I don't understand the hate against annualized series.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

We're at a point in the video game industry where we can attain a new level of realism. In the past 10 years, the video game market exploded. We can visit entire open-world cities/world, we're more connected than ever and we're getting quality content we couldn't even dream of.

Several great games and series appeared in the past few years. May we hate or love them, series like World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefields, Mario, Pokemon and pretty much every sports games are selling millions every years and are some of the biggest grossing IPs in the industry. They also all have the same thing in common: They are annualized.

Recently, however, there's a movement growing in strength that is actually against yearly releases. This movement claim that annualized series kill the games, by releasing diluted content and unfinished games. These people also claim that it's a market made to milk as much money out of the consumer for much less content than it used before.

On the other hand, you have the likes of EA/Ubisoft/Nintendo claiming that these annualized series are what allows them to create other games like Dragon Age, Zelda or Far Cry. The cost of production of games are going up, which mean more time and more people are required. Since the price of the boxes stay pretty much the same, this is the way they're able to actually deliver quality games.

Finally, you also have the consumers that buy those games. Most of the time they are die-hard fans of the same series (Assassin's Creed, Call of Duties and Pokemon comes to mind) and they're usually consumers that spend more than just the initial box price. They also buy goodies on the side, like Amiibos, figurines or skins. These people are perfectly fine with the system and they are part of several millions of people every year who do the same thing.

Now that the big picture has been displayed, I need to understand why some people are actually against annualized series. If you don't like these games, nobody forces you to buy them. I see so many people on websites like Mmo-champion, IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku and the likes bashing games and insulting devs because of it while in reality these games grosses millions every year. They do not impact negatively the development of other games and they allow the studios to get enough money to develop more long-term games.

So why do people feel compelled to bash on these company and developpers? Did I miss something?

[lawow74]

It depends. Did they make actual improvements to the quality of the game with the new release? Yes? Then it's fine.
If all they did was copy everything over and change the year on the box, then no, it's just a shameless cashgrab and deserves all the scorn and ridicule it gets.

[Magicalcrab]

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bash" annual releases, but I can't say they're something that I enjoy or see the appeal of.
But I do try to always look at video games with a critical eye, appreciating the good and bad bits as they come and go, and the simple fact is that if your franchise is updated on an annual basis those new games will have had less development time, less polish, a smaller budget, fewer new features, et cetera compared to a game that's been in development for far longer. Generally speaking.

The problem, in my eyes, comes from those games having comparable price tags. It's really difficult to justify the price of what usually amounts to a slight shift in performance in the case of sports games from the point of view of a consumer.
I suppose they're good at doing what they're supposed to do - grab as much money as possible whilst delivering a passable amount of fun to their customers - but it is not what I'd call a recipe for critical success.

[Keile]

Depends on the series.

There's ones that just get boring (CoD) and charge you $60 for basically half a game (because you only ever play it for the Multiplayer). But wait, there's more, let us not forget they sometimes do TWO a year (main series and then they do a Black Ops). They might not be in the same calendar year, but they are def released within a span of a year between the last.


Then there are the worst offenders: Sports games. $60 for the same game as last year that might have one or two tiny weeny new features and updated stats on the players......something that all could have been done with a $10 DLC (and even that is paying too much) for last years edition.


I think the only "annual" release series I enjoy is Monster Hunter, if it even counts (It's annual in Japan since they alternate the main games and the spin offs, but its more bi annual here in the States). Mainly because they are, you know.....good....and fun....and usually don't cost $60 (since they are most often a portable title they are usually in the $30-$40 range) and almost always offer something vastly different from the previous title.

[Thunderball]

Nothing inherently wrong with it. It's just happens that all the popular series that get a new game every year tend to have 1) Lack of improvement over the previous release, probably because the developers are afraid to step away from the popular formula and want to milk it 2) It's largely overpriced both for the amount of difference from the previous release (you are essentially buying the same game again) and the quality of the product. AAA game price is fair when the game is developed from scratch, has substantial development over the previous release and takes a lot of time develop (2-3 years), when it's not it's just a hefty amount you overpay just for the brand.

[Deleted]

Fifa14 still "worked" even after fifa15 was released. Personally I don't see why people have to buy a new version every year, but in the end it isn't me who pays for it, and I couldn't care less.

[Pull My Finger]

Well, there's obviously plenty of people that have no issues buying half-assed, but overpriced rehashes of games year after year, so, have at it. It's nice that somebody at Ubisoft, EA or Activision gets to make big money.

