Topic: What's in a name? Game titles

How much do you think a game's title affects its popularity and sales?
I was thinking about this after reading the recent article about the reasonably well-named "Lawbreakers" struggling sales and contrasting with the popularity of the awkwardly named "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds"; the acronym PUBG actually sounds cooler than that generic, lazy name. I think a game title, just like a book or movie title, needs to convey a sense of what the basic premise of the game is while also being interesting, eye catching, and thought provoking.
Some of the worst named games in my opinion are often Japanese. Probably the name sounds cool in Japanese, but when translated over it often doesn't make sense. Look no further than "Y's VII: Lacrimosa of DANA" What a mouthful of letters and gibberish. And sometimes the name doesn't even really make sense, with the weird syntax-- "Bravely Default". "Metal Gear Solid" --- I'm not an expert in grammar but ... huh?
I have to admit, for a long time I had zero interest in "Danganronpa" because the name itself sounded so niche and the title seems like randomly put together letters thrown up on the wall to create a word. Took me a while just to figure out how to spell it.
Of course the educated core gamer will look past a name when deciding to buy, but I think it sometimes can make or break a game. See the under-appreciated "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West", "PlayStation All-Stars: Battle Royale", or "Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning"
Have you ever been turned off to a game just because of its title and maybe found out later it was actually pretty good? Or maybe the opposite where a game sounded so cool but ended up being lame? (I'm looking at you, "Star Wars: The Force Unleashed")

Yeah, I think names play a big part. That said, I personally always thought Injustice was a terrible name for a DC fighting series, but it doesn't seem to have affected its success.

If a person is that shallow to make a decision to play a game based on its name then they aren't gamers really.

The name has zero influence on me what so ever. I tend to watch gameplay and read reviews before making a gaming purchase.

Even back in the NES eras when alot of companies used cool looking box art as advertising I was never swayed by that. I would ask people on the schoolyard if X game was any good and last go by the pictures on the back of the box of the actual game.

@Tasuki I agree, I don't let the game title influence me now, but I do think it does have a subtle effect on sales of new IP's among the less hardcore gamers that don't search out reviews and gameplay videos.
Popular franchises are basically immune from title bias if they are already a recognized name, but if you think about it, some of the names just don't make sense. "Uncharted"? I get that it's a reference to exploration and going off the known path, but the game would be more aptly called "Adventures in a Linear Search of Various Ancient Civilizations While Shooting Bad Guys". 😉

@Th3solution I would find it hard to believe that anyone who plays on Xbox, PS, Switch or even PC would be swayed by a title and not know what the game is, look at VVVVV for example. And other "casual" gamers I doubt would make that difference in sales.

@Tasuki Perhaps you're right. I know it's more of an issue probably for movies, where an ill-chosen title can affect opening weekend ticket sales.
However, I am always surprised when I'm hanging out and browsing at the local Video Game store and I see two friends looking at games to buy and are picking up game cases and talking about how awesome they look as they decide what to buy for their weekend gaming session. Amazingly some people just go and decide what to buy based on cover art, title, and game description on the case.
I've had to stop myself a few times from intervening. — in my head I'm screaming, "Hold on dude! I know Valkyria Revolution sounds cool and the cover art is wicked but don't you read Push Square Bro?! That game stinks! It's a 3 out of 10!" 😂

But seriously, I know there are different strokes for different folks, the Valkyria Revolution fans are getting their pitchforks ready.
But anyways, the point is that out in the wild, I have witnessed some pretty uninformed shopping going on.

@Th3solution Right, I see your point. I am sure there are impulse buyers out there when it comes to gaming, as there are impulse shoppers out there for every item, though most gamers that I see and know tend to be careful with their purchases when it comes to an unknown game or new IP.

Take PUBG for example when I first heard of it I was like WTF? I thought it was an MMO or something so to figure it out I went to Youtube and of course there's no shortage of Youtubers playing it. I feel alot of gamers do the same and if Youtubers views on unknown games like PUBG and Minecraft before they were well known are proof. After all that's how the hype starts.

The situation is totally different if English is not your native language. Being Italian, games titles sounds to me just like "brands", if you know what I mean. I speak English and I know that Dark Souls refers to "the spiritual part of a person that some people believe continues to exist in some form after their body has died; nearer to black than white in colour", but when I talk about Dark Souls I just pronounce two exotic words without thinking at their meaning. Sometimes I wonder how embarassing should be if all games titles were translated, then I realize that some games have italian words in the title (the few I can think about now are all driving games!) like Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo, Assetto Corsa but they still sound like brands and nothing more.

