Forrest Gump'ed

Well, the news is out that Rockstar, a label of Take-Two Interactive, is coming out with a table tennis game.  Does anyone think this is a good match for the Rockstar brand?  Here's what I had to say, in a letter I wrote to executives of the company exactly four years ago...

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Miller
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Rockstar

I saw the news story below [not included here - ed.], and this line here is the one I want to talk about a little:  "Their games are very unique," said Paul Kaump, an analyst with Dougherty & Co. "They focus on the mature market."

[...snipped section...]

The Rockstar brand has become a true brand, unlike most meaningless, jack-of-all-trades brands in the game industry.  The Rockstar brand, to consumers, is positioned as an adult, mature brand.  Gamers and the press are picking up on this, and further games like DNF and Mafia will help reinforce this.  And brand is only powerful, compelling and meaningful when it's focused on a single, easily-understood meaning.  The Rockstar brand has achieved this.

Most publishers do not know how to make a brand meaningful, which is why most publisher brands are nearly worthless on their own.

And once Rockstar begins shipping games that do not fit this adult image, it too will become diluted, less-valuable, less-meaningful, and less able to attract gamers based on its own merits.  The best way to kill this brand is to make it generic, like the Activision brand, or the THQ brand, or the Eidos brand, or the Acclaim brand, or the Sierra brand, or the Infogrames brand -- all nearly worthless brands that gamers don't care about because these brands do not stand for anything (because they stand for everything).  In these cases, gamers buy the game brands, and don't care about the publisher brands.  But in Rockstar's case, the brand brings value to the table because it stands for something--it is positioned very well.

So, I hope Take-Two understands what they have with the Rockstar brand and maintains the brand's purity and focus.  This will mean that if a good game comes along that doesn't fit the Rockstar image, it should be published under a different label.  For example, if Take-Two wants to publish a game based on N-Sync, then doing so under the Rockstar brand would be a giant blunder.

Scott Miller
www.3DRealms.com

I did hear back from them the next day, and they fully agreed.

In a very recent update on Origin of Brands, Laura Ries writes:  "Preserve your focus: Maintaining your focus is the best way to keep a brand strong. By chasing the latest trend, you unfocus the brand and lose the meaning, credibility and authenticity of the brand."  It's really very simple to make a strong brand.  But it's also incredibly tempting to muddy your own brand, by branching out and satisfying that burning desire to be all things to all people.  When brands become strong, the executives in charge too often forget how they got that way to begin with.  It's all about focus.  Lose that, and you lose the brand's power.

Comments

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

If a company has core values the public can strongly identify with, the brand as defined by products doesn't matter. In fact, I'd say core values are more important than product defined branding. Again, we have a qualitative argument here that transcends positioning. If you examine history, people, organisations, and nation states that persist they all share this attribute.

One of the things that seriously bugs me in politics and business is spin. Branding and positioning are tools used to manipulate people into believing you're authoritative, and generate a wider audience. If your sole ambition is to accumulate capital, that's fine. If you want to have integrity and build something worth doing, it would be a good idea to examine your core values.

Most leaders, today, seem to be cowards. I won't hold my breath.

[gman]

Are we sure this is not a joke? I suppose it's not April 1st but when I first heard it I assumed it was real as the Jelly Jet (the printer that prints images with jelly on your toast). The top secret project NewTek was making back in the mid 80s.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

I'll buy it. (The idea not the the game.) Table tennis does have some simplicity and power behind it, and a new creative spin could give it an edge. I saw some potential a couple of years ago, when looking at a selection of tennis games. Done well, it can be interesting.

Someone could've got their wires crossed, but so what? Whether this turns out to be a joke, or not, I'm more than happy to roll with it. The thing, here, is that unless you're prepared to let go and play around with something, you'll be stuck on rails and never expand the horizon.

Going back to the Rockstar brand. I don't see tits and guns as being mature, and the floppy gameplay they've brought into their later games lacks direction. Unless Rockstar start getting properly mature, to me, they're just immature and aimless, and I don't think that's got legs.

