There's a widely-reprinted article by management scholar Steven Kerr entitled, "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B" that can be summed as follows: organizations frequently hope for workers to display behavior B, but only reward behavior A. For instance, your boss might reward you for getting projects done on time, but frequently wax prolix about the importance of quality in your work product. The worker bee's response, is of course, "show me the goddamned money and you'll get your bloody quality. Until then, I will do what results in the biggest monetary gain." Simply put, it is rational for us to do what we are rewarded for doing.
Unfortunately, gamers frequently subscribe to this same folly. We rail against sequels, we talk about how we want original titles, but--according to the indisputable sales data--continue to lap up unimaginative, derivative sequel after unimaginative, derivative sequel.
Is it any wonder, then, that companies continue to crank out sequel after roster update after sequel? They're financially rewarded for doing so! There's no big mystery here, gamers. It's simply managers at businesses doing what makes sense: produce low-risk products to sell at high margin in order to maximize shareholder value.
It's all too easy to rail against the machine that cranks out the shovelware that turns most of us off, but the truth is that "most of us" that read (and write for) Joystiq are not the "most of us" that the major publishers must pander to in order to make those quarterly earnings numbers.
Solution: if you want more new stuff and less derivative stuff, you'll have to educate someone outside the hardcore cadre on what makes a good game. Most of us are too damned lazy to do that, so expect status quo to continue for quite some time.
