data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0bf1/d0bf1a68952c1fc53428660bef21d8070fdf9709" alt="Games Games"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e53c/9e53cc1df483017fbce385d1129fc00923cfa31a" alt="Entertainment Entertainment"
More Products From the Sequel Factory 257
Both the New York Times and Electronic Gaming Monthly have commented recently on the ongoing trend of sequel production in gaming. The NYT specifically cites EA's recent trends regarding endless rehashing of titles, while EGM talks more broadly about the role of sequels in the industry. While most reviewers lament the current state of the sequel factory, those within the industry rely on new versions of old titles for their bread and butter. From the EGM article: "Let's assume the publisher's position that sequels are a necessary evil, and the blockbuster videogame industry we have today cannot exist without sequels to support its often great financial burdens for research and development, marketing, distribution, etc. So, what are sequels doing for the gamer who's not interested in keeping up with the sequel treadmill?"
obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
hmmm... maybe not buying them?
however, while some gamers might not venture into the sequel of their favorite game, there must be enough followers to keep the gaming industry making sequels after sequels.
it's similar to spams, while most people just ignore them, some of them ended up buying from the spammers, and this is what keeps the spamming industry going and even growing.
creating a different genre or trying something new is a big risk that most companies can't afford to take, this is especially true if each new game costs few millions to produce. that's why we saw a lot of interesting, exciting and ground-breaking games in the '80s because the cost was so low, people were more willing to take risk and create different games.
i have created a game almost to the words as described here [pointlesswasteoftime.com] (Point 2 Paragraph 2) and discussed here [slashdot.org].
but let me tell you, it's been very difficult to get people playing it or even understanding it, because everybody's so used to the grinding.
everyday, i have to answer questions from players who want to know how to grind their stats to the top, because grinding is what defines game at the moment.
Re:obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF?! Developers spend thousands of dollars if not millions developing these sequels. Spams are essentially free to create by the thousands. How are they even remotely similar? If a few people buy something advertised in a spam session then it's profitable. How many people have to purchase a video game sequel to make it profitable? A few? Try a few hundred thousand.
Re:obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe they're similar in the words immediately following your quote: "while most people just ignore them, some of them ended up buying from the spammers, and this is what keeps the spamming industry going and even growing".
Try reading next time, and remember that analogies aren't meant to be perfect. You read for the point of the analogy, not for the analogy (ie spirit of the law vs letter of the law).
Re:obviously (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of how many million gamers?
The PS2 has sold close to 100 million consoles worldwide. The Xbox is over 20 million, the GameCube at about 15 million.
The top selling games are lucky to sell 5 million copies - only a few have ever sold more than that (and yes, most that did have been sequels).
That means the vast majority of gamers do not buy any individual game. It's the same as anything else - Br
sequels lengthen games that are too short (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sequels lengthen games that are too short (Score:2)
Blizzard games are an exception, though -- each iteration of *Craft has more campaigns (WarCraft 2 had 2, Starcraft had 3, Warcraft 3 had 4).
Re:obviously (Score:2)
Personal gripe: Why is it that Katamari Damacy, one of the most critically acclaimed, best-selling and most original titles of the last few years, is only available in Japan or through import?
I think it's a just a matter of how much risks publishers are willing to take. Even such a best-selling title is deemed too risky because it's different. In Japan they seem to take some more risks, resulting in a lot of
Re:obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Originality and Sequelitis (Score:5, Insightful)
This is basically the problem with the gaming industry. Sequels can be innovative and original, and new titles can be boring, and direct rip-off of other titles. The Final Fantasy games I think is a series that tries to be original - with different characters, worlds, 2D -> 3D, storylines, etc, and that series count up to over 11 already.
And then on the other hand, how many Street Fighter/Tekken/Soul Calibur/Virtual Fighter clones do we really need?