[Robert Padbury]

With the amount of money that Take Two are spending on lawyers I wouldn't be suprised if this is something that came down from Take Two. Sam Houser has never taken the safe path, and this move is, as you suggest, uncharacteristic. I don't think the issue here is branding, I think the issue here is money. Whilst I agree that Rockstar have a very powerful brand, the inherit problem with it is lawsuits, and I wouldn't be surprised if T2 have told them to clean up their act, or get the hell out.

If their branding is paramount, then I would say that this is the first step in an effort to re-brand the company. Branding is also in part what consumers consider your company to be. I think Rockstar can effectivly make the shift from 'controversial game creator' to 'company that makes fun games' (look at what Blizzard is known for). Because after all this is textbook example of using controversy to establish brand familiarity. As my Studio Art teacher once said; 'Controversy Creates Cash'.

[Pag]

While it could be real, I think there's a high likelyhood that it's just an elaborate April fool joke: they release the news a month in advance and reveal that it was all a joke on April 1st. The game isn't on Rockstar San Diego's page, which is a bit suspicious.

Still, if it's real, it's a really bad move. Especially since they announced it in a major way.

[Jeff Tunnell]

I found this story rather humorous after the amazing amount of hubris the Rockstar guys exhibited when GTA was flying high, so I posted about it in my Make It Big In Games blog and on the GarageGames site. The biggest surprise to me is that about 25% of the comments are supporting Rockstar and their right to make anything they want, their right to "innovation", and their right to make money. Scott, my comments are much more like yours, i.e. what is more important, the brand or making a Ping Pong game. I'll say it here again. Where does the Ping Pong game go on their website? Next to the hooker or the Gansta?

[Scott Miller]

Jeff, yeah, people rant about innovation and whatnot, and can say, "Well, at least Rockstar is thinking outside the box, blah blah...", but this misses the point. Building a strong brand is about sending a consistent message, and a message that rings true to consumers.

Take-Two can still make ping pong games, but they should release such a game under the appropriate brand. 2K Games seems like the perfect brand for a ping pong game, as they already have a 2K Sports sub-brand, and 2K Games is already a jack-of-all-trades highly diluted brand, so a ping pong game can't muddy the water much worse than it already is.

Take-Two should preserve the purity and focus of the Rockstar brand, one of the very few strongly positioned brands among any publisher. If they become a jack-of-all-trades brand, releasing sports games, sims, kids games, whatever, then they're going to lose the coolness and clout they currently hold.

I was interviewed by a reporter yesterday here in my office, who happens to have a background in marketing, and he was dumbfounded by the silliness of Rockstar releasing a ping pong game. It just makes no sense. Why stab one of the industry's strongest, best-positioned brands in the back? It's like the Animal Planet channel showing shows like 24 or Lost. Sure, these are great shows, but they don't fit the brand, and therefore they'd undermine the strong focus that the channel otherwise had.

[scratching head]

Coming at this from a different angle ... Could this be anything to do with the $29.1 million hit; tough competition to break with its 2k series and an emerging Chinese market?

'According to statistics, China has a table tennis playing population of around 10 million'. Consider that in 1992, more Americans played table tennis (19.8 million) than baseball (14.8 million). So, it appears the sport can be popular and if its the table tennis version of Virtua Tennis, it will capture its audience.

How viable the Chinese market is is questionable, as its the platform popularity if its only going to be release on 360.

It makes one wonder ...

