•  
  • evrdayblues
  • Level: 27 (33%) 
  • Rank: Sheng Long
  • Member since: Jan 23, 2005
  • Last online: 12/14/09 7:47 pm PT
  • My Emblems:
    • Rank: Registered Member
    • Convivial
    • Greatest Game Hero Bracket Submitter
    • Virtually There: E3 2009 Microsoft Conference
    • Virtually There: E3 2009 Nintendo Conference
    • Animal Crossing City Folk Live Gameplay Marathon
    • Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
    • Tagger Maker
    • Rank: Registered Member
    • Convivial
    • Good Taste
    • Tagger Maker
    • Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
    • Animal Crossing City Folk Live Gameplay Marathon
    • Virtually There: E3 2009 Nintendo Conference
    • Virtually There: E3 2009 Microsoft Conference
    • Greatest Game Hero Bracket Submitter
     
     
    Close

My Friends

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Shogo: Mobile Armor Division 8.0
Ratchet & Clank 7.5
Sonic Rush 9.0
River City Ransom 8.5
Pokemon Blue Version 8.5
The Conduit 7.0
The Legend of Zelda 9.0
Klonoa 8.0
Star Fox Adventures 8.0
de Blob 7.5
11Aug 09

The Difference Between Franchise and Series

We often hear the suits behind large video game publishing companies use the word "franchise" and we usually assume they are talking about a series of video games that have some characteristics in common. Is it a case of 'tom-ate-o' and 'tom-at-o' or are they really looking at things differently than we are?

Hmmm, pie is good...

For starters, the word franchise is a business term. In fact, franchising is a business model that consists in licensing trademarks or film (game etc) characters and settings, and then selling exclusive rights of distribution to one or several publishers. Sounds pretty dry huh? In contrast, a series is just a continuation of loosely connected items. Notice how franchise is defined only in terms of distributing licensed goods, while series is simply defined as a collection of things.

As a gamer, when I look at my library of collected games, I see collections of loosely connected items. I see a collection of games. I see a series of memories. I see a continuation of connected memories. I certainly don't see "licensed goods" or "trademarks"! Clearly, franchise and series are anything but synonymous.

Hmmm, I seem to have covered the title already. Maybe I should have added a subtitle!

Well, it isn't too late for that, so let us have one!

Why Do We Buy Franchise Games?

It is a sad state of affairs, but as unfortunate as it may be, we buy what we know. We buy what we have already enjoyed. We buy things that we recognize. Simply put, the franchise business method is successful precisely because it is human nature to buy things that we recognize and already appreciate.

So is it our fault that we get bombarded with the same games year after year? Is it our fault that movie tie-ins take up half the shelf at Gamestop? Yes and no.

Although it is our natural behaviour that makes the franchise model as successful as it is, there have been many occurrences where new and original games have been extremely successful.

Some video game publishers believe (believed?) that they are in the business of creating surprise and as such they would like noting more than to bring new ideas to the medium. These people are responsible for games like Super Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, Chrono Trigger, Crash Bandicoot, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater etc. But how many of these new original successful games have become franchise games? Almost every last one of them, and sure enough many of these franchises have lost their popularity and sales over time.

So What Is The Problem?

GREED!!!

The problem is that publishers are greedy and risk averse. They are more likely to milk every last penny out of a franchise than they are to invest in something new and exciting. The sad thing is that without excitement, gamers become disinterested and drift away from the hobby altogether. So it is self-detrimental, in the long term, for a publisher to focus on franchises alone.

Solutions?

Well, maybe I should say "suggestions", since well...what do I know anyway?

I think publishers should focus on hiring many small development teams that will work on many small projects at the same time. Give those teams a small budget and a short deadline and if they are creative, they will make something fantastic. If they are not, then don't hire them the next time. This way, you will help many development teams grow, while creating new original games, all the while reducing the cost of making games.

'Tis Magic!

  • Posted Aug 11, 2009 1:05 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 12 Comments

12 Comments

  • just_nonplussed

    Posted Aug 11, 2009 1:32 pm PT

    dude, i'm still waiting for your SotC review!

