a part of that. The title of the game should remain the same, no matter where or when it is referenced.

Marketing 101. I'll speak to Tim about it so we can make a decision, it's easy to miss little details like this when trying to get a game to market.

Taqwus · #33 October 17th, 2003, 12:36 AM

The new cover looks a little cheesy to me. *shrug* Something in the line of Brueghel the Elder, or even Holbein, would strike me more favorably. Somewhere there's a picture of a painting depicting what a victorious Duke of Alva did to the Netherlands after a battle, hm, but I can't find it. Bother.

Tim Brooks · #34 October 17th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Even negative attention is attention, huh?

What makes it negative attention? Its opinions. Neither right nor wrong. Everyone has one. We could change it and would pleaee some that we hadn't before, and displease others that are happy with the way it is now.

st.patrik · #35 October 17th, 2003, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Brooks:

quote:
Even negative attention is attention, huh?

What makes it negative attention? Its opinions. Neither right nor wrong. Everyone has one. We could change it and would pleaee some that we hadn't before, and displease others that are happy with the way it is now.

I wasn't trying to say it was right or wrong - just trying to respond to what you said about the fact that there's controversy about the cover being a good thing.

To my understanding that interprets the negative attention the new cover was receiving as a good thing, because it provokes controversy and discussion, etc. rather than interpreting it as a bad thing, which would presumably be because you would only want favourable reviews (i.e. positive attention). I hope this clarifies what I meant by 'negative attention'.

and BTW I recognise that my opinion counts just as that: the opinion of one customer. Nonetheless as a customer I feel the freedom to make my opinions known, and to comment on Shrapnel's response

, so long as I keep it polite. I trust I gave no offense?

[ October 17, 2003, 04:34: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Tim Brooks · #36 October 17th, 2003, 09:11 AM

st. patrick:

No offense taken, and you bring up a good point, as it regards reviews. Here is what we can measure:

Positive reviews garner the most immediate sales for a product.

Negative reviews the next most.

NO Reviews or very few reviews the least.

So, we would rather have alot of negative reviews than for a product to be just ignored by the media.

From my marketing days in college, we were told that there is no such thing as bad press. Press, even negative, makes people aware of who you are and what you have and, of course, it is free. I think the premise was, it may hurt you short term, but in the long run, people will remember your company/ product, and forget why they remember it.

I assume this premise is still in place, but of course marketing has changed alot. Advertising use to bring customers immmediately. Now, from my understanding, advertising is considered a more long term investment. You can no longer look at advertising as a quick fix for sales, but an investment in prouct identity.

Probably more information than you wanted to know...

[ October 17, 2003, 09:39: Message edited by: Tim Brooks ]

st.patrik · #37 October 17th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Brooks:
st. patrick:

No offense taken, and you bring up a good point, as it regards reviews. Here is what we can measure:

Positive reviews garner the most immediate sales for a product.

Negative reviews the next most.

NO Reviews or very few reviews the least.

So, we would rather have alot of negative reviews than for a product to be just ignored by the media.

From my marketing days in college, we were told that there is no such thing as bad press. Press, even negative, makes people aware of who you are and what you have and, of course, it is free. I think the premise was, it may hurt you short term, but in the long run, people will remember your company/ product, and forget why they remember it.

I assume this premise is still in place, but of course marketing has changed alot. Advertising use to bring customers immmediately. Now, from my understanding, advertising is considered a more long term investment. You can no longer look at advertising as a quick fix for sales, but an investment in prouct identity.

Probably more information than you wanted to know...

It's all good.

- though the way marketing in general works sometimes seems a little sneaky to me

Pocus · #38 October 17th, 2003, 09:57 PM

warning, personnal opinion coming :

I dont like the cover too. Too modern, too plainly basic. I would have preferred something along the line of an old sketch as someone said (da Vinci or along the line).

LordArioch · #39 October 17th, 2003, 10:28 PM

I honestly like the old cover more, but from a perspective of drawing attention I can see why the new one would aid in marketing. Note that I think there's a trend of the people newer to dominions to like the new cover and the dominions 1 fans to like the old one. I could be wrong...but it seems that way.
I think its largely either the all blue scheme or the white lines all over the world that most give it the sci-fi look. But keep in mind the old dominions box looked nice with the old dominions interface...the new interface iself has a new color scheme.

PvK · #40 October 18th, 2003, 02:22 AM

I, too, think the style of the Doms I cover was a much better fit, and more to my own tastes. There are also plenty of eye-catching ancient/medieval images which could've been used.

As for marketters... well, if they want some attention from the cover, there are some nice controversial medieval images of battles with heaps of chopped up bleeding corpses and stuff.

PvK

[ October 18, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: PvK ]