[Greg Findlay]

I don't think anyone here thinks making a table tennis game is a bad idea. The point is who is making it. It's like Rockstar coming out and saying they are starting a Rockstar Family division. It just doesn't make sense. When I mentioned that Rockstar was making a table tennis game to some people at work they all asked what the catch was... do the balls explode, are the players hookers, do you have some mini game were you fight with the rackets? That means people have expectations about Rockstar (ie. a brand). It meant that all Rockstar had to do was say they were making a new game and people would talk because they wanted to know what crazy thing they were going to do next. Once they start breaking that brand people are just not going to care and that extra marketing is out the window. A brand is something people can talk about and when the biggest form of marketing is word of mouth you want to use that to your advantage.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Sir Richard Branson knows a thing about branding, and he's richer than everyone here put together with Rockstar on top. It's called brand stretching. How far can it stretch? As far as you want, unless you're a clown.

Here, in the United Kingdom, the Virgin brand originated with music and covers everything through trains, planes, and telecoms. It's not identified with a single product or class of product, but a set of values.

Then again, you've already made your minds up... I waste my time.

[Scott Miller]

Charles, the problem with Virgin is that is doesn't lead in any category, it's always behind a more focused, better branded leaders. Richard, IMO, is a prime example of how NOT to brand a business. He'd had been far better off developing unique brands for each business category, much the way other companies have done, like Toyota did with the Lexus brand, or how Proctor & Gamble creates a new brand name for each category they enter -- as opposed to Kraft, who brands everything they do with the Kraft brand, and lead in none of them, except cheese (one of their original categories).

When you spread you brand thin, it becomes an easy target for better focused competitors to pick apart, and pretty soon you're no longer a leader in anything you do.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

I'm not going to disagree with you, Scott, rather, suggest that both of us are correct. I do have problems with Virgins brand being a bit fuzzy. On the other hand, I have problems with other brands being too specific. Ultimately, it's a judgement call. My instinct is to maintain a flexible attitude.

Digging through branding, leadership, and character, it's all layers on top of the same thing. Ditto story, gameplay, graphics, and music. In my mind, lack of ability in one betrays lack of ability in another. It doesn't surprise me if some of these issues betray something deeper in people.

Range, flexibility, positivity, and engagement are all core strategic values. A brand, like people, is alive in a changing world. Unless people can wield branding correctly, they will stumble and fail. As with everything else, I think, this is not about knowledge and skill, but ego. Branding is just another illusion.

I suppose, this cuts to the core of my difficulties with marketing. I don't think marketing is a problem in itself. Really, it's the people behind it, who craft perception, water down integrity, and use it to accumulate authority and attention capital. Somewhere, in this power and relationships game, both sides can get a little lost.

I think, you get where I'm coming from.

[Mark Hanna]

When I first heard about this I immediately had a WTF moment. I agree with what both Scott and Charles have said about branding. On the upside for 2K Games is that everyone is talking about the title.. so I guess thats building awareness especially since its a title no one would have expected from such a developer/publisher. Scott, I understand what you mean about brand awareness and not diluting it, but EA pretty much does this and they're doing particularly well. Apogee also did this back with Commander Keen and Wolfenstein and of course Duke, so I'm pretty sure you can have a developer that makes something different and still have an untarnished brand.

[Scott Miller]

>>> but EA pretty much does this and they're doing particularly well.

I would argue that currently the Rockstar brand is more meaningful to consumers than the EA brand. In other words, does anyone buy an EA game because it's an "EA" game? Not for the most part. EA is a super generic, diluted brand with no real clout among consumers. (EA Sports is a different story -- this brand is as powerful as the Rockstar brand.)

When people hear that a new Rockstar game is coming out, they know what to expect, and the brand has a specific set of values and attributes associated with it. The EA brand has no meaningful values or attributes -- it's a jack-of-all-trades brand, a big mega-brand that releases every kind of game under the sun.

Putting EA on a game box doesn't add many additional sales to the game. Adding Rockstar on the box, though, can double or triple sales, because the Rockstar brand means something, and players know what to expect from a Rockstar game.

Well, at least until Rockstar begins to blunt the sharp focus of their brand by releasing non-Rockstar games.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

EA could sharpen up in five minutes if they focused on it. Take a look at the BBC. It broadcasts over a multiplicity of channels, has a broad range of programming, and does this on an international scale. (Which just got me wondering why the NHS doesn't get into expanding abroad.) What does it's brand stand for? Lord Reith originally defined it by the mission statement "Educate, inform, and entertain." Additionally, there is the implication of truth and integrity in here.

