Why Licensed Games SHOULD NOT be Good
I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard that licensed games and crossover games disappoint. ‘Oh god, not another movie game, it’s going to be terrible!’ ‘Why are they making a Superman game, everybody knows Superman is too powerful to be a good videogame character.’ ‘Shaq-Fu and Michael Jackson’s Moonwalker were the best games of all time! OF ALL TIME!’ Ok, so maybe that last one is just me, but the point is gamers are constantly dismayed at the low quality of licensed games. They lament the abuse their favorite superheroes, action stars and movie franchises receive at the hands of videogames.
They’re just being naïve. I want to explore why we should expect licensed games to be terrible, and it’s completely illogical that they would be anything but shovelware.
Profit = Revenue – Cost
Not every game has to be a Halo-sized juggernaut. You don’t have to sell 5 million copies of a game to make money. Just ask Popcap. If you have low costs, then fewer sales can put you into the black. This much is fairly obvious. They have good games, however, whereas licensed games are generally terrible, and it’s equally obvious that a terrible game isn’t going to sell like Plants vs. Zombies. So why can licensed games get away with it?
Best game ... of all time!
Popular License = Installed Base
You can’t tell me that nobody is going to see a Star Wars movie if it’s terrible. Even if it’s the worst thing of all time, and most of the action is claymation or sock puppets, there are going to be a significant number of die hard fans who give it a shot.
It’s much the same with videogames. There’s a guaranteed install base with an X-Men game, and the question I need to answer if I’m the publisher is whether I’m going to spend a ton of money making a great game that will augment this existing strong franchise and create a truly compelling experience, or if I should put out a cheap piece of crap that will sucker in enough day 1 buyers to make money. Unfortunately, most publishers lean towards door number 2.
We should expect licensed games to be terrible because there’s good financial reason for them to be terrible. Games like Batman: Arkham Asylum are so surprising and notable because they’re the exception to the rule, not the blueprint for how to do things. It’s more surprising to me that the developers took such a risk with a high budget game on such a well known franchise, and while they (thankfully) got lucky with Batman, in the future that might be the blueprint to financial ruin.
The next time you hear about an exciting looking licensed game, know that there is every reason for a developer to skimp on effort and investment, and if you’re becoming excited about it you’re essentially hoping that the developer is foolish.
I’m interested in your thoughts on the matter. Hit up the comments!
