Why does Sony kill their best franchises?
Is it because they don't want people to think they attract autism like Nintendo does?
Is it because of casuals asking for interactive movies?
Or do people just love the meme that Sony shouldn't make something like 3D platformers or rhythm games, so they could either like or hate them because of the interactive movies part?
They want to make the next Mario or Sonic or even Crash Bandicoot. Anything that doesn't debut as a massive commercial success is deemed a failure. Instead of building a franchise that has potential, they just cast it aside because it's not an instant mega hit and they don't want to put in the work to make it successful. That's how I se it anyway.
I don't why people use popularity as a metric for quality when COD is basically "How To Ruin An Entire Genre: 101" and it's one of the most popular series out there.
I just noticed Ratchet's jap eyebrows
Because they're a company and its their job to make a profit. Besides that there's the whole Sony not having a mascot thing. Mario and Sonic are pop culture icons that transcends video games. If you decide to make a new franchise with a new mascot for your company and it isn't a massive hit, it doesn't matter if it's the single greatest game of the decade, if no one buys it, it makes your company look really bad.
Because people are not interested in these "best" franchises. Just because you neckbeard manchildren like colorful animal characters with big googly eyes doesn't mean there's a big enough market for games like this anymore.
>no market for googly eyed animal characters
>Angry Birds and Flappy Birds are probably more successful than most AAA games
Don't forget the hype behind Yooka Laylee
I rather them make new games of their franchises every now and then than have them make a new fucking game every 1/2 years.
They ahve too many of them and most of them are dead
Better dead than turn to shit. Fuck you for producing stagnation in the industry.
At least some of these series are made to for the medium they're in, unlike TLOU
Thank you based Sony. I guess I should thank Nintendo too, for being a containment platform for all you autismos.
>Sup Forums as a whole knows and cares more about video games than the average consumer
>Only kiddie games can have autistic fanbases
>Meanwhile, Uncharterd fans create a petition to remove a negative review of a game they like
>Why does Sony kill their best franchises?
Because obviously they aren't their best? If they were their best they wouldn't be dead
It's great you look back on some of them with fondness but there are good reason why some of these games don't get sequels
>but there are good reason why some of these games don't get sequels
like
I see now
Money
Video games are expensive to make these days, and publishers aren't going to invest a lot in certain franchises and ip if they don't sell well
/thread
It's cause people like you will bitch when there's too many games in a series.
>Is it because they don't want people to think they attract autism like Nintendo does?
Yes that is exactly why, companies are more concerned about the fan base then the fact that people are actually buying their games.
Aren't there moments when a fanbase and a costumer group can be the same thing?
...
>Banned
Of fucking course
Reusing characters and IPs =/= stagnation, you moron. It's perfectly fine as long as sequel look to improve off it's predecessor. It's only an issue of stagnation when an IP is pumped out annually with no improvements to the overall game. Assassin's Creed for example is infamous for this.
...
Yes, a lot of the time they can mutually exclusive, but it's not like a company is actually concerned with how "autistic they can be, so long as they have money to pay for it.
More like Sushi Yoshi