Call of Duty Black Ops Voted ‘Best Game Ending’ Of All Time
17 hours 52 mins ago
Allegedly Speaking takes a look at EA's pull back from original IP development. With the economy hitting the industry hard will EA's new position of not taking as many chances with new IPs become an industry standard for years to come?
There is a somber story unfolding right before the eyes of gamers and journalists alike, and very few have taken notice. It began in early 2008, when Activision merged with Blizzard, subsuming Vivendi Studios in the process. With its scrutinizing, calculating hand in the mix, Activision successfully sought to shelve a mass of original IP’s, only one of which was Brutal Legend (the others Wet, 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, and Ghost Busters). With no legal way out, Tim Schaefer’s Double Fine, the company developing Brutal Legend, sat sullenly on a game it dreamt would shake up the industry like never before.
Comments
Where's the proof that EA won't be supporting new IPs? I understand they're reluctant to put up a whole bunch of money behind Dead Space and Mirror's Edge and they absolutely have every reason to BE reluctant. They didn't sell well, they weren't advertised enough (or very well) and they could have been better. This coming from a person who feels Dead Space is up there as one of his favorite games of all time. We'll see a Dead Space 2, I'm willing to be money on that, and in due time, when the economy starts to settle down again (as it obviously will) they will have more finances to take risks with new IPs.
"New IP's just don't sell?" Really? Tell that to Naughty Dog, they seem to be enjoying Uncharted 2's success. Also, Gears of War? That one seems to be doing pretty good.
New IP's is an entirely relative term and to say that new IP's don't sell is downright ignorant. Because every single game in existence was a new IP at one point.
I really can't stand to see people with websites trying to create news and stories out of nothing, and then see them publicized like this.
I, for a long time had a love/hate relationship with EA's old school (and still present in some ways) game-churn-out system. My opinion changed with EA's Partners Program. EA's Partners program is still going strong, which gives support as needed to small dev companies, who get to call the shots on what resources and support they need from EA in addition to standard distribution as well as support for new IPs. EA gives many of these devs autonomy and allows them to make the game they want to make. So new IPs are still in development, just not as many as say during the 2006-2008 period (pre-economy fubar)
Here is where I disagree with ruledbysecrecy though ... right now, as Daweii said (due to the economy), all distributors and dev companies are rethinking NEW IPs. Yes, all games in existence was a new IP but that isn't the point. There are "brands" "franchises" and "genres" that are sure bets, they have been proven to generate money. It is a smarter business decision to invest in what has proven to sell rather than invest in a NEW & UNTESTED IP/property. Putting Uncharted 2 there is a mistep on your part. Uncharted 2 was possible because Uncharted 1 sold well. If Uncharted 1 flopped we most likely wouldn't have 2 from naughty dog. You hit the mark with Gears of War 1, but - think about this long and hard... GoW is one of the few exceptions to the new IP rule, and when it was released it was a risk for EPIC and Microsoft. Microsoft didn't have a "mario" or "Halo" at launch, so they threw all their eggs into the GoW basket and gave Epic and CliffyB the resources to make a masterpiece. It was only after those initial sales proved that they had a benchmark setting winner on their hands that they redoubled their marketing efforts.
Why? A new IP is a MAJOR gamble. Take for example two critically acclaimed, well reviewed and award winning games which didn't sell well but were ingenious and are now considered classics: Beyond Good and Evil & Okami - there is a history of games of such quality not selling (going back to the original UFO/X-COM which didn't sell well when it was originally released but through WoM (word of mouth) and positive reviews eventually delivered numbers that makes it one of the first instances of "sleeper hit" in gaming. Again, but a few examples which makes devs and distributors get cold feet in questionable economic times.
As for new IPs don't sell/naughty dog line... I think you are misunderstanding the use of "new IP" in our industry.
That was before the dark times, before the economic collapse. Real damn shame. Again, BG&E is hailed by everyone now that has had a chance to play it, but on paper a sequel still presents a risk for Ubisoft. Assassins Creed 2 is doing well for them, I am seeing them claiming 32% increase in sales thanks to it. Unfortunately their Wii library's performance is hurting their revenue numbers this year, and they only have two other major upcoming releases: the new splinter cell and James Cameron's Avatar game. I know Splinter Cell will sell, not sure about Avatar though I idolize and worship James Cameron as a living god of sci-fi cinema (until he is dethroned by Neil Blomkamp who needs to give us a few more "serious" sci fi films of D9 quality sans the Apple pop sleekness of JJ's Trek)
So unless things turn around, and the Avatar game and Splinter Cell deliver "Madden 09" or a large portion of the $$ generated by Modern Warfare 2... I don't think BG&E2 is going to happen anytime soon - last I heard during the summer was that it was on hold.
Then again, Ubisoft has a knack for pulling cool things out of their arse (the first BG&E being one of them along with the shocking success of the original Assassins Creed) so I wouldn't be surprised if by E3 next year we have more "teasers" from them.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.