The trick, I think, when you copy a game (Score:5, Insightful)
Take Rome: Total War. Excellent game, one of the best strategy games in a long time. First time in a long time a strategy game has been on the best sellers list for a good amount of time. However not at all orignal. The plot is, well, Roman history. There's some modifications for playability and creative license and so on but the story was taken directly form the history books. The game is, of course, the latest in the Total War series, itself based on earlier games like Civilization.
However for all that, it's a ton of fun to play. It is so well done. The gameplay is excellent and engaging, the music is superb and the graphics are amazing, good enough the History channel uses the engine.
It doesn't matter that there's no orignality to plot or concept, the game is just flat out fun, more fun that those that came before it, and that's what really matters.
Re:Originality and Sequelitis (Score:2)
Re:Originality and Sequelitis (Score:2, Informative)
But I agree, the gaming industry is overwhelmingly weak right now. AFAIConcerned, nothing worth the $200+ console price tag has come out in a long, long time. I still sit around playing old RPGs 99% of the time (and 1% downloading new PC games that I never end up playing for more than an hour cause they suck), waiting for the next Final Fantasy to come out. Even looking at reviews of games for the past TWO YEARS I find little that actually interests me. Whatever happened to the good ol' R
Re:Originality and Sequelitis (Score:2, Insightful)
Final Fantasy?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say Ultima is a better example of a long series that had maintained originality (no pun intended), with the last three games in the series being dramatically different from the previous games- in story as well as ga
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Originality and Sequelitis (Score:3, Insightful)
To paraphrase the sage Fry,
"That's not why people watch TV. Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared."
Obvious... (Score:2)
I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Also sequels over the longer term can be real cool, like GTA 2 to GTA 3. There are many older games that I'd like to see redone to current technology. I mean I still play X-com because it's a great game, but what I'd really like to see is a new X-com, designed for modern hardware, with updated graphics, AI, etc, etc.
I agree that in many cases it gets stupid, it seems that it's just "Hey that last one made money, let's release another exactly like it!" but you get that even in non-sequels, you get games copying heavily from successful games.
I really don't think a game has to be unique to be good. I don't care if it's the 5th game in a series so long as it's entertaining.
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, what about games that are developed on others' engines? Should they be in
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
BTW EA expansion in the US has hit a brick wall. I have relatives from Vancouver CA who worship them. Quite frankly they don't have a fucking clue about gaming or sports. They buy whatever is marketed to them. Fuck EA.
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:3, Insightful)
They catch alot of crap (probably deserved) for having many sequels to popular games, but it has been my experience that they are doing more than fiddling with the game a little to extract another $40. I only own Command and Conquer Generals and Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam. This may not apply the the company's offerings as a whole, but Battlefield 1942 was a fun game. Battlefield vietnam, in w
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
There's an excellent demo out though.
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
That is a great game, and I'm ticked it doesn't seem to run on my AMD CPU, says it doesn't recognize the CPU, play at your own risk and then just exits.
Wish it had much better AI's and revived online play or maybe even move to more real-time instead of turn based.
I really wish they would open source it to keep it alive. I know there is Freeciv and all but I
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
I was playing WoW but the grinding and dungeon crawls get old and predictable. Only interesting part after a while is the economy and WoW's economy is poor compared to EQ.
I bought "Nexus: The Jupiter Incident" a few weeks ago but got tired of it after two nights of being lead through preplanned scenarios ala "Wing Commander". Made me crave a game of Alpha Centauri and I was bummed when it didn't work on the new computer.
You k
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
As for modern implementations, you've got UFO: Aftermath and Silent Storm. UFO:AM is very similar in terms of combat, but you don't have nearly as much control over your base. SS has great combat and a simple RPG system (character classes and levels with an ability tree). Both were developed by Eastern European
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
Sorta like X-Com: Terror from the Deep? Same exact game as X-Com: UFO Defense, but underwater :)
Re:I don't think sequels are all bad (Score:2)
Now what I really want to see as a modern integration of the two. You start off fighting aliens on the land, then as it progresses you have to take on a second battle front. Update it with a bigger better tech tree, more kin
X-com (Score:2)
Laser Squad Nemesis (Score:3, Interesting)
Sequels may be better (Score:2, Insightful)
Some games are also rather short, especially ones with intricate levels, and releasing a sequel or expansion pack allows the publishers to continue working on the game while also earning money.
