-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Leaning on Franchises vs New IPs
- Thread starter phaeb
- Start date
More about finding the right balance rather than one over the other. It can be tricky to navigate.
The only reasonable approach is to lean on established franchises while also consistently working on new IP
It's kind of a pointless distinction to me.
Is Bloodborne a new IP? Sure. But it's just the third Souls game by Miyazaki, regardless of title. Think about the differences between FFX to XI to XII to XIII to XIV to XV, those are the same IP, but Bloodborne, a game far closer to Dark Souls than any of those Final Fantasies are to each other, is a new IP.
The only thing that matters to me is does the game feel fresh? 'New IP' or not.
Is Bloodborne a new IP? Sure. But it's just the third Souls game by Miyazaki, regardless of title. Think about the differences between FFX to XI to XII to XIII to XIV to XV, those are the same IP, but Bloodborne, a game far closer to Dark Souls than any of those Final Fantasies are to each other, is a new IP.
The only thing that matters to me is does the game feel fresh? 'New IP' or not.
I care about quality, you can lean 10 or 20 years on the same franchise if you keep a consistent quality. New IPs are not always the right way if you dont know how to make good games.
Needs a reasonable middle. I feel Sony focuses on too many new IP while Nintendo relies on their old franchises a lot. I wish both would just be able to find a healthy medium.
You need a mix of both. Franchises were new IPs at one point, and video games is a medium that's still growing which allows for new ideas to be implemented all the time.
Pretty sure most big publishers are doing a mix. Nintendo recently released Splatoon and its an established franchise with over 10M units sold.
They also rebooted Zelda and changed things up with Mario to massive success.
Sony released Horizon which people seemed to like, it sold very well too. GoW rebooted a long established franchise and people loved it.
Pretty sure most big publishers are doing a mix. Nintendo recently released Splatoon and its an established franchise with over 10M units sold.
They also rebooted Zelda and changed things up with Mario to massive success.
Sony released Horizon which people seemed to like, it sold very well too. GoW rebooted a long established franchise and people loved it.
Both?
Personally speaking, due to me not having all the time in the world, I'd rather play something I'm already familiar with so I can hit the ground running.
Started Heat Signature today, I'm gonna have to spend some time getting comfortable with the controls because I rarely play PC games and I've never played something that controlled like this before.
Personally speaking, due to me not having all the time in the world, I'd rather play something I'm already familiar with so I can hit the ground running.
Started Heat Signature today, I'm gonna have to spend some time getting comfortable with the controls because I rarely play PC games and I've never played something that controlled like this before.
Exactly right. On the other side of the coin, Star Fox Zero and the Order: 1886 are both failures. Quality is all that matters.
There's no right way to answer this because everyone's circumstances are different.
Obviously you have to find a balance between milking a franchise and keeping the franchise relevant.
-Final Fantasy has stayed successful for 3 decades because each mainline game is essentially a new IP, so nobody gets burnt out.
-Zelda only comes out once a generation, no burn out
-Mario is used in so many different games spanning so many genre's that nobody gets burnt out
However, some franchises are so popular that they dont even have to bother.
Pokemon is incredibly successful, comes out fairly frequently, and doesn't have to change drastically like Final Fantasy does, i think it would actually hurt the franchise if they tried to change it drastically. So what works for one franchise wont necessarily work for another, like i said, everyone's circumstances are different.
Obviously you have to find a balance between milking a franchise and keeping the franchise relevant.
-Final Fantasy has stayed successful for 3 decades because each mainline game is essentially a new IP, so nobody gets burnt out.
-Zelda only comes out once a generation, no burn out
-Mario is used in so many different games spanning so many genre's that nobody gets burnt out
However, some franchises are so popular that they dont even have to bother.
Pokemon is incredibly successful, comes out fairly frequently, and doesn't have to change drastically like Final Fantasy does, i think it would actually hurt the franchise if they tried to change it drastically. So what works for one franchise wont necessarily work for another, like i said, everyone's circumstances are different.
I disagree about the Sony part. This generation has seen, or will have seen before it ends, the continuation of the Gran Turismo, Killzone, Uncharted, inFAMOUS, LittleBigPlanet, The Last of Us, and God of War franchises, among others. They're also making new IP this generation, with Horizon Zero Dawn, Bloodborne, Ghost of Tsushima, DRIVECLUB, and Days Gone, etc. I think they have a good balance.
I don't think they lean enough. They just go back to the usual suspects, but a new Ice Climbers game might as well be a new IP today. Same for Game & Watch, The Captain or any new game starring a supporting character.
I'm just talking old IP compared to new IP. A vast majority of their new releases have been old franchises, which is what I'm referring to.
You're probably right and I'm just thinking too much about myself lol. I want more of their older IP like Ratchet, Jak, Sly, Twisted Metal, etc. I guess to me it feels as if with every other generation they start over with a new slate of IP, and those that stick get sequels in the next generation. Now we're getting cool sequels to their gen 6 releases, but very few from before that era.
Any big company needs to do both. You lean on your established series as a semi-regular source of steady income, but you constantly make new IPs with the knowledge that most of them won't won't make it past the first game, but that every once in a while, you'll have a big hit on your hands.
Nintendo and Sony embody both sides of this dilemma. Nintendo are the undisputed GOAT at cultivating an IP to legendary status, to where decades old series can continue to be system sellers; Mario and Zelda are ancient but still generate excitement with every single game. This has made them a crutch for Nintendo, however, and if any of their core IPs falter, it taints Nintendo's image as a whole.