The BBC segments its output on a per-channel basis. It's got a bit fuzzy and inconsistent at times, but the spread of channel identities is a fair job. I disagree with the scheduling and editorial profiles they go for at times, but nobody can't say they're asleep on the job. Within each channel are different programmes, each with their own identity. How different is that to EA? I can't see any difference at all.

How you wield your brand depends on context. You show a different face to different people depending on who they are. You match the solution to the problem, but fixing things in the rigid box of a brand can trip you up. It limits your range and depth of market penetration. Rockstar may do very well in a niche, but that's got less to do with brand identity than the shape of the market and good timing. By expanding their brand and remaining focused, they can have it both ways.

To some degree, Scott and myself are approaching the same problem from different angles. I tend to see things in a broader context, while Scott likes his focus. How much of this comes down to personality differences, experience, or coming from different cultures, I have no idea. One thing I can be certain about is context and focus are important, and the developer who wishes to remain on their feet has to be aware of and develop both, put aside their hesitations, and embrace their customers with a positive frame of mind.

On the issue of success. Rockstar may be riding high and EA et al may be behemoths, but you have to ask yourself what you want. Do you want to sell in quantity or maintain quality? I don't think this is an either/or. As with making a judgement on time and budgets, it's a judgement call. This judgement call penetrates beyond the brand, through the company mission statement, and into the heart and mind of the person making the decision. From this, all things flow.

[Scott Miller]

My understanding of the BBC is that they're a government run network, funded by taxes. Therefore, they can violate branding rules out the butt and it doesn't matter to their profit -- they don't need no stinkin' profit!

Speaking of channels, you may have noticed that the cable channels that are really doing well in the USA are very focused, like CNN, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, History Channel, ESPN, the Food Network, the Sci-Fi Channel, etc. This is how to properly brand your different products. Thank goodness these channels aren't all run by a single company, like ABC, let's say, with names like ABC Animals, ABC Sports, ABC Sci-Fi, ABC History ... or worse, do what EA does and just use the "EA" alone (except in the case of EA Sports), such that all of these channels, like the BBC, are just named ABC, and it's up to you to figure out which ABC channel shows sports, or history, or animals.

This is exactly the mega-branding method used by EA -- no focus or categorization whatsoever. And so their brand means jack shit.

"Hey Joe Gamer, didja hear about that new EA game coming out?"

"Nope...is it a sim, a shooter, an RTS, an adventure game, a sports game, a tycoon game...c'mon man, give me some sort of friggin' clue here?!"

[scratching head]

I can't agree with Scott's comments regarding EA. EA is a great example of a forward thinking, genre and industry defining company. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of EA's past practices when looking at them with a cynical eye, but Branding is one thing they know something about.

Their divisions are: EA, EA Sports, EA Big Sports and EA Partners. There is general agreement that EA Sports appear to be getting things right, but how do you come to the conclusion that the other brands are gettig it wrong, that they lack consistency, that they have diluted values?

Take EA, consider the games under this brand: The Godfather, The Sims, Battlefield, Lord Of The Rings, Need For Speed, Burnout, Harry Potter, James Bond.

Now, consider what EA's general values are: High production values, commitment to IP, cross media polination to support production values, accessible gameplay even if mostly unbalanced.

What the EA brand provides is the general values, allied to immense GAME BRANDS. No publishing brands. EA recognise the value of each game meaning to the market. EA can't own bond, LOTR, NFS, HP, Burnout, Godfather or The Sims ... why? Because the game is able to compete through its own identity, it doesn't need the EA brand to help sell it. EA's part in the product is subterfuge. Brilliant.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

The BBC is independent and funded by the license payer. Domestically, BBC programming makes a loss. The difference is made up through merchandising and international sales through BBC Worldwide. Channel 4 is another publicly owned broadcaster, but their revenue stream is solely commercial.