If you don't like the game, just don't buy the sequel!
Ars comment (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ars comment (Score:4, Interesting)
And quite frankly, there is a huge audience that would buy the new game just to have the new rosters. The fact that they develop, play-test, and balance new mechanics (well, develop anyway
"New Game" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sequels that are "same ol' same ol'" are definately a problem, but just because something has the same name doesn't mean it's the same game... and sometimes sameness elements make the game familiar/fun as
EA Doesn't Do Sequals, They Do Remakes (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between a sequal and a remake. A sequel usually involves the same characters in a new (though perhaps similar) story. A remake however involves the same characters in pretty much the same story.
GTA3, GTA VC, GTA SA each use a slightly updated engine, but with new characters, in a new story.
The EA games however use a slightly updated engine, with the same characters, and the same story.
While sports games are sometimes an exception because the rules of the game are fairly ridgid, people t
Re:Ars comment (Score:2)
Sega and the NFL 2K series was starting to change this, then EA went and made the NFL license exclusive...
Not just games, Hollywood too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not just games, Hollywood too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Making a movie with a brand new concept is a risk; sequels are almost risk-free.
Re:Not just games, Hollywood too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Movies can be art, movies can be entertainment, but most mainstream movies are vehicles for profit. And studios know that a movie based on a popular television show or book will bring in moviegoers even if it's not very good, simply because it's familar.
Luckily for all of us, there are hundreds of movies every year from major studios, and many thousands more from independant sources. Don't blame studios for wanting to m
New Slogan? (Score:5, Funny)
No, NO. (Score:2)
Try this:
E, A, Sports. It's in the game. It will be in the sequel too, but with up-to-date rosters and a few extra unused features to make you actually pay for it.
Re:New Slogan? (Score:2)
EA Sports: You've Already Played the Game.
Marketing videogames (Score:3, Insightful)
Madden (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously this guy has never watched a football game where Madden was doing the commentary. Madden moves between a few mindless quips and stating the obvious. Why people are so impressed with Madden, I will never know. Yes, the guy really knows football, but listening to him makes me want to shoot myself.
Re:Madden (Score:3, Interesting)
When CBC's French hockey commentators went on strike a few years ago, the CBC played the normal game/crowd sounds without and commentary. It was the best ratings they ever had as a large number of English speakers turned to the French channel so they could hear the game without the chatter.
Re:Madden (Score:2)
Re:Madden (Score:2)
Loser. WTF is that man on television ?
Re:Madden (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, he probably has. The quote is from an article called "A Gamers' Manifesto" from www.pointlesswasteoftime.com, and in the very next paragraph, he says, "Have you ever actually watched a real game where Madden was in the booth? Yeah, that's pretty much the way he really talks."
Re:Madden (Score:3, Insightful)
This actually one of Madden's strengthes and why he is still on the air, sometimes he still speaks his mind, or whatever is left in there.
Most is
Captain Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
1.) Movies make tons of money off sequels that may not give the same emotion as the original hit.
2.) Technological Advances are usually a very very attractive feature without having the game being identical otherwise (cept Doom 3 which was technically a very sweet redo minus the original emotion for most)
3.) There are always new kids/buyers to sell to and nobody wants to buy old games or watch old movies. Maybe the hairstyles turn people off ;)
You may agree or disagree, but I believe these are obvious points.
some sequels.. (Score:2, Interesting)
take the command and conquer series. the first game was awesome and each consecutive release was better than the last. now were going on to something like the sixth or seventh and they have yet disapoint me*
even after ea took over, I grudgingly admit, red alert 2 and generals were (and still are) a lot of fun. and from what I hear, theres a red alert 3 comming.
*renegade dosent count. that game was completely lam
Sequels (Score:3, Insightful)
Sequels that are marginally different from their predecessor suck *COUGH EA*.
