Why gamers buy sequels
by Zack Stern 
{ Oct 6th 2006 at 8:00PM }
2old2play editorializes about sequels and why gamers keep buying them. Last year, EA released one all-new game among 25 sequels, which saved the company significant development costs on new titles. But the article makes an interesting guess about why gamers support a marketplace of sequels -- complicated controls.Some gamers like adapting skills from the previous generation to the next version of the game, rather than re-learning everything. We often overlook the value in that familiarity; many gamers don't have time to start over with all-new titles. (We, of course, spend all day playing games.)
We always go back to the chicken-and-egg question of sequels -- are publishers producing sequels because gamers buy them, or are gamers buying them because they dominate the release lineup?
[Via digg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bp @ Oct 6th 2006 8:16PM
I guess we will see if this is really the cause. The wii is going to have tons of new learning on every game.
Freddy @ Oct 6th 2006 8:19PM
I'm bored of sequels. They have the same game experience with slighty better graphics. Hopefully the Wii will change that.
Elrando @ Oct 6th 2006 8:20PM
I really really hate EA.
Which sucks because I really rather like Fight Night 3.
Goddamn you EA.
Vince @ Oct 6th 2006 8:26PM
Some people get very snobbish about sequels.
People wouldn't buy them if they didn't enjoy them, what's wrong with that?
Probot @ Oct 6th 2006 8:28PM
It's not really a big secret by why gamers buy sequels: Familiarity. Familiar controls, familiar characters, familiar narrative, familiar environment. If you like a game, don't you want a similarly enjoyable experience again?
To me, innovation doesn't always mean a new intellectual property. They aren't mutually exlusive.
Probot @ Oct 6th 2006 8:31PM
On the other hand, if you're asking why people buy Madden every year, the answer is simple: advertising. Madden is everywhere, and it's the hip thing to do.
To the average person, Madden defines video games.
Fortyseven @ Oct 6th 2006 8:32PM
Seems pretty simple to me. People like sequels because they're hoping for more of a positive experience. Maybe even the promise of an even BETTER experience.
Hence all the anger when sequels inevitably suck. But we're simple creatures. We never learn. But sometimes you get things like "HalfLife 2". So... bring on the sequels, I guess. ;)
Josh @ Oct 6th 2006 8:39PM
Nicely put, Probot.
Referring back to the original article, I don't find new controls to keep me away from any game, since I've never had a problem with it before (except for complex combos in fighting games, which is why I don't perform too well in traditional fighting games; I just am not motivated enough to learn the very complicated controls of them).
Gerwurztraminer @ Oct 6th 2006 8:44PM
On topic: I buy sequels because I want to find out what happens next (i'm an RPG fan over sports, so that's the type of sequel i mean in this case). But just because it's a sequel doesn't mean I'll buy it (I'm looking at you Dirge of Cerberus).
Off topic: what happened to music Friday?
otakucode @ Oct 6th 2006 9:00PM
Don't listen to what anyone says. Actions speak what people truly believe, not words. Gamers love sequels, and they show that by buying them in large numbers. The question of 'why' is a good once, but one you must be sure not to ask the gamers about, as they might not even be able to honestly tell you that they love sequels.
Me, speaking as honestly as I can after perusing my collection of sequels, I tend to buy sequels for franchises I adore. The whole .hack//SIGN series. The Xenosaga series. I want to see where the story goes, and as I buy each one, I pray it is more of the same and that they didn't change that last game I loved.
Willowbeef @ Oct 6th 2006 9:09PM
That picture is amazing :-)
udx @ Oct 6th 2006 9:44PM
This happens to be a big DUH! Especially when original ideas become popular enough to get their own sequels. Examples include Viewtiful Joe and Katamari Damacy(Both got a console and handheld sequel.).
Sequelitis has been going along since the birth of gaming. Most of us are afraid of original games simply cuz it's in unfamiliar territory.
jchensor @ Oct 6th 2006 9:56PM
I don't think there is any question that producers make sequels because people buy them. In fact, people clamour for them. When you talk about E3 and such, everyone is excited for Devil May Cry 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Halo 3, etc. And how many times have we even seen posts on Joystiq entitled "Games we wish had sequels." Let's face it, the video game industry is a sequel driven world. And for a good reason. Gaming isabout getting into a zone, getting into your personal groove. Once you get there, gaming is unlike any other form of entertainment out there. So if you've found the game that really gets your into a great rhythm, why wouldn't you want more?
