So there is something that bothers me a lot about the gaming and movie industry, namely companies and developers making cash in titles to capitalize on a franchise success, barely doing unique and people just eating it up making them a ton of money
.
There are just constant examples making sequels of well established video game series and movie franchises, because it makes the company the most profit in stead of actually coming up with new original ideas and fans of these series will just happily it eat it up getting the games, which essentially encourages them to keep doing so.

There are just tons and tons of examples, take the Assassin Creed games excluding Black Flag (the in my opinion prime example) Jurassic World, numerous FPS games like CoD, Battlefield and thought it pains me to say it even Pokemon is guilty of it. These are all examples of franchises that are hugely popular, using the same carbon copy concept for each game, even movies not really even progressing the series or subsequent games ending up being downgrades of the previous. Or how some companies take it one step further by doing things like making definitive editions of games that don't really need it often shortly after it was first released or remakes of movies no one really asked for to make more money. It's even starting to happen within the indie side of things, the one area that was mostly free of it, just take FNaF as an example of that and even more being created.

I'm not saying these franchises all have to end, purely critically a lot of them are still solid games and some do one thing really well. I'm more bothered by the fact that it makes them a ton of money without even really progressing a franchise and in a lot of cases newer installments end up being downgrades of the original.

It's becoming increasingly worse, with the quality of the products not even being consistent anymore in particular with the case of gaming, forced launch DLC being released, charging tons of money for simple things like skins, micro transactions (take the supply drops of CoD or several pay to win Pokemon games Nintendo are making), shorter and shorter development cycles like in the case of Assassins Creed having just one year between game releases, and companies now doing everything they can to get people to preorder their games so they won't realize how bad they are before it's too late and then releasing buggy unfinished messes, with games often barely functioning on launch. Or how with movies, more and more franchises are being rebooted, in stead of making new movies and sequels are made to movies that were intended to have none.

All this while original ideas gets ignored causing stagnation within Triple A gaming and movie making. Essentially punishing people who actually try to be creative and make movies and games because they have a passion for creating content and I think it kind of leads into a bigger debate on the issue of the growing greed in the industry overall, even if it's something that has always been present.

Thoughts?

Zlinqx : Amen brother.

I just want to rant about how rediculous the cash-ins are getting with the upcoming game Mighty No. 9.
This is a game that isn't even near it's release date. And it already has: A sequel being planned, DLC already on day 1, a cartoon series, a movie, a spinoff game, a movie and tv series on the spinoffs, a card game, and being put on every platform. Again, this game isn't released and they are already planning on milking this thing so hard that FNAF will look obscure!

All this greed and laziness. Episodic releases, kickstarters, shortened development cycles, and obnoxious DLC. I Hate all of these things so much. Developers are using get rich quick schemes while shoving actual fans under the rug. I despise that this is the scene of video gaming nowadays.

Well, we all know how greedy the movie industry has become. Just look at all those Part 1 and 2 movies, just so they could make more money (by doing less work, maybe?).

About the gaming industry... I understand your point of view, but you also have to understand what makes a certain game unique, what its spirit is, and you cannot betray that. I'm not saying this doesn't leave room for creativeness, I've witnessed it first hand with Motorstorm, but all the games in the franchise will revolve around one or more main reasons that made the series unique.

You should also take into consideration what the players want, and most of us like the games as they are, with no weird experiments (unless we talk about Mario, of course). See for example Need for Speed. It has always been the king of underground racing games, but has tried to do a ton of different things over its history, some of them being a complete failure, and in the end, they've had to return to their roots.

The concept of the game is its spirit, and you cannot betray that, unless it's publicly rated as bad, like happens with Gran Turismo and its hundreds of Japanese models versus the clearly outdated European models, and even then it's up to the franchise to change that or explore new areas, following the Gran Turismo example, the GT Academy project and it's recent app to design your own track.

EX Palen : I understand people expecting something from a franchise, I'm not saying each installment in a franchise has to be revolutionary or groundbreaking. Some franchises do one thing really well and that's cool as well since there's always an audience for that. But recently it's getting ridicolous. The games change less and less now often being downgrades of the previous, then they start to make remakes in stead. Most of these companies are barely even keeping consistent with the quality of their games and are doing more and more to earn as much money as possible from a brand like I said releasing launch DLC, pushing pre orders, introducing micro transactions etc etc. The examples become more and more numerous each day.

