Activision CEO: People Like Sequels

[Eagle Est1986]

While I do like sequels, it's nice to have somewhat of a known quantity before handing over my £40 (£65 if Activision are involved), it's much more refreshing to see something new and different.
I'm looking forward Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2, because I know I'm going to like them and get a good amount of hours out of them. That said, I also really like playing something new, that isn't really like anything else, even if it doesn't hold my attention for as long as a more established game might.
I think EA have the right balance now, they seem to be willing to help developers with new ideas and they can do so because they've got the funding from their franchises.

Edit: Also, that man looks like the devil.

 

[jthm]

Thing of it is, new intellectual properties can bring in brand new game mechanics, new ways of looking at old gaming conventions and more radical innovation than a sequel can without betraying the audience.

Sometimes untested new games fail and that is why companies tend to take a dim view of producing them. But some new ip's are brilliant (No more heroes for example).

We only got to the point we're at by the innovation of what we now call classics. More innovation generally means better games and a larger variety of them in the long run. In the short term, it means you won't know what to expect when you see a new game on the shelf and you may buy a crappy game from time to time.

 

[Amnestic]

Another thing that lends itself to success in the videogame business is ownership of World of Warcraft, the ridiculously lucrative MMOG that Activision acquired as part of the merger with Vivendi. Kotick said he'd had his eye on Blizzard's hit game because of the regular income it provides and even though Activision has published numerous popular game franchises in recent years, subscription income now accounts for more than half of Activision Blizzard's operating profit. As Kotick noted, "World of Warcraft is the most stable form of profitable revenue in the industry."

And yet, it's an original game. Yes, it's part of the Warcraft saga, but it's not really a sequel in that it's an entirely different genre and playstyle experience to the previous Warcraft iterations (all of which were RTS and the one WC game that wasn't going to be an RTS, Warcraft Adventures, was cancelled indefinetly). People may like sequels but I need only point to the incredible success of WoW as evidence that original titles can still tear it up.

 

[Woodsey]

Well, he's right. I love my sequels, AC 2, COD 4 MW 2, F III, B BC 2 and T 6.

Kudos to anyone who can name all of the above.

Assassins Creed 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2, Fable 3, Battlefield:Bad Company 2 and Tekken 6.

Right?

The only one I couldn't work out was B BC 2.

OT: Of course people love sequels, especially in games. In films it's hard to get better on the success as it's mainly story and effects that you can improve.

In games you can improve graphics, story, gameplay, controls, etc. So there's more you can do (so generally) the sequels should get better. Who doesn't like the idea of their favourite game made better?

 

[Torque669]

Hes such a moron its unbeleiveable. People like GOOD Sequals. But how would he know what they're like as he doesnt even look at the games hes too busy washing himself in childrens tears and drying himself with money.

I cant wait till he just pushes the line and everyone rebels on him and knocks him off his spot.

 

[Eruanno]

No. Gamers look forward to GOOD sequels, not bland pieces of shit.

Starcraft 2, for example is looking like an excellent example of a job well done. Assassin's Creed 2 ain't looking bad either.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

he's right and wrong at the same time

while people do like a sequel, if it continues a good story and/or is an improvement on the last iteration, they don't like them if they are just pumped out and there's no real improvements, such as the guitar hero franchise.

there is definitely a fine line with what a consumer wants and i think he doesn't understand that line, he just thinks everyone wants a new sequel each and every time.

best way i can describe it is video games are like ice cream, some days you want vanilla and some days you want chocolate, it really depends on the day

 

[Corkydog]

No one likes a crappy sequel. And all this coming from this dude, who is responsible for the milking of many different franchises, burying quality and novelty with price tags and cheap production. Tell me that we really need a new THPS, or GH, or, i don't know, tetris. Certain types of games can only be released so many times.

 

[Dudeakoff]

"A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year."

Fallacy much?

Most of these 'vocal gamers' like and buy sequals, but they see that there's a massive imbalance in the new to sequel ratio. Many of the games (arguably) held as some of the best this gen have been new IP, (LBP, Zack & Wiki, Mass Effect, Bioshock and Portal) given this fact, it's easy to see why some people would like to see more new IP.

Discouraging this argument by displaying it as an extreme view of 'I want everything to be new IP' doesn't help.

 

[sniperworm]

I don't mind sequels, at the very least I know I have to live with them but I wouldn't mind more publishers putting out new IP's. The games I'm most looking forward to are Mini Ninjas and Borderlands, whenever I see a game like Fifa, Guitar Hero or Call of Duty with a new version every year all I can do is roll my eyes and die a little on the inside.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Now that you mention it, I've quitted WoW ever since these two companies merged together. I guess my sub-conscious wanted to protect my gaming admiration and wallet safe from this evil man.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I've been on the Escapist long enough to pick up that I should hate this guy, whoever he is, but I do agree with him.

For his part, however, Kotick says people like sequels and that it's quite possible to break new ground within their boundaries. "A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year," he told The Economist. "Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them."

Especially this. I've also been on the Escapist long enough to notice that group that he's referring to, not to mention sequel (or prequel) games that surpassed their originals.

 

[HardRockSamurai]

I think the formula goes something like this.

BAD GAME = Boo!

GOOD SEQUEL TO BAD GAME = Yay!

GOOD GAME = Yay!

