Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

I'm glad my opponent has cleared this up. I was deathly confused.Welllll.... time to make my final arguments in less than an hour. Procrastination and vacations ftw. ;)FrameworkI'm sorry. I meant, by accepting the full BoP, that I accepted that I must prove the resolution for the whol industry. I was not attempting to avoid consenting to anything.Pro (My) SideContention 1 - Call of DoodyWhile I admit, this contention was first drawn because I was trying to put a more comical spin on the debate. I will concede this contention. Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnationMy opponent practically makes my case in his response to this contention. While he has been quite effective in his responses to my contentions, this one has a fatal flaw for his position. He admits that, despite it being cyclical, there is a stagnation that is related to new IP. This surge in new IP is linked to console generations, as my opponent showed. However, the fact still remains that it has been shown by my article that was referenced that the new IP is more beneficial to the system. Game developers need to take into consideration this fact when making their games. If old and redundant IP is bad but cyclical... why not just stop it altogether? We must merely acknowledge that old IP isn't as beneficial for the industry as new IP. By doing so, we have affirmed the resolution, that video games shouldn't have sequels, due to the fact that new IP is better for the industry. There is no legal action being taken upon an affirmative ballot, but rather a simple nod to the notion that new IP is beneficial to the industry as a whole.Con (his) SideContention 1b- Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games.Again, my opponent treats my case as if I were outlawing the creation of sequels. This is not the case, as I just mentioned. He also states that I try to give him the BoP to show how art uses sequels effectively. However, this BoP for this point is on him. I do not have to disprove his point. He has brought up a few examples of art with sequels that were used effectively. Great. This does not prove his case that video games should have sequels, and seeing that my case has been proven through the showing of new IP being beneficial vs old IP being harmful, we see that the affirmative viewpoint is better supported.Contention 2a- This argument is rendered largely irrelevant due to the fact that the stats, which show that the video game industry declines with old IP, still stands. Whether or not old IP grows a fanbase around it is totally unrelated. New IP is shown to effectively bring gamers in. Old IP does not.ConclusionWhile this debate was short and sweet, it shows us something very insightful about the game industry. There is a natural cycle to things.A new console arrives. It brings new IP. The new IP is shown to be beneficial. This causes the gaming industry to flourish. The years go on. The new IP is squeezed for everything it's worth... and the industry stagnates... until the next gen with new IP.All that is required is an acceptance that all new IP would be beneficial to the industry, more so than old, redundant, and worn out IP. That is all.I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't either, then please...Vote Pro.Thank you to my opponent for this debate. I have enjoyed it. I wish him the best of luck in his final arguments and his future debates. :) Thank you.