Who is Splatoon Targeting? (A Marketing Graduate's Argument/Rant/Review)

[Elecmaw]

wah wrong topic lol

 

[Drew Sebastino]

@Elecmaw This website really needs the option to delete your post, as long as there are no posts after it. Every other forum I've been on has this feature.

 

[vanille987]

imo, their targeting mostly hardcore players while still trying to make it fun for casuals/young kids etc.

As iconic turf war is, the real 'meat' arguably is ranked.
When splat 2 was first released, ranked was pretty random with both audiences tackling it at the same time which could lead to players reaching ranks 'they don't belong in', but now it evened out mostly now.
not saying it's perfect mind you, but it came a long way.
More casual players will stay in the lower ranks (which can be kinda discouraging) while more skilled players stay in the higher ranks.
Only S+ is kinda wonky, rank X may or may not improve this.

Then there's turf, even if you're not good in combat you can still make yourself usefull by just painting.
STILL, due how all kind of players end up here and the mode itself being kinda 'random', it's not uncommon to be spawn camped or still just laughably hold back by a more skilled team which can easely kill the fun.

So while i'm not certain how good they actually succeeded with this mentality, seeing single player/salmon run and private matches are a thing, casuals can still have their fun with this.
But i feel nintendo is mostly focusing on the 'hard core' audience.

 

[Drew Sebastino]

But i feel nintendo is mostly focusing on the 'hard core' audience.

Then they did a terrible job. Splatoon was never intended to be a "hardcore" competitive game. Just look at the adverts for the first game. What happened, is that they ended up making a competitively viable game largely on accident, in largely the same vein as Melee, and after seeing this, much like with the Super Smash Bros. series, they toned down the next installment, unless somebody wants to tell me nerfing Run Speed Up, making Chargers borderline irrelevant, and making the Ranked system 10x more forgiving was Nintendo looking after the competitive community.

The only aspects where Splatoon 2 is more competitively viable than the first game, is the addition of LAN play, replacing all the specials (although with their approach to balancing them, they're all about Splatoon 1 level now) and the ability to get perfect gear, but I could do the same thing a hell of a lot faster in Splatoon 1 with a modified save file, although I realize that isn't really a fair comparison.

 

[Goolloom]

The only aspects where Splatoon 2 is more competitively viable than the first game, is the addition of LAN play, replacing all the specials (although with their approach to balancing them, they're all about Splatoon 1 level now) and the ability to get perfect gear, but I could do the same thing a hell of a lot faster in Splatoon 1 with a modified save file, although I realize that isn't really a fair comparison.

One of the biggest things that also made the comp scene drop Splatoon 1 immetiately was also Spectator mode . As only that makes it easier to stream tournaments, which helps a lot with the game getting exposure. For Splatoon 1 setting up streams for tournaments was quite the hassle, and you ended up watching from only 1 player's perspective, which isn't always the most spectator friendly thing.

But, I agree with what most people said here already: it tries to appeal to both the casual and the competitive side. It works, but it also fails hard in other aspects, and that just hurts pretty much everyone involved.

 

[MindWanderer]

With the details on how Rank X works being revealed, I don't think there's a good argument left that Nintendo isn't trying to target the hardcore audience. They completely eliminated S+10 to S+50--which was occupied by only 1% of active players--in favor of an entirely new ladder system. Which, granted, is based on the previously-hidden Power Level mechanic, so it's not a tremendous stretch, but it's an effort they didn't have to make if they didn't care about hardcore players.

Also, to everyone who thought it was "trivial" to reach S+50, perhaps you'll rethink that. Only 1% of players active in the week they sampled had even reached S+10. That doesn't include players who've stopped playing, but I'll guess that folks who've reached that level are more likely to keep playing, not less.

 

[Reila]

It takes more than changing the ranking system to cater to "hardcore gamers" (what a horrendous term, anyways).

They do seem to be catering to opposing audiences, so to speak — nothing new for Nintendo — and failing at that. Failing in a sense, anyways. The game is selling very well, which is great for them and in that sense, the game is far, far from being a failure. Yet, they obviously hoped the game would be a boom in the eSports scene and well, it isn't and in my opinion, it will not be. There is nothing impeding Splatoon 2 from having an eSports scene, of course, but I don't think the game is designed in a way that it could make it big in the scene.

 

[ThatOneGuy]

I don't think there's a good argument left that Nintendo isn't trying to target the hardcore audience. They completely eliminated S+10 to S+50--which was occupied by only 1% of active players--in favor of an entirely new ladder system. Which, granted, is based on the previously-hidden Power Level mechanic, so it's not a tremendous stretch, but it's an effort they didn't have to make if they didn't care about hardcore players.