I think names can have an effect on sales in terms of brand recognition rather than the name by itself having influence. In this way even bad games can have reasonable sales (just look at all the quickly put out and sloppy movie tie ins that make money) and there is a reason the big companies release so many sequels instead of new IPs. A title like Mario World is not a good name in my eyes, but the game will do well on the Mario part alone and, to begin with, Mario did well on being in good games alone.

Advertising and hype is what truly sells games though, as long as the name is moderately fitting for a game it doesn't matter. Lawbreakers is a game that had neither of those qualities and I'd pretty much forgotten the game existed until that article. I doubt I'll really remember it in a month's time either.

@andreoni79 Agreed. Although something like ''Dark Souls'' sounds a lot more appealing to me than ''PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds'', it's just a terrible name.

@KratosMD Good point. For me, the title really needs to be catchy and not so mundane to catch my interest, and perhaps that would apply to most hard-core gamers. Words like "legend" and "battle" and "extreme" and "ultra" and "odyssey" are just waaaay overused in titles and so I tend to just tune them out as copycats. My interest is more likely to be piqued by something unique and fresh sounding like "Detroit: Become Human" or literary cleverness like "Bioshock" or "Tearaway" with a symbolic sound to them.
However, the opposite probably occurs with the more casual gamer. Seeing the recognizable name or word ("Mario", "Sonic", or some zombie moniker like "Dead" or "Undead") may actually attract them to take interest in it. Perhaps that's why game companies come up with all these hybrid names that have familiar words mixed with long subtitles, in order to appeal to the casual and the hardcore.
Basically, in the end, you have to get people's eyes on the game, whether it be at the store or on YouTube or a review site.

Long story short, a good name goes a long way toward catching my interest in a game early in its development. So yes, names make a difference. And yes, I also agree that certain games (Japanese ones in particular) often don't do themselves any favours with their weird titles and sub titles.

For me a name is just that. I don't care about it too much, not put off too much - although I admit I have 'heard' of a game and that can allude to a 'genre' and then be a 'bit surprised when I do a bit more research. I think that today, its far easier to get a greater sense of what a game actually is, what the game-play and genre they are offering. Years ago, you only had a magazine that may give more information about the game-play. Popping into some retail stores, seeing the box and reading the little 'blurb' on the back with some tiny screenshots didn't really help. The blurb may say 'help 'X', a young boy on his first quest, to rescue his childhood sweetheart captured by the evil dark knight. Help him on his amazing journey as they explore the 'evil' forest battling a array of creatures trying to find a path into the 'fortress of Doom'. Make your way through the underground passages, fighting your way through the Knights army and avoiding the multitude of traps on your way. Battle your way up into the fortress and make your way to the Throne Room where you will finally confront the Dark Knight. Will you make it through and defeat your fears and foes to rescue your sweetheart from the evil Dark Knights clutches? A front picture of a gallant young knight clad in Silver Armour with a elaborate sword with a back drop of a 'dark castle' in the distance with an 'evil' looking forest between you and that. Some 'evil' looking creatures in the shadows - if you look close enough and a title above that looking bold, impressive and 'memorable'. The tiny screenshot pictures on the back, dwarfed by more 'artwork' - mostly 'pixel art' of a loading screen, the Castle etc that really doesn't show much.

You buy, get it home and load it up and it turns out to be an average 2D scroller with just left, right, jump and attack (a funny little prod with a 'stick' more than a sword - like every other 2D scrollers of the time. That 'evil' forest you 'explore' is a 'linear' path that passes by as you continuously move 'right' with some 'blob' of pixels in different colours to represent the 'beasts' that die with a single prod (if you time it right) or can be jumped over. Those underground passages are 'exactly' the same as the forest essentially with a different colour. The army cannot be jumped over but take 2 hits to kill and avoid the Spikes that come up from the 'obvious' different colour block on the floor and have to jump an occasional arrow. If you make it to the 'Dark Knight' with your 'lives' intact, a larger 'pixel' art enemy with much higher jump and longer 'sword' attacks in a 'sequence' - first firing low arrows you have to jump until you get close enough to hit once. Next he jumps around the screen so you have to avoid being landed on before he does one Big jump and lands 'stunned' to allow you to hit him again. Next he combines a phase of arrows but closer together so you can't jump forward - just up to avoid these before bouncing around for longer and faster 'flashing' red before a final big slam that if you run and 'prod' him again wins the game and your 'princess' just walks to you and you get a 'heart' shaped blob of pixels and then the screen fades to say the end.

