Viewing Thread:
"Does a licence make a difference?"

Games manufacturers are constantly stumping up cash for licences to stick on their games. Indeed, many a developer has been known to quite literally stick their hands down the back of their staff sofa in an attempt to get a quid closer to the £3 million required for the rights to The Matrix.

But is it worthwhile? It may well sell more games, providing the licence is a popular one, but can it make an actual difference to the GAME? Or do the essential game mechanics remain the same, licence or no licence?

It's an odd question, perhaps. It would seem at first glance that it makes no difference at all - I used to think much the same thing. But recently I've begun to question this theory. I now think that indirectly, a film/book/music/whatever licence can affect a game's essence.

Take GoldenEye as an example. Perfect Dark, absolutely great as it is, came across to many as something of a disappointment. There were loads and loads of whining consumers, complaining that the game simply wasn't as good as its predecessor, but none could place what went wrong.

I think what went wrong was the fact that Rare forgot half of what made GoldenEye so great - the whole "spy" feeling you got from playing it. Perfect Dark relies much more on traditional first-person shooter values; the alien levels were just too ridiculous to take seriously. GoldenEye hit its peak during levels like Facility, where the player infiltrated somewhere, took down enemies silently and made their way through to the climax. All too often, Perfect Dark was an all-out, high-octane blast with no spying-based escapism at all.

What I'm trying to say is that GoldenEye encouraged Rare to mimic the James Bond licence, and that in turn affected the game mechanics somewhat. Without the need to replicate the essence of Bond, GoldenEye could have turned out much more like Perfect Dark than it did: and though Perfect Dark is a good game, it certainly lost some of the greatness found in GoldenEye.

Obviously, that example is a positive one, but I'm not sure all licences have such a great effect upon games. I'm sure there are those that have negatively affected a title - can anybody think of one? And does anyone disagree with me, and not believe that licences, under the right circumstances, can have such a large effect upon the games they're applied to? As always, I anticipate your responses with great interest.

FooFighterDaz wrote:

>You can also switch the role around a little bit. What >about games that have made themselves licences? It's a >little different I know, but you have to look at the >sucess of the recent films of games, obvious examples >being Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy. I wonder if such >films had/will increase the numbers of copies sold of the >above games?

A good question. My own personal view is that given the somewhat lacking nature of games-based films, the mass market will continue to ignore the industry. I can't even see gamers going out and buying the titles they've seen in the films, because they probably know about them already, and if they don't own them it's because they either don't appeal or aren't able to afford them.

Any other points of view out there?

I have to agree with Vektor about ISS, it is better than the FIFA games and ISS doesn't have the licence (but you can always go into edit and change their names!)

You can also switch the role around a little bit. What about games that have made themselves licences? It's a little different I know, but you have to look at the sucess of the recent films of games, obvious examples being Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy. I wonder if such films had/will increase the numbers of copies sold of the above games?

The ultimate argument of licensing gone wrong is LucasArts.
They used to make really good Star Wars games: Xwing, TieFighter.
Then, when the new films came out, they rubbed their hands together, and churned out some truly pants games just as a cash in.
They are returning for form now, (hopefully) with Galaxies and such coming out.

Liscences make a game more fun but can sometimes limit the Gameplay.

Rare managed to break through this with Goldeneye but had to make minor plot alterations on the way (you barely notice them).

Anyway, I think that Perfect Dark explored the game genre a bit more with the explosions and it had its on fair share of stealth and Sniping.

Take the airforce mission for example.
Very punishing about stealth and sneaking.


Film liscences are great because they add an element of excitment to a game.
The characters are pre defined and already built and you get to do what you admired in that movie you saw the other day.

Rogue Squadron uses this appeal heavily.

So liscences are good, so long as they aren't there as an attempt to hide a poorly made game (which many of them are).

I was talking about how u said Pefect dark didnt use any spy stuff.

Well, dont you remember using the spy cam to film trent and the others meeting?

I too dont want to turn this into a PD vs Goldeneye argument, but what you wrote was wrong.

Heh, you posted that message whilst I was writing the last one, Vektor. It was aimed at Ortega's post, if there's any confusion.

You make a good point there, anyway. The most crappy thing about licences is undoubtedly the way that it can make developers slack, which is a shame as if done properly a licenced game can be so much better.

And you're totally right about the FIFA/ISS thing, too. Spread the word, etc.

It's a shame, isn't it? Poor license-based games often sell more because of their name, not the quality. People should, by now, of seen through this barrier and go for the game that doesn't have a license, yet exceeds when it comes down to game play. The ISS series must of lost a lot of money thanks to this.

Shocktrooper.

It's nice to see such constructive critisism. Such explanation. Such reasoning. Such diplomacy! [Note: extreme irony].

In any case, I'll defend myself. I should have clarified that Perfect Dark was not terrible - far from it; I love the game - but it certainly relied more upon explosions and machine guns than GoldenEye did.

I stand by my assertion that GoldenEye hit its peak with Facility, Archives, Frigate and Bunker (1). That kind of spy atmosphere is hard to come by. Perfect Dark had it with the first DataDyne level, and Villa, but apart from that it was faintly ridiculous (and again, I point towards the alien sections).

Perfect Dark was far from being a great big pile of dog dirt, and GoldenEye had plenty of turkey levels - Streets, et al. But at its peak, GoldenEye was by far the superior game, and this is due to the spy atmosphere. In my opinion, anyway.

I don't want to reduce this to a GoldenEye vs. Perfect Dark debate. That's been done to death, really. Let's get back to the main issue of game licences and what they can - and can't - do for a game.

A license can make or break a game I think. Although its not only licenses off of films that we see. Sometimes it is games that have the license from sports that we see succeeding. Although the problem is, this way it is easy money for the developers who now someone will buy it due to the license.

Take FIFA games for example....or any of the EA games that are sporting games. They have the official lisence of the sport they are representing, peole think this automatically stamps a good game sticker on it. The truth is, it doesn't. Ask a football game fan which they prefer, ISS or FIFA, I am sure many would say ISS. Does this have the FIFA lisence? Obviously not, but too many it is the better game. But unfortunately many people don't see this. A lisence will sell a game no matter how bad it is.

VKTR