Also, to everyone who thought it was "trivial" to reach S+50, perhaps you'll rethink that. Only 1% of players active in the week they sampled had even reached S+10. That doesn't include players who've stopped playing, but I'll guess that folks who've reached that level are more likely to keep playing, not less.

If anything, this enhances the fact that splatoon 2 is for casual play. Since only 6% of the active ranked player base actually plays at an S+ or higher level. If this game was designed for competitive play, these changes would not have taken almost a year to occur, let alone just announcing the changes last week. Since no competitive games let their top rank be maintained with a 33% win rate. Rank X is more of a fix to the needs to competitive players who got a game that initially wasn't designed for competitive play. And like you said, it was based on a mechanic already found in the game. Making it just a quick fix for competitive players.


Meanwhile, what do the casuals get (in the same direct)? 80 new levels of single player (mind you the current single player only has 32 levels), playable octolings, and Pearl and Marina amiibos. All of which cater to keeping the casual players interested in the game. Competitive players finally got a bone with rank X, but casuals got an entire platter of new features in splatoon 2. Plus, they get way more money for people buying DLC and amiibos than they do having people sticking around and playing rank X for $20 a month (after September).

So I honestly can't see how this game's primary demographic is for competitive players. Especially since the casual player base is so large compared to the competitive player base.

 

[MeTaGross]

There is nothing impeding Splatoon 2 from having an eSports scene, of course, but I don't think the game is designed in a way that it could make it big in the scene.

Nothing impeding it except for the opinions of everyone in the eSports scene right now. Just as most people really into physical sports look down on eSports, I guarantee that there are many people that refuse to acknowledge Splatoon as a "real" eSport. I may be completely wrong, but the only thing stopping Splatoon in the eSports scene is the people that started it and continue it.

As for the whole hardcore/casual debate, it's obviously designed for casual gamers with many features that may appeal to competitive gamers. It's like a TV show for little kids that parents might enjoy unironically.

Since only 6% of the active ranked player base actually plays at an S+ or higher level. If this game was designed for competitive play, these changes would not have taken almost a year to occur, let alone just announcing the changes last week. Since no competitive games let their top rank be maintained with a 33% win rate.

Even if it only requires a 33% win rate to maintain your rank—to maintain your rank, not increase it—there are still better players in S+ than S, which is better than A+, etc. If the matchmaking is S+ is based on your power level (I don't know, but does anybody know?) then it doesn't really matter how easy it is to reach S+ as long as you are battling players with a similar skill level. All that does is take away from the accomplishment of reaching S+, but not from reaching S+50, which still requires a lot of winning.

 

[Reila]

Nothing impeding it except there are numerous popular eSport games which are designed as eSport games first and foremost, taking the spotlight. For shooters, Splatoon 2 isn't going to take the spotlight of Counter Strike and Overwatch. And then there are the big non-shooters like League of Legends, Dota 2, even Hearthstone.

All I am saying is that Splatoon 2 is not designed to be an eSports game, it is designed as friendly alternative to shooters, which is a good thing, but that makes it very hard for it to compete with the big ones.

 

[Drew Sebastino]

@Reila Because Overwatch was designed to be competitive?

 

[Reila]

@Reila Because Overwatch was designed to be competitive?

To be fair, yes, it was, to the point Blizzard was originally against more casual approaches to the game, such as maining heroes or being one trick ponies (basically, playing only one hero, all the time), which goes against the core design of the game (switching heroes to counter the opponent hero picks), which you need to play around in a competitive setting. They also invest heavily in eSports stuff, such as Overwatch League and improving the game's spectating features.

It also goes for Heroes of the Storm, but unlike Overwatch, that game is not big in the eSport scenes. Possibly because, just like Splatoon, it is designed to appeal to people who aren't into other MOBAs because they are "too competitive" or "too difficult". Although, in this case, the timing of the release also plays a role. HotS joined the MOBA scene several years after the behemoths named League of Legends and Dota 2 and as such, it was very difficult for the game to compete.

Overwatch, from my perspective, is the opposite of Splatoon. Overwatch is designed to be a competitive, eSport games, but that also appeals to a less competitive audience with less competitive modes, such as Quick Play, Arcade, as well with the character roster, lore, the animated videos and stuff. Splatoon, on the other hand, is designed to appeal to what people call "casual audience", or like a call them, less competitive players, while also trying to throw a bone or two to competitive players.

@ThatOneGuy said it well in his previous post.