What´s your opinion of annual releases?

[Isildur´s Heir]

It seems that it´s here to stay:

• Activision has it with Call of Duty, and they started that trend
• Microsoft already said they like that idead, and hinted Halo
• Ubisoft will release a new Assassin´s Creed in the fall, making it three games in a row (ACII 2009, AC:B 2010, and the new one 2011)
• EA´s CEO John Riccitiello hinted Dead Space 3

"Right now we've got strong, growing franchises including Madden, FIFA... Need for Speed, Medal of Honor and Battlefield - I include them as one because we're unlikely to ship them in any one year at the same time," Riccitiello began.
"There's also Mass Effect... Dragon Age... and the one that's sort of not proven that's coming later in our fiscal year, Star Wars: The Old Republic. That excludes Dead Space because I think it will probably take Dead Space 3 before we get into that five million unit cadence versus say three, four."

Sure, you can say that Riccitiello didn´t mentioned Dead Space 3 would be released next year, but then again, no one talks about a game that might be coming out in the next 2/3 years.

Even i it´s not the case, even if there is no Dead Space 3 in 2012, the annual video games are a reality, so, is it here to stay or will the trend fade away?

 

[Alchemyst]

I'm not a big fan of yearly releases, it only works with some games. I guess it's more or less whether or not the game will actually bring something new to the table with each release. Call of Duty IMO looks the same with every game that releases, nothing really innovative, if anything the story may be a little more interesting. Assassin's Creed on the other hand tells a pretty detailed story and the set pieces are very detailed and offer various things to do aside from the story which actually add longevity to the game itself. If the ideas are fresh to the point where each new addition to a series of games adds a better experience, move forward. If a games track record seems to go stale due to yearly releases, take a hiatus and let the ideas cook up.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I think the gaming media is part of the problem. They will concentrate on these games until they became "go to" games for people. I was watching gametrailers review of Modern Warfare 2 a while back and it was something like, 10 minutes long. Winning game of the year of every available platform. Seemed totally fishy to me. Another smaller (and excellent game) Amnesia: The Dark Decent, didn't even get reviewed. It's a sort of Coca Cola and Pepsi mentality that's probably just going to make new IP's harder to put out (or at least garner huge sales) unless they have a media hype machine behind them.

Battlefield though does seem to be doing something slightly different with each version, Bad Company 2 is a very different game from Battlefield Heroes. Battlefield 3 will probably push technology forward abit and BattlePlay4free will probably push free2play games more along the lines core gamers than people with 10 minutes on there hands.

Valve were quite clever in putting a new IP forward. How many people play puzzle games and outside of weird Japanese DS games and how well do they sell (at least in the west)? Sticking it in a package with an already established IP punted it further than it probably ever would have on it's own while adding diversity to the orange box. As a stand alone product, it will probably sell by the millions, wouldn't be surprising if it outsells the orange box itself.

I also like the fact Team Fortress 2 in 2007 and here I am still getting value out of it in 2011. The game itself is still making money with the introduction of microtransactions, which are completly optional. It's also community driven with map makers and people creating items making thousands of dollars. By contrast Call Of Duty isn't community driven, it doesn't give you value, it wants you buy $15 map packs as well as the next burger in a bag game in several months. It's the anti-christ of gaming with gamers quite happily perpetuating it.


Halo/Assassins Creed/Mass Effect/Dragon Age 2

Buh, paint dry.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

If a game is good, its good, regardless if there is a "new" one out every year or not.

With that said tho, its really hard to make a great quality title in a years time. Altho, Brotherhood did a pretty damn good job of it.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

unless it's a sport game, like FIFA or Madden, most of the time those other games released on a yearly basis are pretty mediocre. mostly all of the same just updated graphics and new levels. not all of course, but the majority.

 

[Iceman]

I'm not a big fan of yearly releases, it only works with some games. I guess it's more or less whether or not the game will actually bring something new to the table with each release. Call of Duty IMO looks the same with every game that releases, nothing really innovative, if anything the story may be a little more interesting. Assassin's Creed on the other hand tells a pretty detailed story and the set pieces are very detailed and offer various things to do aside from the story which actually add longevity to the game itself. If the ideas are fresh to the point where each new addition to a series of games adds a better experience, move forward. If a games track record seems to go stale due to yearly releases, take a hiatus and let the ideas cook up.

Yeah, if the quality is there I've got no problem with it as long as the studios have the restraint to miss a year or 2 as soon as things get stale, as you say. On the positive side, if you are a massive fan of a particular game it's great to have permanently new content through annual releases & DLC throughout the year.

What I don't like to see is studios trying to force people to buy the latest game by setting up & cutting specific company servers (that noone asked for) for older but still relatively recent games & purposely holding back innovation & best practises in the knowledge that they're bringing out another game next year so 'lets save it for that'.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

If a game is good, its good, regardless if there is a "new" one out every year or not.

With that said tho, its really hard to make a great quality title in a years time. Altho, Brotherhood did a pretty damn good job of it.

The thing with AC: Brotherhood, is it was a lot like GTA: Vice City or San Andreas, the bulk of the work was already done in Assassin's Creed 2. It really was almost just putting a new coat of paint on the same product. Sure there were innovations in the game and the added multiplayer. The only thing I'm worried about is if the next game follows Desmond as it should I don't want Assassin's Creed 2 or Brotherhood, I want a leap like Assassin's Creed 2 had over 1.

The big problem I have with annual games is it doesn't give developers the time to really expand on the franchise. I'm fine waiting 4-5 years between Zeldas because I know the next one will be entirely new.

 

[KevanG]

I`d rather wait for awhile between games instead of yearly releases. There`s not as big a rush and they usually turn out better.

 

[Alchemyst]

If a game is good, its good, regardless if there is a "new" one out every year or not.

With that said tho, its really hard to make a great quality title in a years time. Altho, Brotherhood did a pretty damn good job of it.

I know what you mean, a year seems like a long time to some people, but when you're developing a game, that time could fly by before you know it. Like I stated before, I'm more of a quality over quantity type person. I could deal with a good quality game series that took a few years in the making as opposed to 6 games that came out annually that are every bit of mediocre and pretty much ran out of steam.