Do developers that try to widen their game's appeal actually increase sales?

Default_picture
Monday, July 02, 2012
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

Ash breaks down the numbers for us to find an answer about whether developers should forgo fans' wishes for a beloved game series to widen appeal or double down into a niche market. His findings may surprise you.

I know of basically two ways to manage a game franchise: Either you try to cater to your fan base by giving them what you believe they want, or you try to go out of your "niche" and appeal to what you think gamers who were not interested in the first titles would want.

What franchises ought to do is a very divisive subject among gamers, with part of the community feeling betrayed or at least misled when their favorite series is trying to appeal to the "casuals" (a polite wording of "noobs") and other just as vocal gamers bashing on what they see as "entitled, self-proclaimed harcore crybabies." But before the argument even begins, why not at least try to assess whether or not widening a franchise’s appeal actually helps or hinders subsequent sales?

 

Of course, it is not honest to solely attribute any causal effect sales-wise to any particular choice the marketing, publishing, or development team made. But it might be interesting to see what happened to franchises that tried the strategy of wider appeal. After all, contrary to popular wisdom, action Japanese role-playing games have sold less than turn-based JRPGs this gen, so looking at sales can only teach us interresting things.

It’s complicated to know which franchises we should examine -- the ones that tried to "widen their appeal." To avoid relying on my sole gamer experience, I’ve looked on forums to decide which franchises that players accused developers of trying to widen the game's appeal. Here and there, gamers named names, and I then looked at VGChartz to see the verdict for sales, the god of the free market.

Franchises that did not significantly gain or lose any sales by developers trying to widen appeal

Mass Effect

Divisive among the divisives, Mass Effect 2 decided to take the franchise closer to Gears of War and further from Bioware’s older titles. Mass Effect 2 sold 2.85 million on 360 and 0.26 million on PC while the first episode that was less shooting-oriented sold 2.61 million on 360 and 0.53 million on PC.

In the end, the alledged removing of RPG elements neither hurt nor helped the franchise even though one can make the case that the move hurt the Mass Effect series in the long run since Mass Effect 3 sold slightly lower numbers than its predecessor on PlayStation 3 and 360.

Resident Evil

Resident Evil 4 is famous for having completely reinvented the series by adding a strong action element and at the same time playing down the survival-horror element. Being such a critical success, we can imagine Resident Evil 4 to have greatly surpassed the titles before it in sales. Well, that's just not the case at all.

Resident Evil 3: Nemesis on the PlayStation sold 3.72 million while Resident Evil 4 on PlayStation 2 reached a close equivalent of 3.62 million. On GameCube where Resident Evil 4 debuted, it sold 1.69 million copies, a number that is only 11 percent higher than what the remake of the original Resident Evil sold on the same console three years before (1.42 million). Not very impressive when we know that remakes genreally do not sell as well as initial releases.

Splinter Cell

I cannot make the direct comparison between Splinter Cell: Conviction, which did away with a lot of the franchise's stealth elements, and the preceding title as VGChartz does not have any sales data of Splinter Cell: Double Agent on PlayStation 2 and Xbox. But Splinter Cell: Conviction sales on 360 (1.96 million) is actually in between the original Splinter Cell (3.02 million on Xbox) and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (1.48 million).

I’ll let you decide whether or not that makes it a success.

Franchises that lost a significant amount of sales when developers tried to widen appeal

Dragon Age

Dragon Age II has garnered so much negative division among fans that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what hurt sales, but much of fans' ire was at least partly directed toward the dumbed-down, action-oriented combat. On PC, Dragon Age II sold about as many physical copies as Dragon Age: Origins. But the franchise lost a whoping 60 percent of its sales on Xbox 360 and 57 percent on PlayStation 3.

