EA.com Discussion: Licensed Games

[Zanzibar]

This article (http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10288) discusses the unlikely success of Madagascar, an Activision title that's done extraordinarily well in many markets:

Madagascar was all but a surefire hit as a videogame property almost from the moment the license was acquired. Still, few predicted that it would be one of the titles actually driving the market in June. Activision recognized the revenue potential for the title early on and presented Dreamworks with a value proposition other than strictly being the highest bidder. The game's success was one factor that contributed to the company's recent raise in yearly guidance.

I'll gladly take some flames; I work for Toys For Bob, who developed the game. But the discussion topic is whether licensed games are good or bad for the industry. One good thing is that it keeps developers in business, and for every licensed game they make, they're usually also working on independent IPs. A bad thing would be the fact that the publishers who drive the game's developments via marketing research invariably gear the games towards the widest possible audience. Thoughts?

[DevDict]

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher's Bay is a living proof that licensed games aren't all bad.
"King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie®" sounds very promising, especially with Michael Ancel of Rayman and Beyond Good and Evil working on it.

Licensed software helps small companies to start up, which can't be bad. The industry becomes stale and requires new talents.

[B_Money]

Liscensed games draw money away from development funds and allow a publisher to make a profit on a substandard game. Occasionally a game built on a liscense will succeed, but it's mostly random chance. The ones that work succeed despite being tied to a liscence, not because of it.

[Hieremias]

A very few good exceptions notwithstanding, licensed games are for the most part crap. And they damage the industry severely. Yes they can make money, but they destroy creativity and show the company execs that the only way to turn a profit is leech onto whatever IP is currently hot. Of my top twenty favourite games ever made, NONE are licensed from movies/TV/comics.

[mister_slim]

I thought this was the most perceptive bit of the article, though it has nothing to do with licenses.
Madagascar received mostly 7s from the enthusiast press, which is about the highest score a younger-oriented title can expect to receive in today's ever-maturing gaming marketplace.

[Deadend]

Right now... I think the game industry needs to grow in new gameplay ideas more than it needs a new story twist on things.

I can like liscensided games, but when many of them are simply a mod of another game... you have problems.

If a company tries mixing up the formula in a liscensed game, they may be able to gain a reputation, and then break out and do their own IP once investors see the risk/reward ratio to be right (risk of original IP vs. reward of no royalties).

Not every publisher/dev combination is risky enough to put out God of War.

I see the liscensed games as being safe padding so the good games can be made. we only have a problem when/if the good games stopped being made.

[Ultima Thulian]

Licensed games (including Madagascar) usually suck. That is just reality. Though there have been improvements. It's not the license, hell not even the developers, it is just the publishers trying for a quick cash-in. Still, it's better than the 16 bit days though. Licensed games that is.

[Heretic Machine]

Licensed games that have been excellent in this past generation:

1. Spider-man 2
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Chronicles of Riddick
4. Lego Star Wars
5. KOTOR
6. KOTOR II
7. X-men Legends
8. The Thing

I'm sure there are many more, but these are all great games with at least some-what original gameplay in each. When done right a licensed game can be great, just as any other game has the chance to be great. It all depends on how much talent, money, and time is put into it.

[Draft]

That new Hulk game looks hot. Of course there's Goldeneye. And who can forget Ducktales? or Alladin? A licensed game has as much potential to be great as any other game.

[Evil Avatar]

Thoughts?

I think that it is totally possible to take a licensed property and make a great game out of it (Kingdom Hearts comes to mind...). It is all about money.

When Publishers like Activision are just looking to make a quick buck by cashing in on an upcoming movie and they rush the developer to make some cheezy platformer with Playstation 1 quality graphics... that isn't good for the consumer or good for the industry.

When they put a little money into it (Ultimate Spider-Man... Spider-Man (Dreamcast)... Spider-Man Movie... Spider-Man 2) then it can be fun and great for the industry.

Which can really be said about non-licensed games as well as licensed titles.

[Ultima Thulian]

Exactly. Licensed games aren't different from any other game that is requires time and care to make fun. Here's hoping licensed based games get even better.

