The Ico syndrome

Quite often I see discussions among developers who use Ico as the poster child for critically stellar games with underwhelming sales.  But while Ico is often lauded as a great game, it never surprised me with its lack of success.

A few factors that contributed to Ico's under-performance:

o  Meaningless name.  Just seeing/hearing the name tells you nothing about the game.  So, the name itself did nothing to help position the game.

o  Oddball hero.  Doesn't the boy have horns?  If so, this game has the same problem that the Oddworld games have, a quirky hero that's hard to relate to.

o  Short game.  Probably a victim of rental, and gamers just wanting more for their money.

o  Non-compelling subject.  This may be the heaviest anchor.  Ico seems to be a generic fantasy, save the girl story without anything buzz-worthy to sell it.  Yes, the hook is that you grab the girl's hand and guide her, but on the surface that doesn't sound like an excitingly new hook.  And even playing the game I didn't find this all that compelling.  Really, the only thing eye-opening about the game was its visuals, but again it's still overall generic, just nicely done.

o  Kid's game.  This ties into the previous point, but it also stands on it's own.  To Joe Gamer holding the Ico box in his hand, it looks like a game for kids.  There is no obvious coolness to the concept.  This game is a tough sell to the teenage/adult gamer.

Ico has many game developers shaking their heads in dismay, because it's a game with stellar production values, gameplay uniqueness and overall terrific execution, and yet it didn't become an unqualified hit.  The game was poorly positioned, both from a branding perspective and from a game concept perspective.  Ico's main character, generic setting and kid level story did not lay a compelling foundation for a game.

Practically all games that are critically acclaimed yet fail to realize expected potential have similar problems.  And generally it's a problem that's easy to avoid.

Comments

[Tadhg]

It does sound a little like what you're saying is "Ico was great, except for all the bits that made it unique" Scott.

Especially when there are shorter, odder and more meaninglessly-named games out there doing well every day. Like Katamari Damacy. Viewtiful Joe. And such and such.

I think you're also doing the setting and character a huge disserviceby calling them 'generic', as it is precisely those aspects of the game that makes such ardent fans of the whole. It's beautiful, it's different, it's serene etc.

What most people say with this and a few other games is that their failure is largely to do with how it was presented, marketed and ultimately that its publisher seemed to have very little faith in it. It's a failure of business, not necessarily of the game, that it didn't fly. Some sells are more difficult than others, but the reaction of the industry is often not to try with those sales. Anything that doesn't fit is often assumed to simply not be worth it.

And yet quirky, charming and the unusual are exactly what draw many people into gaming in the first place. The games industry has a long and lustrous tradition of coming up with oddball creations that charm the public, right the way back to Donkey Kong, Pac Man and Space Invaders.

But we've become afraid of that (and afraid of ourselves, I would say), afraid of failure, and that has moved us into this psychology of over-concern of business angle and short changing the very reason that we do this in the first place, which is creative expression.

So I take your points on board, but I'd suggest you take a long look at why it is that you feel the need to slap down so hard on a might-have-been when there are plenty more unsuccessful games out there that were clearly never going to fly.

[Wilf]

Some interesting points.

I really do think however that one aspect of the game's appeal was in it's limited public awareness.
There was a sense of "cool gamer" to be playing Ico. Much like Rez around the same time.

Ico was littered with challenges and rich in rewards for the successful completion of those challenges. At times it was infuriating and at times it was simply beautiful.
Much like Rez.

The argument surrounding the name of the game is a little odd. Does Shenmue or Ikaruga mean anything to anybody? These are first class titles and loved in the west. Naturally I picked two japanese games to illustrate my point ;) But the point is not everything has to be called "BALLISTIC BOB" to sell.

The oddball hero concept you talk about also blighted Jak and Daxter. (mute hero)
Something that Insomniac later addressed to great effect with Ratchet and Clank. I think there is some mileage in this argument. More so than the others. Jak and Daxter was wonderfully executed if a little easy, but the lack of depth to your character made it a little shallow.

As for it being perceived as a kid's game, well, I play kid's games a lot :-) Zelda and Mario are the original kid's games and these sold in spades.

I'm no officonado on your games but I'm guessing that Prey and Duke will continue the route of every-increasing-arsenal to destroy ever-more-threatening-adversaries whilst looking for the key or cardpass to unlock a door.

Sometimes it's the games that dared to be different that make the biggest impact. Albeit on a smaller scale than the publisher had perhaps anticipated.