Once you've played out the songs onyour current Guitar Hero, you yearn for more, new songs. Much of the joy you get from playing Ocarina of Time is the discoveries and puzzles and exploration of the dungeons. Once you've played it, you'll never have that sense of discovery playing it again. So what do players do? Crave new versions with new puzzles/dungeons/items to play.
Also, it's an issue of trust. We've already seen that the trust can be broken (referring to your previous post of disgruntled NBA Live fans). But so far, if you are a fan of Final Fantasy games and have thus far enjoyed the majority of their games, why WOULDN'T you expect similar enjoyment out of XII? If you loved Symphonies of the Night and the DS continues to churn out great, similar games like Dawn of Sorrow, why wouldn't you want to go and buy Portrait of Ruin when it comes out?
Many people claim they are tired of sequels. And yes, I want new games as much as the next guy. But to claim that the gaming world would be more fun without sequels is short-sighted. The problem isn't that companies produce too many sequels. The problem is that the MAJORITY of what they produce is sequels because they rely too heavily on them. And then, when new IPs like Katamari come out, they get burnt out by too many sequels too quickly as well (yes, I count two sequels as too many. The PSP version really wore out its welcome fast).
As with anything in life, there needs to be a proper balance. If we can get an equal amount of sequels and new IPs, I think that would be the best balance. And we only need sequels to QUALITY games, mind you. Companies like EA games should learn to just have downloadable roster updates for every year (charge half the price of a game for the rookies, updated stats, trades, the new face models, etc.) and then take your time making new features that will be fleshed out without bugs. Release a new version of the game two years later. Maybe even three. That's the way you can regain the trust of your audience without that much of a loss for profits.
Joe @ Oct 7th 2006 11:28AM
Why I've preordered a sequel lately:
Guitar Hero 2.
- What else am I going to use that SG for?
- how many times must I fail Frankenstein on Expert before I smash my PS2?
- Why is the demo leaving me with a craving for more when I still have 51 songs left to beat???
32_Footsteps @ Oct 6th 2006 10:40PM
You know, given how often "fresh new" games just use some variant of the same engine already used in about half of the genre in the last five years, I don't think you can say that the attraction to sequels is in the reliability of controls.
Let's take first-person shooters. How many of them made in the past few years have used some variant of the Unreal engine? Almost every single one people would want to play, really. And even then, the controls there are just a tweak of the same FPS controls we've seen since Doom.
What about RPGs? Crack on Final Fantasy all you want, but the basic engine from Final Fantasy 7 has been used, with various refinements, in nearly every non-portable RPG since its release. As for portable RPGs and the rare 2D RPG that comes along, we've mostly been dealing with variants of the Dragon Quest 2 engine (which was the huge step forward because it allowed for multiple party members).
Action games? Either we're stuck on the 2-D platforming engine popularized in Super Mario Bros. and first memorably adapted to action in Contra, or we're stuck on the 3-D platforming engine popularized in Super Mario 64 and adapted into action in games like Ratchet & Clank.
Seriously, think of it this way - how many gamers don't bother to read the instruction booklet? It doesn't matter if you've never touched this game series before in your life, you probably forget half the time that the game even comes with one. Controls are that homogenized. It's not just sequels; it's across the board.
Sequels have plenty of draw, sure. But having the same controls helps sequels as much as it helps every other game in the same genre.
thom @ Oct 6th 2006 10:44PM
Jchensor, I agree with everything except the very last statement. Well, okay I agree that it would maybe regain trust. But is that how they'll do it? Nope. How about a new Madden each year AND half-price downloadable content. Now your looking at 1 and 1/2 times profit!
It's dumb, but business wise, it makes perfect sense. Madden fans would eat it up, too.
Judd @ Oct 6th 2006 10:58PM
Considering the one new game released by EA this year is NFL Head Coach, I can clearly see why EA doesn't make that effort more often. On the other hand I beat Psychonauts last week, and I wouldn't have played it if places like Joystiq didn't tell me it was such an unknown gem. I thoroughly enjoyed it but the game ends up *minor spoiler* setting up for a sequel.
In that respect I blame developers for constantly pushing games to set up for sequels. If you have a game with a cliffhanger ending and it's not successful you're just leaving your fanbase wondering for the rest of their lives. In that sense ending the game with questions might hurt the sale of a game, because I don't want to start playing a game if I'll never know how it's finished.
I think Halo was set up nicely. You destroyed the Halo so that could've been the end to it, but since the game became successful they decided to stretch out the story. By Halo 2, everyone knew there'd be another one, so it was OK to set up for Halo 3.
