Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Aloha and welcome to The Halo Social!

We're just some people who want to talk more than just Halo since life is a big part of living too. :D You are all welcome, no matter how you found us so feel free to look around a bit. We'd love it if you stayed a while though so go on and register, you know you want to...Simply use your GamerTag as your login then wander on over to Introductions, say hello, and join in the fun!

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Milking Franchises; Good? Bad? Thoughts?
Topic Started: Jun 6 2012, 02:05 PM (123 Views)
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
:madcow:

The title pretty much says it all - Is milking a franchise technically "Bad"?

:money:

Sure, there's beating a dead horse and riding on coat tails but doesn't demand call for supply? Especially by the masses?
Not to mention, everything progresses much faster than it did, say, ten years ago. Movie transition from cinema to DVD has drastically decreased from around a year apart to a matter of a literally, a couple months. It's also no secret that for movies, the real profit comes from DVD sales while Cinema is just to get the initial budget spending back. Sometimes, it is contributed to pinching for the last penny. Most times though, it's to finish their story.

However, with video games, there's much more emphasis on production value visually. It also makes the major difference in that you're interacting with everything on screen. Movies will always stay the same no matter how many times you re-watch them. But you could watch a certain movie a thousand times over and still find new things. Games offer a much more detailed aspect towards immersion and adventure via simulation. Add in the much more widespread idea of multiplayer and you've got reasons to make dozens of sequels. The key is pacing by release though. I don't think every game needs "a new Multiplayer design" EVERY time. Sometimes, if it's not broke - don't fix it yet until it fully stales to the point of cracking. That's me and my mentality of "Using something until it's broke/dead". I like to get my moneys worth to the extreme, if possible.
:love:

In an example of the exaggeration of Milking, AC is a perfect example. Mainly b/c you're involving 3 major protagonists thus far (we're talking pre-AC3). Not one with a side character or underlings but they are, in most cases, one in the same - Desmond, Altair and Ezio. Ezio happened to have the most detailed story and couldn't be told in one game IMHO. It's also what earned him much bigwig applause as one of the most dynamic characters to date. Very rarely do you see a characters life unfold so fluidly. Most times, they take the Jesus route with an introduction and then BAM - "8 years later..." or something. Which works if you want to lack depth and truly "getting to know a character". However, the big complaints were:

A) against the MP "taking away" from the SP, which has always been a BS argument to me in most cases.

B) "not enough time between developments" which is again, BS since Ubisoft noted that each title was in development well before announcement. AC3 has been in development SINCE Brotherhood. As said, unlike a movie, you can't wrap a great adventure YOU take part in in just a few hours. Throw in the production value vs replay value and, if you ask me, I'd want at least a dual-trilogy series for most of my favorites. I like continuity...but sometimes, all good things must come to an end. It should always be an unforgettable and momentous ending though.

:eek2:

But again, that's just me and my preferences.

So, being that we live in an age where things develop, progress and either continue past the stars or come to a screeching halt - What makes milking a franchise so wrong?


Shoot... :blah2:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Enfinit
Member Avatar
Warrant Officer
[ *  *  *  * ]
In regards to the video game industry, publishers only milk franchises that are extremely successful - and why shouldn't they? Look at Halo, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, Mario, Call of Duty, God of War, etc. All are fantastic games; if it's successful, why should they stop making them?

It's not necessarily milking if there's a demand for it. People wanted more Halo. People wanted more Gears, AC, etc. If the demand is there, why not? The developer builds a franchise that's popular, and the publisher, in return, cashes in. If the demand isn't there, the publisher won't milk the franchise because, metaphorically, the milk has run dry.

There are few cases where a publisher keeps trying to milk a game when there's no demand for it; so few that I can't think of one of the top of my head. However, every franchise we see "milked" today has a high demand for it.

So no, milking isn't bad in any regards. Both the developer and publisher win.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I agree with Enfinit on this one.

But, one thing that you said - "sometimes, all good things must come to an end. It should always be an unforgettable and momentous ending though."

this makes me think about how Halo 3 ended, how Epic, how tragic. I sure hope the new trilogy doesn't make that ending a sappy prelude to lesser quality story. From everything I've seen I don't believe that to be the case though.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's probably my biggest worry out of it as well. Maybe the first game might be badass but it's going to be hard to top an entire trilogy with another...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
too true; let's hope that they succeed! These are some big-spartan shoes to fill.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It will be great, no doubt but the question still stands Will It Outdo The Original?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
"Innnnnn tiiiime we'll be dancing in the streets all night (all night, all right)"
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Speaking of Bill & Ted . . .
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've been keeping an eye on this.

So far, the only major downer is the passing of George Carlin aka Rufus.