[Francesco Poli]

It's interesting to note how a vaguely decent platform/beat'em up could get hyped to such extremes. Ico's story is cute, the technical aspect nice and the story delivery decent, but that's basically all it has.

Having to handhold a particularly stupid AI is not exactly something I call original. It wasn't funny in Daikatana, it sure as hell is not funny here. The game mechanics, as said, *never* go beyond the frankly tired platforming/puzzling/beating. And on those, games like Project Eden are much better.

Plus the PAL version got the dreadful watermill puzzle, plus all enemies head for the farthest hole after grabbing Yorda, not the closest one - making many scenes nothing but frustrating messes. I have to wonder what the hell the designers were on when they decided the game needed a shot of unplayability. And the very final platforming section... yes, a giant section where one minor misstep (something easy with the wonky camera) means repeating everything from the very beginning. There's a truckload of fun to be had there. /sarcasm

Bottom line: few games were more overhyped than Ico. It has no originality what-so-ever and as far as delivery goes, there's hundreds of better (*significantly* better) games out there.

If designers start making more games like Ico, gaming is in serious trouble.

[Francesco Poli]

>Much like Rez around the same time.

Ah, forgot about Panzer Dragoon-lite on drugs. And here I went, thinking that gameplay was king.

Oh, don't worry. If this is the level of comments, I'm not bothering anymore, so flame on.

[Scott Miller]

Ahhhhhhhhhh! Kill me now! I hate typing in this postage-stamp sized edit box!!! Anyway...

The Mario and Zelda games, while kid-oriented, have a long history and built a fanbase from when many of us were much younger, so it's not a apples-to-apples comparison to Ico's situation.

Tadhg: The name Ico was only a small part of the problem. The bigger problems, as I noted, were the final two. And while the game may have shed its generic cloak while you played it, the important thing to note is that while you held the box in your hand it came off as more generic than it really was after you played it. In marketing, perception trumps reality.

>>> The games industry has a long and lustrous tradition of coming up with oddball creations that charm the public, right the way back to Donkey Kong, Pac Man and Space Invaders. <<<

Yeah, but back then the industry was much different.

>>> Does Shenmue or Ikaruga mean anything to anybody? These are first class titles and loved in the west.<<<

Again, these games had far more compelling foundations, and couldn't be perceived as kid-oriented games.

[Wilf]

I think it's interesting what different people get out of different games.

Oh, don't worry. If this is the level of comments, I'm not bothering anymore, so flame on.

Tiresome.
Just goes to show. In the big picture of things, opinion is nothing.

[Tadhg]

"Ahhhhhhhhhh! Kill me now! I hate typing in this postage-stamp sized edit box!!! Anyway..."

Aye :(

"The name Ico was only a small part of the problem. The bigger problems, as I noted, were the final two. And while the game may have shed its generic cloak while you played it, the important thing to note is that while you held the box in your hand it came off as more generic than it really was after you played it. In marketing, perception trumps reality."

No Scott, just not true. It never looked generic to me. I'll concede that it looked like a younger-audience game, but then I don't see how that is a negative. The compelling subject is shown on the box cover.

But of course the other thing to be noted is that the box covers in the US and UK were different. The US cover is blander than bland, your average 'hero in dynamic pose' nonsense. The UK box, on the other hand, is a wonderful picture of two tiny people running against a shadowy landscape of huge proportions. So we may be arguing based on having seen different things.

In marketing perception does trump reality. Nowhere more so than the marketing department and how they allocate their budget.

"Yeah, but back then the industry was much different."

Was it really? There were tons of generic cash-in games back then just as there are today. The major difference being that they didn't cost ten million a pop to make. But in terms of what people buy and like to play, have things really changed that much?

[cliffski]

Thats the main point isn't it? now that games cost a zillion dollars they are deemed a failure unless they sell to the wider market, and that excludes any possibility of being different or niche. Im sure if Ico had been made for a tenth its budget it would be hailed as a great success becuase of its profitability. I LIKE games with weird names and concepts, but nobody will make them because the 'niche' isnt big enough for the zillion dollar budget. I cant even get Katamari on the PC. its insane.

[redchurch]

"If it isn't profitable, it isn't creative."

-Jay Conrad Levinson, Guerrilla Advertising

Such a sentiment no doubt infuriates creative geniuses and le artistes everywhere, because it doesn't speak to the authority of their subjective tastes.

