So I got to thinking about games communities, Intellectual Property....

[Nightshape]

So I've been thinking about something for a while now, and I thought I'd air it out, see what you guys thought so on and so forth.

 

Also, these are my own opinions, I'm not a mouthpiece for any company, but I would be very interested in hearing what you think in regards to what I feel is sound business logic.

 

I'm thinking of games which are traditionally PC IP, like Fallout for example, and how fallout has jumped from PC only to being a multi-format IP, a few other games have done this, now what I have noticed is that the few obsessive/hardcore fans get really really upset, I mean the hardcore fallout fans went mental, they were really unhappy about the fact that Fallout 3 would be Oblivion with guns.

 

Now back track a little, a small hardcore group of fans is obviously upset, now is it better to appease that small group of fans and make a niche game, or to make a game which has a far wider appeal, which is infact the case with fallout 3, we can't really say different because it's sold bucket loads of copies so obviously has a much wider appeal.

 

From a business perspective, cleaning out the old skool fans, despite the noise they will make is probably a smart move as after all the reason companies make games is to make money, and those old guard hardend fans are actually far fewer than the potential audiance.

 

I personally believe that, while harsh, in order to reboot an IP, you HAVE to burn the old fans, and business wise Bethesda, the example I am using here, did an awesome job with FO3 in rebooting the IP, while at the same time burning the crazies over at NMA and such. Just my 2 pence.

 

So do you believe it's wrong? Should intellectual properties keep doggiedly to their roots to appeal to a small hardcore, or should they branch out, and if needs be, burn the biggest fans of the IP in an attempt to reach a larger audience?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

"Fans are clingy complaining dip****s who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it." - Ben Croshaw

[Masterfade]

I actually think FO3 will sell even better if Beth took screenshots of some of the more colorful hate posts on NMA, Codex, etc and pull them together to make a viral marketing video.

[Purkake]

Now back track a little, a small hardcore group of fans is obviously upset, now is it better to appease that small group of fans and make a niche game, or to make a game which has a far wider appeal, which is infact the case with fallout 3, we can't really say different because it's sold bucket loads of copies so obviously has a much wider appeal.

 

Trick question?

 

This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to troll the few NMA people we have left. Obviously it is a better idea to try to appeal to the widest audience possible from a business perspective. Companies do what they do to make money, not to appease a bunch of crazy hardcore fans, I'd like to hear someone try to argue the opposite.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Gorth]

Depends on who your intended new target audience is. Do you intend to replace the fan base with every new release? Every third release? Everytime you get a new CEO? Everytime the old fan base reminds you of what created the fan base in the first place?

 

Is it profit maximizing or performance anxiety?

[Purkake]

"Fan bases" are probably some of the most annoying people ever. There's no way to please everyone and it's probably a better idea to follow a set vision from start to finish and take criticism afterward than change things along the way to please the fans.

 

Think what movies would be like if directors asked for fan input or if Van Gogh had a bunch of rowdy "fans" screaming over his shoulder when he was painting.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Bos_hybrid]

What the hell is Codemasters up to?

 

F1 better be a sim.

[Gorth]

... or if Van Gogh had a bunch of rowdy "fans" screaming over his shoulder when he was painting.

Why do you think he started cutting off his ears?

[Purkake]

Ah, it's all coming together now.

 

I can so see him trying to paint and people going "Why is everything so yellow?", "That's not what the sky looks like!", "What's with all the boring stuff? Paint something awesome!" etc.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Purkake

[Amentep]

Personally, I'm not sure that any game is setting off on the right foot if its goal is to please fans.

 

Make a cool game that looks good and plays better and hopefully the fans will come.

[Volourn]

"Fan bases" are probably some of the most annoying people ever. There's no way to please everyone and it's probably a better idea to follow a set vision from start to finish and take criticism afterward than change things along the way to please the fans."

 

w 4 u

[Purkake]

Personally, I'm not sure that any game is setting off on the right foot if its goal is to please fans.

 

Make a cool game that looks good and plays better and hopefully the fans will come.

 

Agreed, and more original IPs, please.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Off the top of my head I can only think of one game that received a sequel 'dumbed down for consoles/multi-platform release' that was received negatively by BOTH the elites and the more casual gamers. Deus Ex Invisible War.

 

Most franchises seem to have made the transition extremely well (sales wise) despite pissing off the hard core fans.

[Slowtrain]

If you want to sell to a lot of people, you have to make a game as generic as possible.

 

 

atm, with game budgets the way they are, that makes the most sense. In the future there will most likely be more of an emergence of a niche game market, where games have smaller budget, specialized gameplay, and smaller audience targets.

 

The wargaming scene has been plowing along like this for many years and as far as I know if still going strong. There is always an audience for a well-made game. You just have to match your budget to the audience.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not sure what generic means in the sense that Slowtrain just posted. Is Fallout 3 generic, and how would the first two be less generic?

 

As for Nightshape, I'd say it really depends on the audience. Many of the Fallout fans were stuck in a timewarp, they weren't just yearning for a fitting sequel, they were yearning for a style of game that has been left behind. I know all about that, I'm still holding out hope that we will see a new Xcom/Jagged Alliance style game someday. But realistically I know that is not marketable in today's world, at least not enough to warrant a AAA budget. But I do think there are fanbases that can make a more positive impact on the direction of a title.