GOOD SEQUEL TO GOOD GAME = Stop ruining original IPs by giving them sequels. Boo!

BAD SEQUEL TO GOOD GAME = Meh, I never liked the first game anyway.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I've been on the Escapist long enough to pick up that I should hate this guy, whoever he is, but I do agree with him.

For his part, however, Kotick says people like sequels and that it's quite possible to break new ground within their boundaries. "A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year," he told The Economist. "Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them."

Especially this. I've also been on the Escapist long enough to notice that group that he's referring to, not to mention sequel (or prequel) games that surpassed their originals.

The fact that established franchises are well received, and innovation is more accepted within those established franchises is no secret though, people are in their comfort zones with a tried and true formula. However it's no excuse to have that as a reason not to bring out original IPs.

If all I gave you was steak with different sauces and spices each day, chances are you'll be satisfied, but it doesn't mean you might not want a different dish altogether if I asked you, right?

 

[wewontdie11]

Well he strikes me as a massive tool. Some sequels are all well and good if it's a continuation of a story that could not physically fit into one game, but aside from that everybody I know that's into games, when we've talked about this, has said to me that they would prefer more original ideas.

As I say there's nothing wrong with sequels for the most part, but original games are better!

 

[blaze96]

No one likes a crappy sequel. And all this coming from this dude, who is responsible for the milking of many different franchises, burying quality and novelty with price tags and cheap production. Tell me that we really need a new THPS, or GH, or, i don't know, tetris. Certain types of games can only be released so many times.

I agree but we DO need a new guitar hero. The multiplayer in World Tour is so fucked up that you need something just to fix all the problems. Between the needing all four instruments to fill a game, one guy who isn't the host quits and you can all be kicked back to menu, and the simple fact barely anyone sings, a few more people play drums than sing, and nearly everyone plays the guitar, makes finding a game in band or band v band nearly impossible.

 

[Denmarkian]

I think the formula goes something like this.

BAD GAME = Boo!

GOOD SEQUEL TO BAD GAME = Yay!

GOOD GAME = Yay!

GOOD SEQUEL TO GOOD GAME = Stop ruining original IPs by giving them sequels. Boo!

BAD SEQUEL TO GOOD GAME = Meh, I never liked the first game anyway.

I would amend your formula thus:

Good sequel to a good game that continues the story in a logical and compelling way: Awesome!
Good sequel to a good game that completely ignores what happened in the previous game, most often by way of someone else writing it, or an entirely different company developing it: What the fuck?!? Why did you even bother?
Bad sequel to a good game that completely ignores what happened in the previous game, most often by way of someone else writing it, or an entirely different company developing it: What the fuck?!? Why did you even bother?


The shameless product whoring that comes from developing and releasing a "Game +1" simply as an attempt to extend the shelf life of the IP is what turns people off. Especially when the sequels are complete crap.

This sort of avarice comes from the feeling that the publishing company has "jumped the shark", much like when your favorite TV show resorts to all manner of idiot plot points when the writers have completely run out of ideas, but they still want to make money off of the continued broadcasting licensing.

Some things are made to have an end, sometimes that end is at the closing credits of the first game. The people who do not understand this are the ones seen to be "milking it for all it's worth".

 

[NeutralDrow]

I've been on the Escapist long enough to pick up that I should hate this guy, whoever he is, but I do agree with him.

For his part, however, Kotick says people like sequels and that it's quite possible to break new ground within their boundaries. "A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year," he told The Economist. "Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them."

Especially this. I've also been on the Escapist long enough to notice that group that he's referring to, not to mention sequel (or prequel) games that surpassed their originals.

The fact that established franchises are well received, and innovation is more accepted within those established franchises is no secret though, people are in their comfort zones with a tried and true formula. However it's no excuse to have that as a reason not to bring out original IPs.

If all I gave you was steak with different sauces and spices each day, chances are you'll be satisfied, but it doesn't mean you might not want a different dish altogether if I asked you, right?

I doubt I would object, of course, but I'm not sure that metaphor is entirely appropriate. After all, how many IPs have there been by now with tremendously fun sequels? I wouldn't think describing, say, Metroid, Devil May Cry, and Wizardry VI as all being steaks with different herbs and spices really works. I'd probably describe Wizardry (or rather, Wizardry VIII) as a steak, Metroid as scalloped potatoes, and DMC as curry. I've not had breakfast, yet, as you can probably tell.

Then again, perhaps I'm just reacting to the unbelievable stupidity I've encountered over the past five months. I'm still of the opinion that originality is overrated, and I've seen far too much hate for franchise games not to get my hackles up...especially when people mix up "franchises" and "sequels" (I still have the question "When will Final Fantasy end" rattling around in my brain, lowering my opinion of people).

 

[Amnestic]

Then again, perhaps I'm just reacting to the unbelievable stupidity I've encountered over the past five months. I'm still of the opinion that originality is overrated, and I've seen far too much hate for franchise games not to get my hackles up...especially when people mix up "franchises" and "sequels" (I still have the question "When will Final Fantasy end" rattling around in my brain, lowering my opinion of people).

I'd like to amend that to "Originality for the sake of originality is overrated." Having innovative things in your game to improve it is awesome and can greatly heighten the experience. Doing something original just because it's original will generally leave a sour taste in the gamer's mouth because it's almost never pulled off well.