What's bullshit though is this implied "selling their oompteenth FIFA or CoD makes truly great games possible." What's also bullshit is Activision and Rockstar spending squillions to make a video game.

[Tech614]

CoD and Assassins Creed are both AAA budget out your ass games. Assassins Creed Unity last year literally had a budget 3x bigger then that of Farcry 4, so no they don't make other games possible.

The problem with yearly releases are when they are rushed to make the deadline and come out a buggy mess(Assassins Creed Unity) or are phoned in with very little new features added(Madden 25, NBA 2k13).

Sports games are fine being yearly except when you get that odd example of a version that is literally just a roster update with almost no other improvements, and that is in fact bullshit.

CoD and Assassins Creed are made by multiple teams and take 3 years to make, nothing wrong with them either except when a game is rushed like Unity to meet the deadline and still be yearly. If a game is not finished don't release it period.

Also not sure when the hell Pokemon became an annual franchise in your mind, yea it had 2 releases in the last 2 years but that was an oddity and it has no release this year and typically is no where close to being annual. If you think Pokemon funds Zelda lol... Zelda funds itself. You know what Nintendo does to IPs that don't make them money? Mother comes to mind.

- - - Updated - - -

There's ones that just get boring (CoD) and charge you $60 for basically half a game (because you only ever play it for the Multiplayer). But wait, there's more, let us not forget they sometimes do TWO a year (main series and then they do a Black Ops). They might not be in the same calendar year, but they are def released within a span of a year between the last.

What the hell are you even talking about. CoD does not release 2 AAA games a year ever. CoD releases in late October or early November every single year. Black Ops is a main series CoD.

Also of course you praise the yearly shovelware of monster hunter while putting down all the western AAA games that are far superior to that garbage. I would rather play CoD or AC every year as my only game and be bored to tears then only play the shoevlware known as Monster Hunter.

[Itisamuh]

I've got mixed feelings on it but in the case of WoW, I don't support yearly releases mostly because I don't want to pay for a yearly expansion on top of the subscription. That's far too much money to justify playing a single game. But if we're talking about other multiplayer games, I don't support them because one, it's a cash grab and often makes the games feel rushed, but also because if it's a truly quality game, one year simply isn't long enough to enjoy it before everyone's moving on to the new one, whether it's better or not. I'd only support yearly sequels in the case of high quality single player only games where you're done after you beat it.

[Keile]

Also of course you praise the yearly shovelware of monster hunter while putting down all the western AAA games that are far superior to that garbage. I would rather play CoD or AC every year as my only game and be bored to tears then only play the shoevlware known as Monster Hunter.

Funniest line I've ever read.

CoD is garbage, has been for years. Just because it is a high budget AAA title doesn't change that fact. Same with AC. Throwing money at a series does not make it good. Especially AC....what with all the glitches it typically has. Money well spent Ubisoft, money well....spent.

Those games are the true shovelware, they are just EXPENSIVE shovelware.

You hate MH probably because A) It doesn't hold your hand B) You're bad at it or C) You've never played it. (My money is on either B or C. Probably B, though).


Also: Black Ops is not the main series, the Modern Warfare/Advanced series is the continuation of the main series. They alternate each ones release, but BlackOps is the spin off, while MW is the "continuation" of the main CoDs (the ones that used to be WW2 based and actually had great campaigns). Not like it matters...still the same old shit over and over, $60 for the same old multiplayer over and over with a half-assed single player campaign.

I'd have no issues with CoD if they didn't charge $60 for it. But $60 for what feels like half a game is absurd, make it $40 and I'd be all over it.

[Fabio]

I don't understand why people get angry about anything like this.

If you think something is bad, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you it will go away or change. If enough people disagree with you, it won't, and maybe you were wrong.

But then again i don't froth at the mouth while scouring the internet for things to be offended by

[Kelimbror]

There are legitimate reasons to be unhappy with annualized titles.
1) Waters down the game market.
- It diverts big studios with higher budgets and salaries from using their talent to make innovative games.
- It reduces the impact an IP has in the market in terms of intrigue and innovation
- It increases the risk of 'phoning it in'
2) Creates a reward system for producing rushed games
3) Incites other companies to follow suit, furthering #1 & #2
4) Ultimately provides a consumer unfriendly relationship in the market.

Now, it's not legitimate to be mad at people who enjoy these games or pay their own money for them. But when you look at gaming holistically, CoD, Assassin's Creed, and all sports titles are a plague to the industry.

