Are Game Leaks A Marketing Tactic?

[Cheezeman3000]

With the rise of certain prominent leakers like Emily, and the sheer amount of leaks as we approach E3 this year (is this year the leakiest on record?), I'm wondering if some of these aren't actual marketing tactics to ensure gamers are engaged and talking about these games up until the actual game reveals? I also wonder if some of these leaks are on purpose to gauge interest among the hardcore fanbases, to determine how best to focus their marketing. Going even further, I wonder if some leaks are intentionally falsified to throw people off the trail.

Does any of this sound plausible, or am I just a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist?

 

[Canucked]

Maybe some.

 

[LavaBadger]

There's no question at all that some "leaks" are intentional.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Sometimes sure

But we live in an age where people get off on leaking anything and everything as well

Probably a bit of both situations

 

[AxeVince]

Most of them, no. Marketing is costly and more often than not, putting out a good trailer brings better results than leaking some infos on reddit.

 

[Dio]

"are leaks, something that goes very against what marketing is, with planning and such, a marketing tactic?"
No. do i think some studios/devs use it as a scapegoat? yeah, but it's too rare.

 

[Jayson's Rage]

They can be. But also no. Case by case basis as with all games and events around them.

 

[Shoichi]

There definitely does seem to be some leaks that do feel intentional. I am guessing many are not though.

 

[BoTalksGames]

Some, definitely. Biggest one that I think is obvious is Call of Duty, I saw people saying Harden wearing that BO4 hat wasn't supposed to happen and that it was a leak...lol

 

[The Albatross]

Yes.

I'd say that the majority of leaks are intentional from the developer or publisher. A minority are legitimate leaks, that is, released unsanctioned by the powers that be.

 

[Poshi]

As the trend continues with more "leaks" every year i would say yes.

 

[MoonFrog]

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes this were true. But I don't doubt it often isn't true.

 

[henhowc]

Some.

Not stuff like Walmart posting a ton of shit early though haha

 

[Bandage]

Rarely.
It's better to have a concise announcement you can control than try viral marketing that can backfire.

 

[Aokiji]

Yes. There have been a few intentional leaks.

 

[Cantaim]

Some leaks are but I'd wager most are not.

 

[est1992]

Some intentional, some not

 

[Deleted member 36578]

I'm willing to bet some of them have been.

 

[Jenea]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Wild West Online leak was done very clever.

 

[Cheezeman3000]

I wonder if we have anyone on Era in marketing who can confirm they have used this tactic before. A... leaker of the leaking, if you will.

Can we go deeper?

 

[stinkyguy666]

I feel like the Spyro Reignited "leaks" were a sort of marketing strategy from Activision to try and gague how much feedback there would be from the news of a new Spyro game.

It's a strategic "leak".

 

[Deleted member 14002]

Most of them, no. Marketing is costly and more often than not, putting out a good trailer brings better results than leaking some infos on reddit.

Click to shrink...

"are leaks, something that goes very against what marketing is, with planning and such, a marketing tactic?"
No. do i think some studios/devs use it as a scapegoat? yeah, but it's too rare.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[____]

Some, absolutely.

 

[808s & Villainy]

No. This strikes me as people on here trying to overanalyze everything because they're unsatisfied with the simplest and most obvious explanation, which is often the actual one. Games leak because leakers reveal them to insiders and insiders reveal them to everyone else.

The idea that a company would intentionally undermine their own strategic reveal is completely nonsensical

 

[DrArchon]

Probably, but it's gotta be a small number of them. This wouldn't be the case for leaks that spoil everything or leaks that are so vague as to allow customers to come up with their own unrealistic expectations about a game (don't want them disappointed by the actual reveal).

I wonder if more positive leaks or negative leaks are intentional. You'd think positive leaks would be intentional more often because generating positive buzz = good marketing, but getting a downer out of the way early means that it won't overshadow any other news of the event because it's known beforehand.

Like, I can see the Crackdown 3 delay leak being intentional for this reason.

 

[Superbadr]

I think some leaks are intentional, for exemple they are intentional when devs are about to show something controversial/they are not sure about, to mentally prepare people before the showing. (let's go pikacu/eevee)

 

[glasiche]

Yes

 

[KrigareN-]

RAGE 2 definitely was.

 

[Deleted member 437]

Remember when Geoff "Leaked" the Xbox One X price?

I 100% believe he has MS approval or MS gave him the pic. MS wanted to lessen the blow of $499, rather than the price being the only thing people talked about.

Geoff just doing that on his own seems very uncharacteristic of him.

 

[DarkFlame92]

Definetely.

