Submitted by vuzuki 1123d ago | article

Do franchises that try to widen their appeal actually gain sales ?

What franchises ought to do - catering to the fans or widening their appeal - is a very divisive subject among gamers. But before the argument even begins, why not at least try to assess whether or not widening a franchise’s appeal actually helps or hinder subsequent sales? Here, we have a look at the data for 5 million selling series. (Dragon Age: Origins, Industry, Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden, PC, PS3, Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, Wii, Xbox 360)

Godmars290  +   1123d ago
So there appears to be lots of evidence to suggest that trying to appeal to wider audiences, dumbing down or rebooting a game, doesn't help it and yet its only happening more and more.

wallis  +   1123d ago
Problem is you have to consider franchise momentum. People buy a game based on the next entry and things like reboots can be used to basically reset that short term memory. Look at splinter cell. Conviction pops out and lots of old fans cry and the publisher feels it in their wallet but then what's blacklist but another reboot. People retain optimism and think it might get better. It's a reboot right so it might be better? Not really.

So really it's gonna take another few games before some crafty companies like ubisoft feel the pain of their stupidity. Other companies like crytek felt the pain in reduced sales almost immediately but still show no sign of genuine repentence.

Seriously they're all idiots.
jeeves86  +   1123d ago
Capcom has actually come out and said that Resident Evil 5 was their best selling game of the series. So there's definitely something to be said for that.
azshorty2003  +   1123d ago
I'm one if the people that jumped onto RE with 4. I had always heard about the game, but never felt it was quite what I was looking for. Then I heard about 4 and gave it a shot, and freaking loved it. It's in my top 5 of all time.

But the reverse would be Mass Effect 2. Let me just say right away, I DONT care for RPGs. It takes something truly special for me to want to play one. The first I played and loved was KOTOR. So since it was Bioware I gave ME a go. I Loved the first one. The story was amazing. Exploration was fun. Combat was good enough. And I spent Hours customizing my weapons and armor to where I wanted it. Then ME2 came out and threw it all out the window. I liked ME2 as a game, but not as a sequel to ME.
#4 (Edited 1123d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
ACEMANWISE  +   1123d ago
"A game that everyone likes."

That's a tall order. Let's try to understand what it means first. For starters this concept would be coming from the developers table. It is more than likely it sources from the demand to make more money. They want to make a game that becomes a hit and sells alot. They are willing to apply this concept to already established franchises as well as new ones.

Realistically, it is near impossible to make everyone happy, although that is the developer's goal. Since we can rationalize that developers want mass appeal to get more money, we can then tie that to sales numbers. If we tie that to sales numbers then we can get an idea of what types of games are selling the most. If we tie the content of the highest selling games and merge that with the content of current franchises then we can start to see where video games are heading.

The biggest selling products seem to involve online, family, and friends. Because of that the main driver to invoke high sales strongly ties in with level of popularity and word of mouth. Now, the question to answer is this: Does a game become popular because it is great or does it become popular because the person who plays it is?

From my experience the best games I have ever played never really amounted to the sales these developers are shooting for. Nor have I ever seen a strong tie between great games and high sales. I do, however, know that popularity plays a really strong role in game sales, regardless of the quality of the video game. I also know that the maturity factor plays a big role. Meaning a mature title is more likely to cut off most of the audience rather than a title meant for "everyone". Why? Well because a title for everyone can still be appealing to older audiences.

I believe the developers are lost and have no clue that the video game industry is no longer about making great games based on their content. It is now a fashion statement these developers are seeking. Just look at the trends. Family, fitness, friends, service, celebraties, convienance, gimmicks, apps, mutlifunctional features, nongaming related features, etc. Anything but video games. And the franchises they got right, they decide to change that too. They will end up losing their core audience and the people they are shooting for. Why? Because those people really aren't into gaming. They are into everything else you don't understand. That's why the industry expanded this much in the first place.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

IndieGameStand Creates Tool to Distribute Kickstarter Games

1h ago - Marcus Estrada writes: "What happens once a game has succeed on Kickstarter, made its way through... | Industry

That Dragon, Cancer Development Continues, Game Almost Complete

1h ago - Nick Calandra writes: "Ryan Green and Josh Lawson are still toiling away on the development of Th... | PC

Warhammer: Arcane Magic Comes to iOS

Now - Test your tactics against legendary foes! | Promoted post

Submerge - Unreal 4 Powered Underwater RTS Hits Kickstarter

1h ago - Nick Calandra writes: "Submerged sounds like a rather ambitious game, featuring a persistent onli... | PC

The Swindle sneaks onto multiple platforms this friday

3h ago - Curve Digital and Size Five studios have released new details on their stealth platformer the Swi... | PC

British tanks invade War Thunder on PS4

3h ago - War Thunder gets new tanks from the British army, coming later this year. | PS4