1. Doing a FPS is cheap and requires no real story-telling--which translates to having the need for a smaller staff.
2. Most FPS games use an already assembled engine--thus making it lazy.
3. Companies prefer to spend less time in development and testing thus making them more money.
The results of these three short term.
1. Companies with smaller staffing will be less likely to do other genres due to lack of staff.
2. Companies who choose the lazy way out essentially cut their own hands off when they want to do other larger projects.
3. Companies who prefer to stick or a genre or two will never be a diverse company and thus appeal to a larger audience.
The results of these three long term.
1. A small company wlll be absorbed into a larger company and forgotten.
2. A small company with a light staff will be unable to grow due to its own self imposed limitations.
3. A small company--who's only known for a particular genre--releases a ground breaking or cross platform/genre game it may not be taken seriously until it is too late.
The final results of these three.
1. This result already happend in the last segment.
2. This company will be forced to close, go bankrpt, or sell out.
3. This company will not make a steady income and will be forced to go back to producing the same old rehash for minimal profit until they run out of material and will be forced to close, go bankrupt, or sell out.
==========================================
I've spent some time observing the indutry and thinking about this and has left me with these conclusions. How many more Battlefeld's, Halo's, Call of Duty's, Unreal's, Quakes, Half-Life's/Counterstrikes do we need? Why can't game companies do more revolutionary or at the least different genre games? I'll give you one example of a company who did a cross-genre recently--that is successful. Age of Empires for the DS. It was originally an RTS (real-time strategy) game--a really good one too--and it was turned into a command menu driven strategy game.
Thoughts?