 

[TheRulingRing]

If they weren't already, they definitely will be after how RAGE 2 turned out.

 

[Arthoneceron]

Some of them are. It's a good way to "test" the waters over some controversial points.

One that definitely wasn't was Mario + Rabbids.

If the game got announced some hours after the leaks or even some short period of time, then it wasn't intentional.

 

[Forsaken82]

It happens more often than you might think and they are pretty easy to tell when it's a designed leak over some random blogger hoping to get a few minutes of fame.

 

[Aters]

short answer: no

 

[h8bit]

Totally. It's a cheap, effective way to build hype for something.

 

[Deleted member 11421]

Some.

Not stuff like Walmart posting a ton of shit early though haha

Click to shrink...

Notice that people really only talked about Rage 2 being in there amidst a bunch of sequels...the rest had already been previously leaked, rumored or confirmed. Hell even Rage 2 was hinted at being a good possibility by Bethesda back in 2016.

 

[MatrixMan.exe]

Totally. It's a cheap, effective way to build hype for something.

Click to shrink...

9 times out of 10, this is patently false.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Given how glutted the actual events are, it may be partially a tactic to get some key press and buzz at a quiet moment before the conference begins, yes.

 

[Alek]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[Sloane Ranger]

Yes they are.

 

[WestEgg]

I'm still not convinced that Mario + Rabbids wasn't intentionally leaked ahead of E3 to get all of the hot takes out of the way early.

 

[h8bit]

9 times out of 10, this is patently false.

Click to shrink...

would you uh, care to explain or no

 

[Cheezeman3000]

I see a lot of comments on how leaks can ruin a marketing push. And I do agree that some leaks are probably not intended, because sometimes it's obvious they're not very flattering to the company, like a blurry image of something that makes the game look bad.

But think about how many leaks actually make it to the public eye enough to actually disrupt a marketing campaign... I'd say a VERY small minority do, as it's rare we see an unconfirmed leak at the top of Reddit for example. Companies could rely on smaller leaks to see how the hardcore fans respond, and possibly use that to determine how they market the game. Like... "oh, the fans didn't really respond well to this leak, let's just pretend that aspect doesn't exist when we market it..."

 

[American Eskimo]

I'm still not convinced that Mario + Rabbids wasn't intentionally leaked ahead of E3 to get all of the hot takes out of the way early.

Click to shrink...

Same with Fzero Star Fox.

They have 2 minutes to show off the game. If 90% of that is filled with "WTF IS THIS HOW DARE YOU I WANTED METROID BRING FZERO WTF NO NO MY CHILDRHOOD YOURE KILLING IT" hot takes, then that presentation is wasted.

AKA: What happened 2 weeks ago.

By leaking, the reaction during the video is now "welp, there it is. Huh, thats not so bad. You know, that might even be fun"

 

[Mesoian]

Some are, certainly.

 

[Weebos]

I think some must be, but the percentage is probably quite low.

 

[Dizagaox]

Some are. But stuff like the Walmart leak? No.

 

[MonadoPurge]

I'd have to say some if not most. Nintendo especially, they are always locked down hard with their info, they must purposely do some of this, especially if they announce it for real just a few hours later.

 

[Pancracio17]

Some are. But stuff like the Walmart leak? No.

Click to shrink...

Its hilarious how rage 2 took advantage of that.

 

[Com_Raven]

With the rise of certain prominent leakers like Emily, and the sheer amount of leaks as we approach E3 this year (is this year the leakiest on record?), I'm wondering if some of these aren't actual marketing tactics to ensure gamers are engaged and talking about these games up until the actual game reveals? I also wonder if some of these leaks are on purpose to gauge interest among the hardcore fanbases, to determine how best to focus their marketing. Going even further, I wonder if some leaks are intentionally falsified to throw people off the trail.

Does any of this sound plausible, or am I just a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist?

Click to shrink...

Depends whom you ask.

Are you asking gamers on message forums who think they are representative of the majority of gamers and that companies should cater to them? Then yes, they are totally intentional.

Are you asking people like myself who work in games marketing and who think the idea that anybody would intentionally kneecap their own multi-million $ marketing campaigns is crazy, and who see the damage that false or incomplete rumors can cause to games (as is happening atm) for little to no benefit? Well, then the answer is a clear "of course not".

Yes.

I'd say that the majority of leaks are intentional from the developer or publisher. A minority are legitimate leaks, that is, released unsanctioned by the powers that be.

Click to shrink...

The point of that being what, exactly? To jeopardize your carefully laid out plans and potential agreements with partners to have some people who represent a small % of the audience discuss your game based on partial information?