Do you think game publishers today rely too much on their existing franchises?

[Formalhaut]

I found this poll (http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=5065) in GameFAQs daily poll today, and I think it's a brilliant topic for discussion!

Think about it. Think of every FPS during the modern era. How many times do you look down a gun scope, doing pretty much the same thing? The Call of Duty franchise hasn't really changed much, neither has the Battlefield games or whatever FPS franchise it is.

It's also trickled into other platforms. The Mario franchise has hardly done wonders since it's introduction (besides Galaxy to be honest) and Sonic The Hedgehog has really epically failed, not having a good game in years.

I'm no expert on the history of games, you guys are more hardcore experts and know more than I do, so I'll ask you: do you agree? Do publishers rely too much on existing franchises? Is there any independent, outstanding, standalone game?

One example for me is TWEWY. Now that was a new game that blew me away.

Discuss.

[TrollHunter]

Yes i feel that it is the case in most cases. Existing IP is easier to market as it already has a dedicated fanbase, easier to make as you already have the core concepts layed out, and its just a safer bet.
New IP is also extremely important but a lot of devs arent willing to make the risk.
Hell, look at clover studios
They shat out interesting and amazing new IP like godhand and okami but they sadly failed in the market. Its a huge risk.

[Shoeberto]

It's not really anything new. AAA titles have enormous budgets and frequently come from publicly-traded companies, so the producers that fund them want to make sure that they turn a profit. It's easier to use an existing IP and try to do new things with it than it is to take risks. With consumer spending down at the moment it's especially important to make sure they wring every dollar they can out of a big release.

Indies and smaller studios have a lot more latitude to innovate and experiment because their margins are better on sales. When you don't have to spend money on celebrity voice actors and fully orchestrated soundtracks and motion capture CG production for cutscenes, you can focus a lot more on making original characters and unique gameplay. It's all a trade-off.

[Jinx]

WRONG

MARIO 64

[Aulayna]

I found this poll (http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=5065) in GameFAQs daily poll today, and I think it's a brilliant topic for discussion!

Think about it. Think of every FPS during the modern era. How many times do you look down a gun scope, doing pretty much the same thing? The Call of Duty franchise hasn't really changed much, neither has the Battlefield games or whatever FPS franchise it is.

Whilst this is technically true the refinements to both graphics engines and multiplayer that have come in over the course of those games lifespans is not something to be written off as a result of the core game design not changing that much. The core works, so why change it when it can just be refined and polished?


The Mario franchise has hardly done wonders since it's introduction (besides Galaxy to be honest)

I think you forgot about Super Mario 64 which pretty much defined 3D platforming.


Sonic The Hedgehog has really epically failed, not having a good game in years.

I'm tempted to add Sonic Generations here.


I'm no expert on the history of games, you guys are more hardcore experts and know more than I do, so I'll ask you: do you agree? Do publishers rely too much on existing franchises? Is there any independent, outstanding, standalone game?

One example for me is TWEWY. Now that was a new game that blew me away.

Discuss.

Publishers for the most part have to rely on established IPs because their bottom line is to their shareholders and their shareholders have invested them to make profit. Saying that we had Ubisoft take a massive gamble on Assassin's Creed following the success of rebooting Prince of Persia and that seems to be pathing the way for Watchdogs. Likewise EA of all companies published titles like Mirror's Edge and Spore.

Nintendo as a publisher and developer also veers far more onto the side of going for unique or innovative ideas despite Mario's yearly appearances. The Zelda games on the handheld consoles particularly are usually some of the best ways of using the features of the handheld and the handhelds usually see a lot of innovative titles from companies you've never heard of on home consoles.

Of course big name publishers won't take as many risks as Indies due to them being publicly traded and well Indies are getting a massive presence on Steam right now and for the most part provide a lot of bang for buck. This is something publishers will be taking note of - but publishers are big business and often a multi-headed beast that sometimes (sadly more often than not lately) one head pulls too far into a consumer unfriendly direction.

I think as we head into the next console generation we'll definitely see some new franchises pop up from major publishers.

[Madame Adequate]

I don't think they rely too much on their own existing franchises - games like Halo or CoD make tremendous amounts of money, which means a lot of people must like them. And hell, I don't need every game I ever play to be a world-changing revolution or a secret gem for Internet neckbeards like myself - sometimes I genuinely just want more game. If they put out Mirror's Edge 2 and it was the exact same game with different levels I would buy that shit on Day One.

I think instead the problem is they rely on other people's franchises way too much. It's understandable that trends will be set by particular successes of some form or another - DooM almost single-handedly shifted half the industry towards FPS games; Dune II did most of the invention of the RTS genre, Halo:CE didn't just set a new standard for console FPS games, it made the XBox a credible system that people wanted to own - but there comes a point where everyone sees "oh hey that worked out really well for Company they're making bank now" and they pile on in with derivative knockoffs. Sometimes those add to the genre, often they do not. That's where the real problem is I think.

[Del Murder]

I think instead the problem is they rely on other people's franchises way too much. It's understandable that trends will be set by particular successes of some form or another - DooM almost single-handedly shifted half the industry towards FPS games; Dune II did most of the invention of the RTS genre, Halo:CE didn't just set a new standard for console FPS games, it made the XBox a credible system that people wanted to own - but there comes a point where everyone sees "oh hey that worked out really well for Company they're making bank now" and they pile on in with derivative knockoffs. Sometimes those add to the genre, often they do not. That's where the real problem is I think.
I agree, and it's something SE is doing too much of these days, which is sad since they were such an innovative company back when.

Nintendo is a good example of a company that milks its franchises for all they're worth but still manages to try and be different and not rely on what everyone else is doing. I'm fine with that. Bring on more Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/DK and I'll play them all.

[Bolivar]

I truly feel this notion is just an easy scapegoat to express vague criticisms. Publishers have created plenty of new franchises and one-offs this generation and most of us as a whole are happy buying into well-established franchises.

We're also plagued by a mindset that praises innovation for innovation's sake, and as a result, we ask questions like "are there not enough new IPs?" Personally, I don't really care about innovation. I just want thought-provoking video games that are fun to play.

[Loony BoB]

I have no problems with sequels generally. However, the key word in your statement for me is 'rely', and I agree they rely too much on them - there should be a healthier balance.

[Rostum]

I agree with everything Shoeberto says, but I just wanted to add that at least with something like Final Fantasy the definition of the series allows it to take risks and be something different to its predecessor. I think perhaps along with restructuring and implementing an efficient pipeline, that Square realise thier in a position to stretch what Final Fantasy is and could be within each iteration. Or at least I hope.

I just came across a good article, that whilst more focused on mobile games I think rings true for the entire industry and is related to large publishers needing to take more risk than they are currently.

What Games Are: The Scientism Delusion | TechCrunch (http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/04/28/what-games-are-the-scientism-delusion/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&%23038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29)