My personal view of Americas broadcasters, from your description, is this mirrors your society, where size and force of punch matter. It's successful, but comes with a price. I tend to prefer something in less of a rush and more cooperative. That way, you can sidestep the winners and losers culture.

My instinct is that if EA focused their brand on something a little more fundamental, and segmented and focused their product ranges better, they could improve their quality of products and customer attitude for minimal cost. Longer term, I think, EA's reputation and corporate mission would benefit.

While my suggestions might not treble EA's turnover overnight, I'm more than certain that the company, customers, and employees will have a clearer picture and be happier. The biggest pay-off isn't in profit, it's in stability and success over the long-haul, and will help improve developer relations and product development.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Scott Miller]

The bottom-line that I'm trying to get across is that the EA brand is a non-factor, as far as the majority of players are concerned. No one goes looking to buy an EA game. But when gamers hear about a coming Rockstar game, it automatically carries a lot of expectations and anticipation. This is the fundamental reason for brands to exist. EA has failed, Rockstar has succeeded.

This doesn't mean EA isn't super successful as a company...there's two key reasons why they are, even though anyone you talk to internal to the organization will tell you how poorly run they are:

o Most other publishers are equally poorly branded (Activision, THQ, on and on), and so the playing field is level.
o EA has first mover advantage, by virtue of getting their start practically a decade before anyone else they compete with as a publisher. Anyone who knows anything about positioning knows that being *first* is one of the best marketing advantages you can have in your pocket. People remember firsts far better than they remember seconds (who was the second man to walk on the moon?), and being first makes you a leader, and people inherently love leaders.

We are ALL psychologically animals, and that's all marketing is. Applied psychology.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

An interesting wisdom in the Tao is that a leader may be feared, respected, or loved. All three of these is a different beast. Applied on a more immediate level, it implies that being a leader may be sufficient in the short-term, but qualitative characteristics must be considered for long-term success. If you examine the past few decades worth of games, the tilt the 'leaders' have given the industry has driven it into a hole. The authority and popularity of this leadership has turned out to be a road to nowhere. This is why brands and positioning with an injection of reality matter. Anything else is a lie only in degree.

Yes, we're psychological beings, and it gives me a warm glow to know we're part of the handful who realise this, but psychology is only a layer on top of reality. The foundations would exist whether we existed or not, and it's that deeper perspective you have to work with. Being a leader isn't enough. It's the same with art. On one level, you have the opportunistic. On the other, you have something with deeper integrity. One doesn't last, the other does. Branding can give you a short-term edge, but it has to be rooted in something deeper to truly connect with customers and last the duration.

I don't disagree with the poor capacity of the brands or the first mover advantage that you highlight, but things change. The tenacious fool, the poor leader, may cling on for a while, but their success is not written in stone. Their success, whatever the degree, is an illusion built on sand. Their capital accumulation may look attractive, and that's why many people fall for spinning, but as surely as voters are tuning politicans out, so will customers tune game companies out that don't dig beneath the branding, positioning, and psychology, and seize a much more fundamental reality. Branding is important, but only a pointing finger. The problems lie deeper.

Reality is the only leader worth following. The rest are messengers. Chinese whispers. Heh.

[Mark Hanna]

If I was a new publisher and had a LOT of cash, I'd take the 2Kgames approach and create a whole lot of smaller publishers for specific market and gaming segments. That way, you instantly get recoginision by the public for what type of games you put out by each different publisher.

[Oliver]

Forgive me, but I pre-wrote this after reading comments last night and now the topic has carried on a bit further, so my comments may seem off-topic and out of date, but I think they are still relevant (in some way).

