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

Episode 396: Getting TargetedEpisode 396: Getting Targeted

This week’s episode is very long to make up for the crappiness of last week’s episode, and the crew have fun with the trolling of Target critics this past week.

The news this week includes:

  • Guillermo del Toro quits videogame development
  • There is no suspend feature for Steam Machines
  • Gamescom sets attendance record
  • Chinese console crowdfunding project manages to rip off PS4 and Xbox One

This and Listener Feedback.

PlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About ProfitabilityPlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About Profitability

The Xbox 360 price drop rumors flow like water and it’s all but officially been announced at this point. What about PlayStation 3 and their price? No.

Nobuyuki Oneda, the Sony’s chief financial officer said, “our plan is not to reduce the price. Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability.” (gamespot) This makes complete sense coming from their chief financial officer, as their motivation is to make money, not lose it.

The question remains, how will they actually make money if they’re no longer in the race for competitive market prices? Considering game licensing must Net them some amount of profit Sony’s idea seems to be the exact opposite of their original PlayStation method: saturate the market and sell them all games.

So far we’ve seen very few “need to have” games for the PlayStation 3 console while Xbox 360 continues to build a substantial library and Wii continues to break sales records for apparently no reason. When a game publisher has to decide on a platform to launch a new game, why would they choose the one that doesn’t care to be competitively priced in the market? The one that doesn’t care about quantity of sales?

Sony intends to reverse the entire razor blade philosophy where one sells a cheap razor and charges users for the blades over and over again. Their take on this concept is to sell really expensive razors and put out small half-quality blades. Is that a good market strategy at this point?

Episode 375: And We’re BackEpisode 375: And We’re Back

After a problematic week, Episode 375 is now up, with tons of news. So much that there’s no room for a Gaming Flashback or a Gaming History.

The news includes:

  • Joystiq no longer scoring” reviews
  • New Harmonix survey points to Rock Band 4
  • Hatred gets an AO rating in US
  • Disney, Activision both claim landslide victory in toys-to-life category
  • Microsoft maintaining $349 price point on Xbox Ones
  • Windows 10 includes in-home game streaming from Xbox One

This week’s Question of the Week: “What, if any, was your favorite part of Rock Band?”