Occasionally, it's a good thing, but I wish that not EVERY new game sets themselves up to create another. As a gamer I'll be glad to support new original IP's from smaller developers. But if they try to turn their game into a franchise, it would be like me shopping at a Mom and Pop store as opposed to a Walmart, and then the Mom and Pop store turns into a chain store. They are becoming what they fought against.
And besides if a game doesn't turn out to be a franchise, it will join the list of unfinished stories like Psychonauts, Beyond Good + Evil, and Shenmue 2.
What about you guys? What game that hasn't had a sequel announced has left you in a cliffhanger?
Scott @ Oct 6th 2006 11:15PM
It is like when I go to a restaraunt and order the SAME FRICKING thing I always do. It is because it's a safe bet. There is nothing I hate more than spending money on something that sucks - it is always easier to go with the safe bet.
On the other hand, nothing is more satisfying than order something different off the menu and being completely blown away.
Yes, I am talking about Ouendan.
Andrew @ Oct 6th 2006 11:24PM
Probot's post is nicely put, but I think it's wrong to say buying Madden is the "hip" thing to do. Buying Madden is what sheep do, not hipsters. Madden buyers are knuckle-dragging Wal-Mart shoppers who buy Skoal and Milwaukee's best by the case.
I'm guilty as charged where buying sequels is concerned. 99% of the time, it's because I loved the original game and was left wanting more of the same, but better. The promise of a better camera, more refined aiming, etc...anytime it seems like a sequel is gonna fix what I didn't like about a game, I'll pony up. Sometimes it works out (Vice City FTW!), sometimes it doesn't (Jak II & III, etc). Sequels can be legitimately great games after all...remember how many sites gave GOTY honors to RE4 last year.
Pal @ Oct 7th 2006 1:06AM
If you're visiting a town for something new, sometimes you get tired of all the different things and come to appreciate the things that you recognize from back home. This is why we tend to visit restaurant chains, hotels and other familiar places when on vacation. Same applies for games and most other things; clothes, food, banks...
We like to take chances, but we sure love knowing what we're going to get as well.
Ian Boyle @ Oct 7th 2006 5:10AM
I believe that the reason sequels are so popular and milked so often are the result of two factors: Brand recognition (no brainer), and a close second; the laziness of the developers. Whenever they make a new franchise they have to build the whole game from the ground up: new controls, new story, new engine (alot of the time), and they better make it good. They can make a sequel to an already up and running franchise in a fraction of the time and release it in a more timely manner.
I have no problem with sequels as long as they make it bigger and better than the previous game because sometime they can get old. But the new generation is coming folks and they competition is going to get alot tighter. With Nintendo's Wii I can definitely see alot of new franchises with alot of sequels but since the new controls have limitless potential for new ideas I think that the sequels will start getting a little less dull and been there, done that. Plus every hardware company is starting off with a fresh slate so there are going to be alot of great, new creations coming our way.
blast flame @ Oct 7th 2006 3:47AM
I will buy a sequel if it adds new stuff. New gameplay, new modes, new equipment and new story. Not new graphics *cough* sport games *cough*
ymmv @ Oct 7th 2006 4:57AM
There's nothing wrong with sequels per se. What people are complaing about is the original games-sequels ratio which is heavily skewed. And what people are especially annoyed about are EA's habit of releasing full price annual updates for their sports games.
Another problem with sequels is that the quality often drops with each new version. The development time of a new IP is about two years. The development time of a sequel is exactly a year and no less, so it can act as a cash cow to make the publisher and investors happy (but not necessarily the gamer)
Duscrom @ Oct 7th 2006 5:56AM
Crap, i had a whole post and then my browser killed it all.
Basically a) Nintendites, stop talking about the Wii like it's not going to be crowded with sequals and ports. Nintendo is all about New Zelda, New Metroid, and New Mario.
Second, Sequals are rarely just Graphical upgrades. Generally there is a new gameplay tweak involved. ie. Madden's QB vision added 2 years ago, and Metroid Prime 2's multi-player.
Third, many devs, may not do sequals for the fact of being lazy. Many are almost forced to do it. Imagine if Bungie stopped doing Halo, or Nintendo stopped making Zelda games. Truth is, that's what builds a franchise is sequals. Sure Insomnia is doing Resistance, but homw many of you would love to hear they were doing a new Ratchet and Clank game instead. It's like when Everyone defends their un-released next gen console of choice... it's always about Sequals. The Wii is gonna be better cause of Mario and Zelda, or the PS3 is gonna be better cause of DMC4, MGS4 and Final Fantasy.... Dragon Quest 80...... What was the big game seller in japan? Another Pokemon game that plays like the last 15 remakes, with a new roster, new graphics, and WiFi. (And I am buying it too when it comes out)
Complaining about sequals is like complaining about trees. I mean, seriously.. How many of you Nintendo Fanbots are buying Zelda Twilight Princess...
