2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?

While compiling a list of games to respond to a user question on the TD Gaming Podcast, I’ve noticed something about this years gaming lineup: their mainly all sequels! Are there any new franchises taking a risk in the market or just more of the same? Some are not really “sequels” but spin-offs of the same franchise.

A few examples of some October time frame titles: Fable 2, Far Cry 2, Gears of War 2, Rock Band 2, C&C: Red Alert 3, Saints Row 2, Rayman Raving Rabbids 3, Tekken 6, Call of Duty 5, Guitar Hero World Tour, Tom Clancy End of War, Sing Star Vol 2 and others.

There are a few original titles: Afrika for the PlayStation 3, Little Big Planet (PS3) and Huxley (360 and PC). Most of the original franchise creations seem to be PlayStation 3 related, probably because the console needs some major hits to spur more sales.

Is the market so competitive and risky that new franchises are becoming a rare breed? Last year we saw Assassin’s Creed and before that Viva Pinata and Gears of War exclusive on the Xbox 360. Consider Viva Pinata a “slight” failure in terms of excitement and Gears of War a success, that’s 50/50 in terms of risk vs. reward.

We’re going to see sequels for both of these new franchises (Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise and Gears of War 2) with no word yet on Assassin’s Creed 2. Perhaps E3 will show off some hype for a brand new franchise but the chances are great we’ll be bombarded with part two and part three all the way to part six to known game franchises.

It seems the 2008 holiday season is going to be filled with “safety net titles” in terms of risk vs. reward. It’s hard to argue Gears of War 2 in terms of sales and profit, making it a great safety title, but where is all the brand new titles? We can’t look towards Nintendo to produce anything as they’ve been kicking out Mario and Zelda titles for fifteen years, we must look towards other developers, but who?

Electronic Arts has proven to be very reliant on past titles performance when developing their next big hit. They’re the master of tagging a title with a year and releasing it (Madden is a great example). TheSims, Battlefield and Command and Conquer are a few of their known titles which get seemingly yearly franchise releases. Who can we look towards to take the risk?

Microsoft and Sony are the most likely to kick out a brand new franchise as it would make the title exclusive to their console and, considering the money the spend on marketing their consoles, they’ve got enough money to deposit in risking a new franchise in hopes for a hit.

Although we’re all happy to see yet another release of TheSims, Fable, Far Cry, Rock Band and other hot titles, it’s also nice to see something new and creative hit the store shelves. Apparently we have to stop buying into the sequels (i.e. GTA IV) before we’re going to see any real change, forcing developers to risk their reputation for the next great game innovation.

0 thoughts on “2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?”

  1. hmmm, made me think if having one too many sequels could only cause players to get tired of the game.But if it showcases something new why not. Sometimes, you don’t like the first release but loved the sequel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Sony’s 10-Year Vision: Graphics or Games?Sony’s 10-Year Vision: Graphics or Games?

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have great visions for their consoles, they all strive to stand out from their competitors. Nintendo’s key initiative is to get non-gamers on board and provide the world with something a little different while Microsoft’s concept is to get a 360 into the hands of all gamers and build a huge community. Sony’s selling point? Graphics.

When it comes to standing out amongst the other consoles, Sony cannot compete with the Wii‘s quirky cuteness and Xbox 360‘s one-year lead on sales, games and overall functionality. They were late to the game because of technological advances in Blu-Ray and overall graphic horsepower. They’re providing a console that will still look “teh awesomes” ten years down the road, similar to the attack plan of the PS2 product which still sells today.

Sony’s Scott Steinberg, Vice President of Product Marketing for SCEA had nothing but great things to say about the console he’s marketing…

“I think that we’re seeing, graphically, PS3 games starting to create some distance and some of the other competitors are going to feel that they’re getting long in the tooth, looking quite dated, because they haven’t created that ten-year vision from a horsepower standpoint” (psu.com)

Really? Does anyone look at the Xbox 360 and say “this thing looks dated.” Each new title release continues to look more advanced and more graphically appealing than the last. Sure, Resistance 2 looked graphically epic, but the title isn’t on the shelves yet. As a matter of fact, very few PS3 titles are on the shelves when it comes to graphically appealing titles everyone wants.