Its a long way from a Skyrim type game that the blurb, title and cover art alluded to and conjured up. Lacked any of the exploration and not having internet access to look up a review score or even some video's of the game to know it was just a 2D scroller (although in fairness at the time, it was more likely to be this). I do think its far easier now to see exactly what a game is and find out much more.

To me Gravity Rush sounds like it should be some 'Wipeout or F Zero X' racing game. Ni No Kuni sounds like a cutesy 2 or 3D Platformer - like Yoshi or Mario. Nioh sounds like it should be some futuristic cyberpunk action game - Nier too for that matter. Project Gotham Racing sounds like a 'Mario Kart' style racer set in the DC Batman universe. Anthem sounds like it should some Rhythm based game like Guitar Hero or maybe a Football manager style game set in the 'pop' world - like Codemasters 'Rock Star ate my Hamster' (if anyone remembers that). After years of playing Starcraft, Minecraft could sound like a spin-off. For those not familiar with the older game, maybe think Starcraft sounds like it should be a minecraft clone or an 'expansion/character pack'.

On the flip side, I almost think the concept of 'Detroit' would be better suited with the 'Sim City' name - I know it can't now. Then there are games that have a 'name' to tie it to a franchise but can have very little to do with the previous in terms of story, characters - even developers. Call of Duty is 'just' a franchise name, not a 'title' as such. The franchise is CoD but the 'title' is Modern Warfare which progressed through 3 games' OK so it had 2 other CoD franchise releases in between each of the Modern Warfare story but W@W wasn't a follow up to MW or made by the same development team and, as we all know, these all have similarities but also differences too at a 'base' level. I still think AC4 was a game that would have been better suited to the Skull n Bones name and I also feel that Ubisoft virtually shoehorned in the AC name and some aspects because they lacked confidence in making a 'new' IP and wanted to sell it with a known and successful brand name.

Names and games can match, can conjure up an 'idea' of what it maybe but can also be very different too. The difference being that nowadays, you have so much access to find out about what a game is and what it offers - and often with big AAA games, months of media coverage long before a game releases. Admittedly Dreams and Wild for example could be very different from what their 1 word titles suggest, and its been a long time since we heard or saw anything from these but in general, and certainly in the final months before release, there is ample sources to get information if you want it.

I assume that most here, come to get information and news on games. If you come here and don't know what Ni No Kuni or Danganronpa are, then you can only blame yourself for not reading the articles.

Good thread. Names do make a massive impact on sales of anything, but the reason why is, I think, pretty complex. Now, the informed gamer, like wot we is, that plays multiple titles every year will no doubt ignore the name of a game and look for quality and genre first. Though, at the same time, our tolerance of names probably depends on what we like. I am more likely to be turned off by obviously localized Japanese names that suggest JRPG as I am not much of a fan of that genre whereas that name my peak the interest of someone who loves JRPG games. Same as when I heard the name of What Remains of Edith Finch - I love good walking sims, loads of people dislike them and would have been turned off by the game. There clearly isn't going to be combat in a game that sounds like that.

Branding is certainly a massive part - recognisable brand names will attract attention. They take years to develop but once they have hit the public consciousness, brands just sell. Look at COD, Battlefield or Fifa. Brands, though, bring with it certain expectations which can also be a turn off. Most gamers know what they are getting with Fifa or COD or even something with the Mario name attached. If you give them something that falls outside the branding expectations, you'll get comments that it isn't what that game should be (look at all the BOTW isn't really a Zelda game back and forth). Also, overuse a brand name and it goes stale and people start to get bored by it.

I remember reading that Memento, while a fab film, took a long time to find its audience and one of the theories is that the name confused people. It actually relates to the character taking snapshots or mementos to remember what he is doing but people didn't know the context of the name and hence it didn't perform when first released. On the flipside, something hopelessly generic will attract no one.

