When will it finally implode?

[Sangnz]

At the moment the big publishers are riding high on their big franchises and the never ending strings of sequels and reboots. This has to come to a halt eventually, nothing ever lasts for ever, at least I don't want to see BF5 or MW6.
Previously sequels where a big deal when they happened and it was more common to see lists of new game IPs with a sprinkling of sequels, these days its a huge dollop of sequels with a smattering of new IPs, hell without the sudden growth of the indie scene thanks to PSN/XBLA/Steam it would look even worse.
Also is it like this because publishers are scared of investing in potentially unprofitable games so they just stick to the tried and true instead of looking for the next big thing? I know I cannot deny the positive aspects the big publishers such as EA/Activision/THQ have had on the industry allowing bigger and bigger budgets but I also feel it has stifled the creativity of game development which seems to be falling to indie devs to pick up and run with.

So when do think it will end? When will we see it go full circle as the big franchises slowly die off and the big publishers scramble around looking for a new teat to suckle at?

 

[latenightapplepie]

When it ceases to be profitable, I suppose. Or something risky/original sells well.

I can't imagine developers/publishers changing of their own accord. Maybe.

 

[Sp3ratus]

It won't come crashing down, unless people stop buying them. The thing is, even if the current franchises die off, new ones will arise, because when a game is good or at least percieved as good, people want more of the same, which is why a sequel is made.

The only thing you can do about it is, as they say, to vote with your wallet. Don't buy games from franchices you want to go away. There really isn't any other way around it. I personally don't have that much a of problem with what the industry looks like now, I buy the releases I'm interested in, like Dark Souls, Uncharted and Deus Ex, just to name a few and don't really give much thought to games I'm not interested in. There's no reason obsessing over something you can't change easily anyway, so why not just enjoy yourself with what good releases there are?

 

[ssgt splatter]

When it ceases to be profitable, I suppose. Or something risky/original sells well.

I can't imagine developers/publishers changing of their own accord. Maybe.

"When something risky/original sells well." Exactly! Gears of War fell into that category when it first came out way back in 2006...well, ok, only 5 years ago but still, the sequals are getting bigger and bigger because of the "risky" new IP was such a massive hit.

 

[Vampire cat]

Is it time to found the "Coallition for People Willing to Buy the next Risky Game in Bulk"?

Or CPWBRGB...

Didn't quite roll of the tongue as well as I'd hoped.

 

[GonzoGamer]

When it ceases to be profitable, I suppose. Or something risky/original sells well.

I can't imagine developers/publishers changing of their own accord. Maybe.

"When something risky/original sells well." Exactly! Gears of War fell into that category when it first came out way back in 2006...well, ok, only 5 years ago but still, the sequals are getting bigger and bigger because of the "risky" new IP was such a massive hit.

Hmm. Is Gears 1 also the reason that most games this gen only last a couple of hours?
A couple of really short games did really well and I start to notice that everything is a weekend play. Glad I rent.

It's not going to implode. The problem is that most gamers are easily amused and will defend anything that amuses them tooth and nail.

Personally I kind of prefer new games being released compared to endless releases of overpriced dlc.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I know you want this to be a case of a decrepit industry hurtling towards destruction because of a lack of creativity and courage, but the reality is all those mega franchises were new and untested at some point in time, and hit series have always run long. There were 9 Ultima's and a half dozen spinoffs. There were 8 Wizardry's. God knows how many Flight Simulators there were. 3 Bard's Tales. It goes on and on.

Big franchises get sequels. There are lots of innovative, off-the-map games out there. It's all just business as usual.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

There won't be any definitive point where our current sequel games will end, each franchise depends on whether or not the developers can make money out of it, and COD could go on indefinitely, or MW3 could bomb and the franchise end with it.
Halo, Sonic, Gears of War; all are dependent on their own success, and have nothing to do with the success of the other games, so you won't get a watershed where all the games suddenly become original titles, they will slowly fade out in their own time, to be replaced with other titles.

In 10 years we will probably be complaining about LA Noire 4 rehashing the original formula for the game, or Portal 6 flogging a dead, puzzled horse. The originals of today become the cliches of tomorrow. That is how every medium works, and why everything your parents generation praised for being ground-breaking seems formulaic and boring to you.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Ehh the video game industry is the same as the film industry of late. So many bloody sequels and restarts. It's disgusting but creating anything new now is harder to do getting it on the go and with the risks they just don't want to take them. Hopefully once things such as the economy and other factory pick up. We'll be getting more "new" games.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

Right now.

*pop*

 

[Ekit]

I assume they will have major problems when the United States goes bankrupt.

 

[Spookimitsu]

/points to Madden NFL franchise.

Contemplate this.... on the TREE OF WOE
(crucify him)

 

[krazykidd]

When the life is sucked out completely. Yearly sequels? Definite guarantee of death soon.

I don't mind sequels that...SEEM like they took some fucking EFFORT to make better. Case in point: Deus Ex, Mass Effect, Gears Of War, etc.

Now i agree with what you say , but i don't think deus ex should be on the list. Because it's been 10 years since the original and about what 7 since invisible war? But sequels that make a effort to improve should be made . Hell if they made a modern warfare game every 2 years with significant improvemt between them , id be first in line to buy them and wouldn't mind seeing a modern warfare 12 . I buy final fantasy games because they are different every game . They aren't copy pastes of older games ( sure it's arguable that they aren't getting better but still). But , vote with your wallet and pray others do the same.

 

[ssgt splatter]

When it ceases to be profitable, I suppose. Or something risky/original sells well.

I can't imagine developers/publishers changing of their own accord. Maybe.