I would just like to expand on the point that Mr. Hanna brought up (related to it, in any case) about Apogee early range of games. id Software (let's get into the Way-Way-Back Machine) started off doing 'child-friendly' games - Commander Keen among them - and then moved onto the complete polar opposite of Keen with Wolfenstein. These two games were under the id Software name (but, I presume, under the Apogee brand) but they were both just as welcome in the games market. At the time, things were *very* different; anything with new tech was gobbled up and I also presume not *many* people actually paid attention to who was making what - they just saw the game as the game - but were the times *that* different?
When I look at games being developed today, I look at the developer, then the publisher but, the average Joey Player... what does he/she look at? Have we all been so involved in the industry that we can't imagine that there are people out there who actually don't *know* who makes which games?
A few years ago, I was playing Quake 3 against some friends and I started talking about id Software - they didn't have a clue of who I was talking about! The developer's name flashes in front of these hardcore players every time they enter the game and they don't know who they are!
These days, again (with the new cycle of consoles coming forth), anything with new tech is *also* gobbled up. Have you seen the screenshots for that table tennis game? The players have individual beads of sweat and a layer of grease on their skin. One of the players has realistic sweat stains on the front of his shirt and their arms have veins popping out where they should be popping out. An amazing amount of detail (obviously for such a focused game, they can afford to have that much detail, but still...). When people *see* this game, they're going to be amazed. Then they will *play* the game and (if RockStar deliver on their promise) the physics system and playability will draw them even further into the simulation.
What I'm trying to say (and there's a question in here somewhere as well) is the majority of players (casual) will probably see the game as a table tennis game and that will be that. They may discover afterwards that "Oh, this is made 'by the same people that made GTA' " (I notice people saying that a lot - they don't know the developer's name, but they know 'who' made it, which is where all of this brand positioning comes in). Is this possible? I know for a fact that if I went into a store and asked people looking around the gaming aisles who made GTA (or the inverse, who is RockStar) they wouldn't be able to tell me, because their ear isn't anywhere near as close to the ground as ours.
The id Software example again; they went from Commander Keen to Wolfenstein to Doom to Quake. How did they do this successfully (whatever your definition of successful is, they are still successful)? No, really - I'm really asking, I love this kind of game history stuff. Was it because Keen was some how 'masked' behind Apogee and then the transitional period (Wolfenstein to Doom) was more known as 'their' games? Was it because they simply threw out the 'child friendly' games and leaned so heavily into the gory stuff that nobody even remembered Keen? Or is it a simple matter of "The times, they were 'a changin' "? I know I'm missing something...

Another mega-super-duper-major company... Nintendo. *Everybody* thinks they make games for kids (OK, not *everybody*, but that's the general opinion I think) but for as long as I can remember, they've been fighting this image by pointing to 'mature' games being released for Gamecube (and the N64, bless). The general opinion, however, still, is that they make games for kids! How is this possible? Iwata and Miyamoto and other top producers and designers are protesting that image to anyone who will listen but the old image is still held. How does that work? I know Sony (and Microsoft, funnily enough, more so than Sony) try to fuel that particular image, but Nintendo are still the kids' company. Sure, they still release a lot of games that would appeal to kids, but there is also a good roster of 'mature' games. They do hold the idea that violence is not necessarily necessary in the entertainment medium (and I even think Miyamoto 'condemned' GTA one time...), but that idea is true anyway. I know this kind of topic could fill novels, but it would be great to get some thoughts from the industry vets here.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately and it's great that it was brought it here. The reason is my brother and I are working on a family/child friendly kind of game, but we obviously want to get into more 'mature' games (a multiplayer FPS is our next project). Now, do we release this first project under a different name and then change our name once we start developing the 'mature' games, or do we release the first project under our chosen name, get a tiny bit of attention among the on-line distribution channels (with our name) and then work on and release 'mature' games under that name? It doesn't make sense to change the name, but after reading this blog, I do feel a bit hesitant. You've got inside my head!