Basically, a good name should tell you something about the product that gives a basic level of understanding of what the product is or the topic/mood of the game. Too generic and people forget, too specific and people remember. Dark Souls is actually a pretty good name even though at first hand it is just two words slapped together - first the title has a major gameplay mechanic in it (Souls). It also sounds mysterious and intriguing. You know this game isn't going to be a cuddly platformer but something dark, obviously, and cryptic. Lawbreakers, on the other hand, feels quite generic. What does it tell you? Your character breaks the law - well most video game characters do. What else? Not much other than your branding expectations from previous games suggests something really generic - a direct to on demand movie starring Nicholas Cage and Danny Trejo for example.

Really there is huge complexity to this. It probably goes underappreciated but it must be an extremely difficult thing to get a name right for a game, or any other product I guess. You want to appeal to as many people as possible but you also want to tell people what makes your game unique or special. I think it probably affects buyers more than it should.

I think it's fair to say that most people who are going into shops and buying games don't frequent sites like this one. Games are a big deal and there's a huge number of people like us reading up on every detail, but there are also a ton of others who don't, so they're going by what they see on the shelf. A good title and a good cover are so important. If a publisher messes this stage up, most people won't even turn the box over. It works on digital stores, too - you need an eye catching image and an intriguing name if you've any hope of enticing people. As I said, some people will already know what's coming and will pre-purchase or whatever, but most people don't.

Grand Theft Auto is historically one of the biggest selling brands in games, and probably in entertainment as a whole. It's a household name, on the same level as Mario or Sonic or Call of Duty. There's a reason GTA V is in the top ten every week - it's called GTA V. Grand Theft Auto VI will do the numbers as well. Obviously, reputation goes a long way to contributing to GTA's success, as each game has been of decent quality, so there's also a great deal of word of mouth going on too, I suspect.

But brand new games don't have the luxury of decades of brand-building, and have to stand out on the shelf. Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars is an awful name, and it put a lot of people off. Funnily enough, the name was what sold me on the game, and I really enjoyed it, but clearly the name was holding it back. They didn't call the sequel Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars 2, they called it Rocket League, and look at it now. That's the difference a name can make. Rocket League has better gameplay and all that good stuff going for it too, but the concept of rocket cars playing football is identical to its predecessor - it's the name that turned it around.

Another anecdotal example - when I started hearing about Overwatch, I couldn't be less interested. Overwatch means nothing from an outsider's perspective. It sounds like a generic action game or something. When I looked it up, it looked like a by-the-numbers multiplayer shooter with a cartoony art style. I actually often got it confused with Battleborn, despite the names being quite different. In the end, though, I decided to give it a shot, as everyone seemed to be going mad for it, and it turned out to be an excellent game.

I don't really know where I'm going with this post, by the way - it's just sort of a stream of consciousness. Good topic

@Quintumply I agree that Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars is an awful name but what really helped 'Rocket League' was the fact it was Free on PSN and that word of mouth etc during that month helped the game gain traction and followers.

I am not sure that 'so many' people are unaware of games these days and find out almost by accident by walking into a store or seeing it on PSN store. Maybe more so with the indies - although you are not going to see those in a physical retail store and the odd 'fringe' AAA that may not have caught peoples attention or had so much 'media' coverage. Games like Call of Duty and Fifa though are an institution. You can almost set your calendar by them and its not like they don't get media coverage either.

On the flip side, games like Dreams and Wild, whilst they have been shown, a lot may 'almost' have forgotten these exist. Overwatch was quite a 'generic', cartoonish and more 'simplistic' FPS compared to Battleborn. In some ways that may have helped because it was a lot easier to get into and then the pretty constant stream of new characters etc help keep it in the media. This, coupled with youtube and twitch also helped. Seeing friends, media etc all covering Overwatch may well have contributed into Battleborns failure despite it having more depth. Those that might have been 'undecided' would buy the game that they have heard and seen more, see their friends playing but if it was just a name and cover, with no prior information, Battleborn may well have the 'edge' in name as its a little less obscure than 'overwatch' in terms of what you may expect the game to offer.

Its not like 'years' ago when we only had Magazines to get any real prior information about new games. People don't necessarily have to visit dedicated websites like PushSquare either. Gaming is much bigger than it was too with releases being bigger than 'box office' movies and as such, even newspapers now have reviews just like they do for the weeks new movies. There is more media coverage of game events, often with Journo's offering up their opinions on the 'best' in show. And then there is Social Media, youtube, twitter etc let alone the consoles and how 'connected' they are. 20yrs ago, you had no/limited knowledge of what was releasing, what the game was etc and the only source was probably magazines, retailers and chatting with your 'local' friends. Now, with online communities - not just internet nut also on console, certainly if you play with friends, chances are at some point discussion could turn to upcoming releases and sharing info. You can also see what games your friends are playing too.