But then again, when you try to make a sequel that isnt a mirror image of its predecessor, people stop chanting how they want innovation just long enough to bash the game *COUGH Mario Sunshine, Zelda Wind Waker, etc*.
Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it's similar to how our songs are getting longer and longer, too- it's not unusual to hear a song that goes on for 20 minutes, now. In fact, we just call it a "mix," and it's a big long stream of music, with a little of this, a little of that, mixed in for funn.
People feel attached to these worlds, and they wonder about these characters. They don't want to be hit with a brand new world everyday. Rather, they like a particular world, and they want to see it carried out further.
Also, they want it on multiple senses. They want to read it in book format, they want to play it as a video game, as a role playing game, they want to see it as a movie, they want to keep up with it as a TV show. All these things that people want to do.
People want to know the side stories, feel out the nooks and crannies of the complexities.
This is Slashdot, so I should mention that there are implications for Free Software game developers: [taoriver.net] network your worlds. Make a Tetris game that celebrates a theme from a constructed world that some tabletop gamers articulated in detail. Fetch fanfic authors to create stories based in this world. Get an existing RPG engine, and see if you can make a short game out of one of those authors' stories. See if an illustrator won't do an illustration of a major scene. We can have whole worlds, not just isolated projects.
Re:Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:2)
And yet, some people still insist that games have no effect on people.
Re:Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:2)
Re:Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:2)
Err.. Autobahn from Kraftkerk. 1974. The 20 min song is not a new thing! And thats not including classical muzak..
Re:Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:2)
I am talking about the younger generation's listening habits. I think my generation is listening to longer "songs" for longer periods of time. I don't have the data for you, but I think a study would show that more people are listening to longer songs.
Re:Think "Worlds," not "Sequels" (Score:2)
Er, I would like to point you to the 70's : Almost all songs around that time were 10+ minutes : Most of them gave every artist in the band a little solo.
Saying that songs are getting longer (give me some examples) is ridicilous imo.
Gimme Gimme Gimme (Score:3, Funny)
Sequals are easier (Score:4, Insightful)
If little Timmy doesn't have to buy Halo, Half-life and Doom sequals he can buy 3 "not sequal" games. Which then means they make the same amount of money but don't risk annoying a fanbase.
If you flood a market with oranges and then see oranges getting 75% of all sales on that market, oranges arn't running the market, they're bring forced down peoples necks because there is nothing else.
I'd STRONGLY disagree with this (Score:2)
Generally a sequel is more complex than some new games. Look at the past: Deus Ex, Klingon Honor Guard, Rune, etc, were all based on the Unreal Engine. Unreal II on the other hand, was built on a new, improved engine.
So all the "original" games that were built on U-1 were mostly story, and graphics, etc, hanging off an existing engine. U-2 on the other hand, was all of that, plus an all new, more complex, bigger, more expansive engine.
The *only* think made much easier in man
There are many ways to judge quality in a game (Score:2)
"EA's recent trends regarding endless rehashing" (Score:2, Informative)
Rather buy a known quantity than a probably lemon (Score:3, Insightful)
For non-online games, it still hold's true. I have more games that turned out to be complete stinkers on my bookshelf than I care to admit.
Most gamers don't just look at the company and say "Oh, EA made X, so Y should be great!". They look at X, and believe X2 should be at least as good, or at least offer a reasonable hope of fun.
If you played and loved Fallout and Fallout 2, and Interplay releases Fallout 3, aren't you going to buy it? Heck, even if the game engine doesn't get a radical overhaul, I'd still want to try it when it hits the bargain bin.
New games often require new engines, and a ton of creative juice. A sequel to a very successful game requires a new plot, maybe some engine tweaks, some graphic tweaks, and you are done.
And even if they do update the engine, etc... If they had released Doom 3 with just "Resurrection of Evil" as it's title, with no reference whatsoever to it's Doom legacy, what do you think it's sales would have been?
Re:Rather buy a known quantity than a probably lem (Score:2)
How many did Quake sell?