[Walter]

The definition of 'profitable', of course, being open to subjective interpretation.

But if you meant, didn't make you more money than you put into it, then yeah, it's a pretty stupid sentiment. :)

[John Beeler]

I wonder, Scott, how you'd interpret the recent success of Katamari Damacy in the light of your analysis of Ico's failure. Doesn't KD meet all the criteria you mentioned, and then some?

[Anon]

Bottom line: few games were more overhyped than Ico. It has no originality what-so-ever and as far as delivery goes, there's hundreds of better (*significantly* better) games out there.

If designers start making more games like Ico, gaming is in serious trouble.

--
After I finished Ico, I couldn't think of single game that blew me away like it did. Ico is in my personal console top-ten. Miller's generic would be the last word used when describing the game. Originality? PoP:SoT had none of that either, and did everything ICO did but worse. Yet it sold more copies, spawned an even crappier sequel, and critics loved it all the same. It also had a huge ad campaign.

I pray that more games offer the experience Ico did, and I'm happy to see Shadow of the Colossus will be out soon, that game is looking spectacular. The reason Ico was "overhyped" is because people loved the game and tried to pick up the slack the Sony marketing guys dropped.

I would have never played the game without all those people raving about it, so thanks to them all. I'm glad I didn't miss a wonderful work of art.

As for Miller's comments:

Meaningless name - For every game out there with a title that has meaning, there are a handful that are utter nonsense and don't have meaning. That's why they plaster stupid tag-lines or sub-titles or lengthy descriptions on the box.

Oddball hero - I don't understand that. A hedehog is an oddball hero too when you think about it. I can't relate to Master Chief myself.

Short game - Most of the best (excluding rpgs, cough) are short and fulfilling. I'll just say Max Payne 1 & 2 and stop right there ;)

Non-compelling subject - I thought the hook was the relationship between these two characters. Not simply hand-holding. Maybe you missed some of the generic story? :(

Kid's game - Apparently everything without guns or blood is a kid's game, didn't you get that memo? As for the box art, I think everyone will admit the US art is terrible. The Japan & Euro box art was much, much better - http://www.gametab.com/images/ss/ps2/1396/box-l-jp.jpg

I blame Ico's under-performance solely on marketing. Once I saw a video of it, I was interested. Shame this short clip was made by a friend years after it came out. If only I had seen it sooner!

Go back to 2001, ask random gamers if they've even heard of ICO, you'll get a bunch of confused looks.

Go back to 2003, ask random gamers if they've heard of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. If they owned a TV or used the internet they probably couldn't avoid that marketing blitz.

PS
Okay, I know PoP is sort of a bad example, it didn't sell as well as UBI wanted it to. But it did outsell Ico and it's of a similar genre which is why I used it. Maybe people hate adventure-platformers?

[Greg Findlay]

I can specifically remember people saying Ico looked like a kids game when it came out and as soon as something gets branded that way a lot of heads turn the other direction. You guys are right though that the art for the US box was bad (it made it look like a kids game).
I'll admit I still haven't played Ico. Mostly because the premise of the game doesn't have a compeling feature that people have been able to get across to me. All the features you guys have been touting here are very generic things. This isn't to say Ico isn't unique, just that it's selling points are very generic. I have been intreged to try it for quite a while though just from all the positive feedback people have given it.
I don't think Ico is a bad name but it doesn't mean anything to me, so it's definitely not helping sell the game (which I think was Scott's point).

[Damion Schubert]

I didn't play Ico very long, to be honest. If I remember right, Ico failed the Bruckheimer Test - nothing very interesting happened in the first 5-10 minutes. In fact, I don't think you even encounter the gameplay 'hook' until well beyond that.

I keep seeing Katamari Damacy mentioned here as a great success. My understanding is that KD had fairly poor numbers - barely more than six figures, which is a disappointment in the console arena. KD is the epitome of 'reviewed well, sold poorly'. All that being said, you're introduced to the innovation in KD much, much faster than in Ico, and that greatly contributes to the good word of mouth KD has. I'd expect KD's sequel to fare better.

[Scott Miller]

Katamari Damacy is a game I've heard a lot about, and only today looked into by searching around the web. The name doesn't help the game in the least, and I just assumed it was some typical Japanese fighting game or who knows what.

My researched shows that the game seems to be a non-hit, yet it's getting buzz (much like Ico) from a vocal few of impressed players.

