mclem said:
(Side point: If we assume the DS has a similar audience to the Wii, how come the iterative Layton sequels *haven't* shown such a decline that the EEDAR report was pointing out?)
Concept-based games don't (generally) benefit from content-based sequels. Content-based games do benefit from content-based sequels.
Games that are short, linear, and consumable would be considered content-based. Games that are based on arcade-style replay value, replaying for skill, open-ended goals, etc. would be considered concept-based.
What would Animal Crossing DS 2 add? More hairstyles? More furniture? More room in your town? How does this represent a $30 value over what Animal Crossing DS 1 gives owners? Ditto Mario Kart Wii 2; more tracks? Really? What percentage of owners out there have played so many hours of MKWii that their issue at this point is that there aren't enough tracks or drivers and the same game with new or different content would really help? The people who have bought, played, and eventually stopped playing these games didn't do so because they exhausted the content, they did so because they exhausted the concept.
On the other hand, someone plays through Layton. They get to the end. Not everyone gets to the end, of course, but some do. Those people know the plot twist. They know the answers to the puzzles. What do they do now? Well, Layton 2 might be more of the same, but that's the point, because you've exhausted what you have. Eventually, though, as we see in something like Mega Man on NES, players fail to exhaust the content and further sequels need something newer. I'd also maybe consider Ratchet as emblematic of this.
Some exceptions to this; some content-based games have so much content that they're not well suited for sequels because the vast majority of players don't exhaust the content. This idea was floated many times in terms of justifying the GTA4 DLCs relative lack of popularity--the idea was that the target audience is inherently limited by basically being people who finished GTA4 and wanted more and that's a small audience.
Second, some concept-based games are actually content-exhausted. Wii Fit Plus, EA Sports Active More Workouts, Brain Age 2--these are all predicated on the audience having exhausted the content in the original titles before exhausting the concept.
Rhythm games seem to be a hybrid. They relying on you replaying over and over and over again like a concept game, but the actual songs themselves get exhausted like a content game. Sports games are unusual because they also act as a hybrid; the content is this years team and players (and to a lesser extent the incremental feature set)--which encourages annual sequels--the concept remains mostly the same because I don't think most people could argue that NHL 2k6 and NHL 2k11 are going to be manifestly different games.
Maybe grouping games into groups is a bad idea here--maybe it makes more sense to say that "Games require sequels when their content is exhausted but their concept is not. Games do not require sequels when their concept is exhausted but their content isn't."?
This is one of the reasons why I think many developers, publishers, and platform holders like new platforms. With new platforms, there's a relative reset. Concept based games can get a new installment. Content based games that have puttered out can get new installments.
(all of these terms are terms I just invented, if you feel like other names fit this better feel free to change them in any replies, I'm not wed to anything here)
:
