How to Kill a Franchise

Next Generation has a lengthy feature up by Jason Kraft and Chris Kwak of Susquehanna Financial Group regarding what makes game franchises survive or fail. The authors use Activision's underperforming GUN and True Crime franchises as a jumping off point, then go into more general terms. Many of the arguments made seem oddly focused on specific facets of gaming that realistically cannot (and should not) be applied to games as a whole.

Many doubt GUN can recover from the sour reception at retail (Take-Two has given no indication about developing a sequel to Red Dead Revolver). We would not be surprised if the sun has faded into the Western horizon permanently for GUN (and Red Dead Revolver).What intrigued us, however, was the response to TC: NYC. There is no denying that a franchise is most vulnerable early in its evolution. This is why the belief that game ratings matter to game sales appears to have some truth for fi rst and second iterations of a game. If True Crime ends in New York City, it will represent one of the most recent--in a long trail of dead--franchises to go extinct. (By "franchise" we mean a game with at least two iterations, with at least one of the releases being critically acclaimed or successful at retail.)

The first point the authors make is that games as a medium are dedicated to "realization of a singular idea: realism." That initial assumption is used to make various other conclusions, such as that successful games are realistically rendered in 3D. While this is clearly true for much of the mainstream gaming market, it seems to ignore the absolutely colossal success of casual gaming as well as puzzle games such as Tetris that continue to keep hooks in the hardcore segment. The article draws comparisons such as, "Super Mario Bros. was unimaginably addictive, but Super Mario 64 was so powerful, it induced motion sickness," (in the context of the article, that latter bit is intended as a positive point). Of course, among console games, the original Super Mario Bros. is still far, far in the lead for the bestselling game of all time, continuing to sell when released on modern systems. There is also an absolutely huge audience of people who used to be devout gamers and simply gave up when things moved to 3D and got more complex. Online play is also cited as a make or break feature throughout the second half of the article. Tony Hawk, the article says, is losing its luster because it does not feature competent online play, and Grand Theft Auto is heading that route as well. It mentions franchises such as Zelda and The Sims as other franchises that are apparently relics of a past offline age as well. "If you do not online-enable a game, it could kill you," warn Kraft and Kwak, pointing to the success of games such as Halo 2 on Xbox Live. Of course, the reality is that most gamers still don't play online (it was a huge deal when Live reached even 10% of Xbox users, and the 50% figure for the Xbox 360 users includes free no-online-gamplay Silver subscribers), especially in the console arena. Those that do are far more likely to play an online juggernaut such as Counter-Strike or Halo 2, which frequently makes other online games appear weak in comparison because their servers are never as full. Guitar Hero is pointed out towards the end of the article as being a huge success, but the game appears to go against almost every principle set forth. It's 2D (for all practical purposes anyway), there is no online play, it doesn't strive for true realism. It is, however, a fun game, which seems to be a more crucial factor. Tony Hawk is losing its appeal because, quite simply, there has been a Tony Hawk game every year for seven years now. Tomb Raider, another example in the article, lost its appeal because games got progressively more derivative and lacked any real sense of identity; the new game has been generally deemed a success because it reminds people of what the series originally delivered while still feeling like a new game. Simply pinning failure on not having online play or not being realistic enough seems like a bit of a shortcut. Realism is a great benchmark for graphics and physics and so on, because it gives developers something to shoot for, and it gives gamers an easy comparison; the real world can be used as an actual reference in both cases. However, many of the most successful and lasting franchises of all time would suggest that not everybody wants or needs realism all the time. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a single-minded focus on a particular game design philosphy can and has driven many gamers away even as it has brought other ones in. Franchises and games rise and fall for many reasons. Edit: I notice Gamasutra has posted another response to Kraft and Kwak's article, this one by designer Tadhg Kelly.