Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 2735415" data-attributes="member: 13892">The questions you're asking are somewhat flawed as they assume that games succeed or fail merely based on being new to the market and/or being attached to well-known IP. This isn't alwayas the case - take Castles & Crusades, for instance.C&C has been a rousing success and, not be cause ti was new or tied to some specific property, but because it was well designed. Ditto HARP. In point of fact, both of these games specifically model older, now out of print, game systems. Neither is very revolutionary in terms of doing something new - but they both do something well. Alternately, take a look at the new LOTR RPG - the initial print run was new and tied into a crazy popular property, but support of the physical line (i.e., printed books) was dropped due to a lack of revenue generation. The first print run of LOTR was widely criticized as being chock full of errata and horrribly broken. This stigma ultimately trumped the game's appeal as 'new' and it's tie-in to a popular property.  The bottom line is that focussed and functional games win out over games that are merely 'new' and/or tied into a popular property. Games that were tied into popular IP that succeeded, did so less because they were tied into popular IP, than because they were functional. The same can be said of new games. A game that relies solely on the 'next big thing' factor to drive sales won't be popular for very long. If you want something to sell well for the long haul, worry less about being new or different - worry more about being functional. Go watch some of the 'Game of the Moment' indie-press releases... they exemplify the 'new=better' school of thought, but few of them have any lasting market impact, instead being wildly popular just until something newer comes along (a period of time that can often be measured in weeks).[Note: This isn't to say that being 'new' and 'different' or tied into IP is a bad thing, merely that neither of these things is the be all end all of commercial success that a small portion of the design community believes them to be.]</blockquote>

Verification