Today, we will be interested in the case of a studio not really intimate since we will talk about Rockstar, their techniques being relatively interesting, and obviously skilled enough for everyone to follow them where they want, and this, without paying a round. Let's go for Rockstar and its communication!
By dint of writing for a cultural site in the video games category, we begin to know the publishers and the way they communicate. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see press releases to say "Oh well, it's **insert the name of a AAA publisher** all spit out". Whether it's endless press releases with statements from all the staff or two lines like "get by with this" to announce the release of a game (while we had already had last week entitled to "The game comes out next week"), each to his paw and it is rare that a publisher or developer remains silent for long. Of course I'm only talking about AAA, independent studios approach things in a different way, according to their means, but also the hype generated around their projects. What about Rockstar?
Questionable articles
If you browse social networks like a fox in need of information, you must have already come across an article like "GTA VI announced! " or "GTA 6: a playground throughout the United States!" which would ultimately amount to a kind of The Crew where you could happily shoot at everything that moves. So a lot of people got excited about these articles saying that it was going to be great: Rockstar, they insure! Except that these are only rumors, they have no basis. The truth being that Rockstar hardly communicates since the 3rd release of GTA V. Yes because, almost like an episodic game (hello Square Enix), Rockstar released its latest juggernaut once on PS3 and Xbox 360, another time later on PS4 and Xbox One and even later on PC, generating enough hype not to cause "there is enough of GTA V by force". No, obviously, there was no tired of it since Rockstar has largely made its title profitable, and this, on each medium (some having gone so far as to buy it several times).
Rockstar and its ghost ads.
Where do I want to go, you may ask? Well as Rockstar does not communicate (or almost not), some take the opportunity to throw rumors, which are taken up by others (the desire for clicks is stronger than anything for a rotten site). But in the end, all this is entirely intentional. In addition to the pure fan speculation that we have already discussed, there is also the case of some articles that get carried away quickly but are based on ambiguous statements. Let us first take the case of GTA VI. Very recently, a lot of video game sites have headlined the following news: GTA VI confirmed! This is greatly exaggerated. Indeed, each site is based on the statements of another to claim that Leslie Benzies, the boss of Rockstar North, would have confirmed working on GTA VI but without having yet decided the place of action. So if this statement were true (I insist on the if, since I could not go back to the source of the remarks, each invoking a different one which, sometimes, refers to a more online page), it would only confirm that one day (some speak of 2020) there will be a GTA VI. But honestly, who doubted it? Given the profitability of the license, it was unlikely that Rockstar would drop GTA so easily and, about the playing field, each time speculation is rife before the official announcement. Some will remember that a pair of rumors saw GTA V taking place in Paris, and Michael was initially called "Albert De Silva" according to some "well-informed" sources.
The RDR 2 case
Well-informed sources, this is not what is lacking around Rockstar licenses. We could note the inflammation of the popular rumor about the possible sequel to the excellent and mythical Red Dead Redemption. This GTA-like western version had really seduced players when it was released in 2010. Given the end of the game (which I will not spoil) it was difficult to consider a sequel, or with Jack Marston, the son of the protagonist John Marston. However, in early 2014, Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive said: "It is obvious that GTA is a sustainable license as long as we continue to offer incredible quality, it seems pretty obvious that Red Dead is a sustainable license, with that same condition." Calling Red Dead a "sustainable license" meant it all. However, it was only in December 2014 and especially in 2015 that the rumor became cyclical.
Shortly before E3, one of the famous "well-informed informant" (he was described at the time as a former Rockstar developer) had made headlines by predicting on Reddit, like the Nostradamus of the video game industry, a surprise announcement of Red Dead Redemption 2 at the annual show. No bowl, Rockstar wasn't even there. There was no more sequel (or prequel) to the adventures of John Marston officially announced at Gamescom, nor at Paris Game Week. In the end no Red Dead announced in 2015. On the other hand, other rumors that seem credible, but still on the famous Reddit site (a community site for sharing links and threads) and still by a former Rockstar employee, this time named, since it would be Dany Ross who in the past worked on the playlists of GTA radios, and this since the 3rd opus. The bugger reportedly replied to a fan asking him what game Rockstar was currently working on: "Really? Dumbass. Really? Two" which means: well, nothing. If we translate literally, it gives: "Really? Idiot. Really? Two. ". That said, you don't have to be an expert in The Da Vinci Code or have completed all the investigative missions of the Secret World mmorpg, without a solution (which would make you an Emeritus Professor at Oxford, at least), to understand that the initials of this strange speech give: RDR 2. Dany Ross exists, certainly, but it is still a statement on Reddit. So okay, no one is fooled, everyone suspects that Red Dead Redemption 2 is in the works and will be released even before GTA VI , but all this is not an official announcement and it is ultimately only rumors, I remind you.
The why and how
What you have to remember with Rockstar is that it is by no means an independent studio. It is a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive, which is also the parent company of 2K Games which also has a good shovel of profitable licenses in its basket like Borderlands, Nba 2K, Xcom, Civilization, WWE 2K, and many others. In fact, when Take-Two talks about Rockstar licenses, they talk about them exactly like 2K licenses. So how is this communication processing completely different? Because if we analyze a little the press releases of 2K Games, we are dealing with a relatively classic and effective communication. Proof of this is our news, for example, on the terminator in WWE or the arrival next February of the deluxe digital edition of XCOM 2. The com is simple, much more classic than that of Rockstar, and yet they are two subsidiaries of the same parent company. So why the hell is this difference? The most logical reason is the perception of the players. For many years, many have seen Rockstar Games as a studio surrounded by an almost mythical aura, often forgetting its affiliation with Take-Two Interactive. As a result, the imagination of players is quickly ignited, and communication by rumor interposed is enough to sufficiently maintain the flame of mystery and fantasies, especially since 2K ensures during this time the profitability of its parent company. The latter produce titles much more regularly, with more licenses on the counter. Rockstar is much more highlighted on the rarity of its catalog.
Strauss Zelnick recently said, "The market is asking us, 'Why not annualize your games?' We think that with non-sporting titles, it's better to create expectation and demand. On the one hand, to rest the title.On the other hand, offering the best quality on the market, which takes time. You can't do that annually."Where the guy is clever is that beyond shooting himself in the foot by criticizing annualized licenses (even if he tries to make us believe that in sport it is different), he is well aware of the weariness of players towards franchises too present. That's why by deliberately spacing the titles, he wants them to be largely idealized, fantasized by the players. And it works given the rumors that abound on the web. Impossible to know, if, in the lot, some are wanted by Rockstar, or if it is only various delusions of fans.
However, this does not change anything. The effect is the same: everyone is ecstatic in advance about titles that are not yet announced, because nowadays: a long development is rather synonymous with quality unlike annualized licenses that have more and more bad press. At least, that's what the com is trying to make us believe. Indeed, the latter benefit from a development period of three years on average based on the rotation of the teams, which is not much shorter than a Rockstar title, or 2K. It's all about communication strategy. And that of Rockstar, deliberately ambiguous, helps to reinforce the image of "legend" that Take-Two wants to give to one of its two subsidiaries. And yet, a very revealing detail that will finish proving to you that everything is a question of image: the last year Rockstar did not release any game was in 1998. After, we had every year at least one game stamped Rockstar Games (including three times in a row GTA V anyway). And for 2016 you will tell me? Good question, but rumors of solo expansion for GTA V are becoming more and more persistent. I will let you meditate on that.