Even if you go into the PSN store and have 'no idea' what a game is, it can take minutes to find out, watch some video of the game-play etc to base a decision on. Some bizarre or even a generic sounding game can be looked up. Maybe some box art or name may put a few off initially but if its any 'good', the name will keep cropping up across the 'media', their friends list etc.

If you have £40 to spend though and you are trying to find a game to buy. It may well come down to picking a franchise that you know over one you are not so familiar with but only because you don't want to take a chance on something you may not 'enjoy' but kind of know what to expect.

Then of course there is 'numbered' games - should you buy the Witcher 3 if you hadn't played 1 or 2. Its not like there isn't 'rave' reviews, people/friends buying it and saying how great it is but in the back of your mind, their is that nagging doubt about whether or not you will understand what's going on, the dynamics of the interconnected relationships and history these characters have had etc. These 'names' may also have a negative impact. Clearly we are not getting 'just' sequels. Titanfall, Destiny, Watchdogs, the Division etc have all launched this generation. Each had a 'decent' launch but the 'issues' that were present, may have had a knock-on effect - even if those issues were resolved. TF of course could be about timing but I am sure some of it was because of people hearing how quickly if fell away and there also had been a 'shift' from positivity towards Advanced Movement from the CoD community - despite that being seen as revolutionary in TF and not part of what contributed to its fall. Maybe those most likely to buy had had enough of that movement with CoD rather than the fact it was a 'sequel'.

You still see it now - from those who missed out on PS3 asking whether they should buy
Uncharted 4 despite overwhelming praise and enough video's to see for themselves what the game offers. Yet the fact it has '4' in the title seems to put some off.

I think there are multiple factors in play and some games with generic names and box art can succeed and names that sound cool failing. Sometimes it can be just a number that affects a sale whilst sometimes that can work to its benefit - the difference between playing a long standing franchise and not knowing whether you can pick up and enjoy because you didn't play the other(s) in the series. I still believe that the majority have more knowledge and information (or at least access to) readily available and for much longer before launch, that I struggle to believe that 'many' have no concept on a game and only go by 'name/box art' - certainly with AAA games anyway

@BAMozzy I agree about Rocket League being a PS Plus game helping it along, but you shouldn't underestimate the contribution the name change made. I'm certain that, if Rocket League had been called SARPBC 2, it wouldn't have done as well as it has.

I also agree that there are multiple factors in play. In some cases, the name of a game may not be a significant factor, and word of mouth can do a lot for a game's popularity via social media etc. You're also right about there being more coverage of games than ever before, with tons of information out there.

However, I feel like you and I, and people who regularly read up on games, post on NeoGAF, whatever - we're not actually that numerous. We are an extremely vocal, passionate group of people who love games, at times to a fault, and we exist in a bit of a bubble. The big sales figures we see for games like GTA V, Pokémon, Call of Duty, FIFA etc. are largely down to people who are far less invested in games. They might read up on a few things, look at a few reviews, but that's it. They'll buy Call of Duty WWII because it's Call of Duty, not because it's had glowing reviews or has new features or anything like that.

Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy did exceptionally well for Activision. It's the name. There is a huge amount of people out there who will have remembered playing Crash when they were younger, saw the N. Sane Trilogy on the shelf, and thought, "Hey, cool, a new Crash Bandicoot game!" and that's the extent of their reasoning for purchase.

I'm not trying to say that a game's name is the be all and end all, because that's not true, but it's a bigger factor than you think for a lot of people. I personally try not to let a game's name sway me one way or the other, but first impressions matter. Sammy recently posted an article about the oversaturation of the PS Store, and that sort of complements this discussion. If you've any hope of your game standing out from the crowd, that first image and name need to grab people's attention. You need to tell potential users what your game is and why they should play it with just a square image and a few choice words, otherwise they're going to keep scrolling down in search of something else. "GNOG? What the hell is that? I'll keep looking. Oh look, the new FIFA is out!"

I agree with you that a name shouldn't affect someone's perception of a game, but it can and does.

@Quintumply I am not saying Names at all make no difference because, like everything, there is no hard and fast rule that dictates why a 'game' sells or gets overlooked. Maybe Rocket League would have struggled - even with the free IGC help, word of mouth etc had it been called SARPBC2 - maybe the 2 could put people off because they missed the first one... Anyway, we will never know for sure.

