Comments on: Solution to game industry's woes: New games, not sequels

Consumers have finally woken up and realized the game sequels just aren't enough to make pull out their wallets.

[Renegade Knight]

Yes and No:
yes they need to innovate. However some of the "winners" only real problem is that they decide to end the chain. I've been waiting for a Knights of the Old Republic 3. Nope. Not happening. I can't buy what they won't make. Meanwhile I like Splinter Cell. I'd not mind someone else to clone it with a new and different story line and fresh angle.

Do I like new games. I loved the DS because that platform came out with a bumch of puzzle games. Of course Puzzle games aren't new they just fell out of favor a long time ago. Here they are selling on the DS.

A company like EA should keep their product line fleshed out in depth (Ongoing franchises that keep fands happey) and breadth (a variety of game types). Innovation is how to expand both.

Heck I'm still looking for the next good Panzer General series. I've only found a bunch of crap.Neither a good clone, or a good replacement.

[quality4me]

A couple great points. There haven't been any amazing ground breaking titles, and it sucks. Nothing changing the mold. I think a lot of us are between twenty and thirty five, and back in the day were used to sitting around playing zelda, or sonic by ourselves. But now we have changed. We are online. We dont want to sit at home on a thurday and try to get a pair of golden shoelaces or send 20 or 30 hours looking for a secret passage way that has a picture of a skull or something. We want to be online chatting with friends for bragging rights tommorow, we want to feel like we have an online person who represents ourselves, and how sharp we are. We want amazing graphics and new features that change the way we game. Hopefully the next xbox experience helps somewhat. But developers need to come out with new highend titles. Games that are big budget and deliver. When there are two or three great movies playing in the same time frame, people still will watch the other movies. Why? Because they know that they are great. The days when you can put out low budget titles with no hype and expect to get the rookie purchaser to splurge are dwindling. Charge $60 for halo, bioshock, motorstorm, metal gear, and mario cart like titles. But dont try and pass the other junk on to use for the same price. People will keep paying high prices for well done games, but we have been bombarded with crappy ripp off games for quite sometime, yeah we are skeptical.

[guitarkid55]

Honestly, sometimes I think the problem is trying to be "innovative." I think video game companies have stopped trying to tailor to their core audience. I mean...I'm a 23 year old male, and when Metal Gear Solid 4 came out I had no problem at all spending $700 on a PS3, a different controller, and the game. Now.....am I going to do that with Wii anything.....NO!! Is the more "mainstream" video game audience going to do that for the Wii? NO. And as for DRM, I'm sure that is a problem.....but honestly PC gaming it pretty much dead. Buy one of the consoles.

[renGek]

If they think their sales figures are low now, wait till all those p.o. spore buyers (me included) who didn't know about secuRom stops buying their stuff.

You know I look back at the games that were created in the mid to late 80s and those video games (while they look primitive now) have far more addictive game play than the rehash that they do now. Simple games like jumpman, mule were simple but fun. But video games have adopted the hollywood business model. Take no chances and remake the same thing. I don't get it because they end up with a lot of duds anyway so mind as well take a chance. nintendo took a chance and got themselves back up on top.

[glaeken62p]

It never ceases to amaze me how the actual gamers who read this type article miss the point completely. This is not an article about gaming, it's an article about business models. That is given in the title.

This article is about a successful business model that grows the company, increases the bottom line and increases stockholder equity. It just happens the products are [computer] games. It could just as well be automobiles, hair brushes, or any of a billion other things.

If EA and the rest care to survive, they must have a successful business model, NOT a better game necessarily. The game could be the crappiest ever written but if their marketing strategy is successful and they manage to sell it and make a profit then great. It just happens that usually only good products generate continued profits.

It follows that if they are laying off 6% of their workforce, something in their business model is wrong. It also follows that if something in the business model is wrong, the most likely cause is unsold product caused by reduced demand. Generally that means people are buying something else.

If you wish to increase revenues and profits (not the same by the way) you generally take one of two actions: increase sales or reduce production costs ... hopefully you can do both. But fastest results are always gotten by cutting costs (layoffs) since the results are immediate. But that's not usually enough, you have to change your business strategy and that can take several forms: product improvement, targeted marketing, rebates, and so on and so forth.

Here's the point the author is making. He believes product improvement is the key, and generally that's a good move. But his comments don't deny other actions, he just believes innovation is historically a good tact in the gaming industry. And he's right.

So don't get confused by what the article is saying, what its real intent is or what the author believes has to be done. It's a good read ... and from a business model/business strategy standpoint the author is dead right.

[steeda76]

How about the fact that games have for the most part gotten shorten or there content is repetitive. Take assassin's creed which look beautiful but after after the beating the first city in the game the other two were damn near copies. I can beat 75% of the games if not more in a rental for 8.99 instead of 60 dollars. Why would anyone pay 60 dollars for a game that you can beat in 7 hours. Maybe if there going to add content later or its a sports game or racing then I can see it. But take fallout 3 for example. why announce to ps3 owners that there not adding content to our system but you are to the other 2. Well guess what know I'm not buying for game. You put a level cap for some stupid reason and now no new content. Beat it in two weeks from blockbuster for 8.99 and saw enough of the game that I'm content. Would have bought it but you basically gave ps3 system owners the finger. In all games are two short and two repetitive.

[2dum2die]

I agree with the things Don said. I just joined in the hype by buying a Wii, but when I went to the store to purchase some games...there was nothing. There was just some redone Mario titles with a $50 price tag slapped on them. I had a hard time finding something that actually looked good to play. Modern games seem to be losing their originally and game play. At least to me anyway...

[bornlikethis38]

lower video game prices and at the same time raise prices of blank DVDs and blank BlueRay discs above video game prices. that will make a large number of people stop pirating because it will cost them more money to pirate than to buy the stupid game. I enjoy first person shooters, i don't think there is much any of the companies can do to be innovative. sure they can put log ass cut scenes in the shooter games, but most gamers i know just skip over those. there is not much they can do with sports games too besides try to make controls more efficient. I think you people are just being selfish and expecting too much.

[ScaryMonkey69]

Thanks to crap sequels, DRM, and lack of innovation, the gaming industry isnt as great as it used to be. I remember when EA Games were THE best. Now they just suck. Gee, why not release another Grand Theft Auto Sequel?? Or another Madden??? Or another pointless Tony Hawk game??

[Shaun822]

Simple answer, the gaming industry got too big. Good luck getting more than a fraction of gamers to agree on just about anything. The rare breed of "gamers" first, fan-boys second is gone. Now people defend genres, platforms, stories, artistic styles, gimicks, etc. and don't bother to try anything else. It is a rarity that in any one gamer's collection to find something from every single genre: action, rpg, mmo, action-rpg (KotOR style or Fallout/Oblivion), fps, sports, adventure, rts, sanbox action, platformer, side scroller, fighting, sci-fi, racing/driving sims, lifestyle sims, the list goes on. Too many genres, too many gamers that think they are "hardcore" when they are really just closed minded. PC gamer's think consoles are the downfall, console gamers think PCs are the devil.

Because of that companies don't make as much money on a single game and are pressed to charge more for it (some argue this leads to more piracy), then they feel compelled to release it on multiple systems including PC (drives up development costs, see previous problem), they rush it to make the money and gamers feel gipped and get angry (which threatens profits), its a vicious cycle.