I can't put my stamp of approval on the way companies conduct themselves, but I can't really say the blame lies solely with them either. If they aren't willing to not buy the game just because it came out, then they deserve what they get. They pamper the companies to much, and they are being taken advantage of. Both parties are at fault. That's why I always wait until I find it in a pawnshop for $5 or less. That, and I'm usually broke.

m0ssb3rg935 : Definietly, it's a problem that consumers very much is part of as well. After all if people weren't falling for this, it wouldn't be a problem to begin with. Companies are pushing the limits to see how much they can get people to accept and most people in particular the fanboys of franchises like this don't really think that deeply about or deny it being a problem to begin with.

Indeed, what has really killed it are the DLC. Some players just can't resist the hype of getting extra content by paying a bit more, and this produces a kind of domino effect when said players go multiplayer and start bragging about their superior content, making other players want to try it as well.

I have rarely felt the need of obtaining DLC packs, but in the ocassions I have, it was always to expand the game, not for useless extra content. DOA5, for example, is more of a cash-making machine than a videogame, otherwise you cannot explain why would a handful of characters have +20 costumes to play as (some of them being highly revealing, swimsuits included). Like if something like this was really necessary in a fighting game, it makes you a pervert more than anything else.

Of course, we players are also to blame, on general terms. I don't have any hurry to get new games, so I can wait several months after they come out, but some players can't. However, this problem affects society as a whole, because we live in an era were information travels very quickly, and if no one talks about a game two days after its release then it's branded as horrible by the public. So, in essence, the whole society is to blame for this, for wanting things quickly without any patience or will to wait, be it videogames, news articles or whatever.

EX Palen : Yeah DLC on its own is a fairly innocent thing. Some games do employ them in the way they should be making extra content for games and releasing them as optional add ons not needed to get the full experience of the original thing. But most DLC today is either things that should've been part of the original game or charging you outragous prices for things that barely take any effort to make like weapon skins or even things that are not really DLC and just micro transactions, like stat boosts, and I do also find it really pitiful how some people treat having these advantages in online games as something to be proud of. There's no point if an online game is pay to in.

I definietly agree with the sentiment of people being impatient. I haven't had the need or always the opportunity to immediatly get games, there is only a handful of games I'm really excited about and I'm definietly willing to wait for those so they don't end up unfinished or otherwise worse than they should be. That attitude is something that really becomes harmful as well not only within gaming but within other mediums as well.

Fact: Video game companies and businesses are in the business of making money.  They're not turning out art, they don't care about creativity.

If you're bothered by games and nothing being new or interesting, don't blame the companies.  They're responding to the wants and desires of a majority of people who play games.

If people loved FNaF 1 but hated the 2nd one, they wouldn't have dropped all that money on the second game.  And guess what?  Scott, or whatever the dude's name is, does FNaF 3 and makes how much money?  People keep buying into the same stuff and Scott and other companies keep making tons of money.

The only thing that will change the games coming out is a desire by those buying them for new, unique, exciting games.  How many variations of Pokemon are out there?  It's virtually the same game: Start at a gym, get better, go to a bigger gym, meet a girl somewhere, become world champion.  Let's do that 15 more times because people shell out cash for it.  Why would any company invest in something they don't know will be successful when they have the script right there.

It's 100% the fault of the consumer.  The companies grinding out games are simply meeting a need.  This is Economics 101.

This also goes for movies.  Transformers 5 or Fast & Furious 7 or whatever wouldn't be made if people don't spend millions on the first four, five or six sequels.

Blame the consumer, not the company.

Ghostbear1111 : I never said consumers weren't a part of what's causing this in fact I did mention it and I think It's definitely a big factor. But I think entirely blaming the consumers is being dishonest. Yes there is a demand for these games hence why they still sell, as some people do want more and more of these games to be created. But I find it hard to believe that anyone actually wants micro transactions, pre orders to be forced or Launch Day DLC or each games to decrease in quality. Corporations take advantage of gamers in particular those who are easily influenced.

Even so there are definitely developers out there who do develop games because they enjoy making them and which aren't just completely independent and unsuccessful game developers. Take Larian Studios which made the game Divinity Original Sin for example. That game was hugely successful, was initially kick starter funded and despite that ending up not entirely covering the costs of the game the developers persisted and didn't ask for money (would've likely received if they asked but got the remainder of what was needed themselves even if that ended up pushing away they release. Later they even released an updated expanded edition on consoles which was made completely free to owners of the previous version, which they didn't really have to do but did anyway and to top it off their game isn't pestered by things like micro transactions or anything of the sort.