EA's position on sequels (Score:5, Interesting)
The way to achieve this? Sequels of course, and rehashes of tried and true concepts (read: steal ideas liberally from best-selling games). Nothing else is guaranteed to be a profit, and although you won't ever come out with a truly stellar bar-raising game that makes zillions of dollars, on average you're going to be doing better. How do you get new ideas? Buy out smaller companies. John challenged us to name one original game that EA has put out in the last five years -- he said he'd give us twenty bucks -- and nobody could. He was sort of strangely proud of this, proud that they'd figured out a way to just, well, fucking rip people off and let them have a good time at it. How does EA get new games, ever? They buy out smaller companies.
If you want to become a games programmer because creativity is your thing, EA is not the place for you. It was quite disconcerting to hear someone be so upfront about these things.
I asked him if it was depressing, to him personally, as a human -- the fact that he acknowledges what they're doing is hardly art, is hardly revolutionary, but just aims to please the masses while earning them all a big fat paycheck -- and his answer? No... the money's good, I have some fun, I get to travael, why should I complain?
Basically I was just disgusted by the whole experience. IBM, Google, Microsoft, Sun -- they can all afford research departments, I don't see why the major games companies in industry cannot... even if there's no short-term payoff, in the long term I think there's a lot more money to be made... there's an incredible amount that simply *hasn't* been done with computer games and interactive entertainment to date, to the extent that it could really really push outside of the current teenage "gamer" market.
I mean, think about it: the games industry grosses more than the Hollywood box office, yet its real market is a fraction of the size. How are you going to reach a larger market? Research, risks, bona fide works of art, and truly engaging experiences.
EA stands for... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you want depressing? Your comment prompted me to reach for my copy of Strike Fleet [the-underdogs.org] (circa 1987) and read the box copy: And remember, this was the company which in its early days brought us (stolen from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]):
Re:EA stands for... (Score:3, Informative)
That was software that was truly ahead of its time. Sad to think of how EA has evolved into a company now that is one step behind the times, and PROUD of that.
(An interesting side note about PCS -- it did not run from DOS. You booted directly from the floppy disk, which contained its own micro-OS that h
Damn you Blizzard! (Score:2)
WHERE IS DIABLO III?
Some of us got very sick of WoW and want our old favorites back =(.
Re:Damn you Blizzard! (Score:2)
They'll both see the light - some day..
Mods (Score:2)
To that, I think the answer is commercial games that are developed with the concept of mods from the very beginning. We've all scene some funny mods show up to add a little this or a little that to game play.
But many of us are aware of some excellent mods that have kept an otherwise dead game alive-and-kicking for years.
A sequel is fine, especially to release enhanced interfaces an
Sequels, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Half-Life 2
2. Battlefield 2
3. Freespace 2
4. Civilization 2 and 3
5. Jagged Alliance 2
6. Descent 3
7. Quake 3 (bad example?)
8. Unreal Tournament 2004
-Erwos
Re:Sequels, eh? (Score:2)
In any case, "sequel" doesn't mean "no originality". The first First Person Shooter was "Wolfenstein 3D", a sequel to an old Apple game.
Re:Sequels, eh? (Score:2)
Q3A was still a great game IMO. Fast action made it what it was. No story, no real care for characters. Just instant multiplayer action.
I played a lot of Q3A with the bots to clear my head between work sessions and so on. Always seemed much faster and more stable than Quake II.
Sequels that don't suck (Score:2, Interesting)
Star Control 2
umm... umm...
Re:Sequels that don't suck (Score:2)
Re:Sequels that don't suck (Score:2)
Wing Commander 2 and some others
Quake 2+
Doom 2+
Re:Sequels that don't suck (Score:2)
Still hope for original content (Score:2)
Sure, the web is full of SameGame & Lights Out variations just like the indie film scene is choked with copycats & also-rans, but there are new ideas out there, too.