LaughingTarget @ Oct 7th 2006 10:36AM
If we combine Probot and 32's posts, we can get the best idea of what is going on.
Probot said that EA advertises the hell out of Madden, especially in non-gamer avenues like television and Sports Illustrated, and knows how to target the bigger audience. I've railed on this in a full on editorial about why gaming companies should stop advertising at places like IGN and EGM and start hitting up on Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, People Magazine, and the New York Times, so I'd rather not do the whole thing here.
http://www.netjak.com/review.php/936 for anyone that is interested.
32 stated that you'd be hard pressed to find a game that has unusual controls. Very true indeed, so the unusual play mechanics aren't even a factor. I'm playing the most recent Digital Devil Saga game, and it is essentially Radiata Stories or Star Ocean 2 packaged with a different story. Doesn't mean it is a bad game, but if it weren't for a name change, it could easily be a sequel of one of those two titles.
The best thing about sequels is the familiarity aspect. Familiarity in name or in characters. Madden gets its name out there, and that is what people know. Not just the "knuckle draggin Wal-Mart shoppers", but to anyone who doesn't nerd it out here at Joystiq. EA games may not be the hottest on the planet, but they have the best marketing machine in the industry. Still somewhat pathetic in the whole scope of marketing in general, but EA certainly holds top banana in the industry, especially when put up against Microsoft's hilariously bad Halo ads or those stupid stick drawing PSP ads from Sony.
That and familiarity also brings back players if the game had a drawing story. Even after my own review site panned Suikoden 4, I still had to play it, just to see what characters made it from the previous three games. It was also the reason I grabbed 5 right off the bat, to see what characters, old and new, were there, and thankfully was a lot better.
While Final Fantasy is hardly the penultimate (pardon the pun) in RPGs lately (everything since 7, barring 9, was hardly great and in some cases borderline junk), they sell a lot of titles purely on name alone. Just look at how many people bought DS Lites in Japan just to play III, for the umpteenth time. Many people who call themselves console RPG fans have never touched anything that didn't have Final Fantasy written in the title.
If we want to see other games make the cut and become popular, publishers have to start taking their own product seriously like EA does. True, they may not be very good to us long-time or more serious gamers, but to everyone that really matters (face it, if we serious gamers vanished one day, the industry wouldn't miss us one bit), they make a good presentation.
agent_nitrogen @ Nov 4th 2006 4:46PM
I went to an IGDA meeting once where this was the main topic of discussion. It turns out that sequels and movie franchises typically sell enough copies to *break even*.
With *new* titles, however, the game is either a hit or miss. If it's a miss, the company loses a ton of money, and if it's a hit (the canonical example being GTA) it makes millions.
But there's a lot of *risk* involved in creating *new* intellectual property, and businesses in general try to minimize risk. While the potential for greater profit exists in creating new intellectural property, the *safety* of creating sequels to existing franchises and movie licenses is more attractive.
Evan @ Oct 7th 2006 1:05PM
I'll tell you why Madden sequels do so well: up to date rosters. Football fans want to play the real teams, with the current NFL players and accurate stats. These are the same fans who play in fantasy football leagues.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 7th 2006 1:52PM
Evan -
They're not just talking about Madden, but all sequels. One of the most confusing franchises to remain today is Tomb Raider. Arguments aside about the quality of the first two titles, the remainder of them turned out to be absolute garbage, yet the series has survived from the 3dfx PC days all the way to Legends on the 360. Eidos churned out garbage after garbage featuring Lara Croft, spawned two crappy movies, yet the entire thing still persists to this day.
Author X @ Oct 7th 2006 11:59PM
I've never wondered this question. Just "Why do gamers complain about sequels"?
I mean, in my experience, unlike many movie series, games get better and better. Games don't really have a set time limit like movies, so I often think of it as... if the first had been twice/three times as long, with more features, would you have complained?
Of course, this does nothing for you if the games are bland and repetative. But, honestly, that's a different issue than sequels. I've found that with most people, it just comes down to complaining about sequels when they're playing a bad one, and not when they're playing a good one. Which, well... that's what you do with regular games anyway.