  • just_nonplussed

    Posted Aug 11, 2009 1:44 pm PT

    i like your idea.
    suprise is a an important part of what entertains, as is originality. enjoyment comes from new and interesting experiences.

    as for the development side, i'd love to see some anti-aesthetic spirit injected into the creation of games. just because the PS3 can shift 10000,0000,000 polygons it doesn't mean every game has to. next-gen game budgets are ridiculous and well into the millions. the pretty graphics need to be torn away, and the focus should be more about mechanics. and it's difficult to have both due to the necessity of a budget.

    however, original ideas take a long time to iterate and the developers still might not come up with anything decent, while still spending money.

    i look more to indie developers. occasionally there is a great big game, like bioshock or SMG, but they're not too common.

  • evrdayblues

    Posted Aug 11, 2009 2:57 pm PT

    I'm still having trouble with my sotc review. It is not an easy game to review!
    It is guaranteed to have tons of spoilers though!
    -
    I agree, the level of graphical polish we see in games nowadays is overshooting the demands of the average customer. It is no surprise that the ps3 is not selling...who needs that kind of power?

  • Rheinmetal

    Posted Aug 12, 2009 2:15 am PT

    At the point where someone believes that the whole franchises network will inevitably collapse from the non-stop recycle process, the system itself has a self defence mechanism built in, that prevents it from exploding. From times to times, some new entirely original products will appear, that over the time they will take the place of some older franchises, to become powerful franchises themselves. Generally it's a wisely constructed system, based mainly on the laws of the market, and it reflects perfectly the capitalistic economy model too. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if I even saw a "video-games crisis phenomenon", like the one we are witnessing now in the global economy.

  • floristandbicyc

    Posted Aug 13, 2009 1:39 pm PT

    Magical solution indeed! If THQ-PLAY picked up Fez it would have been out thirty years ago! Man, I want to play it so badly! Can you fix this?!

  • evrdayblues

    Posted Aug 13, 2009 4:22 pm PT

    I can fix anything! *I boast with my chest proudly inflated with pride*

    wait...no...I...can't really fix anything at all, really...

  • J_Knolling

    Posted Aug 15, 2009 2:14 pm PT

    This is a problem is not one that only games face. The other fields of the entertainment industry as well. And it doesn't stop there. This is really a critique about capitalism itself. Sure, there are people out there who are daring enough to provide us with something good/helpful, but why would someone risk losing money when they can keep increasing on what they had?(and keep in mind that the people making these decisions are people who already have millions, and are really not at risk of losing anything) And we constantly see places going to cheaper options, in order to make more, not caring if quality drops. Why are so many places offer organic options now? Because there is a market for it now. But why weren't things organic before?? Because they wanted to make yet another million(these profits are very rarely seen by the workers). THERE WAS A TIME WHEN EVERYTHING WAS ORGANINC!!

    Thank you.
    -steps off of soapbox-

  • just_nonplussed

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 1:56 pm PT

    @floristandbicyc:

    fez looks good. sounds like rez (also good). so the formula is this: all future games should just be made with 'ez' at the end, and then add a consonant, and voila!

    pez
    mez
    yez
    zez

  • just_nonplussed

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 2:04 pm PT

    @J_Knolling:

    you can see this risk-averse nature passed down from 'the business types' to the 'consumer'/'user' (us! people! humans!), as the more samey stuff we buy, the harder it is for us to try new and different things.

    these ideas also filter down into the actual games too. you said that the millionaire business types often try to spend as little as possible, without losing any, but gaining a lot in return. it sounds like a game: shoot as many targets, without getting shot; collect all the gold/money/treasure, and then escape/get to the exit.

    games are a product of capitalism. to innovate, people must reject the ruling ideas of our society.

  • just_nonplussed

    Posted Aug 17, 2009 2:13 pm PT

    time for some 'capital G', guys:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvRSfJrm2es

  • evrdayblues

    Posted Aug 18, 2009 6:33 pm PT

    @just nonplussed

    Yes, gaming is a product of capitalism today, but it wasn't always that way.

    Games used to be a movement, now it is a multi-billion dollar industry.

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Shogo: Mobile Armor Division 8.0
Ratchet & Clank 7.5
Sonic Rush 9.0
River City Ransom 8.5
Pokemon Blue Version 8.5
The Conduit 7.0
The Legend of Zelda 9.0
Klonoa 8.0
Star Fox Adventures 8.0
de Blob 7.5
advertisement