Brand positioning is obviously important. Who is Coca Cola? Coca Cola is Coca Cola. What do they make? Coca Cola. What do you drink? Coca Cola. They do other softdrinks too, but other softdrinks are within their brand.
I was *also* thinking about Virgin the other day and how many different things *they* do and how diluted the company really is. I won't even mention EA - no-one can even taste EA any more, it's so diluted. These two companies are still *BIG* names though. Most everybody knows Virgin and you would be hard pressed to find a game player that doesn't know EA (even in the local game aisles). So then, do these companies need to strive for a single good product/service/venture/genre *or* plaster their name everywhere they can (which is how *basic* *basic* advertising works). Why do people advertise? To get their name out there. When people know a company's name, are they more likely to go for that company over an unknown company? Of course. Same with Virgin and EA. "Oh, this CD is under the Virgin label, the band *must* be good" or "Hmm, this game is an EA game, I've heard of them before, 'Challenge Everything', hahaha... I think I'll buy it".

Rockstar is making a table tennis game. To people in the know, that sentence doesn't seem right. To people that don't know, however, what do they care? It's just a table tennis game.

[Tom]

As far as I know EA partners does not exist any more...

[Software Guy]

Charles E. Hardwidge:

You don't happen to be a professor in a university, do you? Every one of your posts drips with an air of superiority and pompous grandiloquence.
You speak like a person who accomplished much. Yet I suspect that is not the reason you happen to be the most prolific poster on Scott's forums.
Hm....

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

If you mean I'm a bit clinical, detached, and off-the-beaten-track, you're right, but it takes two to tango. I'm not a mind reader, nor can I write your comments for you. Personally, I agree the character of most online discussion can get in the way at times. If you would expand on that in a more moderate way, I'm sure, it would prove useful for the branding topic.

[Blake Grant]

In reply to Oliver's post:

While I do agree with you that the majority of gamers don't know the name of the developer or publisher of most of their games, there are exceptions to that rule. EA is a perfect example. I think all this hype over GTA being the spawn of satan has actually pushed Rockstar's name (as well as Take Two's) further into the forefront and I would expect that more people than you think will actually recognize the name.

Also, don't underestimate the power that the "hardcore gamers" have over the market. While they make up a small segment of the market, they usually are the ones who advise their friends on what games to buy. If releasing a table tennis game drops the opinion of Rockstar in the hardcore market, it will hurt them in the long run. I wouldn't expect the sales of the table tennis game will be any worse off than if it was produced by some other developer (well...unless the Rockstar name turns off all of the people who do believe they are the spawn of satan), but I do think that it can hurt their image long term (and moreso if they continue to release "non-mature" games.

Finally, a comment on "Nintendo only makes games for kids". While they do make other games, they are in the minority. In addition to that, their aesthetic design of their consoles is far more targetted towards kids. Don't get me wrong, I love my DS, but I know a lot of people who think the PSP is sleek and sexy and releases the games they want whereas one look at the DS will turn them off. Same thing with the gamecube.

[gf]

Maybe I'm completely lost here, but I find the whole thing blown way out of proportion.

It all appears to me to be something the media (gaming news sites) artifically created for the sake of sensationalism. They worded their posts to make it sound as if the people that created GTA are now creating a ping pong game *gasp*, when in fact that's absolutely not the case.

There's Rockstar North, Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar Vienna, Rockstar Toronto, Rockstar Vancouver, Rockstar London etc. Those range from QA+Localization houses to full blown game devs. That's where the dilution is, that Rockstar gobbles up all kinds of devs, not that one particular studio now decided to make a ping pong game, a studio which previously has done racing games, a wild west game and even a baseball game. For that particular dev a ping pong game isn't really something far fetched.

The brand dilution IMO happend long before any ping pong game, it happend when they decided to buy a lot of varied devs across the globe (and then rename them all to "Rockstar something" to boot).

Then again I have no clue, it's late and I'm rambling.

[Oliver]

Good points from Mr. Grant (I *knew* I was missing something...) and gf (or is that, Mr. gf?).

[Anon]

Maybe it will be an Adult table tennis game? Um. With naked cheerleaders?