Why will Publishers not release most of their backlog?

[Ivo]

I'm surprised only CavZee hit on an important aspect: if they release their entire backlog, they are increasing the competition for their new games.

I think this is a big factor in the publisher's decision, I'm not sure if it would impact the sales of their new games as much as they possibly fear, but it is very likely that the overall impact in the sales of new games would be negative.
The real question is, would their sales of old games compensate the lost sales of their new games or not? I'm guessing console publishers generally think not, and on the PC side GoG lets you see which publishers think yes.

[Aramonde]

I'm surprised only CavZee hit on an important aspect: if they release their entire backlog, they are increasing the competition for their new games.

I think this is a big factor in the publisher's decision, I'm not sure if it would impact the sales of their new games as much as they possibly fear, but it is very likely that the overall impact in the sales of new games would be negative.
The real question is, would their sales of old games compensate the lost sales of their new games or not? I'm guessing console publishers generally think not, and on the PC side GoG lets you see which publishers think yes.

Well it could also help their new games too. If someone bought a game in an older series and ended up really liking it then they might end up buying the new title.

[Pulsar_t]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet: The source code. If the publisher doesn't have it, it's going to be painful trying to port the game for modern platforms. And yes many publishers lose the code and original assets quite often. Konami and Sega are notorious for this.

[KalessinDB]

Notably smaller market for some games than others. A lot more people want to see what older sonic games are like than something such as Chu Chu Rocket. Although Space Channel 5 got a rerelease so maybe I'm wrong.

You shut your filthy mouth, Chu Chu Rocket is AMAZING.

[Erik_Twice]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet: The source code.

Yeah, that's extremely important. Nice catch.

[Haoie]

You're in the minority - most gamers [the Call of Duty crowd, to coin a phrase] really don't give a toss about older titles. Old games don't make money. Rehasing a tired formula makes money.

[Sload Soap]

You're in the minority - most gamers [the Call of Duty crowd, to coin a phrase] really don't give a toss about older titles. Old games don't make money. Rehasing a tired formula makes money.

Not sure this entirely true. It's hard to get accurate data on Virtual Console sales, but estimates say that Super Mario Bros 3 alone was downloaded a million times in the US. At five dollars a download that's a decent bit of cash. It's not monumental, but it is pretty good for 23 year old game that is easily emulated.

[DK1105]

Even rereleasing stuff they have the source two can be expensive because often you still need to port everything anyways. There is a lot more two it than just a simple ROM dump. I know I have lost code that I wrote months ago, so image the nightmare of finding the source on some floppy that for all they know is holding up the janitors wobbly desk up with that was originally written by a company you bought 15 years ago. There is also a legal nightmare of who technically owns the right to even minor things like sound effects.

[marurun]

I'm surprised only CavZee hit on an important aspect: if they release their entire backlog, they are increasing the competition for their new games.

To elaborate on this, there's kind of a finite amount of money in the games market. Releasing large back catalogs might cause consumers to spend a little more, but if the older games have a negative impact on newer game sales, that hurts the companies a lot more than the lost revenue on older games not sold.

Think of it this way. I have $100 to spend on games this month. A deal on older releases might prompt me to spend $110 or $120 on games instead of $100, but it might also mean I only buy 1 new game instead of 2. $60 going to Sega for back-catalog games might actually not bolster their bottom line as much as $50 on a new game, because if the new game has any social aspects or multiplayer, a smaller player base can hurt game sales beyond just my copy. It can also hurt their willingness to invest in new games.

There's also a risk in releasing older games if those games have more questionable quality or weren't received well at release. A poor choice of back-catalog releases could hurt a company's reputation. Just because I liked a game didn't mean it was a good game that deserves re-release.

This doesn't mean that I don't agree that more back-catalog titles should be available. Steam and GoG have proved older games have legs, but publishers have to be careful not to saturate the market with old titles, because then it can be very difficult for consumers to decide. Too much choice can result in people not making a decision at all.

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet: The source code.

Rumor has it that one reason Panzer Dragoon Saga has never been ported or re-released is because much of the original source, including a large number of creative assets, are either missing or destroyed, or otherwise unaccounted for. They'd have to re-do so much from scratch that there's no cost-effective way forward.

[Violent By Design]

You're in the minority - most gamers [the Call of Duty crowd, to coin a phrase] really don't give a toss about older titles. Old games don't make money. Rehasing a tired formula makes money.

That's a pretty huge exaggeration.