Poll: Poll: Why are we seeing so many reboots?
- Thread starter tehwalrus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't do multi-votes?
Anyway I would say it's hollywood syndrome, but... video games are far more creative and still are.
Anyway I would say it's hollywood syndrome, but... video games are far more creative and still are.
Generally it's a new IP dressed up as an old IP because those just plainly sell better, so it ends up in a comedic mix and match that makes no real sense.
And yes it does share a lot with movie reboots in that regard.
And yes it does share a lot with movie reboots in that regard.
I don't mind reboots. Sometimes the stories reach the end and leave us wanting more.
It's nice to enjoy them again in newer (and hopefully better) entries.
It's nice to enjoy them again in newer (and hopefully better) entries.
I think this stems from the sames reason we see so many freaking reboots in the theaters these days as well. They are "safe". Publishers (and movie studios) feel that there is a guaranteed audience comprised of old fans feeling nostalgic, people who missed the wagon the first time but recognize the appeal and want in on it again, and the simple logic that if it was successful once it will be again to the people who have no idea what it is.
The fact is, by an large, this is true and it works.. for now.
Companies are risk adverse, and money hungry. Reboots are a safe bet with low risk/high yield (at least that is the expectation) and allows them to min/max in a tough economy.
Quite honestly it pisses me off with movies, and if gaming keeps it up much longer that's going to annoy me as well. At least with games it's something interactive, so they have a lot more they can "do with" the reboot, rather than just rehash an old story with current gen top billing actors like they do in the movies. All that's doing though is buying them a bit more time before people get fed up though, at least that's my opinion.
The fact is, by an large, this is true and it works.. for now.
Companies are risk adverse, and money hungry. Reboots are a safe bet with low risk/high yield (at least that is the expectation) and allows them to min/max in a tough economy.
Quite honestly it pisses me off with movies, and if gaming keeps it up much longer that's going to annoy me as well. At least with games it's something interactive, so they have a lot more they can "do with" the reboot, rather than just rehash an old story with current gen top billing actors like they do in the movies. All that's doing though is buying them a bit more time before people get fed up though, at least that's my opinion.
Economy is a bad excuse for big game companies. They generally still get tens of millions in profit from each game. Such companies make hundreds of millions or even billions in profit a year overall. In other words they get plenty of money. If they are terrible at managing it, that's their fault not the economy's fault.Darken12 said:
The problem is that big companies tend to be under greater profit expectations. AAA development is very expensive, and needs a lot of investment (particularly when it comes with new hardware development, as not all of the videogame industry revolves around software). Great investments demand great returns, and the tighter the economy is, the less investment there is and the greater the demanded returns are (because a recession makes all investments riskier, and increased risk demands increased returns).sanquin said:
I'm not condoning them, by the way. I'm merely explaining why they do what they do. The more money a company makes, the more pressure to make even more money it's under, as everyone latches onto it like ticks and seeks to jump in on "the next big thing" that will secure them steady profits.
It doesn't excuse a lack of creativity, an avoidance of risks or unethical business practices, but pressure drives people to make unpleasant decisions.
This is what i was going to say.Darken12 said:
While i have nothing against reboots . And i can see why sometimes they are cool . I just find that they reek of unoriginality and using the name of a series to ensure sales . There is no reason why a reboot couldn't be a new IP, other than the fact that new IPs bring risk , and slapping an old and popular name on the cover ensures that the game sells .
You do realize that "profit" means all the money they earn -after- they earned back all of their expenses right? So say a game costs 20,000,000 to make, and they get a total of 45,000,000 from sales. That means they would still have 25 mil in profit. And what is that money used for? It's 'extra' money...I doubt all of it goes into a new game as budgets haven't risen that high yet.Darken12 said:
Originality is overrated. If it's original and a bad idea, no one cares. They'll perpetually complain it should have been like everything else. If it's original and a good idea, everybody else will do it until it becomes monotonous and then people will complain no one does anything original anymore. Reboots are risky but they're acceptably risky. In my opinion, different is better than original. Furthermore, a popular name doesn't ensure sales. If Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Tomb Raider, etc. were done terribly for example, they would end up more akin to Superman Returns. Maybe not bad but certainly not good enough to continue.krazykidd said:
You're simplifying things a bit, (gross profit vs. net profit - software is almost always a high gross, low net profit industry) but your point is in essence correct; however, I think the initial point was that the wider the profit margin, the more likely the publisher is going to be willing to re-invest into the franchise.sanquin said:
I really don't care about reboots. I just hate that they all use the title of the original game. They should just add a generic subtitle, like "Zero" or "Origins."
When the canon is already raped into oblivious insanity, a 'reboot' is pretty much the only way to leave all the nonsense behind.
It's currently also pretty much the only way to get financial backing and support from the powers above. It's risky to come up with a new IP that sticks, and hardly anyone is willing to take that risk. The money doesn't care what it's being thrown at, the folks that invest in something just want to get it back - and then some.
LOOK! IT'S A REBOOT OF SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS!
http://americandigest.org/saddpony.jpg
It's currently also pretty much the only way to get financial backing and support from the powers above. It's risky to come up with a new IP that sticks, and hardly anyone is willing to take that risk. The money doesn't care what it's being thrown at, the folks that invest in something just want to get it back - and then some.
LOOK! IT'S A REBOOT OF SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS!
http://americandigest.org/saddpony.jpg
Amen to that. Also, I would like that be applied to all the movies they keep ruining. Take Total Recall v2.0 or any of that other crap. Then again, bear in mind that the whole nomenclature business is strictly non-scientific and does not seem to follow any rules. I found myself actually looking forward to the reboot origin version of The Thing, only having to realize that they remade it in a much, much less appealing, rather bland and braindead form. It's a crap movie on its own, and it pisses gleefully on the original. Can't have that. They must all burn in the $5 bin hell.MajorTomServo said:
Is it just me or am I struggling to come up with any reboots besides Tomb Raider and DMC in the last year or so? I"m probably wrong but besides them I can't think of any other recent ones so I'm not sure how you are seeing so many (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, I most likely am).
I'm just concerned that with the ever-increasing flow of reboots, we're gonna have less and less new IPs. Which in turn will most likely prevent a new monster-hit IP (like, say, Star Wars just to demonstrate) from being made. But yes, I get that sometimes a series goes so long and gets so complicated that it's hard for new people to get aboard.
A familiar loved brand is guaranteed to increase sales for a game, so publishers prefer to keep using those old IPs instead of making new ones. Some of these reboots have little to do with the original franchise (like Tomb Raider), because they were initially supposed to be the start of new franchises.
it depends, when done right like the recent Tomb Raider or DMC, reboots are just what some franchises need to get a breath of fresh air for the old fans and its a way to get people that have never played a game from that series before interested in it while getting a new jumping on point without having to bother with all the old stuff
besides some games desperately need it (Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, Onimusha, Mega Man X, etc.) so gamers shouldn't shun at the idea or we might never see another one again or a god awful sequel, which in my opinion is much worse than a reboot
besides some games desperately need it (Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, Onimusha, Mega Man X, etc.) so gamers shouldn't shun at the idea or we might never see another one again or a god awful sequel, which in my opinion is much worse than a reboot