I don't think it'll be great anyway but I'm a nostalgic sum'bitch!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SensoryFour34
Member Avatar
Elite Slayer Tryhard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't see a problem with it as long as the quality of the games is still the same or better. As soon as the quality starts getting worse, then I think it's probably time to stop. Sure people love Halo, Gears, Assassin's Creed, etc., but they can't keep making those games forever. They do have to stop eventually.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deadpool Psycko
Member Avatar
The Meta
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SensoryFour34
Jun 7 2012, 12:34 AM
I don't see a problem with it as long as the quality of the games is still the same or better. As soon as the quality starts getting worse, then I think it's probably time to stop. Sure people love Halo, Gears, Assassin's Creed, etc., but they can't keep making those games forever. They do have to stop eventually.
Mario
Zelda
Final Fantasy
MGS
COD
MOH
Pokemon

:blink:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Halo fans are radical nuts; we won't stand for sub-par work!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Scruff 815
Member Avatar
The Arbiter
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think it depends on your definition of "milking". For me, milking a franchise is pushing out more games/films/episodes than there is demand for them. And, restricting this to games, I can't think of many franchises that this applies to. The only one that's really pissed me off is Dead Rising. First there was DR1. Super. Then there was DR2: Case Zero; a 400 MSP XBLA prequel, which was an excellent idea and I totally snapped up. Then there was DR2, the full retail game. Fair enough, Case Zero *was* a prequel. Then there was DR2: Case West, an 800 MSP XBLA pseudo-sequel. Fuck off, Capcom. And THEN there was DR2: Off The Record, a full-price retail 'remix' of DR2. That's FOUR GAMES that should've been one, totalling 1200 MSP and two full retail games (total cost: ~£90).

I don't think Ass Creed has been milked. I think it's edging on it, and I think a lot of people were thinking bad things when Brotherhood was announced, but then it turned out to be the best game in the series to date (other than a crappy last level). I have yet to play Revelations but I hear that wasn't as good. As long as Ubisoft don't do the same thing with AC3 then I think it's safe.

And for COD, the title "COD" is arbitrary, really. None of these games have anything to do with Call Of Duty 1 - 3. These would all have come out with different titles and been eaten up by the masses regardless of whether their titles had "COD" in them.

Honestly, I can count way more times where I've been left wanting more games in a series than times when I wish the franchise would just stop.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Braythor
Member Avatar
Dumped Scruff's mum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Personally I think milking a game is kind of what turns it into a franchise. Before it's a franchise, it's usually a trilogy. Then the milking begins and you end up with a shed load of associated games. It's not always the case, and there are exceptions both ways, but that's how I see it.

So is it good or bad? Depends. We're not at the point where games are being milked in the way some movies are (Saw, Final Destination, American Pie, Fast & Furious), where you get one or two good ones then the rest are just shamelessly regurgitated profit spinners. But some games are getting there. Resident Evil is a prime example of it, with 'spin offs' such as Gun Survivor and Outbreak being made purely to cash in on the brand, and no real attempt at caring about quality. Fortunately the main titles still impress, and so the crap can be ignored. Unlike Silent Hill, which has been milked for all its worth now, at the expense of quality.

All that being said, I think there's one good argument for, and one good argument against milking:

For - Demand. Gamers want more Halo, more Gears, more Assassins Creed. And if developers are willing to pump the money and man hours into producing top notch games, it's a win/win situation.

Against - Creativity. The main structure of existing franchises is in place, so the focus is on changing it enough to keep it interesting. But this is not pushing the industry forward artistically. I for one would prefer developers to say "right, that's it for that game, let's do something new". This is why I'm glad Bungie handed Halo over to 343i for exactly that reason, and it's encouraging to see such a great name taking such an approach. But I wish others would do it too. For example, I think Epic should've focused on a new series rather than a Gears prequel. And I hope Bioware don't decide to continue Mass Effect. They've shown what they can do, and spewing out more games for a series that should be considered complete is not as good for the industry as creating something new from scratch.

Edited by Braythor, Jun 9 2012, 11:43 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ASLANS R0AR
Member Avatar
Spartan Pops
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Braythor
Jun 9 2012, 11:42 AM
Personally I think milking a game is kind of what turns it into a franchise. Before it's a franchise, it's usually a trilogy. Then the milking begins and you end up with a shed load of associated games. It's not always the case, and there are exceptions both ways, but that's how I see it.

So is it good or bad? Depends. We're not at the point where games are being milked in the way some movies are (Saw, Final Destination, American Pie, Fast & Furious), where you get one or two good ones then the rest are just shamelessly regurgitated profit spinners. But some games are getting there. Resident Evil is a prime example of it, with 'spin offs' such as Gun Survivor and Outbreak being made purely to cash in on the brand, and no real attempt at caring about quality. Fortunately the main titles still impress, and so the crap can be ignored. Unlike Silent Hill, which has been milked for all its worth now, at the expense of quality.

All that being said, I think there's one good argument for, and one good argument against milking:

For - Demand. Gamers want more Halo, more Gears, more Assassins Creed. And if developers are willing to pump the money and man hours into producing top notch games, it's a win/win situation.

Against - Creativity. The main structure of existing franchises is in place, so the focus is on changing it enough to keep it interesting. But this is not pushing the industry forward artistically. I for one would prefer developers to say "right, that's it for that game, let's do something new". This is why I'm glad Bungie handed Halo over to 343i for exactly that reason, and it's encouraging to see such a great name taking such an approach. But I wish others would do it too. For example, I think Epic should've focused on a new series rather than a Gears prequel. And I hope Bioware don't decide to continue Mass Effect. They've shown what they can do, and spewing out more games for a series that should be considered complete is not as good for the industry as creating something new from scratch.

:agree:

I think the idea of "milking" beyond the point of quality happens much more in cinema than in games, but it does happen.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · A little of this, a little of that. · Next Topic »
Locked Topic