There's a lot to mull over, so if you don't mind I'm going to break it down into sub-topics.
noname2200 said:
To answer your underlined question: Rule. It’s that simple. You listed several series which are both lapsed and demanded on the internet. I wrote the rebuttal paragraph specifically to point out that each and every one of those series has died out for a reason; they’re not commercially viable anymore. The people in charge of those IPs, who are in the best position to know whether those IPs can succeed today, have made that determination, often with ample supporting evidence. I’ve already briefly pointed out why those series you listed have died out. Now let’s try this. How many lapsed IPs in the history of gaming can you name which have been revived? Now, how many of those revivals were successful? Do you find that percentage encouraging? I do not. I actually had difficulty naming any beyond Prince of Persia, although certainly there are a handful of others. That forms the backbone of my sentiment on this matter, with the rest of my beliefs resting on the third-party relations Nintendo has had since the SNES era. The remainder of my post was merely fleshing out those two ideas. |
The revival percentage is encouraging, despite a good quantity of failed projects:
For this, I'd like to point you to Zarx's response. I would also like to point out that my Seaman 2 on PS2 argument still stands. The audiences were different, so this invalidates your prior Seaman 2 argument.
Of course, we could construct a solid list of failures, but the ratio is acceptable, and shows there is hope when the job is done right.
|
As an aside, you asked why I discounted marketing, and will otherwise ask why I discount technology. The answer is because both are largely irrelevant in this discussion. Leaving aside the axiom that the most effective marketing by far is word of mouth, I have noticed far too often that marketing is trotted out as an excuse for poor performance, but is rarely credited with successful performances, unless meant as an indictment of the product. |
Marketing a boon for quality games:
Many of us on this forum agree that games like COD, Halo and Gears greatly benefitted from marketing, as well as the kinect. It has zero to do with these games being intrinsically bad, but we see them as a reason for these IPs to stand out in terms of sales.
There is a whole discussion on this regarding Sony's offerings and strategy.
|
For instance, I have not seen any persuasive data to indicate that marketing was responsible for the failure of any of the IPs you listed. I found it amusing when Bad Marketing was Nintendo’s excuse for the 3DS’ lackluster opening. I giggled when Miyamoto recently put the blame for the Virtual Boy on the Evil Marketing Department. And while this risks getting us further distracted from the main point, I’d like to point out that all the talk about Nintendo’s heavy marketing of Dragon Quest in the Americas has resulted in zero tangible results.
As for technology, it’s just a tool. The first product or two that uses a new technology might benefit from the novelty. After that, the product must stand on its own. Since we’re not discussing the technical feasibility of reviving these old IPs, or even Seaman in particular, I feel safe discounting this factor. And to answer your final question, I concede now, as I did earlier, that I do not know this for a certainty. I am merely examining long historical trends, and pointing out that the odds would give a riverboat gambler some pause. |
The marketing debate, fool's talk?:
Even if you had the data, it is mostly intuition. We all have that here and use it to dialogue to a certain extent of reason. Nobody knows for sure, but we try to explain the data given how much we know about the games' quality and injected marketing investments, given sales.
@bold. Of course there are cases when this is done unreasonably (Virtual Boy, it had so many flaws above and beyond marketing), but many of us here don't do that.
Technical advancements for better entertainment:
@italics. We certainly aren't discussing the technical feasibility of reviving an IP, we're discussing the technical benefits old IPs can appreciate given new technological advancements. Some are: Improved AI, a 3rd dimension, new visual effects, new graphical styles such as Cell/Toon shading, advanced 2D graphics (think DK Returns), motion controls, built in cameras, drawing screens, dual screens, touch screens, mics and more. In terms of logictics, accelerated development throughput (better team management, more powerful dev tools), increased creative throughput (better APIs, better bed of knowledge), increased intra-business communication (internet, e-mail, globalism). There are lots of venues where old IPs may have staggered.
In other words, since their last outings, there is much technological advancement that has happened which these old IPs could benefit from if they were once again brought to life.