Then there are companies like Ubisoft where there have been reports of supposed ex employees stating that they treat their employees like slaves, who despite already being successful do everything they can to maximize profits and are essentially guilty of the things I mentioned in my initial post and on top of that also have flat out insulted their fans. You can still be widely successful without having to sacrifice your integrity as a developer/company or giving up your passion for making games/movies. This is still in large part due to the greed of many companies never being able to settle, and having no respect whatsoever for the consumers. Both sides are very much part of the problem.

Wow mates, be careful. This thread is so edgy I almost cut myself.

The Nostalgia Critic made a video addressing this issue. It has some very good points and I think it's a good watch/listen. Even if it is talking about movies, I still think it's a general point on the media right now. Movies, video games, shows, even books and music.

Why is it better to make a sequel to new things? Well, familiarity. If you release a sequel or a sequel prequel, it's going to get attention just because people are familiar with the concept. As such you are going to have a fan base from the get go. You don't have that with a new idea. A new Call Of Duty game versus a new original idea. No matter how good I make out the new idea to be, most likely you're going to be drawn to Call Of Duty, since you already know it.

Second off, this is a phase. It's always been this way. Always tons of sequels or spin-offs looking for a quick buck. There are original ideas, really good creative ones, being made every day. The thing is it doesn't get as much attention of as the main stream titles. (This thread is making me feel/sound like a hipster) but trust me, they are there. The indie titles in particular are really good games made by independent developers.

But, overall here's the thing. Bad sequels will die off shortly. If it's not a good game, no one will really remember it. Leaving only the good in the long run. Take Undertale, Shovel Knight, all these good games. They didn't get much or any attention when they came out, but as time goes on they keep getting more popularity because they are good, original games.

So, in conclusion, there will always be people who use video games/movies/etc... to make a quick buck, but there will always be people who use the same media to make something new, creative and spectacular. The only difference is the original and creative ideas will be remembered for more time, while the others will quickly fade as the fad they are.

Zlinqx : I don't want micro-transactions.  So I have never paid for a micro-transaction.  And I haven't purchased or continued playing the games that require those.  If everyone did this, that style of purchasing goes away.  Unfortunately, people are always going to do it.

Anyway, it'll always be a problem because people will continue getting their entertainment from these companies.  Only if you go away from what they're providing will anything be solved.

That's why I haven't ever bought a game on Steam and I still play PS2.  Not because I'm edgy, hipster, or whatever.  I just haven't spent any money on anything the last ten years because it's all garbage.

If everyone got on board with that?   .... Maybe we'd see some different titles.  The companies know what works.  They're doing it.

I would have to agree. I have noticed this problem for sometime and now its getting out of hand. With new gaming adverts or movies I see more of remakes of the previous original movies and games. lemme start with the movies first. Now with the movies it getting poor to the point when they do a trailer of it some of us would know from looking at it. The movie would be a bad film and not of great quality as it should and 100% of the people who go and see them say this. So I don't bother to always see remakes. Its really how sad it is. And then it gets a lot of money from it. What's the point of making a film that is not your best work or of quality? It just doesn't make sense. I remember back in the day when there were different kinds of films made. One and all of them though they were all different had great quality and unique, because the filmmakers and the producers cared at the time. It makes me to think they now don't and they probably said its better to do remakes of movies instead of trying to come up with something new that will grab peoples attention.

now for the gaming one. Yeah I see remakes and stuff I don't play them not unless its good. For ff7 remake I will refuse to play not after what I read about it further on Google. I do love ff7 but square enix again messed up something that they shouldn't have done. They are making it into episodes instead of sticking to the original plot of making it as they PROMISED long ago. Welp that's not happening now for that game. There others that people mentioned that I don't have to list but I will have to say. For me so far destiny the taken king so far has kept to what it originally was from the first game but with some upgrades. Which was forced and done right on. Either remakes are not like that sadly its not what it is meant to be of. Or more like its out of focus and making the game look poor in many areas. :/

Ghostbear1111 : If a game is popular and some people see an opportunity to make them stand out above the rest they take it. Even if micro transactions in themselves isn't something they want. When employed in certain ways it can really persuade to people to buy them, while that's a problem on the consumers part, it's something the corporations are very aware of well, and take advantage of people for.