[Spigot]

I agree. Licensed games aren't inherently the problem. It's BAD licensed games that still sell well that are the problem. The above list of good licensed games from this generation shows that with a bit of effort a developer can rise above the usual shlock.

It is a fine line though. I wish the gaming public was more discerning in general with their tastes so that they would buy a game based on how good it was, independent from the license or lack thereof. It doesn't have to be an M-rated game or anything. Just good.

I was playing some Batman: Vengeance at work the other day and kept thinking that it was a total squandering of an awesome property (as it's based on the WB version of Batman). It looked like the cartoon did, but the gameplay was terribly subpar.

Ah well. If devs are using the games as money generators for good games, that's almost pardonable. If they're just lining their pockets and continuing to spew out bad title after bad title... well, eventually it should catch up to them.

I will say that this generation has probably had a much higher good games to crap ratio with regards to licensed properties than the previous ones. It used to be that licensed games equaled landfill. At least they're not all horrible (and are sometimes better than the movies that inspired them).

[Zanzibar]

I agree. Licensed games aren't inherently the problem. It's BAD licensed games that still sell well that are the problem. The above list of good licensed games from this generation shows that with a bit of effort a developer can rise above the usual shlock.
(...)
If devs are using the games as money generators for good games, that's almost pardonable. If they're just lining their pockets and continuing to spew out bad title after bad title... well, eventually it should catch up to them.


And it does. I previously worked for a company that went under a few years ago after churning out three licensed games. They got exponentially worse in quality as the owner had dwindling interest in making good games and loads of interest in garnering a nice house and a yacht out of the company's lucrative contracts.

[*Legion*]

Liscensed games draw money away from development funds

Do you KNOW what you're talking about, or just pulling crap out of your ass?

Licensed games also sell well and infuse the industry with more money to spend. Much like mindless blockbuster movies bring in the money that funds movies with narrower appeal.

[EGO]

I agree that licenses can be good and I think it's silly for people to down a game just because its a license. Yeah a bunch of them are crap but so are A LOT of games, the difference is that we just don't hear about those crap games because they're some NO NAME original game.

I'd also like to add to the list of great license games some old school games:

1. Batman (NES/Sega)
2. Micky Mouse: Castle of Illusion (Sega)
3. Aladdin (SNES/Sega)
4. Star Wars (Arcade)
5. Dune (PC/Amiga)
6. Sam & Max (PC)
7. Marvel Superheroes (Arcade)
8. Cool Spot (SNES/Sega)
9. BC's Quest for Tires (C64/Atari/Colecovision)
10. Enter the Matrix... just kidding... let's go with Crue Ball (Sega) to make an even 10.

[TrackZero]

I thought this was the most perceptive bit of the article, though it has nothing to do with licenses.

Hrm yeah, that is a good observation.

[Draft]

Oh man, forgot all about Dune. Licensed game invents a whole genre!

[nonchalance]

Of my top twenty favourite games ever made, NONE are licensed from movies/TV/comics.

How many are D&D based? Or based on pen & paper RPGs, or card games, or novels?

(This isn't just you, Hieremias, but yours made a good quote.)


Why, in all these licensed games lists, does no-one mention Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Vampire: Bloodlines, any of the Magic: TG games, Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War, Space Hulk, or even Pokemon?
How about the old Gold Box games so adored by the hardcore worldwide?

Do WW2 games fall under the same category?
Is the Battle for Normandy just as uncreative a choice for setting as, say, The Incredibles? After all, you've got your pre-created audience, you've got your plotline already laid out for you, major engagements and even a fair few characters done.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that all a game license really does is make more people pay attention to the game.
If you like Thing X, you are more likely to check out a box that says Thing X on it.

[Zanzibar]

I thought this was the most perceptive bit of the article, though it has nothing to do with licenses.

Originally Posted by The article
Madagascar received mostly 7s from the enthusiast press, which is about the highest score a younger-oriented title can expect to receive in today's ever-maturing gaming marketplace.

Yeah, I agree with that. Some of Madagascar's reviews were 'I really had a good time, the gameplay was a lot of fun, the characters looked just like the movie and it's a really excellent game for the kids. But, since I'm not a kid, I'll give it a 6 out of 10.'

