I’ve Had Enough… Brand Saturation
By Mike Mason
‘I’ve Had Enough…’ is a new, fortnightly column in which Cubed3’s Mike Mason dissects some of the more frustrating practices of the games industry. This time: brand saturation, and how it might ultimately be disastrous for the major publishers.
These days, I’m just as likely to duck into a games shop to get out of the rain as to actually buy something – such is the convenience and bargainous nature of online shopping.
When I do make one of my rare appearances, it’s difficult not to notice the sea of familiar games – many of which share near identical names with at least one other product. Yes, with gaming well and truly in the mainstream and the medium selling by the bucket load, it’s not surprising to see publishers capitalise by eking out their brand names, filling their bank accounts like a greedy child does a bag of pick ‘n’ mix.
The most prominent examples come from two of the largest publishers: Ubisoft and Activision. In the former’s case it’s the Imagine and Petz franchises that have conquered a corner of the casual market, particularly on Nintendo DS. They now stretch out in a number of out-there directions, allowing players to care for Tigerz or fulfil their dreams by looking after babies – though they could quite easily expand into Camel Spiderz and scrubbing toilets without anybody noticing anything untoward, given the amount of titles to appear under the labels. Combining those released and due for release, there will have been more Imagine games than calendar months in 2009.
For Activision, the most obvious example would be in the expansion of the Guitar Hero series, which once housed yearly entries but now spawns upwards of four editions per annum. The company’s CEO, Bobby Kotick, has infamously been quoted on his adversity to support games that “don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential.”
More choice is not a bad thing in any respect, and by diversifying the subject matter of further games, it means that companies can adhere to more people’s tastes. However, things should be taken in moderation. There is a distinction between catering to specialist markets by offering variety, and outright emptying bin bags of new releases into the laps of overwhelmed consumers. Take The Sims: few, aside the devoted followers of the series, are able to keep up with its stream of expansion packs. This is great for those in the know, who can then tailor their experience to their needs by choosing whether or not to buy the pack that enables their Sims to go coal mining or eat lobster thermidor, but those looking from the outside inwards are no doubt confused by the number of similar boxes on shelves, and thus accessibility is lost.
Guitar Hero suffers the same issue in the spread of titles under one name. This year has seen the release of Guitar Hero: Greatest Hits, Guitar Hero: Metallica and the DS’ On Tour: Modern Hits – the third game of the series released on the portable in 12 months – and now Guitar Hero 5. A Van Halen edition is due later in the year, and expanding to encompass the ‘Hero’ franchise as a whole adds DJ Hero – distinguishing itself with hip-hop and turntable-based gameplay – and Band Hero, a pop version of Guitar Hero, for all intents and purposes. It’s difficult to keep track for those with a keen eye for gaming news, so spare a thought for the more mainstream market to which much of this is targeted.
A benefit of constant copyright reliance is the increase of brand awareness with each subsequent release. By tying everything together through similar names more powerful franchises are created, leading to more money-making potential – money that can, in theory, be invested in more original efforts. Ubisoft is currently making the most of this strategy: relying upon their widespread mass-market titles, they are able to divert money into projects such as Red Steel 2, Splinter Cell: Conviction and I Am Alive. However, while profit associated with the brand as a whole might increase, further deviations are sure to have a knock-on effect on the sales potential of each title taken individually, which in turn leads to a smaller cut of profits for developers not owned by publishers.
[Continues...]
Pages: 1 2
The Kotic quote’s one that’s been bandied about a lot, along with his proud claim to never play videogames. Personally, I think the surrounding uproar is a little naive. The games industry might be about entertainment, but it’s still an industry, and you could point to plenty of industries in which the big execs have very little involvement with the core product. So it seems a little idealistic to expect a successful businessman to spend all his time playing games. Okay, so his complete lack of effort in hiding this fact is a little odd. But I think it’s the passion that gamers feel for their hobby that’s turned it into an enormous issue.
@Lewis
I don’t mind him not be able to play games, I mind the other thing he said about not wanting any gme that isn’t milkable. What they did with Guitar hero is really poor 4 games a year. Thats just way to much. i didlike them for their business practices, yes they get a lot of money from them. But I always have the distinction that moral and business are seperate what might be okay for business is not okay for me morally or something like that.
I didlike the way things are going i ngames, just the same old same old reliebce on brands and previous ideas. Its become stale very stale and I just don’t have a care for it anymore. I’m getting more enjoyment from older games at the moment then newer games so why should i spend on the newer games? And if that catches on the Games Industry could be in a perilous condition.
I’m not bothered at all that Kotick doesn’t play games; I’m sure in some ways it actually helps Activision because he’s unsympathetic about them as an entertainment form and pushes them forward as a business first and foremost. On the other hand, I find the ‘exploit’ attitude that comes as a result of that unsavoury. We all know that games are a business and not just done for fun, but most companies release a new title in a series once, maybe twice a year. Activision are currently relentless in their schedules for Guitar Hero and at some point it wouldn’t be a surprise to see the music bubble burst as a result. Activision will recover from it, but surely it’s not the safest way to run a business to pour so many resources into one franchise when they could be creating new ones or expanding ones that have not been seen as much.
Then again, it seems that the gaming public has not quite got fed up of it all yet, with Guitar Hero 5 doing well upon release. Perhaps if they keep up these releases every three or four months as they have in 2009, though…
Nice article, Mike.
I think the beauty of Activision’s plan with Guitar Hero is that not every game is aimed at every demographic. Band Hero and Guitar Hero V are aimed at different audiences, but if the punter buys both then I’m sure Activision will consider it a bonus. GH: Metallic and Van Halen are, I presume, aimed at a more hardcore crowd, who’ll probably be more than happy to fork out for them and the annual ‘main’ title.
Even if demand does drop, these games are put out on such speedy development cycles that they’ll be able to reduce supply appropriately. It’s good business, that.
I’d criticise it, but I can never seem to get enough stuff for my plastic band. It’s a real phenomenon.
An interesting comparison, I imagine, is the Need for Speed series – which has recently come back on top with the release of NFS: Shift. EA have been able to ride that franchise through plenty of peaks and troughs over the last decade.