>>> I blame Ico's under-performance solely on marketing. <<<

I should write an entire blog about this topic. The short story is that if a publisher's marketing department can't find a compelling, unique aspect of the game to push, then they are in a deep hole to begin with. Ico put them in a deep hole, and they probably did the best job they could. It's a easy finger to point at marketing, and it too often gets blamed when a product doesn't achieve expected sales. But, most often marketing is not at fault, and the finger should be aimed at the product itself, for being generic, undistinguished or designed for the wrong market (i.e. kids).

[Walter]

A disappointment by whose standards, Scott? Given how cheaply Katamari Damacy was to produce, how 'quirky' and 'badly named' it is, and the fact that Namco practically hinged its decision on whether to release it here based on feedback from its lone, tucked-away-in-the-corner kiosk at E3 2004, I'd say the game is quite the triumph.

[dubeau]

I think it's too easy to say it's the title, it's the cover or the gameplay of the game. Take for example "Beyond Good and Evil", an excellent game without any success. Yet it has a Ubisoft stamp on it. I am not influence by a title unless it's a german title like Xenosaga's titles (I think it's ridiculous). I take a look at what is behind a cover to buy a game, not the front, and from what i have seen, almost everyone do. Has for the gameplay, anyone playing Ico, can say it was refreshing to some points.

I agree some things about Ico:
-the way it was marketed was very poor and did not reflected how unique the game was.
-the main boy character wasn't very interesting and sympathic. Contrairy to the princess who was...So you have a kind of a paradox here that isn't very appealling in the story.
-The boy should have talked. The princess should have stayed mute and mysterious. You could have put a kind of attachement toward the young boy, who was trying to reaching verbally to the princess. That was a very weak point in the story, which in my view, must have turned many poeples away. You have this with Zelda, but the other way around, and it does work because there is an element of "what if he talks...". Of course he doesn't (Spoiler) lol!

Ico was a great game. I can't wait to play the Collossus game the creator is making. That guy is the next thing after Miyamoto. Hopefully his talent won't be spoiled.

[Anon]

Nah, it's easy to point the finger at them not becuase they couldn't figure out how to push it, it was that they didn't even try to push it at all.

As for Katamari, it sold about the same amount as Ico in 1/20th of the time.

It didn't have any significant advertising here, but the marketing was HUGE in japan and word of mouth spread like wildfire after the Japanese release.

A $20 price tag here also helped it move. Most game stores didn't order enough copies to meed initial demands. They figured it wouldn't be a hit based on the name alone, ordered a bare minimum of copies, and were sold out of it for weeks after release.

Most gamers want to play whats fun. They don't care if about titles or box art or if a minority ignorant people consider it a kids game.

All any game needs to be a huge seller is more exposure. Only the AAA titles get that, and that's the reason they sell so well. It doesn't matter if the game is fucking awful with a retarded name like Driv3r, it just needs to be seen and wanted.

[Ben Harris]

I'll admit I'm an Ico lover (sue me!). I don't recall seeing any marketing for Ico in Australia, where I was when it was released, but that's the case for nearly all games there. Luckily I had already read about it on international sites.

Anyone who has finished the game will agree that it has a big pay-off (unlike most other games), but I was disappointed with the minimal story advancement during the game. Of course, the version I played had the feature where you could understand what the princess was saying during the second play through.

The one thing I don't like about Ico is that they don't explain or answer anything. Perhaps a prequel game is in order???

[Wesley Yin-Poole]

The problem isn't with Ico (a good game should sell well) and it isn't with marketing (marketing cannot guarantee success) it was with the industry. The industry, until very recently, has concentrated too heavily on the teenage male market because it feels that the only money is to be made here. Games that do not immediately appeal to this market struggle. In many respects then, Ico was ahead of it's time. If the industry, as it says it will, doubles the gaming audience with the next generation concoles (ie, attracts non gamers, older adults and women to women while keeping the over-saturated young male audience happy) then games like Ico will be more marketable in the future and will sell more. The reasons you gave for it not selling are correct. However, it is more interesting to figure out why these reasons should exist in the first place.

[Tadhg]

"I should write an entire blog about this topic. The short story is that if a publisher's marketing department can't find a compelling, unique aspect of the game to push, then they are in a deep hole to begin with. Ico put them in a deep hole, and they probably did the best job they could. It's a easy finger to point at marketing, and it too often gets blamed when a product doesn't achieve expected sales. But, most often marketing is not at fault, and the finger should be aimed at the product itself, for being generic, undistinguished or designed for the wrong market (i.e. kids)."