To be fair, though, our game was really short for anyone who had a decent amount of gaming experience, so it would be tough for an actual game reviewer to take into account that the game was really geared towards first-time game players.

My guess is that game reviewers draw straws with each other as to 'who gets to review the kiddie game,' so we're already up against the wall to get a good review out of them. They'd rather be reviewing 'God of War' or 'GTA:SA' for an engaging, mature experience.

[H.Bogard]

there should be licenses for World War 2............-_-

[Rangoth]

I sooo want the new Hulk game!

[Spigot]

How many are D&D based? Or based on pen & paper RPGs, or card games, or novels?

Do WW2 games fall under the same category?


I think that in the case of RPG settings, you have a framework for how the world works but the dev has to come up with a story and (possibly) gameplay to fit it. There also isn't really the built-in mainstream appeal for D&D-based things as opposed to the game based on brand new movie X. Sure, the geek crowd loves it and it is slowly making headway into mainstream culture as more of the people who grew up playing it, well, grow up.

Games based on RPG licenses are also different from something based on a movie, TV show or even book as the RPG license has a game as its basis.

With regards to WW2 games, that's a grey area. You have games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor that use it to really suck you into the history. You also have games like Brothers In Arms which is incredibly focused on the story.

Then you have your Wolfensteins and such that just use it as set dressing for a shooter. That's not necessarily bad. Just not the same kind of treatment you get from the former games.

[jeffool]

there should be licenses for World War 2............-_-I agree. And it should cost a billion dollars to license it.

[Deadend]

Ok, so we are now Counting WW2 as a license as it falls into the catagory, as do RPGs based on Pen and Paper, or ANY game liscensed. Not too sure about WW2 however.

It is a bitch about how games for kids have a naturally lowered score.
Licesnend games also have a lowered score, as people expect shit coming in.

But, Childrens games NEED to be pre-existing IP to get anywhere.

I think a pre-existing setting is probably a good thing for most studios, as it puts some limitations on what can and cannot be done, it also works faster for it as opposed to creating a whole new world and setting. That could take more time as well. Right now, don't games take almost 2 years to create from idea to store shelves? The next gen is supposed to be even longer... so that means many studios may only put out 3 games over the X360 lifespan (assuming a game takes 2-3 years to make, and some things can be devloped by diffrent people (finishing up one game while the base concepts of the next are being built)). That means games will be even higher risk, with higher cost, and higher dev time.

Taking a risk on a new IP AND gameplay at the same time is risky then, and it would take longer to try and get the money back due to the longer dev time. I think licensed games will become more common this generation.

[nonchalance]

I think that in the case of RPG settings, you have a framework for how the world works but the dev has to come up with a story and (possibly) gameplay to fit it.

No more so than most movie tie-ins.
In fact, the D&D games already have underlying game rules, and often the story is pre-written, as with most of the Gold Box games.
All the work is not done, I'm certainly not saying that - but Madagascar is not just dropping the movie into a GBA cartridge, either.

There also isn't really the built-in mainstream appeal for D&D-based things as opposed to the game based on brand new movie X. Sure, the geek crowd loves it and it is slowly making headway into mainstream culture as more of the people who grew up playing it, well, grow up.

Any game with the D&D license has at least the pre-built audience as any game with the Star Wars license, or a Pixar license. Not in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of game purchasing power.

The difference, I guess, is that the D&D license audience are much less forgiving, and are impossible to satisfy, unlike the Madagascar crowd, or the Shrek crowd.

Games based on RPG licenses are also different from something based on a movie, TV show or even book as the RPG license has a game as its basis.

Yeah. They're easier.

With regards to WW2 games, that's a grey area. You have games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor that use it to really suck you into the history. You also have games like Brothers In Arms which is incredibly focused on the story.

Then you have your Wolfensteins and such that just use it as set dressing for a shooter. That's not necessarily bad. Just not the same kind of treatment you get from the former games.