But yeah since this greed displayed by some companies isn't something that we can suddenly get rid of, unless it gets to a point where everyone finally talks back against it, things won't change. A big reason I very rarely buy games like the Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Battlefield etc despite the popularity they have here, I disagree on the sentiment that everything produced by the video game industry today is garbage even if it can seem that way since there are quality games being produced, they're just be hard to find among the money making garbage. A big reason is that it infests not only these video game companies but also many of the top reviewing sites, being bribed through the purchase of ad space or otherwise manipulated/pressured by the biggest companies into giving many games high scores and that is very much something that affects the sale of these games as well being portrayed in a certain light.

maguc : I actually do remember watching that video some time ago. I think it makes some good points. But it's increasing, cash in titles and such have always existed, but companies are finding new ways to be greedy and it's something that has started infesting the indie game developing scene with games like FNaF or the numerous examples of kickstarter scams employed by people making it even harder to find the imaginative titles.

I know they're still being made and there are definitely games for those like me wanting more fresh ideas, or at the very least carefully produced games, the problem I have is more with how the industry seemingly encourages this. While some may have their games remembered in the long run, it doesn't really help the situation change. I know some may consider it doing so at all a naive thought but I feel it being talked about is a good thing nonetheless.  

... And yes to some extent I feel like a hipster when I made this thread.

Eniitan : I agree with your overall point of greed being more present, but I wouldn't say it's something that wasn't present at all before. Cash In titles and such were still things that happened back in the day making SNES and NES titles based on movies to make a quick buck. To some extent you can also consider that they weren't to do some things such as the selling of DLC because technology hadn't come to a point where that could be considered possible (outside of PC gaming anyway).

Oh Zlinqx...what have you done? Why did you tell me about this thread? You have pushed me to rant. I cannot stop it...you have been warned. Look away while you still can. ._.

This actually covers a lot of topics, so I'll address each individually.
First off, sequels:
No one really wants these to stop, I mean when you find a new favorite game and you play it through five times and suddenly a sequel is announced, you get excited. And I know that nobody here has said sequels were inherently bad, just bear with me.

We complain about sequels being a company's way of milking us and about how they're the same every time. But take a look at the fate most sequels meet when they try to change things up a lot:
Dino Crisis <-> Dino Crisis 2

Super Mario Bros. <-> Super Mario Bros. 2 (U.S.)

Mario Party <-> Mario Party Advance

They meet criticism and angry fans because they weren't the same as the original. I mean when you buy a Super Mario Bros. title, you buy it because you want it to be the same SMB experience. A perfect example is how it's the cool thing to complain about how Mario stories are always the same, and almost every reviewer on Vizzed does so, yet a while back I actually saw a guy complaining in an SMB2(US) review because the story wasn't the same as every other SMB game. That guy was being honest.
We buy sequels because we want them to be like the first game. Granted we do want enough changes to make it feel a little different, but we don't want many.


Next up, Supply and Demand:
Couldn't agree more with the majority of what Ghostbear said, especially when he says that game development companies are in the business of making money. Game devs do what they do to make money, and that isn't a dirty or bad thing. Sure, many of us are in this because we love it, but at some level every developer who makes games does so to make money. Otherwise they cease to exist as developers because they lose too much money to fund their work.

Take for example, Nintendo: it is an act of severe fanboyism to deny that they are struggling. Iwata cut his own pay to keep them afloat, and they still turned up their first loss in the history of the company as a game developer. And one of the things that kills them is that they don't give the customer what they want, they try to be unique and new with every piece of machinery.
Sega did the same.
PlayStation and XBox are huge. Why? They give the customer a consistent experience, and it's an experience that consumers have told them they want by buying faithfully.

Indeed, one would have to be a terrible businessman (or woman) to have a wildly popular IP and NOT reuse it. It isn't just a cash grab, it's loyalty to your fans. It's listening to what they're saying to you.

CoD is the same every year, and is one of the biggest game franchises in history. They change it up a bit with Ghosts and catch a ton of flak. They go back to basic CoD stuff and are met with success and praise again. Why? People want the same thing when they put in a COD game. If they bought it and it was a sword combat game, it would tank.

A personal example: I was a huge Dino Crisis fan when I was younger. I got Dino Crisis 2 and hated it. My only complaint was that it was nothing at all like the first one. Hey, that's what the professionals were saying too! We hated it because it wasn't Dino Crisis. Years later I emulated it because I couldn't get the first one to emulate properly, and after a few moments I realized it was an amazing game! Then I get on Vizzed and play the first Dino Crisis again...and I realize that it is far inferior to the second one. I couldn't see that when I first played it and thought it was a bad game for about a decade simply because I wanted Dino Crisis, and I got a shooter with dinosaurs instead of Dino Crisis (a horror/survival game). And I've seen this happen with a lot of good games.