I think its much harder to miss all the news, social media (inc Youtube) etc if you are a 'gamer' For those that buy Fifa or CoD every year, these are institutions and no doubt Fifa gamers will be looking forward to the 'new' stats, new leagues, new players etc and remember the 'fun' that the game has brought them year on year. CoD gamers, whilst many may play CoD without caring or worrying about the vocal majority on the internet who shout loud and frequently but their mates, their 'clan' friends etc etc all will buy it and whilst those that shout because they can't cope with Advanced Movement or being killed by a camper/quick-scoper - these people enjoy the playing together, the grind to get to max level and unlock the 'ultimate' in game weapon camos and playing as a 'team' often means they 'win' more than they lose so its fun. I bet they still chat about other games, still play other games in between releases - DLC packs etc. Most CoD youtubers also have 2nd Channels that every none-CoD related game video gets put on there. So even if you really only have an 'interest' in CoD and look up info on best weapons, set-up etc, this can lead to seeing these youtubers and their other games. Both of these probably also have online friends chatting and I bet someone may 'ask' about other games and I assume that as both of these - especially CoD have a big online component requiring Gold or PS+, they are also probably aware of the 'free games' etc.

I can see a 'spur of the moment' purchase being affected by name and/or box art. Maybe if you are having a quick browse through the weekly sales and see something that sparks familiarity and dismiss that funny looking game with a title you don't want to attempt to pronounce but when it comes to the weeks 'new releases' and the fact that some weird sounding little 'indie' game is drowned out by the big 'brash and familiar franchise names with 'multiple' versions all screaming 'look at how important and big I am that I have 3 entries to your measly 1, how dare you think you can take a sale away from me'.

I have never been a Fan of Digital purchases - but saying that, I also much preferred the way Xbox handled its Store on the XB360. Move to the heading of games and the front page has a few tiles of the weeks highlights but jump into that category and then you get the 3 sub headings - inc Arcade and Indie. As you move across each one, the 'latest' releases are shown with maybe some 'feature' game occupying a 'bigger' tile but at least the 'featured game from 'EACH' category got equal screen space. Got £40+ to spend, look here in the AAA section or maybe the Arcade section and pick up 2-3 games instead. On a bit more of a budget, then the Indie section may well have something of interest for a few pence/pounds or more. I know that Indie and Arcade are kind of merged now but they could try and separate these from AAA games instead of lumping them all together to 'sink or swim' - because 'games are games' regardless of budget or size of dev team etc and somehow 'Indie' became a 'buzzword' for low quality bedroom kid devs making clones of 'Super Mario' or some truly 'unique' idea that's not necessarily good or bad (visually maybe) but 'different'. To a degree and to be fair, the majority of 'indies' now are more akin to the 'Arcade' equivalents - the games made and published by big Studio's like Far Cry: Blood Dragon foe example. But I do think that maybe the 'indie' section in the XB360 may of contributed to that with maybe 1 or 2 actually being fairly decent/playable. I remember one looking like a Minecraft clone with better visuals and actual guns but not the best frame rate but most looked like they had been 'drawn' by 5yr olds.

Anyway I digress. They could still separate these Indie/Arcade games off and give them their own section with as much prominence as they give AAA games. Multiple releases should have 1 icon on that page which takes you to the 'game' page and the various options available - that way the 'new' releases all have just 1 icon.

