Yes, because everyone knows developing a game that is identical to twenty others is a sure way to make money.
Command and Conquer: Tiberium Wars.
- Thread starter Zaij
- Start date
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
Seriously though when they check the trends to see what makes the most money dont they also check to see what the market is over-loaded with? If they did they'd realise that the market is too full to support new titles that are more of the same...
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
TVD, see the discussion on MMOs and the 50 that are in development to get the answer to your rhetorical question 
. Companies are stupid... what else is there to say about that.
. Companies are stupid... what else is there to say about that.
So are customers. They don't want to buy something original, they want to know what they get when they pay the 50 dollars to get the game. Original games that break out of the current trend rarely succeed financially.
Lazarus Plus
The smoovest
The Overseer said:
One should at least expect improvements in the existing formula/trend. Mediocre games that rehash are wastes of money, even if they do sell well.
There have been improvements in the fast-paced RTS genre, and games that do not keep up with this are left behind. Hence the need to adapt, in order to survive.
Nothing that generates profit is a waste of money, unless it's harmful to the company's general reputation. It probably will be hated by the original CnC fanbase, but they're not really the target group, as they're a small minority today. The big buyers are going to be the kids of today.
Few cases of fan whining have changed the course of a game's development, and if they have, that company has often gone belly up.
Nothing that generates profit is a waste of money, unless it's harmful to the company's general reputation. It probably will be hated by the original CnC fanbase, but they're not really the target group, as they're a small minority today. The big buyers are going to be the kids of today.
Few cases of fan whining have changed the course of a game's development, and if they have, that company has often gone belly up.
The Overseer said:
Nothing that generates profit is a waste of money, unless it's harmful to the company's general reputation. It probably will be hated by the original Fallout fanbase, but they're not really the target group, as they're a small minority today. The big buyers are going to be the kids of today.
Scary, huh?
Well, that's how it is. As much as I dislike it, I can't really say I would do it any differently.
calculon000
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Well your game company certainly won't be remembered for anything other than not being bankrupt.
An excellent philosophy, and one certain to propell you into the upper echelon of healthy, profitable companies like Atari, Eidos, Acclaim or Interplay.The Overseer said:
calculon000 said:
People want to be rich, not always remembered. If you make a great game that appeals to 10% of all potential buyers you won't make much of a profit.
EA has also to kept that philosophy, and while not respected, they are successful. Though that is mostly attributed to their audience (I doubt I've ever met a Madden gamer with an IQ breaking the double-digits. No doubt someone out here is going to say "I'm one!" now, then you might be the first.) and also their "If you can't beat them, buy them." approach, which few other companies have the money for.[i said:
calculon000
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
The Overseer said:
I think Maxis would be a good example of a developer of games that are not only classics, but also sell well. If you make a great game, selling it should follow easily unless it’s a REALLY niche target audience.
Also, EA owns Maxis, so I find it a miracle that Will Wright is still able to do his thing without all his games being raped up the ass in the name of supposed broad appeal and moneys.
EA own a ton of highly popular licenses, treat their employees like dirt (it's hard not to be profitable when your developers consistently work 70-90 hours a week), adjust to new circumstances in a very timely manner (remember how quickly they killed off Earth & Beyond) and, perhaps most importantly, release one or two original titles every year which, if successful, result in birth of a new game series (lifeblood of any successful gaming company) which is milked until every possible penny is squeezed out of it.PhredBean said:
Ironically, that makes EA one of the few forces that still drive the industry forward. In other words, they are the ones who occasionally come up with a novel and successful formula that gets copied by everyone else. Someone mentioned that the market was oversaturated with WWII shooters. What triggered the trend? That's right, EA's Medal of Honor. Who created the successful MMORPG concept that remains largely unchanged to this day? EA's Origin, with Ultima Online.
If you ask me, EA's instict for new ideas and concepts is the key thing that keeps them in the business. Despite that, their results - though still excellent - have been worsening lately, which indicates that their magic formula of 1 new game + 30 sequels/spin-offs may no longer work. I hope that is the case, because the industry can only gain from their absence.
Remember, people, simply focusing on making what "everybody wants" is a very unproductive philosophy and the reason why nowadays 90% of mainstream titles fail to turn a profit. No matter how much consumers enjoy first person shooters, nobody wants to play six new shooters every month, especially not when those shooters are unoriginal, uninspired and forgettable.