2009: Gamers snub new IPs 126 new IPs in 2009, yet only 7 hits

The Divnich Debrief: New IP Up 106% Since 2007

by Jesse Divnich

Beginning in 2006, gamers started to complain about the lack of fresh, new properties in the video game space and professionals began to forecast an industry slump if publishers didn’t focus on creating new brands to support future growth. Publishers listened and promised consumers that new games were around the corner. And guess what? They kept their promise!

From 2006 to 2009, the market share of new intellectual properties on the seventh generation home platforms grew from 16% to 22%, which may seem insignificant, but in absolute terms there were 61 new properties introduced in 2007, while 2009 had 126 --a 106% increase in new intellectual properties being introduced since 2007 on the next-generation home consoles.

So there you go gamers, you got what you wished for, more new intellectual properties! So why did 2009 feel like such a lackluster year in terms of new properties? It’s because most new intellectual properties fail to meet our expectations.

Case in point: Of the 126 new properties that launched in 2009 on the home consoles, only 7 reached “hit” status. Furthermore, of the 7 that succeeded, it will still take a sequel before the brand can grow to blockbuster status. (I understand “hit” and “blockbuster” status are subjective terms, but in my world, blockbuster > hit.) Additionally, if you want to remove “sales” as determination of quality, of the 9 retail games released in 2009 that received an aggregate review score of 90 or higher, none were considered new intellectual properties. And 2008 had only one: LittleBigPlanet.

The point, I believe, has a lot to do with a misconception or communication breakdown between consumers and publishers. When we see the same game being released year-in and year-out with little being done to improve or increase the game’s features, we show our dissatisfaction with our pocket books. Publishers and other industry professionals take that as a sign that the best strategy is to create new properties to replace the stalling ones. This leads to a publisher launching four new properties, but three of them will likely fail and be unprofitable. And for the one that does succeed, publishers instantly begin to think about how quickly they can extract profits from this new property; this mentality, of course, leads to problems such as feature stagnation, which ultimately causes the new brand to go stale, bringing us right back to the beginning!

I believe the lackluster sales from peaked existing properties has more to do with a failure to innovate than the brands themselves getting stale. When a publisher creates a new hit franchise, the company should be thinking about how best to elongate its popularity, rather than how to extract its riches as fast as possible.

Blizzard comes to mind as an exemplary developer. Blizzard has not launched a new property in over 12 years, yet they contribute over $1 billion a year to Activision’s top-line. And if things continue to go well with StarCraft II and Diablo III in 2010/2011, they will likely not launch another new property until 2014—16 years between the launches of new properties! Of course, Blizzard operates off a different economic model than a typical retail packaged goods publisher, but their business strategy is something to take note of. When Blizzard comes across a new successful property, they treat it the same way farmers treat their land; they nourish the soil and carefully cultivate the crops to ensure the land stays healthy for the next season. The opposite of this strategy is best reserved for nomadic Barbarians; when they come across a rich land, they drain its resources, pack up, and begin to forage for new resources. Rinse and Repeat. Sound familiar? I am no anthropologist, but I am pretty sure farming beat out the hunting-gathering strategy centuries ago

I'm about 50-50, though I think what's interesting is that most of the new IPs that I played were on the DSi while all of my sequels and spinoffs were on the Wii.  The only new sequels I spent a lot of time with on the DSi were DQV, Kingdom Hearts, and Professor Layton.  Maybe one or two others.

Then on the Wii most of what I played were existing properties.  The only exceptions there were Madworld, Deadly Creatures, and aside from some WiiWare, I think that's it.  

Okay scratch that.  Let's say 60-40 in favor of existing IPs.

Iga_Bobovic said:

God dammit, fix your colours, I can't hardly read it.

It's the source material, I wouldn't deliberatly make things black.

As for me I'd say I was about 50/50 when it came to new IP in 2009, maybe 60/40 with 60 being existing IP. I have a feeling that if I go and check it will be more sided to existing.

Dvader said:

I play it all, I assume I play more sequels just cause there are more sequels than anything else.

So what ratio would you be?

gamingeek said:

Who the hell is voting down this thread?

*whistles

Not me!

*runs away 

So back to the question.

Why do you feel you buy in the ratios you do?

Do existing IPs make you feel more comfortable?

Do new IPs seem exciting or like a risk?

aspro said:

^For me. I buy 7 to 3 out of ten original IP.  Mostly because I appreciate new content and can spot it when it comes out, from my reading on this site and other meadi inputs.

New IP's do give me a sense of risk, but also it's kind of charity on my part, like I'm giving back to the gaming industry and telling them it's okay to try new things.  I'm not as much of an activist in this area as I used to be, but still I do pay full price for content I think needs to be encouraged.

That's an interesting thought, support through cash.