Exactly.
Just like the Star Wars games, where you have the real story-based games (Revenge of the Sith, etc), the MMORPG that has nigh-on nothing to do with the movies (SW: Galaxies), the games that use the setting as dressing for space dogfights (Rogue Squadron) or shooters (Dark Forces), and so on.

[Player 1]

I think, what a lot of vocal, dedicated gamers forget is that they DON'T represent gamers as a whole. They're the minority. The major demographic is one set by those casual gamers who will buy the licence of the moment, sport game of the moment and the next edition of Who Wants To Be A Millionnaire. We aren't the profitable demographic, we're the minority. Once you've got a better sense of perspective the movements of the industry make a lot more sense.

Licences are good. Their cash flow is bread and butter for the industry. For both developers, publishers, budding programmers and people aching to get into the industry. Eidos - big licence publisher also published Deus Ex.

The licenced games aren't always bad, but they're nearly always directed at a demographic that doesn't include gamers like us. It's understandable that games like Madagascar don't interest us when there's stuff like God of War we could be playing. Those *in* that target demographic will more than likely love it. I have a niece and nephew, aged 7 and 5 respectively, they have their own GBAs and also a PS2, they watch cartoons, love movies like Madagascar and have endless amounts of fun on games like Polly Pocket and Spongebob Squarepants. They love them, their parents are happy they've not wasted their money. Who's losing out? Nobody. Conversely, the look at me playing Fire Emblem on my GBA and tell me that it looks 'really boring'.

Kids are great educators :)

[epyon]

Personally, imo the problem isn't so much the license, but making a good game out of it. Some have been good (Golden Eye 007), but far too many have been bad (Golden Eye: Rogue Agent). It seems to me that EA makes license games to pretty much capitalize on the license, but many times don't make good games out of it or over milk it, like 007 in both regards.

[splatstick]

DRUNK POST represent (i out-drank a marine and his brtoher fuck you)

[Knite]

BTW, this hasn't been said yet...
Toys for Bob, I love you guys =P

Licenced games aren't the problem. Publishers rushing out games with half fleshed out ideas, and altering the core dynamics that the designers wanted to implement ARE the problem. Licences just mean that game has a bigger radar signature because it's a name people recognize, so when it bombs, people notice. Most bombs no one knows existed in the first place.

As it's been said before, there HAVE been good licenced games, so it's not the licence that makes the game good or bad, but the work and allowance to do that work behind it.

[The_Reckoning]

The only licensed game even HAVE is Dawn Of War, and as you should know, that's just licensed from a different kind of game.

I suppose the X-Men beat em' up on the PS1 was allright, it kept me entertained as a kid.

And there are a few good Star Wars ones, like JK and KoToR, but then again, there are just SO MANY Star Wars games, that at least a few have to be decent.

[EGO]

Reviewers are assmonkies.

Toys for Bob rule.

Licensed games can be good.

There are as many bad no-name games as licensed games.

Originals make companies/people stars but licensed games sell.

So there! :p

[Ultima Thulian]

Reviewers are assmonkies.

Toys for Bob rule.

Licensed games can be good.

There are as many bad no-name games as licensed games.

Originals make companies/people stars but licensed games sell.

So there! :p

You obviosly wasn't around suring the 8bit/16bit era. Trust me when I say the licensed games outnumbered the bad non-licensed games. Trust me on that! And yes, during those times all licensed games (except for a few Star Wars games) were bad. Don't even make mention the Total Recall game...ughh..

[fitbabits]

I think that any license in the right hands has the potential to be innovative and successful. Take Chronicles of Riddick – Escape From Butcher Bay for example. Horrible movie – great game. This was down to the work that Starbreeze put into the game. Can you imaging if Electronic Arts (saying as how they are renowned more for licensed games than anything else) got hold of it?

You also have to look at other licenses as well, not just movie-related. Tom Clancy springs to mind here. The games that have been released under the Tom Clancy banner have all been commercial and critical successes.

Then there’s the myriad sports licenses, etc.

So for me the bottom line is this – entrust a license to a developer who cares about it and you’ll have a better chance of critical success. Entrust a license to a bunch of bean counters and you’ll most likely end up with a game that is glossy and under-developed (Batman Begins, Madden, etc.).