Ninja Gaiden

Ninja Gaiden 2 on Xbox 360 sold close to a million copies (0.96 million) while Ninja Gaiden 3 on the same system achieved only 10 percent of this number. On PlayStation 3, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 sold 0.75 million while Ninja Gaiden 3 sold 0.16 million. In the end, Ninja Gaiden sales went down 84.5 percent from second to third entry in the series -- a result of a loss of quality or a dumbing down of the games' notorious difficulty, perhaps?

So, that's how it is. Any other big franchise you think I should look into?

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (13)
100media_imag0065
July 02, 2012

Oh man, thanks so much for writing this. I've been thinking this very thing for a long time now. And I always use the Mass Effect comparison as proof. Why do they keep trying to reach out to a wider audience when it does nothing for sales, and a lot of times hurt the franchise? I don't get it. You'd think they would have these sales number on hand to see that watering down a loved franchise is going to please no one. I don't get why they keep doing it.

First of all, no matter how casual they try and make games like Mass Effect, no casual gamer is going to play it. They are never, ever going to get that audience. Call of Duty was a fluke. It was a mistake. No other game is going to be able to catch as many casual gamers into a core game like Call of Duty has, so I am astounded that so many keep trying when the proof and evidence is against them. Look at Dead Space 3, look at how they have completely turned that game into a shooter.

Who is that going to please? What does taking away what made these games popular in the first place achieve? The core gamers who loved the survival horror in Dead Space will be upset that it is gone and the new focus is on shooting, and casuals or middle of the road gamers aren't going to pay attention to just another shooter. I guarantee you, the sales will suffer. Why oh why do they continue to take what made these games great and instead of innovating and improving what made them popular, they water them down or remove them completely?

Why was Mass Effect 2 a 30 hour shooter? Why was Dragon Age 2 a complete mess of cut corners and dumbed down gameplay? Why is Resident Evil now just another shooter? Why? It would be like taking a book everyone loves, say, Pillars of the Earth, and for the sequel Ken Follet writes a childrens book instead (he didn't, he wrote the incredible World Without End). When you try and please everyone, you please no one.

There was a reason these franchises were popular in the first place. The one game I am terrified about is Metro: Last Light. I am a huge, huge fan of Metro 2033. I think it is the greatest shooter ever made. It is a core, thinking mans shooter. And judging by the things they've said and shown for the sequel, it looks like they've just turned it into Call of Duty.

They even took away the one thing everyone loved about the original, the bullet economy, because they thought it was too hardocre. And that's what the industry is best at, I guess. Ruining what everyone likes, and touting what everyone hates. 

Default_picture
July 02, 2012

I only found significant data on 5 franchises so maybe it may have been different for others such as Street Fighter or Fallout...

However, I think the reason why publishers do it even if it doesn't unequivoquelly work (to say the least) is because the system takes a lot of time to give proper feedback. Plans for ME2 or DA2 for example were made long before they even were made public, and of course before most of this feedback on sales came around. 

Overall I am optimistic about those things. I think next generation things will be different, after so many trends have failed sales-wise this gen. We start to see more and more people complaining about the countless franchises turned into shooters and action games, while slower and so-called dead genres like adventure games are making a comeback...

100media_imag0065
July 02, 2012

I don't know about that. They must know what is going to appeal to the audience that has already purchased the first game. If the first game sold well, which it did, why change it so drastically? They knew they were going to alienate many, and they did just that. They are smart people, and they know what isn't going to click with the core and what will. They just want a piece of that "casual" cake, no matter who they step on.

As for genres making a comeback, I'd love to see action platformers make a comeback. We've seen some greats this generation like Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts and the incredible Ratchet  & Clank Future games, but it seems like the genre isn't going to come back this generation.

Granted we are getting a Ratchet & Clank HD Collection to go along with the Sly Cooper and Jak HD collections. And there is even a new Sly game coming out. It seems like Sony is the only one keeping their finger on that pulse. Even Nintendo dropped it for traditional 2D platformers. Which I think was a terrible decision. I've been gaming for 25 or so years now, I've seen genres come and go, but never have I missed a genre more than 3D action platformers.