Let Nintendo turn the Super Mario Bros. franchise on it's head, and it can produce the best game ever, but people will reject it because it isn't Super Mario Bros.

The new Metroid spinoff game: people were hating on it as soon as they saw the teaser trailer, talking about how terrible it was. Why? Because it wasn't the typical Metroid game. It's almost always this way with sequels. We want to know what we're getting.


And then there was paid DLC:
Not gonna lie: I hate the stuff. DLC screams to me that you released a game that was incomplete and want me to pay three or four times for the full game. I avoid things like this. Others do not, and they get both what they deserve and what they ask for.

Think of it this way: the main rule of running a successful business is that you make the products that people want. You gauge public interest by sales. If you release fifty add ons for a game that cost $9.99 and 75% of the fan base buys it, common sense says "Hey, we should do that again".

Essentially the consumer is the businessman's boss.
He doesn't dictate what his product costs, you do.
He doesn't dictate what kinds of games his company makes, you do.
He doesn't dictate how much DLC there will be, you do.
If people really didn't like these things games like Dynasty Warriors wouldn't still be going strong after two generations of the same old stuff and we wouldn't keep getting things like this:
Dynasty Warriors 7
Dynasty Warriors 7: Ultimate
Dynasty Warriors 7: Complete Edition
Instead we would get one Dynasty Warriors 7, and it would be the complete edition. Lol

Now some businesses take this to an extreme and become just plain dirty, and I plan to address this in a thread here soon. But the fact remains that they only make what sells. If we all refuse to buy something, they'll stop.

One final example: the PS3 releases for what, $500? And it doesn't exactly bode well, and sees true competition which is frankly something PlayStation wasn't used to.
PS4 comes out and it's $100 cheaper than XBox One. Why? We spoke out with a less than spectacular start on PS3 sales and Sony learned that a $500 price tag wasn't something we wanted. We bossed them around, just like we do every company we buy from.


Finally, does it really matter? :
Nope. This is nothing new, it's the exact same way entertainment companies have always been and will always be. To stop following the "give them what they want" formula is to sign your business's death notice.

And here's why it doesn't matter: if you buy SMB games, you buy them because you have fun playing them. Are they always the same? Yes. Do you always enjoy them? Yes. So why change anything? Isn't gaming about having fun? Sure games are art, but who wants art that they don't enjoy? I say as long as we're having fun with what we play, why worry about it? If we're not we can buy some other games instead and we'll be having fun again.

This is my two cents on the matter. Take it how you will.

Assassin's Creed is getting a bit ridiculous, but I bet I will get all of them anyway. xD
I like the Battlefield franchise and for the most part, they haven't disappointed me.

I don't mind if the devs/producers do the game or movie well.

There are times where the sequels changed and the games are just as good if not better.
Parasite Eve, Parasite Eve 2, and The Third Birthday couldn't be more different than each other, but all are great games.

If DLC expands on an already complete game,I don't see why paying $5 to get more enjoyment out of a game is bad. For example, Skyrim by itself is a great game and if you don't wanna buy the DLC, you have a complete game.

It has always been like this and probably always will be. I play EA sports games and they don't change much but I still buy it (mind you from the exchange shop but still buy them never the less). i pretty much agree with Eirrin's long comment but as for DLC I don't mind the idea of it but I'll only really buy dlc that expands the game. I have no interest in getting extra characters or different skins etc. The only dlc I have bought was Mario kart 8's as it had extra tracks I wasn't really bothered about the new characters that were included despite the fact I am not a fan of the original line up. (Seriously Nintendo Metal Mario and Pink Gold Peach? There is plenty of characters you could have picked than those two).

DylanMcKaig : I reread my post and realized I was a bit exclusive in regards to DLC. Specifically I'm opposed to devs releasing paid DLC too close to release. Now if you have plenty of levels/tracks/missions/etc. and three or four months later you release extra content, that's fine as it simply expands on the game and keeps it fresh. Just don't release a game and a set of paid DLC in a few weeks. Also I hate DLC that gives players an extra edge in PvP. All power ups should go into PvE only.

But yeah, I agree with what you said.