Sony's M.O with IPs, on the other hand, has been to absolutely run them into the ground with same-y sequels until the studio takes on a new IP (see Ratchet and Clank, Crash, God of War, Uncharted). This gives their studios the talent and income necessary to expand and try new projects which might end up being bigger hits than their previous series (see Guirella Games with Horizon), but it means none of their IPs will ever reach that Mario or Zelda status.
Sony's M.O with IPs, on the other hand, has been to absolutely run them into the ground with same-y sequels until the studio takes on a new IP (see Ratchet and Clank, Crash, God of War, Uncharted). This gives their studios the talent and income necessary to expand and try new projects which might end up being bigger hits than their previous series (see Guirella Games with Horizon), but it means none of their IPs will ever reach that Mario or Zelda status.
I'm Pro-Sony and Anti-Nintendo in this case.
To me Sony has provided a decent mix of both. Sometimes they are a bit to quick to abandon franchises, or don't give some the respect they deserve, but they mostly keep a pretty solid steam of content in both areas. My one gripe with the PS4 is that they were too reliant on existing IP in the beginning of the cycle. I'd have much rather had new IP over Killzone and Infamous. And it's sad that this will probably be the first generation where Naughty Dog won't make any new IP. At least we've started to see promising new IP with Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, and Dreams.
Nintendo, on the other hand, sticks predominately to existing IP. They've branched out a little more lately, but as a person who does crave a decent amount of new IP, they lost me many years ago. Even if some of the games they are putting out are considered the best in their franchises, I really don't have much interest in another Mario or Zelda.
To me Sony has provided a decent mix of both. Sometimes they are a bit to quick to abandon franchises, or don't give some the respect they deserve, but they mostly keep a pretty solid steam of content in both areas. My one gripe with the PS4 is that they were too reliant on existing IP in the beginning of the cycle. I'd have much rather had new IP over Killzone and Infamous. And it's sad that this will probably be the first generation where Naughty Dog won't make any new IP. At least we've started to see promising new IP with Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, and Dreams.
Nintendo, on the other hand, sticks predominately to existing IP. They've branched out a little more lately, but as a person who does crave a decent amount of new IP, they lost me many years ago. Even if some of the games they are putting out are considered the best in their franchises, I really don't have much interest in another Mario or Zelda.
If a game is fun it doesn't really matter. "New IP" isn't a plus, it just is.
Like to me ND moving from Uncharted to The Last of Us is just like, so what? They're both cinematic story driven, third person action games that they may as well be the same IP.
Like to me ND moving from Uncharted to The Last of Us is just like, so what? They're both cinematic story driven, third person action games that they may as well be the same IP.
And the fact that one is a third person shooter and the other is a stealth/surival game.
Like, 99% of these ask threads on here, the answer is "Depends". If the mechanics or the scenario is close enough to an existing franchise, I think using one could be cool, because you'd get it with a twist. If it's something completely divorced from an existing franchise, I'd rather them make it into a new game. Take Splatoon. It would have 100% been worse if it was shoehorned into being a Mario spinoff. The various characters wouldn't exist. The various sea life related settings. Even the main mechanic would probably be drastically different, as random Mario characters disappearing into ink wouldn't really make sense. It would have just been a straight up paintball game probably
Well, when Nintendo releases a new IP every year it kinda invalidate that point. For example, last year they had Ever Oasis, Arms and Snipperclips. This year they had Sushi Striker so far.
So all cinematic, third person, action games are now the same IP?
Now that's just a blatant lie. They do not release new franchises every year. Last year was a clear exception and you know it.
And even then they clearly do FAR more "leaning on franchises" than making new ones, which is the point of this topic. That much isn't even debatable. It's also hard to give them too much credit when a vast majority of their new outings are smaller eshop titles or clearly lower budget games. ARMS and Splatoon are the only two new IP they truly pushed in like a decade.
No but those two franchises play very similarly. TLoU feels like an evolution from Uncharted. You could have copied the mechanics into an Uncharted setting and called it Uncharted 4 and no one would have batted an eyelid.
It's just "new" in that it's new characters and story, which I don't value much in games.
That was over 8 years ago, hence why I said "like a decade." And you can argue they really didn't start pushing the franchise until much later. Xenoblade was primarily localized because of fan outcry, not just because Nintendo wanted to promote a new IP.
its important for companies to have both. everyones gonna have a few big franchises that theyre gonna want to keep around, but i think its important to know when to let one take a break for a bit. and speaking from a gamer perspective, i like to have a mix of franchises i like and brand new ones to play
What? That is a ridiculous thing to say. Did you play either Uncharted 2/3/4 and TLoU?
I haven't played Uncharted 4, played the others, yeah.
TLoU expanded the mechanics and added more stealth and survival options, which hey, you could have added to an Uncharted sequel.
The point I'm making is I don't understand the clamouring people have for new IPs. I don't see what difference it makes unless you're going for an entirely new direction and genre.
what guarantee is there for new IPs to be good? better to rely on franchises that have been built from a history of good games and every once in a while introduce a new IP to satiate people who want their "this game is actually average but it's a new IP so it gets bonus points" fix
Those mechanics don't really fit in the pulpy nature of Uncharted though.
And to the bold, that is exactly what ND did. They moved in a new direction and genre for TLoU.
