Holy sequelitis, Batman!

My thoughts exactly. How can you even do a sequel to deadspace? it feels blasphemous/milking the cash cow

Here's what Gamasutra News Director Leigh Alexander wrote on Dec. 7, 2009, about the announcement of Dead Space 2:

...

"Like so many gamers worldwide, we love the Dead Space franchise and are very excited to announce a new game in the series," says EA senior VP and group general manager Nick Earl.

It's been widely-known EA aimed to make a franchise out of the original game, grooming Dead Space as one of its core intellectual properties. A Wii-only prequel, Dead Space Extraction, launched late in September of this year.

(Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26399/EA_Visceral_Games_Confirm_Dead_Space_2.
php )

...

In other words, the suits at EA have decreed that Dead Space will be a franchise property, and lo, they labor mightily to persuade gamers that it is so.

Have games really gotten so expensive to make that you have to assume people will want a sequel -- and start planning it -- before the hard numbers are even in on the original game?

Actually, I partially take my comment back. I noticed at the end of the article that there's a new game coming from Epic that they're publishing via EA Partners. I actually give props to EA Partners as they've provided distribution for a bunch of great games.

However... This doesn't make up for the fact that EA is announcing a slew of sequels and ports without mentioning any internally developed new IP. I hope that getting somewhat burned on Spore, Dead Space, and Mirror's Edge hasn't made them too wary of doing another original game sometime in the near future (beyond Dante's Inferno).

(Full disclosure, I work as an engineer at EA - though my comments are mostly as a consumer and not related to any insider knowledge and any subjectivity ... hopefully)

Regarding Bart's comment: "Have games really gotten so expensive to make that you have to assume people will want a sequel -- and start planning it -- before the hard numbers are even in on the original game?"

Yeah, games are expensive but mostly if you need time for designers to flesh out a sequel as preproduction, it's likely going to be before the main game is finished - let alone before it hits store shelves and sales numbers come back. Then with a larger company there's the whole fiscal strategy that needs to be planned... etc etc. The sooner the better and all that.

Regardless, it's clear that EA wanted Dead Space to stand as an IP with a rock solid foundation - and this is as a gametrailers observer that isn't even into survivor horror. It seems like they put a lot of effort into the backstory, lore, world, whatever you may call it. Unlike the average console game, Visceral looked like it was selling the idea, not just the game. Similar to something like Bioshock, this is the kind of stuff that you can make movies out of.

I like this risky methodology when developers are putting in more effort up front in a new IP to pay off in the higher quality sequels. That's good for the company and good for us as gamers, too - but if the first game tanks ... .... ...

@Steven: Pardon the cliche, but that sounds like putting the cart before the horse. I understand planning for a sequel before the first game ships. But to immediately go into production for a sequel without knowing if the first game merits it? Sure this is great if it pays off. But if it doesn't, you're going to be hit with two losses in a row. Ouch!

Plus does every game have to be a franchise? Do we need a sequel for every good game out there?

I'm not sure what the answer is to either of those questions. But it's definitely something I think we need to consider in our industry.

Steve, thanks for the comment to my question (which was a serious one; I wasn't just being snarky).

I think the comic book prequel is additional evidence that EA execs intended Dead Space to be a multi-media franchise property from the get-go.

But I can't help but feel Josh is right: what's the real downside of waiting after releasing an original game to find out whether that game will be enough of a success that gamers won't laugh out loud at the presumption of announcing a sequel? In other words, is the potential opportunity cost of delaying (by several months) the release of a sequel to a popular game really greater than the actual cost of rushing to make a sequel that underperforms because the original game was not a hit?

One other point that might argue against presumptively giving some IP the "franchise property" treatment is specific to large publisher/developer houses like EA. One benefit of being as big as EA or Sony is that your occasional hits can subsidize the games that don't do as well. Obviously you'd love for every game to be a hit, but the reality is that some won't be. Having a large stable of games allows for (or ought to allow for) a higher level of experimentation and innovation -- or to put it another way, more "successful failures" -- than a small studio that lives or dies on the revenue from a single property.

On balance, it seems more reasonable to me, given that we're talking about trying to figure out what will entertain a fickle mass market of consumers, for an EA to milk its known hit properties while subsidizing the development of one or two experimental new properties per year to try to find (not manufacture) new hit properties. I'd say that backing Mirror's Edge fits that model, and I give EA credit for it.

What puzzles me is preemptively deciding that one of these new properties will turn out to be a hit -- given the reality of the marketplace, are EA execs really that sure they have the gift of knowing what's going to go big? Or do they think they can somehow force a new property to become a hit through the magic of marketing?

(WARNING SPOILERS!)

@Andre Gagne -

Dead Space 2 is totally plausible as the Marker at the end of the first Dead Space is just a Earth made copy of the original Marker found by the government/Religious people. So where is the original Marker? What happened to it? There is a story to be told I think so Dead Space 2 is OK with me.

@Bart "One benefit of being as big as EA or Sony is that your occasional hits can subsidize the games that don't do as well. Obviously you'd love for every game to be a hit, but the reality is that some won't be. Having a large stable of games allows for (or ought to allow for) a higher level of experimentation and innovation -- or to put it another way, more "successful failures"

This is exactly what EA do not want to do now. They tried that and in the process became a horribly bloated games publishing behemoth churning out any game regardless of whether they made a ROI or not. That's all gone now thanks to the credit markets shutting up. It's all about the franchise now and making a guaranteed return. I would not expect any innovation from the major players if it involves risk now especially if they have to report to shareholders every quarter. These companies have finally woken up to the fact they are owned by someone else and they do not have the money to throw down the drain anymore on a wim. I would not be surprised if the majority of Natal titles will all be some kind of 'sequel' to existing franchises. Any innovation will come from indie titles (assuming they can get the financing for it so I am not going to hold my breath on that one either). As the first poster it's Sequelitis from now on and anyone expecting anything different will be sorely disappointed.