I still think that if someone was to go into the 'store' and see a page of new releases, all with the same size and quantity, that if a picture/name took their interest, they could 'easily' find out more if they were unsure. In my experience, certainly back when I was buying Magazines or interacting with the 'official' Playstation/Xbox websites (OPM and OXM), It was relatively difficult to find out much info from the Arcade games let alone the 'indies'. In the back - although not a 'regular' feature, you may get a top 5 indie games you should try and the Arcade games may have a 'small' review bundled in with other Arcade reviews as the 'best' of the month's releases. A lot were never reviewed. I know as I would often try to find out more - especially when MS added Games with Gold and often an Arcade game was offered. I don't know so much about the PS3 in that regard as I never subscribed to PS+ as it wasn't compulsory for Online play and in truth, same as I do feel today, that I would rather spend that £12-£15 on an 'older' AAA game I didn't buy at release because it either released at the wrong time or didn't grab my attention enough to warrant a full price purchase. I still maintain that if I had the option to buy something like AC4 for example for £10 or some 2D platformer with a unique artstyle like Limbo or a Tower Defence game (of which there was a LOT it seemed) I would always buy the older AAA game and maybe, just maybe add that 'Arcade' game IF they added it with GwG. I still have a LOT of these on my XB1 ready to install if I ever wanted to play them but the 'hour' or so I played was 'enough' because I (and still do) have a LOT of AAA unfinished games I would rather play - not just the free GwG games either but some of the £10-15 pound 'sale' games as well as a fair few I picked up at launch, started but then a 'New' game or something happened that prompted me to move on with every intention of returning. Given the choice of playing an 'Arcade' experience that feels 'familiar', looks 'mediocre' - don't get me wrong, I think some have incredible hand drawn artstyles etc but compared to the much more realistic worlds, with more complex story and deeper mechanics - not just timing your 'jump' perfect whilst dodging projectiles in a '2D' hand drawn game where the main objective is to get a 'high score' on a leaderboard and beat the 'game' and its 'vague' plot with backtracking because you now unlocked an ability to access 'blocked' routes the first once or twice you were there or trying a 'different' tactic on your 'base defenses' because 2 or 3 enemies made it through your tower defences and you needed no enemies to get a 'perfect' score to unlock the next 'level' that is slightly harder but ultimately the same thing - the choice is obvious.

Don't get me wrong because I know others will want those experiences and go looking for them. But that again brings me back to the 'names'. Those people that may enjoy a weird sounding little Indie game, or some obscure sounding Japanese RPG will be drawn to those 'games' that have those names. Maybe they may miss another more ordinary sounding name that also offers that because the 'name' wasn't immediately obvious - but word of mouth, internet etc would still probably mean that game reaches that person at some point.

Those people that you say go looking in Shops/stores and see a game like GNOG, PUBG and dismiss it going for Fifa or CoD instead were probably more likely to be looking to have bought Fifa or CoD anyway. If they happen to browsing a 'sale' and see some 'names' they know little about and come across a game they have heard of in a positive light and its now 'reduced' would probably still buy. Maybe when chatting to friends etc, they here a certain game they 'dismissed' is good, they may come back for it or the next time its added in a sale, pick it up then - dismissing other games they don't recognise. Even if a game looks cool, is recognisable (like Aliens: Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem: Forever, Godzilla etc) doesn't mean they will 'buy' it either because these have a 'bad' reputation - either by word of mouth or via media, reviews etc. Maybe the 'obscure' or weird titled games may not sell immediately because people dismiss these at the time but with 'media' coverage, word of mouth and so much more access to information, people will get to hear about these so a 'more steady stream or even a 'sudden' explosion of sales can occur. I think this is why games like Overwatch or PUBG grow.

I don't think that many people live in a cocoon and only buy on the spur of the moment and only games that a 'title' resonates with them. Would Rocket League of reached so many people if it was called SARPBC2? maybe - because it was 'free' and friends, word of mouth etc would still have spread. The media coverage (even SyFy has a Rocket League Championship programme) and whilst it may not have been downloaded so many times during its 'month' it would still have sold well. I am sure its 'success' also contributed to its 'success' on the Xbox when it launched there too. Some names - like Metal Gear Solid or Death Stranding for example really don't help the game as far as 'just the name' goes but now word of mouth, Hideo Kajima's success etc makes MGS a 'top name' and will automatically give Death Stranding a chance of Success by association.

Point is that some games and their 'names' will reach the people they are most likely to attract. Other games may rely on word of mouth, media etc to 'grow' - the people like you and I who may follow the industry more closely speaking to friends about a game and how 'great' it is who then buy because its 'familiar' sounding and then spread that to other friends etc etc. It may not help those 'little' games that capture a 'few' people and so word of mouth, media etc tend not to pick it up, youtube and twitch don't show many, if any, video's and even sites like PushSquare may not have much more than a 'review' because, whilst good/great, its not making 'headlines' or attracting clicks with so many big AAA games making news with some new teaser trailer or announcement. When Awards, like game of the month or year come round, the game misses out because the 'big' releases are ultimately stronger and more popular with more people so pushes it down the 'pecking' order and missing out on a mention.

I'm not sure as to what degree it will make a difference but it must make at least a small one. Otherwise these companies wouldn't be paying someone to come up with the titles, games would just be called Football Game 1 Football Game 2