Prices go up, consumer tolerance goes down; tolerance goes down, consumer becomes more conservative. Conservative consumer buys safe, familiar products, producers make more safe, familiar products.
If this cycle encourages growth, you'd better believe that producers are going to exploit the shit out of it, and that's how we arrived at the sad state of AAA gaming today; that is why we can't have new things.
There are too many games trying to capitalize on the same few proven things, and that has gone on for so long that we're less inclined to try new things and in doing so, less inclined to promote new things (or anything that strays too far from the original concept).
Twitch-shooters like Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake and Serious Sam are pretty much dead despite the greater shooter genre being among the most overdone and lucrative in the business. People gobble up the same CoD4.x game year after year because it's safe, just as they did with Halo before it.
Shooters that tried something different like the SWAT series just died from sheer pressure.
(WoW killed virtually every MMO before it; the only notable exception is EVE Online, and that game hasn't exactly lit the world on fire like WoW did.)
SkepticalHat said:
I think it's more of a gamers choosing to go with the safe bet thing, than anything else. I mean think about it. Most games retail for $60 minimum, and up to $200 for that ultra limited special edition. Now if you had to spend that kind of money what you spend it on? The game that is new and innovative (which you know if it will be amazing or utter crap), or the sequel to that game you know is good. I don't think gamers are against innovation it's just that 9 times out of 10 gamers are choosing the safe bet sequel as opposed to the risky bet new innovative IP.
^This guy knows what's up.
I'll add that in times of economic downturn, people are (by necessity) going to be more choosy and conservative if cheaper options don't make themselves available.