By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Do old gaming franchises actually have value?

Been seing some old franchises being attempted revamped only to fail over the last year. Examples such as Golden Axe Beast Rider and Bionic Commando comes to mind. Those games mostly failed though for not being especially good, but my question is if re-using an old game franchise name like that actually brings any real marketing and sales value. First of all a huge part of the market are to young to even remember those games and for those of us old enough to do, I don't think any of us really believe these new remakes will have much in common with the old games, not that we would want them to anymore either.

So I have no problem believing that using 'living' brands such as Call of Duty can help sell a new game if the other games in the series has been good, but that is very different than digging up some 10-15 year old IP and using the brand to sell a new game. The sales bump for such a thing is probably quite marginal compared to coming up with a new title for the game.

Am I right? Or do people actually pay more attention during the development of Golden Axe Beast Rider because it claimed to be a sequel to an ancient game, as opposed to for instance how much attention was paid during development to Unfamous which was a new IP?



Around the Network

Nostalgia clouding the mind and poorly executed attempts at reviving them are to blame.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

The issue is that those old franchises need to work for the modern audience to sell but the developers also try too hard at appealing the older gamers.



I think games are easier these days and that is going to change a game quite a lot.

But still, Yeah, I definitely think there's a lot of forgotten gems out there. Just not in their present form.



Pellefant said:

I think games are easier these days and that is going to change a game quite a lot.

But still, Yeah, I definitely think there's a lot of forgotten gems out there. Just not in their present form.

That's probably because games back then didn't have decent storylines, likeable protagonists, and stunning visuals backing them up.



Around the Network

Street Fighter IV worked right?



I like video game series revivals. I'm an old gamer, so I'm probably the only one that will notice games like Bionic Commando and Bionic Commando Rearmed... And let me say they're definitely not bad!

But hey, what's the difference between releasing a new Bionic Commando and Starcraft II? Aren't they both sequels to very old games anyways? I'm expecting Starcraft II to sell a lot because the company that did the game has a good track record building RTS games. I believe Capcom (actually GRIN... R.I.P.) only started making third-person shooters this generation. Imagine what could have been done later on!

So, my first argument is that it depends on who's developing this sequel. My second one would be how much money the publisher wants to invest on advertisement, but this one is REALLY obvious. Infamous got lots of good advertisement. The other games you mentioned? Not really. SO yes, old video game series have value depending on how much cash you want to spend! The first revival might have cost you a lot, but then if the game you released became a success, it's time to start the milking machine! Too bad this was not the case with Bionic Commando though (for the reasons I mentioned above)...!



Random game thought :
Why is Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 getting so much hate? We finally get a real game and they're not even satisfied... I'm starting to hate the gaming community so f****** much...

Watch my insane gameplay videos on my YouTube page!

Riachu said:
Pellefant said:

I think games are easier these days and that is going to change a game quite a lot.

But still, Yeah, I definitely think there's a lot of forgotten gems out there. Just not in their present form.

That's probably because games back then didn't have decent storylines, likeable protagonists, and stunning visuals backing them up.

?

Actually I was thinking of harder controls, more hardcore games (some of them were HARD, and I'm not saying it was always a good thing) and a more heavy focus on consoles now than PCs (don't tell anyone I said that last bit).

Other than that I mostly agree with you:)



Fallout 3 should pretty much answer that question for you.

If done properly and the fan-base still exists, then a new sequel will provide the hype and publicity platform to success.



The advantage old game franchises have is that they enable a game to be able to get greater name recognition and stand out more. The game then has to be able to deliver. If it doesn't then it was pointless. One of the hardest things in the business is to a franchise established with a track record. Consider Eat Lead (Matt Hazzard) for example. You can try to fake that a game is retro, but if no one knows it, it isn't going to generate sales. Compare that with Duke Nukem. Duke, on the other hand, by being Duke, ends up getting attention, and curiosity.

Key is to take the old franchise and update it for the modern era, so that people would want to play it. Pac Man: Championship Edition, would qualify. I would say 3D Bionic Commando doesn't.