[Slowtrain]

I'm not sure what generic means in the sense that Slowtrain just posted. Is Fallout 3 generic, and how would the first two be less generic?

 

Generic may be the wrong word.

 

 

A game that wants to selll million of copies can't afford to turn off too many people so it can't do anything too, umm, I dunno, complex.

[Hell Kitty]

Personally, I'm not sure that any game is setting off on the right foot if its goal is to please fans.

 

Make a cool game that looks good and plays better and hopefully the fans will come.

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

I also feel the same way about originality/innovation. If something happens to be innovative then great, but I don't think it should be the aim.

 

A game that wants to selll million of copies can't afford to turn off too many people so it can't do anything too, umm, I dunno, complex.

 

Too simple and more people will find it boring, too complex and more people will find it tedious.

 

While folks here do like to complain about things being "dumbed down", it's probably important to note that complexity isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Calax]

well, really it depends on what the fans are asking for. If they're begging for a game that's basically "the old one with a tweaked plot and better graphics!" then say "screw you we're doing it different".

 

But if they're asking for something that's significantly different and are being constructive, then you might want to take bits and pieces of what they say and pay attention.

[Tigranes]

I personally believe that, while harsh, in order to reboot an IP, you HAVE to burn the old fans, and business wise Bethesda, the example I am using here, did an awesome job with FO3 in rebooting the IP, while at the same time burning the crazies over at NMA and such. Just my 2 pence.

 

Nightshape - why do you feel that 'burning' the old fans is a deliberate step that is necessary to reboot the IP for general appeal? 'Burning' the old fans is not a necessary step or a goal in itself. With Bethesda there was a lot more involved - i.e. their team was not suited to resuscitating the old Fallout exactly anyway, it had been years and years since the original Fallout, etc - but in any case, if Bethesda could have made the same game and brought the Fallout fans on board they would have (as evidenced by the lot more conciliatory (or patronising, depending on how one looks at it) gestures they initially made towards the fans after the 2004 bid). So I don't think 'burning' is necessary here.

 

Equally, for every case of FO3 where an old IP was resurrected in a way that fits with the contemporary trends in video gaming and significantly altered with a clear purpose of reaching a wider general audience across multiple platforms, there are also cases where we are getting critically acclaimed and (reasonably) commercially successful games that find a niche and dig it, and/or stay consistent as possible to the original IP - prime example being Paradox. Middle ground, I guess, is Bioware to an extent. The point is I think you are too narrow-sighted, and using the later history of the whole FO3 business (i.e. the last 2 years of production when there was very clearly a massive gap between, say, Beth and NMA / etc) to view the whole issue. I don't think you're wrong, just a little too hasty in concluding a general logic.

 

As for Nightshape, I'd say it really depends on the audience. Many of the Fallout fans were stuck in a timewarp, they weren't just yearning for a fitting sequel, they were yearning for a style of game that has been left behind.

 

It would be interesting to see the whole mechanics of styles and conventions getting 'left behind' - desire for such things is cultivated by the market, and as such it makes no sense to dismiss any critical investigation of the process of game fashion as 'progress' / 'moving on'. There are reasons things get 'left behind', and that means they don't necessarily have to be 'left behind'...

[Trenitay]

I think the game companies should just make the game they want and not listen to all the whiners out there.

[Slowtrain]

While folks here do like to complain about things being "dumbed down", it's probably important to note that complexity isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

 

I totally agree in a general sense. If I wanted to make a game that had a chance of selling millions of copies, I would make it as non-complex as possible.

 

However, I, at least, and probably some others like complex games. So the audience is there. It's just not an audience that's going to purchase 8 million copies in the first week of release.

[Slowtrain]

I think the game companies should just make the game they want and not listen to all the whiners out there.

 

 

I would counter with the thought that many developers are not making the games they want, regardless of the fans input. Developers are making games they, and the publishers and stockholders, think will sell.

[Hell Kitty]

However, I, at least, and probably some others like complex games.

 

This is so vague it's useless. That is, it doesn't tell me anything about what games you like.

 

What makes a game complex? Do all aspects of the game need to be complex before the game as a whole can be called complex? When does an aspect stop being simple and become complex?

 

Now that I think about it, I guess I feel the same way about complexity as I do about innovation. If something happens to be complex and that works for the game, that's great, but I don't think it should be something to aim for.

 

While there are things I enjoy in different games that might be considered complex, I don't enjoy them because they are complex, I enjoy what that complexity adds to the game. But what works for one game might be wasted in another.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

It's only vague because complexity can manifest in many ways. It could be complexity like a flight sim with its hundreds of controls and steep learning curve. It could be complex like in Stars! with its many pull down menus and graphic-less UI. Or whatever.

 

 

Also, I am in no way saying complexity in and of itself makes a good game nor that a non-complex game is a bad game.

 

 

But all things being equal I prefer a game that takes time to learn and assimilate and presents me with a myriad if possibilities to be explored.

 

I don't think I am alone in that either. But I do think I am in the minority.

[Gorth]

For those of us who like wargames, empire building, management etc. type games, "complex" might (or might not) be synonymous with "level of detail". I.e. how much do you, the player have control over vs. how much does the game streamline away from you. Not the worlds best description and it might only fit my little world, but at least I am feudal king there >_