[flyinj]

The saddest part of this article is it's about Toys for Bob.

When the guys that gave us Archon, Star Control 1 and 2 and Unholy War, are forced to make nothing but average licensed dreck for the past 6-7 years to get by, something is chronically flawed in the industry.

If there is any clearer indication that license dependency by publisheers is utterly destroying creativity in the industry, this is it.

[RMan]

Although I wouldn't want to work on one, licensed properties aren't inherently bad. Publisher’s dependency on them are really a symptom of a larger problem, which is we really don’t have that great of methods of creating awareness, so piggybacking on another product or event’s (in the case of WW2 games) mindshare is far cheaper than doing your own big marketing campaign. For me licensed products are no worse than a continuous stream of pretty similar sequels, and that’s the symptom of the same problem. I think there’s also another often overlooked element and that’s that licensed games are usually much simpler games (and the public is conditioned to expect them to be), and the general public really likes simpler games they can just jump in and have fun with (not a bad thing).

[Mason]

Madagascar received mostly 7s from the enthusiast press, which is about the highest score a younger-oriented title can expect to receive in today's ever-maturing gaming marketplace.

I disagree with this. Nintendo has given plenty examples of how to make games that are truly for all ages. There are 7 year olds and 27 year olds who are equally crazy about the new Link game. So yes, you can make games with broad age appeal that the critics like.

If you make a game (or a movie) exclusively for kids of that age, with fart jokes and a G-rated license, you have to expect that adult gamers and reviewers are going to take a dim view of it. This isn't because these are games that kids can play, but rather they are games that only kids would ever want to play. And given that there are plenty of high-quality games made for people of all ages (although, frighteningly, they lack a Pixar/Dreamworks/Disney license to let parents know to buy them!), games made exclusively for kids have some hefty competition to live up to. Take your 7s with pride, that's a compliment from any honest reviewer.

[Praetor-Vong]

I'm kind of wondering about anime. Titles that are geared towards later teen plus age categories. There's lots of anime titles that would be great for games. There's some that even look all that 'anime-ish'. I personally am a anime freak and would like to see more games created. If it's a question of story, there seriously is no need to worry. Titles (anime) touch into every genre and can be translated well into any genre (games). True, some are not mass market appeal, but I think there is enough of a market that could cater rather well for niche titles. And I'm not just talking about importing Japanese stuff either. I would love to see a states side publisher with states side dev team working together to get some good stuff out there.

Just my two cetns though.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'm kind of wondering about anime. Titles that are geared towards later teen plus age categories. There's lots of anime titles that would be great for games. There's some that even look all that 'anime-ish'. I personally am a anime freak and would like to see more games created. If it's a question of story, there seriously is no need to worry. Titles (anime) touch into every genre and can be translated well into any genre (games). True, some are not mass market appeal, but I think there is enough of a market that could cater rather well for niche titles. And I'm not just talking about importing Japanese stuff either. I would love to see a states side publisher with states side dev team working together to get some good stuff out there.

Just my two cetns though.

Many games have an anime art style but not really based on an anime. Final Fantasy 7 is proof of that. So you kinda get the kickass anime games right from the getgo depending on your perspective. As for licensed anime, the reason most of that sucks is because of Bandai. For those unfamiliar with them, they are kinda like a Japanese version of Acclaim that they publish quick cash-ins instead of quality products. The only good game with the Bandai name on it that I can think of is Lumines, and it's not a licensed game. Go figure.

[mister_slim]

I disagree with this. Nintendo has given plenty examples of how to make games that are truly for all ages. There are 7 year olds and 27 year olds who are equally crazy about the new Link game. So yes, you can make games with broad age appeal that the critics like.
But Zelda isn't really that entry-level a game. The interface is not that intuitive and the gameplay still relies on a lot of conventions for problem-solving.

Look at the real entry level games, like Kirby's Air Ride. It wasn't reviewed for the target audience.

[Ultima Thulian]

Or any Mario game. Everyone loves mario. I think Manhunt is a good kids game to too. It might be gruesome, but'll toughen them little shits up. :)