What do
Star Wars Battlefront 2
Knack 2
Watchdogs 2
and Destiny 2
All have in common?
You, know, other than the fact they’re all sequel…
?
They’re all sequels to games that underperformed.
Why do you suppose companies are picking up this tread of forcing IPs that are flops?
I didn’t think that either Destiny or Watchdogs were “flops”? I know both had people complaining about them, but how was their commercial performance? I thought they were alright.
Anyway, once the first game is out a whole bunch of technical work is complete that makes a sequel faster and cheaper to make. On top of that they’ve got everything they learned from the first game including, for instance, what people might not have liked about it. So it’s faster and cheaper to make something that should be better, without even considering the possible marketing and branding benefits.
Watch Dogs had lies and slight performance problems at launch (graphics in any version didn’t match the previews). Battlefront had many server issues and possibly some balance problems, but also improved. I’m sure they would never get sequels if they didn’t make back more than they cost to make. Even Destiny improved a lot, although I think the game just had a built-in audience of blind fanbois.
Knack, on the other hand, I don’t understand. That was a just plain crap game. Did they really sell well over costs by discounting it?
On what planet do you assume a title under performed if it’s got a multi-million dollar sequel ? Honestly not sure about this thread. Nobody sane pumps money into flops.
AAA games need game titles that can generate more money than they cost to make. Even if a game under performed compared to some metric, as long as it made many millions it is worth a sequel.
For example, Destiny generated half a billion dollars in revenue the day it was released according to its Wiki page. Is that under performing? What revenue target should Destiny need to hit on launch day to justify a sequel?
I am not saying Destiny is perfect, but I am saying any game that generates a half a billion dollars in revenue on launch day is worth a sequel.
The suggestion that SW:Battlefront, Watchdogs, and Destiny are flops is so moronic that I’m fairly certain I can no longer take anything you say seriously.
While the latter half of this is a little ridiculous, it’s true that these weren’t flops by any standard.
What one might say is that “hardcore gamers”^TM had issues with these games. The fact that they got sequels might tell us that “hardcore gamers”^TM don’t define the market.
I think you’ll find most people, hardcore and otherwise enjoy it fine. It’s called bitching. People love to bitch, especially about games they love. For example everyone apparently hates GTA V now, even though they continue to play it constantly.
The internet, I keep saying it, is a magnifying glass or amplifier. Everything said is dramatic and huge in text and hyped in youtube videos, but this is actually a generation that’s full of shit.
The reality is that complaining is the new feedback. It’s to be interpreted, not to be taken at face value. Look at all those people with 100+ hours on a game saying the game sucks.
Really? you play a game for 100 hours then decide suddenly it sucks?
Knack was poorly received but suggesting games with profits starting at 350 million and sustaining their players for years are flops is comically stupid.
Okay, geeze, “flop” is a strong word, but certainly underperformed.
And didn’t Destiny break the record for most expensive development budget at nearly a billion?
It just seems like these studios could be picking better targets.
Did something happen to it?
If $350m is “underperforming” then what do you consider “success”?
@hippocoder nailed it. Just because people complain about something doesn’t mean it’s actually bad. And if you’re looking at the Internet to tell whether people liked something or not, remember that people are more likely to complain than they are to compliment. And as @hippocoder also raised, behaviour is more indicative than words. If you play something for dozens of hours and then tell me it’s crap I’m going to see right through the words to the fact that you played it for dozens of hours.
Mind you, I don’t think less of people for stating such opinions. It took me a while to realise that I used to do the same thing with Bethesda games. I played dozens of hours of Oblivion before at some point stopping because I’d gotten over it, at which point I’d describe it as shallow, boring and repetitive. I wasn’t wrong, but that description was accurate for how I felt about the game at the end of my experience of playing it. But at the start I found it interesting and entertaining enough to keep me playing it over other games for dozens of hours. Skyrim was the same. Fallout 3 and 4 were the same.
In each case, the last play session where I realise that I’m “over it” isn’t at all indicative of the dozens of hours before that, it’s just the easiest bit to talk about.
I’m not sure what you’re asking, that list has solid sales… Certainly worthy of sequels based on the sales alone.
Star Wars Battlefront - Sold 13 million copies by 2016
Watchdogs - Has made more money than all UBI games sold at the time
Destiny - has sold 6.3 million copies in the first month alone, you can extrapolate where they are now.
People don’t hate GTA, they hate that Rockstar said mods aren’t allowed. When users retaliated by bringing GTA’s reviews on Steam down to “Mixed,” Rockstar backpedaled and said mods were okay. Additionally, there was a modding group or something who was going to recreate GTA IV in GTA V. After a backroom talk with Rockstar…they’re no longer doing so.
Alright, I concede this was an ill conceived thread.
It would be constructive to define which metrics those games underperformed on. The games you listed got sequels because they generated a lot of revenue.
As for Destiny, somebody originally said Destiny cost $500M to make, and then somebody else said it cost nowhere near that much. It definitely did not cost a billion dollars to develop. Either way, Destiny generated $500M on launch day, so that was a solid investment.
Yeah it’s a pretty good example of interpreting negative feedback as constructive feedback. What we have here is a generation of gamers who are used to voting up or down. They don’t know a middle ground, or care much.
Reading those people is important.
Battlefront was a huge success, sales outperformed estimates and its success drove up ea’s stock. Critically, it had pretty good reviews. It was a bonafide hit by virtually every objective standard. I think some folks (myself included) were disappointed because it wasn’t nearly as awesome the originals.
Thing is… the internets make people think that loud voices are the same as many voices. Like the Jim Sterling videos. A vocal minority. People love to bitch about things that are popular. I’m not a fan of the new battlefront games (so far), but an ass-load of people are. As a game developer, it is crucial to listen to all voices out there, not just the ones talking.
Its also worth pointing out that making a sequel is much cheaper then making new IP. And marketing a sequel is much simpler then marketing original IP.
Before I buy a game I normally I spend hours checking reviews, watching play throughs, and just generally making sure I’ll actually like it. However I recently dropped $100 on a sequel to one of my favorite games without even reading the back of the box.
When you can command that sort of brand loyalty, you would be stupid not to make a sequel.
Yeah although Studio Ghibli doesn’t deal with sequels but has utterly astonishing IP. It’s one of the reasons I value them so much.
The time is drawing near where I return to making games. I don’t expect to make amazing games, but I’m not getting younger. I don’t know if I want that flame that remains to be burned on sequels.