Lolface
July 03, 2012

The changes Bioware made for ME2 and DA2 were based on feedback from the originals, but Bioware took that feedback and went to the extreme. For example, with Mass Effect, people complained that you found too many pieces of equipment that offered little to no improvement, and when you did find a significant piece of armor, it was buried in the pile of crap that you had collected. To remedy this complaint, Bioware went nuts, and completely removed equipment from ME2.

Similarly, with Dragon Age, people complained that Morrigan lost her "iconic" look (though I'm not entirely sure how exaclty Morrigan became an icon), and that it was weird that she could put on Chantry robes, or that it was weird that Wynne could put on Morrigan's clothes. Instead of saying, "don't give Wynne Morrigan's clothes," Bioware went to the extreme, and removed the ability to change your companion's armor.

I'd like to think that Bioware has learned its lesson, but I have the funny feeling that I'm going to be immensely dissapointed with DA3.

Default_picture
July 02, 2012

There was Assassin's Creed II vs Assassin's Creed I, but I think I'd argue that AC1 was proof of concept and AC2 was the game they wanted to make, rather than trying to widen the appeal.

100media_imag0065
July 02, 2012

Assassins Creed 2 wasn't watered down though. I wasn't a more casual Assassins Creed, if anything it was more hardcore. There was a ton more stuff you could do. The difficulty was raised, the combat was fleshed out, and the AI was improved. They appealed to their core audience, and as a result the game sold well.

Imagine if they went in the other direction. Imagine if Assassins Creed 2 was just a super simple, incredibly watered down version of Assassin Creed. The franchise wouldn't be as popular as it is today.

Dcswirlonly_bigger
July 02, 2012

It's nice that someoen actually decided to looka the problem from such a logical angle, but I'm hesitant to trust VGChartz numbers.

Despite that, I can comment a little bit on Resident Evil, since Capcom has their own numbers for that franchise. If you go to their website RE5 is the most successful launch in the franchise's history. RE4's total numbers are higher if you combine sales from all its different versions.

Lolface
July 03, 2012

I'm not certain that your analysis of Resident Evil 4 is completely fair. RE4 was reinvented because the old form of gameplay had gone stale. No one wanted to run around like a tank anymore, and it's not like Resident Evil was actually scary anyway. Besides that, you compare RE4's sales with the sales of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, which I think is a little irrelevant. RE3 was released in 1999, while RE4 was released in 2005. In those six years between them, there were 9 Resident Evil games released (if you include the side series). The formula had gone stale. In fact, the direct sequel to RE3, Code: Veronica, sold 2.34 million copies on the PS2. Compared to RE4's 3.62 million, I'd call that reinvention a success.

Also, I find it a bit odd that you don't include Skyrim in your anlysis. According to VGChartz, Skyrim sold 6 million copies, compared to Oblivion's 3.77 million.

One last thing, I think that the poor sales of Dragon Age 2 and Ninja Gaiden 3 comes from more of a quality issue than a streamlining issue. Streamlining, or dumbing down, isn't neccesarilly a bad thing, but if the game itself isn't any good, as is the case with DA2 and NG3, then no one is going to buy it.

Default_picture
July 03, 2012

Hi, and thanks your your comment.

I'll dig into Resident Evil more deeply there is certainly something to be said for the series as a whole, althought the lack of difference between the remake of RE1 on Gamecube and RE4 is kind of surprising to me. I am however wary of Capcom's numbers that were cited (not by you but by other commenters). The reason is that they aggregate the sales of all versions and remakes etc. and that way we cannot compare as efficiently the difference between two iterations of the series (ie a game that appears on more platform or that was remade 5 times will mechanically sell more).

However, I don't see where you're going with Skyrim. If anything, Skyrim has been criticized for being too similar to Oblivion, and if some elements were streamlined it's certainly nothing that can be compared with the transformations that underwent the 5 series I analyzed here. Saying that Skyrim try to widen the Elder Scrolls appeal is weird to be, althought I could of course be wrong here, I am not a fan of the series.

