Several years ago I was in college working towards my economics degree. One night I came across a question on a homework assignment that sounded like it could be a premise for a stand-up comedy routine: why do drive-through ATMs have braille on the key pad? After a little critical thinking it became obvious that it was simply a money saving technique. It is cheaper for the ATM manufacturer to build one type of machine than it would be to produce one line of walk-up ATMs and a separate line for drive –through ATMs. The result is a cheaper manufacturing process for the company that also happens to cause some people to laugh at the stupidity of the bank for putting braille on a drive-through machine. It’s an efficient move by the company for sure, but it still seems a bit silly at first glance.
I think this same line of reasoning explains why video game developers love sequels. There is a more simple and obvious explanation to why some sequels get made. Halo 1 sold a ton of copies, so of course it makes sense to make a second. Gamers know what they like, and if they are loyal to a franchise they will show their loyalty in the form of buying sequels. But this doesn’t explain why even games that are critical and commercial failures often get sequels. Just as the ATM manufacturer can produce a single line of machines easier than it could two lines, video game companies can make a sequel easier than a fresh IP.
[aditude-amp id="flyingcarpet" targeting='{"env":"staging","page_type":"article","post_id":497425,"post_type":"story","post_chan":"none","tags":null,"ai":false,"category":"none","all_categories":"gbunfiltered,","session":"D"}']Video game makers look for specific things when assembling teams to build games. If they are making an FPS, it makes sense for them to look for people who have made one before. If instead it is a sports game they are trying to make, they will be hiring out of a completely different talent pool. And the hiring process takes time. So once a company has made a bad game, it can either start the talent acquisition process over, or use the team it already has in place to make its next project. Even games that did not do great financially can still generate enough income to keep the company afloat. But in order for the company to stick around, it has to continuously put out new games. The result is companies choosing to make sequels instead of finding the creative talent to make something better than the flop they have already made.
Take for example the Magna Carta video game series. The first game of the RPG franchise has an aggregate score of 67.26 on GameRankings.com. Not exactly a great score. And commercially, according to VGCharts.com, the game has sold less than a quarter of a million copies worldwide. Despite these numbers, the game got a sequel, which scored only slightly better at 69.47 and similarly only sold about a quarter of a million units. The producer of these games could have done anything, but decided it was best to stay close to what its development team had experience with. Thus, the sequel was made.
Like many people, I get frustrated when I see companies producing sequel after sequel. There are an infinite number of ideas that could make interesting games. There is essentially no limit as to what can be done in games, and I feel companies have only scratched the surface so far. But since these companies are looking for efficiency and safety, it seems they will just continue to make what they are familiar with, and we will be stuck with sequels always being a fixture in the industry.