It's funny -- the problem you present is the opposite of the problem that vexed Sega, in that there is no "core" franchise that is being overly milked. There are obviously a ton of differences in their situations (in that Sega, for instance, is not doing the opposite of producing two or three quality games a year and Sega only does software now), but while people are getting sick of the same old thing from the "faces" of Nintendo, Sega has no face.

I wonder who is striking the right branding balance of keeping the franchise strong & innovative, yet not oversaturating the brand in the public eye. Blizzard comes to mind and so does Valve.

Yeah - unfortunately, the public face of Sega is the faltering Sonic franchise - until Sega fixes Sonic's reputation among the "core," nothing they do will have substantial value, IMO. (Though stuff like the Aliens franchise stuff and Samba de Amigo will go a long way if they turn out well...)

Valve and Blizzard are good examples of how to do things right, but they're in a relatively unique position simply because they have functionally unlimited budgets. They can go for decades, at this point, without releasing anything, and still be around. Most places don't have the luxury of being able to iterate and polish until it's genuinely fun and well-balanced.

re: Sega, I'd love to see them get a little back to their "roots" - I know that Sega, as a publisher, is trying to essentially re-brand itself, with stuff like Condemned and Aliens - but the problem is that in that *context*, Sega (as a brand) doesn't *mean* anything to anyone, and they're starting entirely from scratch.

Sega Superstars Tennis reminded me how much nostalgia and goodwill I have towards their older franchises - stuff like Outrun, Jet Set Radio, House of the Dead (the new one looks AWESOME) - but I think that's because I was a Sega fanboy in the DC days, and that that nostalgia may not translate to the market as a whole.

Still, I'd love to see Sega, as a brand, mean that comibination of outlandishness, whimsy and drama that resulted in stuff like Panzer Dragoon Saga, Rez, Samba de Amigo, Get Bass!, Jet Set Radio, House of the Dead, Brave Firefighters, Burning Rangers, etc.

Maybe I'm just pining for the good ol' days, and out of touch, but there you go. :)

"outlandishness, whimsy and drama" is right! Back several years ago, if you were looking for a "wacky" game, you knew to look for Sega titles.

I hope they come out of the branding jungle with something that really sticks in the public's eye. They are a good company looking for some direction in the face of modern game development. Some fresh blood will serve them well!

Unfortunately, Sega's position as a first party is what allowed them to do that. There was less concern about the sales of individual titles as there was about establishing a character for the platforms they were selling. By offering unique experiences, they stood a better chance of attracting a wider variety of consumers.

As a 3rd party publisher, it's difficult for any company to survive on outlandish and whimsical games with the budgets of today's games. Not saying that it's impossible, but success stories like Katamari Damacy are few and far between...

I'd argue (perhaps unsuccessfully) that that's one of Sega's big problems, though - that their brand is functionally meaningless. Simon Jeffries, at one point, said something like Sega's content being the sixth biggest publisher - the only way Sega could possibly be content with that is if they're fully serving their specific niche to its fullest.

IMO, for Sega to go toe to toe with Activision/EA is financial suicide - but carving out a specific niche and managing within that to create a profitable smaller business that's easily recognizable is a more plausible *long term* strategy. I know there are all sorts of marketing studies done about what publishers mean, blah blah blah - I think those go out the window because people aren't conscious of their subconscious associations between brand and meaning.

Most people simply don't know *how* they make decisions, and when asked to talk about it are unable to give coherent responses. Yeah, Sega didn't make enough to be profitable as a hardware manufacturer because their software wasn't enough to sell the platform - but that's changed - they don't need to subsidize a massively expensive R&D and hardware budget anymore - I find it hard to believe that Sega can't be a profitable, successful, growing business by establishing a strong brand identity of "outlandish whimsy drama" or something that evokes the "golden age of Sega" that can carry them forward as the market expands.

Sorry, the main point of my argument was communicated really poorly - the basic idea is this: In the short term, focusing the brand on something specific limits the market - not everyone's into say, outlandish, dramatic whimsy - but the unspoken thing is that quality can be better achieved through *focus*, and that when people associate the brand with something focused and of astonishing quality, then the specific niche you're servicing expands from people who like what Sega means specifically to people who simply want *good games*.

I think that's a big part of how Nintendo's become successful, and why Mario, who's a really stupid character by most standards, has such wide appeal. Sonic has (had) that same appeal, but with a slightly different demographic - edgier, more attitude (to be cliche). Where Nintendo bred Kirby and Wario and a whole cast of characters I don't care anything about, Sega was able to build things like Samba, Jet Set, Panzer - characters I *did* care about. That the general market didn't appreciate them was, I think, more a failure of Sega's ability to sell hardware than their ability to sell software.

Do you remember the book "blink" when Malcolm whatshisface discussed how Ragu (or Prego??) didn't make any chunky sauces for a long time because market research showed that the majority of people did not want chunky sauces? When they started making chunky, they found that they increased market share, instead of alienating their market or losing money on a non-selling product, because there was a large segment of the population (still the minority of the market, but large in number, nonetheless) who really, really were looking to buy some chunky stuff.

I think you are suggesting Sega make some "chunky" games. The biggest issue is resources, of course, since there is the fear that you'll put resources into making a niche genre, wacky, crazy game, and no one will buy it. This is where strongly targeted market research and quantitative analysis of successful marking strategies can make the difference between going balls out and going broke.

Sure, it's easy for me to say that, sitting here at my desk, not having to risk tons of money, and not knowing what all goes into a making a successful business. :) I do still believe that having a point of view and serving a fervent, niche market can be productive, depending on the size of that niche.

But then again, you see the Sims, which wins hands down for the broad appeal. The strange thing for me is that it *feels* like a niche genre game, yet somehow found universal adoration & following. What gives?

I think that's almost exactly it - but it's a little different. I think Nintendo's Prego - they brought chunks to the market. So you've got Sony & MS, who dominate the smooth market, and Nintendo who's seized on this new chunky market. Everyone's now looking at the spectrum of gamers and saying, "Holy crap, not only smooth, but also chunky!"

Sega needs to be mushroom sauce with bacon. People love that shit.

LOL! People *do* love bacon. Mmm... bacon...

Mm...bacon and mushrooms...

Sega, hm.
Kid Chameleon?
Chakan?
Streets of Rage?
The only good Shadowrun game in existance?
S'what I think of.

Nintendo can suck my balls. I haven't been into them since I turned 17.
The gamers of the 80's grew up.
It's time they did too.

I got rid of my Wii due to that lack of exciting games

Honestly, I'm about at that point. There's almost nothing on the horizon I'm interested in for more than TWO YEARS. That's insane. I'm holding on to it in the hopes that something will come out of left field that will blow my mind, but so far, it hasn't hit the same stride as the DS, even years after its release.

Super Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes, Zack & Wiki, and Wii Sports. For people who aren't as pissed off by some of my pet peeves, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Corruption, Mario Kart and Zelda: Twilight Princess probably also make the cut. That's it. Two years, and that's it. There are three or four times that many games on the 360/PS3 that I'd put in the same category.

The Wii gets some points because some of its hits are untraditional, but frankly, I'd rather have more stuff I want to play...

The problem is that despite the shortage of quality, exciting games for the Wii, I really *do* enjoy the few that are great. As simple as they may be, I love the Wii Sports games. They truly take advantage of the new control mechanics and create fun, easy to play games.

The real question is what has been creating the roadblocks to creating more complex, yet just as exciting and engaging games.