Finally, there is a thin line between dumbing down and a loss of quality. These things are not independent. If you took Dark Souls and divided the difficulty by two, it would become a bad game. I'm not sure it's that easy to pinpoint what particular issue made a game sales suffer.

Lolface
July 03, 2012

In regards to the difference between sales of RE4 and RE remake, keep in mind that both games were released for the Gamecube. In addition to looking like a lunchbox, the Gamecube audience skewed younger than the audience for a mature game like Resident Evil. In fact, I'd even say that no M rated game sold very well for the Gamecube, but I don't have the numbers to back that up. Anyway, While the RE remake sold 1.42 million, the next game in the series released on the Gamecube, Resident Evil 0, sold 1.29 million copies. If my math is right, then that means that RE4 saw a 23% increase in sales from the previous Gamecube game. Not bad for a console synonymous with kiddie games. Also, the sales for RE3 represent an original release, whereas the PS2 RE4 sales are of an inferior port for a game that had been out for a while.

As for Skyrim, while combat and exploration do feel a bit similar to Oblivion, there is so much that is different. Equipment doesn't degrade, stats are mostly gone which completely changes racial dynamics, the amount of spells has been decreased, and the list goes on. http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/bustaballs/skyrim-is-a-huge-disappointment-216058.phtml

Also, I would just say that Dark Souls is a bad game that's really hard for no reason.

Default_picture
July 03, 2012

Well let's just agree to disagree on Dark Souls, different games made for different people. I do think it's a little close-minded to call plain bad a game that is so loved by so many people, and that you shouldn't disregard so easily the idea that there is in fact a very thin line between accessibilty and loss of quality, regardless of your experience (or Destructoid's) with Miyazaki's games.

For RE, I do agree that a deeper analysis is commanded, but things are also not as easy as you say. Comparing numbered entries in the series, as I did, may be incomplete, but spin-off and prequels are just as inadequate for a comparison. It's no surprise that in most franchises main numbered entries (RE1, RE2, RE3, RE4 etc.) outsell spin-offs, side stories, prequels etc.

But you do have a valid point that my comparison is a little quick, I'll make a deeper analysis of the franchise's sales in another article. I hope I'll have your comments then.

Default_picture
July 03, 2012

While this is a great quantative comparison, I can't help but always feel that demanding games are made for their true 'core' audience is a little... how to say it, blunt?

The results you've detailed here are undeniable, though I find it odd that there's the omission of information on any games which have raised sales through wider appeal. I don't actually know, but maybe take a look at the DiRT games?

Anyway, the point is, demanding that developers continue to produce content that is only for their dedicated hardcore audience poses the threat of never expanding the medium to a larger audience, though in saying that I may be hoping for exposure that's simply not possible among mainstream audiences.

Default_picture
July 03, 2012

Hi and thanks for your comment.

I didn't post any results on series that managed to increase sales because I didn't find any.  I also said before that games such as SF or Fallout may be could counterexamples but I can't find the data. I don't know anything about DiRT, can you tell me more about this series ? VgChartz tells me it lost sales with each iteration, what does that mean do someone who knows the series ?

Anyway, the question of expanding the audience of videogames is neither here nor there. If franchises have nothing to lose by keeping their fans happy, that does not mean that new IPs that have a wider appeal or appeal to different audiences cannot appear and succeed to do that. Not everybody is meant to play the same genres.

What I suspect however is that it is extremely difficult to have your cake and eat it too, that is keep your fans while expending to people who were not interrested in your series. Also, I don't think that a franchise cannot grow by pleasing its fans, just the opposite. A lot of franchises grow progressively by doing the same thing over and over again (see Dragon Quest), just because it takes time for gamers to realize that they are interested in something they never heard about.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.