> This is not the only path available, and asserting that it is just the way things are now is ridiculous.
Really? What other paths are available for game companies? Any examples?
Really? What other paths are available for game companies? Any examples?
Take Nintendo and Mario/Zelda/Metroid franchises. You spend years developing quality titles that you rotate through to avoid saturating the market. Probably the easiest way to do that is to actually develop more than a single franchise, but still, throwing as many slightly modified versions of your original game at app stores as fast as possible is definitely not the way to build a long term business.
Blizzard has kept WoW going strong for a decade, releasing expansions (not sequels) every two years. Diablo is on it's third iteration since debuting in 1996.
These are examples are a game developer taking a different path than releasing as many titles as possible as fast as possible.
And while Blizzard has milked WoW for a lot, I don't think they're done. They're planning for another decade at least and I don't doubt they'll do it, profitably.
Finally, yes the series were created in the 90's but they've updated them with thoughtful sequels with good content. SC2 is not just a reskin of SC in the way parent comments are describing the Angry Birds franchise.
Don't just take your one IP and drive it into the ground like Rovio did with Angry Birds. Diversify. But do so thoughtfully. If you release a bunch of crap, that will dilute your brand as well.
It's not rocket surgery.