We've heard the argument that the games industry suffers from "sequelitis." But the "problem" of sequel influx is not such a big problem for the industry as some make it out to be.

See, if sequels weren’t popular, game developers, and particularly publishers who are in the business of selling games, wouldn’t release them. It's as simple as that. I promise you, if people didn’t buy sequels, everyone would stop making them, because no one would be making any money off of them. But clearly there is demand; gamers want to see extensions of their favorite franchises. When people enjoy that initial game, there’s something familiar about going back and playing. There's also that next bit of story development, or that next battle that gamers anticipate, that they expect in a sequel that comes out the next year.

That being said, there’s always room for creativity, and there’s always room for new brands. If id wanted to, we could sit back on our laurels and keep on developing Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein over and over, and never branch out. To some extent, we do want to continue to develop great games in our existing brands. That’s why we’re building a team internally to develop the next Doom (which is super exciting), and why we're doing Wolfenstein with Raven Software. But at the same time we also want to innovate--we want to push the ball forward. And that means creating new brands like Rage. It also means doing new things online and exploring new ways of distribution and connecting people. That’s what we’re doing through Quake Live. When you have tried and true brands, it does make sense from a creative and business stance to release sequels, and as long as a sequel is good, it won’t be associated with “sequelitis.”

When talking about the expansion of franchises and creating new IP, it's difficult not to also mention development costs. The budgets are increasing. Anybody who says they aren’t for triple-A cross-platform titles isn’t watching how things work. As you know, there is particular risk involved with introducing new properties like Rage. We're trying to strike a balance between established franchises and sequels so that we’re not putting all of our eggs in the "create-new-IP" basket. We’re putting a lot of our eggs in that basket, but we’re also developing brands that we know people love; brands that will resonate with fans who will turn out to buy those games. Budgets are getting up there. But for us, we don’t necessarily view this as a problem. A bigger investment just lends itself to better games and more interesting work.

So expanding your franchises should be a measured practice mixed with the introduction of new properties. If you take an extremist approach to anything, whether it’s committing all your efforts only towards sequels, or only creating new IP, you are taking a risk that--if you’re a company like id--you don’t need to take. We can create great games in existing brands, but we can also create great new IP. That only makes a company stronger, and it keeps the employees excited. We really have the best of both worlds, and are really in a unique position. Publishers and gamers are interested in id's games because they know our quality standards and that anything we do is going to be played widely. Sequel or not.