I think we all loved the Red Room puzzles &
upgrade price (Score:2)
I'm not a gamer, but... (Score:2)
But the THPS folks have pushed the features and fun of the game with each release so much,
Re:I'm not a gamer, but... (Score:2)
I think you point would hold more weight if it used Mario or Zelda....
Re:I'm not a gamer, but... (Score:2)
The makers of THPS have had me shell out an inordinate amount of money for their products and the consoles to play them, and I loved it. Nothing more, nothing less. I thought that's what we were discussing here. Sequels. Not some shit-ass PC gamez machine. And yes, I still have my NES with your aforementioned ti
Notice though that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I realize this is not the same for a lot of people, so from the point of view of a consumer I can see that it gets boring and old for a company to keep releasing the same game with minor updates, but please keep in mind that developing and selling a Madden '06 is not exactly the same as developing and selling a Metal Gear Solid 12 would be.
Re:Notice though that... (Score:2)
Sequals discorage abandonware (Score:2)
I heard in Civlization V, that you can play as George W. Bush, Tony Blair, or Osama bin Laden, and other timely figures in Modern Civlization.
Sports != Sequels (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that we can do local storage on consoles, why not just sell the rosters every year at the same price, and sell a true "sequel", i.e. an improved game, every other? Your current revenue stream would remain largely unchanged, and every other year you could double it by selling a new game.
Sports fans buy sports games. Sports fans are fiercly loyal. Give them what they want, the players/teams they identify with. Let the sports *gamers* decided when they want a new game.
Re:Sports != Sequels (Score:2)
College Football games (Score:2)
In fact, there's some decent money to be made out there on Ebay selling memory cards with the full player names on them.
I live in a college town for a football school in a state with no professional team, that's another deal-breaker.
Counterexample (Score:2)
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=90 [vgcats.com]
Pirates! (Score:2)
I'll be happy if the NEXT Pirates! isn't for another 10 years or so. This one was worth the wait!
Worse than sequels (Score:2)
I think sequels have a much better market than those types of games.
Don't blame EA (Score:2)
Anti-sequalists might have a point if only (Score:3, Insightful)
The history of literature disagrees with anti-sequalists. Long before the written word set story in stone-type, civilization had the oral tradition. Tales were told of ancient gods, and of heroes in epic battles of fate. But each telling of the tale was different, and afterwards the storyteller could evaluate what worked and what didn't work, and maybe what might have worked had it been changed only slightly. The origins of comedy come from improvisational humor, and even today's stand-up routine is a dynamic, flexible presentation. Live music is improvizational, and improvization is central to Jazz music. None of these forms of entertainment are capable of calling a singular act 'perfect.'
I like to consider each Zelda game not as an internally consistant series of adventures of Link, but an evolving image of the Hero of the Master Sword. In fact, we've come to accept and require that the series introduces changes. The most common and valid criticism of the Zelda Oracle games was that they were too similar, both to Zelda DX and to each other.
Anti-sequalists essentially translate the modern literary theory onto games, and ignore the naggling details that emerge when finished. Games aren't the work of a single guiding authoring force, responsible for the day to day decisions that encompasses the work, forming a singular message for the player(s).
I wonder, then, what people who promote 'originality' have to say about 'We Love Katamari.'
Movie sequels vs. game sequels (Score:3, Informative)
The reason that that is the case, is that the state of the art in games progresses at a much faster rate than the state of the art in movies. You could even remake a game within three years after its original release, and it would be a quite different game, and probably of much higher quality.
Basically, there are two reasons why game sequels may suck: (1) when the creators think they can "improve" the original concept (e.g., the simplification of Deus Ex 2, the MOO3 overhaul); and (2) when a publisher gives the developers not enough time to develop a real sequel, because it has to go to market quickly (e.g., Knights of the Old Republic 2 without a proper endgame).
However, if a sequel is just like the original game, except with better graphics, better AI, and better sound, it may give players the same good playing experience but modernized. And there is no reason why its quality has to be lower than the quality of the original game.
Re:Cost of exclusive licences (Score:2)