[ALL] Too many sequels?

[Maynard]

why throw out RDR and LA Noire? does a new IP only apply to new studios? no it doesnt. sure rdr was built on the idea of GTA so i can see throwing that out. but what was LA Noire based on?

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

 

[jms493]

38 Studios (never made a game before EVER)
vs
ROCKSTAR......

Are they both new IPs.....yes....is there a difference YES.

I buy anything that Rockstar puts out..........I don't care what it is.

 

[jms493]

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

Ill take it off....

 

[Swarley]

and again 38 studios was about the MMO and not so much KOA.

Actually KOA:R 2 was in the works as well as the MMO.

 

[Maynard]

38 Studios (never made a game before EVER)
vs
ROCKSTAR......

Are they both new IPs.....yes....is there a difference YES.

I buy anything that Rockstar puts out..........I don't care what it is.

ok.....38 games isnt the discussion though. that was a side point. your using 38 as part of entirely different point.

i agree, companies like rockstar will have more success with a new IP then a new studio like 38. But i dont think 38 failed because their new IP didnt sell. I think its been shown in various threads and news articles that curt shilling is a shitty business man

 

[jms493]

But i dont think 38 failed because their new IP didnt sell. I think its been shown in various threads and news articles that curt shilling is a shitty business man

Correct....the game sold well and they failed. Therefore there were other reasons.

1. Should not have bought Big Huge Games
2. Should not have moved the company to RI for the loan....although I think they had to.
3. Should Stay out of the MMO market....but that is now and not then.

 

[SethMode]

why throw out RDR and LA Noire? does a new IP only apply to new studios? no it doesnt. sure rdr was built on the idea of GTA so i can see throwing that out. but what was LA Noire based on?

you yourself had it in your list of new ips so im not getting your point

I don't want to be all technical here, but Red Dead Revolver came before Red Dead Redemption. Obviously Redemption is the one everyone remembers, and Redemption is pretty different than Revolver, but it isn't a new IP.

The overall point is, it's harder for a new studio to make a new IP than one that has droves of fans that will buy anything they put out. Hell, Amalur tried to basically do that and it was still had to pull off (big Elder Scrolls developer as lead, popular fantasy writer writing the lore, popular artist doing most of the artistic design work).

Again, all I'm saying is, it's harder and more expensive to make new IP, and it's less likely to be a profitable slam dunk than a sequel. Some companies can pull it off based on their past successes, but if it's hard for a well known developer to make a successful new IP, it's just that much harder for an unknown.

Another way to look at it is, all of the new IP is coming out in the form of stuff like XBL, Steam, or phones, because no publishers want to risk forking over the money for new IPs in the AAA format, so these developers end up just making their shit on their own or with like a 5 guy team or something. Just all more signs of the fact that it just isn't worth it to publishers to take the risk.

 

[Houston]

Don't got time for all these damn sequels, Metal Gear 3 and Mass Effect were enough for me.

 

[JeremyHight]

First, thanks, Seth, for clearing it up that Redemption was based on Red Dead Revolver, which was released back in 2004. I was about to lose my mind when reading it posts saying it was a new IP.

Second, I don't mind sequels as long as the games keep it interesting. I don't hear many people complaining about new Mario, Uncharted, Zelda, Assassin's Creed, and many other games because they are good. In fact, I think anyone could argue that the first AC was utter crap after the first hour due to constant repetition, but since then, has greatly improved their games due to sequels. However, there are series like Final Fantasy that used to be this great, but have since stagnated. I love JRPGs, but FF is even getting rid of some of the innovations they allowed for like non-linearity in order to push a rather mundane story.

Overall, I think sequels aren't bad and can really allow for some great innovation and improvement. If not for the small successes Rockstar had with GTA 1 and 2, they never would have made 3, which was a huge overhaul. Mario has parlayed 2D success into some of the most innovative titles across multiple genres. AC has gone from mundane, repetitive action to a very action packed, beautiful game.

 

[Maynard]

forgot about revolver. i would base rdr more on GTA then anything else.

i dont mind a 2nd or even 3rd game in a series. But was disgusts me is companies like activision who keep churning out COD games, or GH games. even companies like EA who release the same sports games year after year with a new roster and call it a new game. then you take shooters, rpgs, mmo's or any other genre and they are all basically copies of some other game.

the entire industry is unoriginal and unimaginative. We are talking about new IP's but imo a new IP is something truly unique, not something that has been done before but was given a new name. thats why a game like watch dog gets people pumped up. it looks unique and has a fresh feel. Not to beat on 38, but while KOA may have been a great game, nothing about it from the videos i watched today make it feel unique. It feels like a rpg that we have seen 1000 times before.

