Yearly Updates: Your Opinion?

[Brilliant Human Being]

I thought about this today when I saw that the FIFA 11 demo went online. Progressively, as game developers have seen the industry grow and grow, they have increasingly leaned towards releasing games in a franchise yearly, as evidenced with the likes of FIFA, Madden, Smackdown vs. Raw etc. Most of the time they are just last years version but shinier and with an extra game mode on which to hang its hat on (See: Be-A-Goalkeeper mode in the new FIFA). Indeed, the main culprits of doing this are the makers of sports games, such as EA. More recently though, Activison have got in on the act, with Guitar Hero and Call of Duty being made seemingly only for the money and without any real passion behind it.

Now, next month, Fallout: New Vegas is released. A sequel yes, but at the same time a sequel that has taken two years to come to fruition, and seemingly with passion and a genuine will to want the game to be good. A better example of this would be the Fable series, with the series adapting to new technology, like the use of Kinect with the newest one.

I would like to know your opinions on these games, and whether or not you buy them. I will hold my hand up, I bought Modern Warfare 2, and will not be buying Black Ops, because they have became soulless and samey, with no imagination at all, compared to Modern Warfare. I get much more pleasure from playing games such as Fallout 3; Forza Motorsport 3; and Red Dead Redemption. But that's just me.

Are they a disease to the gaming industry or a thing which you can't get enough of?

 

[lenguy]

I agree, This is why I stopped buying games like sdvsraw and Call of Duty. Because Im tired of spending money for something thats just gonna be out next year. I have every smackdown game from here comes the pain to 2010(with the exception of 07 and 08) I just feel there all to similar. I'll buy one pop it in and play it and it just feels to similar to its predecessors with a few shiny new features, To me its just not worth the investment anymore, Plus I save a bit of money from it. Its the same for call of duty..(minus the whole Infinity ward/Activision fiasco, lost a lot of respect for them)its just feels like the same stuff. To quote a bit from an article on IGN "But it's not enough to simply repackage essentially the same content every year and call it a new experience"

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

I think it depends what game it is really. Personally, I'm not buying any more Call of Duty games. I've played all of them. The first 3, I own on PC. I own Call of Duty 4, 5 and 6 on Xbox 360 so I've legitemately played them all. They're all the same. This is one of the 'yearly updates' that should really just fuck off for a while, if not forever. They're incredibly boring and in my honest opinion, should have stopped being produced after Call of Duty 4. That would have topped the entire franchise off perfectly.

Stuff like Smackdown vs. Raw and Football games I can understand..any sport game really, they're really popular with many people and people look forward to playing the new additions and seeing what new features they have compared to the predecessor.

If you've noticed, the best games such as Halo, Assassin's Creed etc. don't come mass produced every year. Which is a good thing because it completely kills a franchise when too many are made.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

There's no explicit strategy that says we're to ship a Halo game every year. I will say I think one Halo game every three years -- which was kind of our old cadence – is probably not frequent enough

That is a quote from Corporate Vice President for Microsoft Game Studios Phil Spencer, and it seems to be the growing trend between video game developers and publishers.

Clearly this mindset is due to greed and not because a gamer demands for annual franchise additions. But in the defense of developers and publishers Halo Reach's $200 Millions in opening week sales alone sure does sound good every year.

One of the problems with this yearly releases is the over saturation of the franchise. I think Guitar Hero is the perfect example of this.

Like it has been mentioned by the posters above, often (especially sports titles) feel exactly like its predecessor with slightly improved graphics and (if we’re lucky) a new feature in the gameplay.

For me it’s hard to justify purchasing a new Madden, Smackdown Vs Raw or MLB: The Show game every year as much as I do enjoy them all. In fact the last time I purchased a Madden or MLB game was in 2006, and I last purchased Smackdown vs Raw in 2008. It’s hard to purchase a game for sixty dollars, when I know that if I wait a year I can get the game for fifty percent less.

A potential solution for this is to offer the gamer the option to either purchase the game next year, or to purchase an update. Example: If someone purchases Madden 09, when Madden 10 comes out, they can either purchase the full game for sixty dollars, or purchase an update which will consist of current teams and states, the new feature of the year etc. for a reduced price (perhaps thirty dollars). When Madden 11 comes out, Madden 09 would be unable to receive the update; however those who purchased Madden 10 would be eligible.

Another solution would be to release the games every second year, but release an update of current teams and states that can be purchased at a reduced cost. Example: If someone purchases Madden 2009, they can choose to purchase the update, which would be released in lieu of Madden 2010for thirty dollars. Then Madden 2010 would be released the following year.

If either method was to be implemented, it would be beneficial to both developers, as they would be given essentially an additional year to improve and perfect the game, and gamers.

 

[klunderbunker]

With sports games there's a major reason why they redo them every year: roster updates. New players are added to the league, some old ones leave and their teams change. In order to keep up with the times the once a year updates are the perfect move.

As for non-sports games, I'm not a fan of having games come out because it's a certain time of year. Look at Nintendo for a great example from the 90s with Zelda. We waited four years for the follow-up on a console platform to Link to the Past and what did we get? Ocarina of time, one of the best games ever made. Two years pass and we get Majora's Mask. It's a good game but it's very similar to Ocarina of Time in too many ways. While having a new game was fun, without having enough to update it with made the funness of it go down. I'd rather wait for a better and newer style of game than getting a lower quality one a year or two earlier.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think that game series should not be given new entries once a year. There are very few exceptions where it works. These are sports games where the yearly updates make sense due to roster changes. Smackdown VS Raw definitely needs to remain a yearly update, as do games that revolve around the rosters of real sports teams. Those should change yearly because the rosters themselves change and new names are added. However with any other game it doesn't really work that well because it's more special to get a new entry to a series when you had to wait a few years for it. I am a Final Fantasy fanboy (yeah, not exactly a government guarded secret there) but even I would get sick of playing a new FF game once a year. It's overkill, compared to how special it is to finally get that new game when you have waited a couple of years during its development. The wait is worth it.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

I think that game series should not be given new entries once a year. There are very few exceptions where it works. These are sports games where the yearly updates make sense due to roster changes. Smackdown VS Raw definitely needs to remain a yearly update, as do games that revolve around the rosters of real sports teams. Those should change yearly because the rosters themselves change and new names are added.

I don't think that the yearly additions of Smackdown, Madden, MLB: The Show etc. are necessary just because of an updated roster.

Why can't an updated roster be included in a DLC patch for twenty or thirty dollars a year after the game is released? For example, if a gamer purchased Madden 10 at release for sixty dollars last year, and wanted the updated roster that was included in Madded 11, the gamer should be able to purchase just the updated roster patch for half of the cost of the game at release.

This method would be benificial to everyone involved; the gamer, the game developer and publisher. The gamer is able to save some money but still enjoy an updated version of the game he enjoys. The game developer & publisher is still earning a profit and can use the extra year to develope, improve and perfect the game for the game's next full release.