As Nintendo has proven, it’s not always about the advanced graphics but the fun value and access to many titles across many genre’s of gaming. We’re happy about a nice 10-year vision but there is a reason classic games like Pac-Man, Missile Command and Galaga are still talked about and played by gamers: simple and fun.

Microsoft may not have a ten year vision, this is true, but I’d rather have a hot console I can play for the next six years than own a more expensive console with few games until its third year of life. The PlayStation 3 has been beating the Xbox 360 sales in 2008, is this too surprising given the fact that the Xbox 360 was out a year ahead? Sales aren’t always going to be rosy and over the top (unless it’s the Wii).

Rather than concentrate on how many more consoles the PS3 has sold compared to the 360, look at how many Wii consoles have sold to the graphically superior PS3. Perhaps Sony should speak less to the gamers about how awesome their console is and speak more to the developers so we can get titles worth buying for the console. Gamers only win when a console has games for them to play.

Blu-ray Doesn’t Validate Your Console, SonyBlu-ray Doesn’t Validate Your Console, Sony

Is Blu-ray dead? Tech Sites around the Net are calling it a “death spiral” and we’re now looking at the downfall of the winning high definition format. Many non-PS3 Blu-ray players are still in the USD $200.00 range, a bit high for mass market adopters, and people aren’t planning to run out and buy a Blu-Ray player in our economic slump.

What’s the market share of the Blu-ray product? Four Percent. Blu-ray and the PlayStation 3 have a lot of battle scares after the fight with HD-DVD to “win” the format war. In the end, Sony won the battle but the war was not with the HD-DVD format, it’s with the average Joe consumer.

Does this effect the PlayStation 3? One of the up sells of the PlayStation 3 was the Blu-ray capabilities, it games and it’s an entertainment device all-in-one. It’s a great deal right?

“The advent of low cost up-sampling DVD players dramatically cut the video quality advantage of Blu-ray DVDs. Suddenly, for $100, your average consumer can put good video on their HDTV using standard DVDs. When Blu-ray got started no one dreamed this would happen.” (zdnet)

The obstacles against the Blu-ray format are huge, especially with NetFlix coming to the Xbox 360, high definition download options and licensing costs on the Blu-ray to movie creators. Blu-ray won’t die in this generation of PlayStation 3 consoles but many folks, including Apple, are pausing to see if it has any chance at all to break into the industry.

Four percent just isn’t enough to inpsire confidence.

Phil Harrison’s Building a 100 Million Dollar FranchisePhil Harrison’s Building a 100 Million Dollar Franchise

Once upon a time, Activision Blizzards CEO Bobby Kotick kicked a few franchises to the curb: Riddick and Ghostbusters. No doubt, this was a result of the Activision and Blizzard merger requiring some resources to the merged together while others were cut from the lineup. Phil Harrison, the new big suit at Atari/Infogrames has raised these little birds from the ashes with a dream to build them into 100-million dollar franchises.

While Bobby Kotick said the titles, “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises,” Phil Harrision sees it as a personal challenge to prove him wrong.

“What Bobby, perhaps unhelpfully said, was that those games were franchises which wouldn’t make $100m of revenue and generate sequels. If that’s his benchmark, then fine — and we’d love to aspire to the same benchmarks. But you know what? I would love to turn Ghostbusters into a $100m franchise, just to prove him wrong.” (1up)

In many ways, this is the difference in attitudes from a large firm compared to a smaller firm with strong goals and a vision for success. Activision Blizzard is big now, perhaps the biggest publisher in the industry, they can’t be bothered with minuscule 80-million dollar franchises. Others, like Atari, strive to take a title from nothing to something of greatness. Granted, Atari’s failed in a lot of franchises, but with their new ex-Sony executive behind the helm things could turn around and this might be the first step.

Most of the best game franchises in existance today started from nothing but a dream. Big publishers don’t have time to dream, they’re too busy making money off the fanboys of their current franchises.