Mark from GamersFTW writes his opinion on whether or not annual game releases are a good thing.
It's unfortunate that some games become a 'conveyer belt' series. I mean I LOVED CoD 4 I cannot remember a CoD game since then that I even liked. I can cope with bugs that come along with Bethesda's games, purely because of what they offer. CoD and the others, not so much. Great article :)
This is no different from those "passionate" people waiting for the latest annual iphone release, except the only difference is that games are hundreds of dollars cheaper so it ain't that bad in comparison.... Unless you're obsessed about both??! then your just crazy... But hey, if you worked hard for your doe, buy whatever makes you smile ;-) In terms of creativity, don't expect anything major in terms of changes or improvements.
Whatever works for the masses eh? :)
Yup, that's business bro. These annual releases are no mistake. Companies go with what sells and apparently, people like yearly minor upgrades.
If you enjoy games like COD, Ass Creed and FOrza, then yes it can be a good thing... but I think that games like Halo, Uncharted and the Witcher are much more exciting because they don't come every year.
No they suck. Especially for sports games. Just update the roster and release the game every 3 years. It's not like those games get noteworthy improvements from year to year.
Especially when the engine is the same one like in the last 5 years anyway. Just think at the WWE games.
I prefer annual releases for Fifa because the game does improve every year. That said, the improvements are so minor that it's nowhere near worth the 60-70€ that I have to pay. It's also a joke that we have to pay extra for Euro and World Cup tournament modes when they're being played. An annual release of a 30€ game would be rational..
They are for certain group of gamers. If they weren't then they wouldn't sell as well and fall out of favor just like Rock Band and Guitar Hero did after 2010
A good thing for publishers but we gamers are just being taken for a ride. Unfortunately the majority seem to fall for it :(
I would say there is room for both. If you have a good annual model, and as a company you feel there are consumers of your brand of game, then by all means you should go for it. But think of it this way, is food at a nice restaurant generally speaking, more refined than something at a fast food joint? I would say it is. Seems like the same can be said with games. If you have a yearly model, there is less time to innovate, or implement ground breaking ideas. I don't have anything to say about games like CoD or Madden, but there is a difference when you run across something like Fallout, The Witcher or MGS5. You can tell that they had time to polish these games. All that to say that I don't believe the yearly model is going anywhere. At least not as long as people keep buying these games. Ultimately consumers validate or reject any business model implemented.
Depends on the game. Sports games I guess makes sense even though I believe a lot of the updates could be done through downloads (Madden). But some series I wouldn't mind seeing annually like Mario Kart comes to mind. Would have loved to have gotten a sequel to the 64 and GC versions back in the day.
Fifa is the only sports game where annualized can make sense since the clubs and which leagues they play in change every year for the european leagues
One reason gamers are broke is because they buy every new game under the sun instead of using thier damn brain for once and renting some of their games. How is a "game" like Until Dawn worth $60? I save so much money doing this.
Because its a fun game that has a ton of replay value. Not every game has to be open world 300+ hours and shooting people
A game is worth whatever I deem it to be, not you. There are also people who have a larger income and 60 bucks is basically nothing.
The games that release annually are set up in a way that generally far more than one year is being spent on that game. Syndicate was under way before Unity had released, Advanced Warfare was in the works before we even knew Ghosts was a thing and Black Ops 3 has been cranking since 2012. Sports Titles? Who cares, you either buy them or you don't. The point is, no one is working on a game for 12 months and putting it out. Even CoD on the old IW/Treyarch rotation was 2 years. In those two year cycles we saw CoD jump to CoD2 and CoD2 to Modern Warfare. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with shorter cycles, it all depends on the publisher and what they're willing to let the developers do. Before the massive success, Activision let IW more or less do what they want with CoD. Afterwards? Not so much.
?? What is with these troll articles? At least question from what point of view your asking this from. Business or a gamer's perspective or even a developers prospective. Business wise clearly they are banking and making more money then MOST publishers are with that junk, Call Of Duty does like 20 plus million every year.. From a development stand point, they get feed back faster to fix many issues and no 1 team is just making a game every year, ie it still takes years to make a AC game, your just seeing a rotation of teams. From a gamer's perspective, I can see it annoying to having a game release every year with seemly very little changes...but this is merely based on perspective, a AC taking lets say...longer may not equal a better game if you consider who is making AC the way it is, how do we know AC isn't being made under a set amount of rules by the publisher? Did AC Unity not take years and years to make? Since 2010 mind you. So even if they stopped releasing them for lets say 2 or 3 years....those same teams would still have around the same development time, you not seeing to doesn't just some how make the game better lol. I mean...we haven't see the AC that is coming in 2017...and there is a team making that game right now as we speak. If the 2 other teams didn't make a AC release from 2015 and 2016, it won't make that 2017 AC game some amazing master piece, games don't just get better by default of others not releasing. Ubisoft is why those games suck lol. I'm pretty sure in 2 or 3 years one can make a fantastic game, but they are making them under the guide lines of what the publisher wants, those teams are still contracted out and Ubisoft still owns the IP (ie the publisher) those teams don't own the IP. Same goes with the COD teams and Acitivion now that they've moved to a 3 year cycle. http://www.polygon.com/2014... So like Ubisoft, they have at least 3 COD's being made at any given time. The timing of Fallout doesn't make it any better, Bethesda just makes an amazing game.
Business wise, I can see how over the years annual releases can hurt a company as it lessons the over all value of the game. If anything I believe they should duel franchise to keep interest fresh ie AC one year then Watchdogs the next, or with Activision, COD one year then some other junk the next (not sure about their line up currently lol) But I'm not even sure this would gain them greater sales, the next COD would have to legit do 40 million in order for them to consider it even breaking even vs release 1 a year. I mean...that other junk would have to do equal COD numbers for them to consider such a thing. I guess those sales every year sorta make it hard to really gamble such a thing, I mean its hard to argue with 20 million units a year, 1 billion dollars a year etc.
If they're quality, as Forza has proven to be, and Halo in some annual stints, it's fine, but it's obvious when it's become a cash cow like CoD and AC. These franchises need a rest so they can think of something new and fresh to bring to the table
for sports games, it makes sense to do this, but for games like assassin's creed or CoD? it'd be nice to have at least a few years in between each release.
If you can consistently make a quality game every year, then I have no problem with it.
I always prefer new ips and "not annualized" series than annual series. For example, i prefer to buy games like Persona 5, Fallout 4, Until Dawn, Tearaway Unfolded and Star Fox at the end of the year than another Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty and goes on.
I only care if the game is good
And really that's all that should matter.
Preach it :)
Article title is pretty terrible. Forcing that meme in there where it really doesn't fit.
Glad I'm not the only one who has been pondering this question. Essentially if the annual games are good then why not make them yearly (for example Pokemon has had a good thing going for a while)? On the other side, if companies are just making the same games every year with little effort into making changes, then maybe they need to take some extra time to make it worth buying.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.