But you understand that the marketing department itself is also involve din this, right? There are many products down through the years that have explioded because the marketing was pitch perfect (the ipod, for example) when all around it did not.

9 times out of 10 I agree with you. Mostly it IS the products that just don't work and that is the real fault. You can't sell something that has nothing to offer (unless it has already establuished franchise behind it, a ton of money, but in the main).

However, 1 time out of every 10 it is NOT the product's fault, it is the fault of the people who are in charge of selling and their lack of imagination in doing so. And that is the case with Ico.

It's a great game
With a simple name
Beatiful to look at
Innovative gameplay
Haunting audio
etc.

It required a bit of effort on the part of SCEA to think how might that be sold. They came up with a gack box cover and no support. Unsurprisingly, it didn't do well.

It's not the product's fault though. It is the equivalent of if Apple had sold the ipod in a lurid green box with Times New Roman font and called it The Musicalator!

Sometimes marketing fucks up Scott. This is one of those times.

[Scott Miller]

True, marketing can fail. Tivo's marketing is a prime example: revolutionary product, yet the marketing has utterly failed to communicate what is special about Tivo. Its success is based purely on outrageously positive word-of-mouth.

With Ico, I just believe that had the game been designed with a more adult orientation and a less generic setting, then it would have caught on a lot better than it did. A little boy saving a princess in a castle-like setting is about as generic as it gets. Of course, those who played the game and found the fun and exciting details within the game, will have a different opinion. But, a lot of people holding that Ico box in stores put in back on the shelf because of it didn't seem appealing on the surface. And I think that's where the game failed.

[chris]

I think the main problem with Ico was the fact the thing that made it so good was the way you felt so emotionaly attached to its main characters. I've never felt so emotionally involved in a game as i did with Ico. But attachment to the story takes time to develop and isn't something thats immediately apparent when you start to play. Part of the beauty of Ico was it's subtlety and subtltey is a hard thing to market effectively.

[Damion Schubert]

I think it's too easy to say it's the title, it's the cover or the gameplay of the game. Take for example "Beyond Good and Evil", an excellent game without any success. Yet it has a Ubisoft stamp on it.

Are you implying that big corporations can't screw this up? BG&E is a great game, the problem is actually exactly what Scott is talking about - it was difficult to explain in a sentence the 'hook' - i.e. photography angle, and to a lesser extent the cool distopian world. The title really didn't emphasize either well.

I am not influence by a title unless it's a german title like Xenosaga's titles (I think it's ridiculous).

The title is, ultimately, a chance to advertise your unique selling point every time your product is mentioned. Made up words are okay (in fact, if successful, they are much more successful at holding mindshare than generic combinations of 'Dark', 'Blood' and Shadows'), provided the player's mind can still The example I like to give is that EverQuest is a good made-up name (sounds like a world of infinite quests), whereas Asheron's Call is a name that means nothing unless you take the time to read the fiction.

As for Katamari, it sold about the same amount as Ico in 1/20th of the time. It didn't have any significant advertising here, but the marketing was HUGE in japan and word of mouth spread like wildfire after the Japanese release. A $20 price tag here also helped it move.

The numbers I saw were 100K here and 100K and Japan. That was a while ago, I confess. Also, you do realize that the $20 price tag greatly affected their profitability, right?

[Frederico Brinca]

It realy feels like a missed oportunity from Sony's marketing team. ICO is a game that is very simple to play, that delivers a tale (a simple, violent, mysterious story) and that deploys an extreme sensitivity. It is the complete antithesis of the clichés about video games. It was a perfect title to broaden the audience, reach older people, reach women. In fact, the mother of a friend of mine, who never played a video game in her entire life, played through ICO.

Other than that, I don't find it surprising that some games can be criticaly acclaimed and not do well. It is certain that the video games industry is dramaticaly more industrialized than the movie industry, but it's pretty healthy to have a segment of it made of games that try to do things differently, to tell different stories or try to tell old stories differently (that would be ICO). Gerry is for many (hopefully most) a better movie than Star Wars Episode 3 and there is prolly a factor 100 between the total gross of the two, but it would be very sad if there were only Episode 1's and no more Gerry's. The accountants would not mind at first, nor would the majority of the public, but the long term effects might be devastating (that's the point where one reminds video games almost disapeared in the early 80s).