While all this is true, word of mouth travels much more slowly than true advertising. Ads are all a numbers game, and they will work for some games better than others. While it is kind of a dodgy campaign, a large ad campaign has won Evony (a mediocre game at best) a truly massive population. Word of mouth is far more trusted with magnitudes better conversion rate, but it spreads slowly and shallow.PaxBritannia wrote:For idie games, WOTM (Word of the mouth) is alot more effective as it is personal, close, and trusted. Ads are normally mass targeted, distant, and suspicious. Relying on the community instead to spread word of it is better, but after the game has a player base, do not offer incentives for referrals. (Again psychology)
Also, advertisements have a maximum of 2% click rate. Only about .03% play long term.
And as far as Facebook, Twitter, etc., it kind of sounds like your own personal views of social networking sites are fueling your decision as to whether they are good for bringing in players. They are good for that, and nothing else comes close to comparing. I don't think anyone can argue it, and basically every AAA game uses it now with at least some success. I don't like social networking sites myself, but for such a low amount of effort, there is no other way in the world to have such a large potential pool of people to expose your game to. Saying they bring in people who are "socially retarded" is silly. Something like half the English-speaking world is on Facebook, from toddlers to astrophysicists.