 

[MVPete]

IDK what makes you think Activision is going to stop making COD games when the series has been so successful for such a long time. The companies that make shooter games want that online community to be satisfied at this point with so much money coming in from map packs and other DLC that they don't want to tweak the games to the point they piss those hardcore fans off. Reach sold a ton but really turned off a large portion of the community because the online portion added a bunch of new abilities and they added bloom to the weapons. The big name shooting game companies know they don't need to change much up to sell, most of their user base is aware the game will be just a slightly upgraded version of the last one but that's ok because they tend to play that game until the next installment comes out.

 

[JBauerisGod]

38 Studios didn't fail because of KoA. They failed because they created a new IP that needed to sell 3+ million copies to break even (I read that in the other thread about 38 Studios closing). Expecting that kind of return on a new IP is just stupid. Uncharted, arguably one of the best new IPs this generation, only sold around 700,000 copies in it's first few months after release. Sony considered that enough of a success to put out two sequels. In the end we got one of the best trilogies this generation that has sold around 13 million copies.

I'm sure Sony wasn't banking on Uncharted selling 3 million copies in it's first 3 months. That's the way it seemed at 38 Studios. You shouldn't need a 100 million dollar budget to make a good game. Throwing money at a problem rarely fixes it.

As for the topic of sequels, tons of sequels are not necessarily bad. Plenty of series have shown that they can put out 10+ games over the lifespan of an IP and the game not be stale. That's due in part to sequels being spaced 3-4 years apart from one another. For a console generation, 3 games in a series is about the limit before the game becomes stale. Call of Duty is the best example of this. Every time I touch CoD, the game feels generic. That's because we've had 7 CoD's to play alone in this generation. We don't need 7 games in a series in a span of 7 years. It just becomes boring at a certain point.

 

[jms493]

IDK what makes you think Activision is going to stop making COD games when the series has been so successful for such a long time. The companies that make shooter games want that online community to be satisfied at this point with so much money coming in from map packs and other DLC that they don't want to tweak the games to the point they piss those hardcore fans off. Reach sold a ton but really turned off a large portion of the community because the online portion added a bunch of new abilities and they added bloom to the weapons. The big name shooting game companies know they don't need to change much up to sell, most of their user base is aware the game will be just a slightly upgraded version of the last one but that's ok because they tend to play that game until the next installment comes out.

You keep making them till they stop being profitable.....simple.

 

[jms493]

Every time I touch CoD, the game feels generic. That's because we've had 7 CoD's to play alone in this generation. We don't need 7 games in a series in a span of 7 years. It just becomes boring at a certain point.

but also INCREDIBLY Profitable.

 

[MVPete]

You keep making them till they stop being profitable.....simple.

Ya I'm not going to sit here and say that COD hasn't pushed out a lot of the same old shit, but being a guy who enjoyed playing it online for most of the series I understood that it was the best course of action for activision. I really fucking hate paying for map packs, and I'm a grown man who can do so easily. I feel bad for the little kids who have to beg their parents to buy it for them. We all know those maps are simple enough to make, and were most likely made even before the fucking game came out. And that's one of the many things going on in video games shooters world right now that sucks.

 

[jms493]

Ya I'm not going to sit here and say that COD hasn't pushed out a lot of the same old shit, but being a guy who enjoyed playing it online for most of the series I understood that it was the best course of action for activision. I really fucking hate paying for map packs, and I'm a grown man who can do so easily. I feel bad for the little kids who have to beg their parents to buy it for them. We all know those maps are simple enough to make, and were most likely made even before the fucking game came out. And that's one of the many things going on in video games shooters world right now that sucks.

It is just a matter a time before it probably becomes a subscription service. NO need for a single player campaign. Play COD for Free online up till level 10 and then you have to pay....9.99 a month or some shit.

 

[JBauerisGod]

I understand why Activision pushes out a new CoD every year. If I was an exec for Activision, I'd be doing it too.

Doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for gamers or that the game isn't boring.

 

[Villain]

It is just a matter a time before it probably becomes a subscription service. NO need for a single player campaign. Play COD for Free online up till level 10 and then you have to pay....9.99 a month or some shit.

They've already set that groundwork with the Online Pass - you can't just run off and make a new screen name and play until level 10. Scary to think about that.

 

[jms493]

I understand why Activision pushes out a new CoD every year. If I was an exec for Activision, I'd be doing it too.

Doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for gamers or that the game isn't boring.

If it sucked so bad or the game was that boring....it would not sell more games each year. They may be peaking but who knows.

Since Modern Warfare

• MW - 14.75
• WaW - 11.58
• MW2 - 22.70
• BLOPS - 24.68
• MW3 - 25.96

 

[jms493]

They've already set that groundwork with the Online Pass - you can't just run off and make a new screen name and play until level 10. Scary to think about that.

Well you can but you have to $$$ for it.