"When something risky/original sells well." Exactly! Gears of War fell into that category when it first came out way back in 2006...well, ok, only 5 years ago but still, the sequals are getting bigger and bigger because of the "risky" new IP was such a massive hit.

Hmm. Is Gears 1 also the reason that most games this gen only last a couple of hours?
A couple of really short games did really well and I start to notice that everything is a weekend play. Glad I rent.

It's not going to implode. The problem is that most gamers are easily amused and will defend anything that amuses them tooth and nail.

Personally I kind of prefer new games being released compared to endless releases of overpriced dlc.

What I was implying is that Gears 1 was pretty short, it had to be because it was a new IP and it was introducing the story, characters, and setting but Gears 2 was longer by a significant amount because Gears 1 did so well and they got a bigger buget, so logically, Gears 3 will be even longer than that. Gears 3 is the longest campaign that EPIC's ever done. My point is, new IPs are a risk so game companies don't want to spend a large amount of money on something that might not sell very well and back games that have been proven to be a hit like Call of Duty and, well, Gears of War.

 

[GonzoGamer]

When it ceases to be profitable, I suppose. Or something risky/original sells well.

I can't imagine developers/publishers changing of their own accord. Maybe.

"When something risky/original sells well." Exactly! Gears of War fell into that category when it first came out way back in 2006...well, ok, only 5 years ago but still, the sequals are getting bigger and bigger because of the "risky" new IP was such a massive hit.

Hmm. Is Gears 1 also the reason that most games this gen only last a couple of hours?
A couple of really short games did really well and I start to notice that everything is a weekend play. Glad I rent.

It's not going to implode. The problem is that most gamers are easily amused and will defend anything that amuses them tooth and nail.

Personally I kind of prefer new games being released compared to endless releases of overpriced dlc.

What I was implying is that Gears 1 was pretty short, it had to be because it was a new IP and it was introducing the story, characters, and setting but Gears 2 was longer by a significant amount because Gears 1 did so well and they got a bigger buget, so logically, Gears 3 will be even longer than that. Gears 3 is the longest campaign that EPIC's ever done. My point is, new IPs are a risk so game companies don't want to spend a large amount of money on something that might not sell very well and back games that have been proven to be a hit like Call of Duty and, well, Gears of War.

A lot of people quoted me for the above, but you kept it in context. Thanks.

But that's kind of a part of what I was saying.
Gamers are some of THE most forgiving consumers on the face of the planet. Rather than trying to push the corporation they patronize into bigger and better things like most other groups of consumers, they tend to try and defend whatever shortcomings and they (the consumer) make excuses for the company. Need proof? Look at the others who quoted me. Personally, even if I really like a game (Fallout 3 for example) and a friend asks me for my opinion I will tell them the good things (engrossing world) and the bad things (tons of bugs and crashing) about it.
The fact that it was a new IP isn?t really a good excuse for them. Maybe if it was some small struggling dev with only a few investors but lots of ambition, then I can see them saying that but we?re talking about a very well known dev with some pretty big backers investing and some big names attached. The publishers do things like make really short games, release games before they are done testing/fixing, and section off game content for pre-orders & day 1 dlc because they know that gamers will not only put up with it but will likely defend it.
That?s only encouraging them to cut more corners. Let their PR dept make the excuses, we?re the consumers, we?re the ones that are supposed to push them to do more. It actually explains a lot about the state of the industry right now.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Let their PR dept make the excuses, we?re the consumers, we?re the ones that are supposed to push them to do more. It actually explains a lot about the state of the industry right now.

There is a strong "Push-button, take pellet" mentality dominating gaming right now (and much of the entertainment business to boot). I'm not entirely sure what is driving the *consumer* side of the market into such a mindset (for the developer/publishers, it's easily derived), but it's certainly stamping out variety in AAA games.

 

[ChupathingyX]

You know, I'm actually really curious as to when Call of Duty will end and what it will end with...

...Call of Duty: WWX?

Where the alien forces of Sovius Russion IV have invaded earth and now all of humanity must fight back...with America leading the defense!

 

[Cridhe]

You understand that a game company is in the business to make money, yes?

Also that they don't give a rat's ass about the gamers, just the money?

I know it's nice to believe that they're making these things for us, but they're not and that's the hard truth. If it sells, they're making it and they're making money.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Let their PR dept make the excuses, we?re the consumers, we?re the ones that are supposed to push them to do more. It actually explains a lot about the state of the industry right now.

There is a strong "Push-button, take pellet" mentality dominating gaming right now (and much of the entertainment business to boot). I'm not entirely sure what is driving the *consumer* side of the market into such a mindset (for the developer/publishers, it's easily derived), but it's certainly stamping out variety in AAA games.

Somehow it's working for them.
Every element of the industry has gained a lot of loyalty by the consumers: from the software developers to the platform developers to even the retail outlets. It just seems to me that none of them (except for very few developers) seem to be doing much to earn this level of loyalty.
Some of it comes down to exclusivity I think: gamers seem to be very forgiving of any title that is exclusive to the console that they own. The consoles are expensive and they want to convince themselves and others that it was a wise purchase. Personally I find the exclusives for all the consoles to be quite lacking when compared to multiplatforms but they are some of the most popular titles this generation. Same with retail outlets like gamestop: they have expensive used games and nobody wants to admit they have been getting ripped off so they will find ways to defend it instead of just saying ?well they have a monopoly now so I don?t really have much choice.?
Besides just AAA games, the current ever forgiving/accepting gamer mindset has also led to the console experience and retail chains to become more expensive and less rewarding.

 

[skywolfblue]

It won't "Implode".

Some point in the future, people will stop buying "Call of Duty : Call of Dutying" and switch to buying "(Heroic Soldierly Phrase) 2". And since owns both titles, it doesn't make any difference.