[Keile]

There are legitimate reasons to be unhappy with annualized titles.
1) Waters down the game market.
- It diverts big studios with higher budgets and salaries from using their talent to make innovative games.
- It reduces the impact an IP has in the market in terms of intrigue and innovation
- It increases the risk of 'phoning it in'
2) Creates a reward system for producing rushed games
3) Incites other companies to follow suit, furthering #1 & #2
4) Ultimately provides a consumer unfriendly relationship in the market.

Now, it's not legitimate to be mad at people who enjoy these games or pay their own money for them. But when you look at gaming holistically, CoD, Assassin's Creed, and all sports titles are a plague to the industry.

Let's not forget many of these annual AAA titles are now starting to add paid Microtransactions to their game that you just paid $60 for.

[Tech614]

Funniest line I've ever read.

CoD is garbage, has been for years. Just because it is a high budget AAA title doesn't change that fact. Same with AC. Throwing money at a series does not make it good. Especially AC....what with all the glitches it typically has. Money well spent Ubisoft, money well....spent.

Those games are the true shovelware, they are just EXPENSIVE shovelware.

You hate MH probably because A) It doesn't hold your hand B) You're bad at it or C) You've never played it.


Also: Black Ops is not the main series, the Modern Warfare/Advanced series is the continuation of the main series. They alternate each ones release, but BlackOps is the spin off, while MW is the "continuation" of the main CoDs (the ones that used to be WW2 based and actually had great campaigns). Not like it matters...still the same old shit over and over, $60 for the same old multiplayer over and over with a half-assed single player campaign.

I'd have no issues with CoD if they didn't charge $60 for it. But $60 for what feels like half a game is absurd, make it $40 and I'd be all over it.

Black Ops is main series CoD. You seem to think Advanced Warfare is part of the modern warfare line so that shows how much you know about the series. Advanced Warfare was made by sledgehammer, a new dev studio added to the rotation. The Modern Warfare guys Infinity Ward made Ghosts.

The CoD main series is...

Treyarch- Call of duty 3, World at War, Black Ops
Infinity Ward- Call of Duty 1, 2 Modern Warfare, Ghosts
Sledgehammer- Advanced Warfare

These are all the games that have been yearly releases in the fall since 2004. They are all the main series. Your claim of Black Ops being a spinoff 2nd game that gets released that year is false.

Lastly I love how because I think MH is garbage it means it's because it doesn't hold my hand. Yea, I have only platinumed all 3 souls games and bloodborne because they hold my hand. Or I just platinumed them because they're awesome games and not shit like MH. Stay mad because someone doesn't like MH, it's not going to make the series any better for me. It's still going to be low budget garbage cash grabs from Capcom that you try to defend while putting down other cash grabs simply because you enjoy it more.

[Keile]

B
Lastly I love how because I think MH is garbage it means it's because it doesn't hold my hand. Yea, I have only platinumed all 3 souls games and bloodborne because they hold my hand. Or I just platinumed them because they're awesome games and not shit like MH. Stay mad because someone doesn't like MH, it's not going to make the series any better for me. It's still going to be low budget garbage cash grabs from Capcom that you try to defend while putting down other cash grabs simply because you enjoy it more.

So I was right.

It was either B or C.

The irony here is that MH was in many ways inspiration for the Souls series. The original MH (PS2 era) was unique in that it required you to actually have skill, know how to move, know when to attack and know how to read the enemy. It was also unique because every encounter was a threat. Something that has become a staple of the Souls (and Bloodborne) series.

The only difference is with Souls they made it far less forgiving if you get hit (but this is also because if you get hit it's generally your own fault, whereas in MH sometimes its unavoidable so they give you that buffer), but more about memorization (okay so in THIS hallway skeleton A pops out of corridor B so I need to remember to dodge at this exact moment then counter him, kind of thing). Once you memorize a Souls game you can actually breeze through it rather quickly and easily. It's only ever hard on the first playthrough, really. Though, honestly, I found Bloodborne to be easier than the Souls series. However I believe this was the intent as BB is more actiony than Souls. I rather like how this, though, as it makes a clear separation between the series. My fear however, is that now that they are getting popular (and profitable) they will fall into the same habits as CoD games and just rush out a yearly release (which they pretty much are already).

Though I will admit the NEW (DarkSouls 2 and Bloodborne) game + modes are fairly difficult compared to the older ones they had. So I'll give them points for updating that finally (especially the one in DarkSouls 2 with the cult that basically makes the game insanely difficult if you chose to).

[Tech614]

The irony here is that MH was in many ways inspiration for the Souls series.

First Monster Hunter game- 2004

First King's Field game- 1994

Nice try.

[unbound]

On the other hand, you have the likes of EA/Ubisoft/Nintendo claiming that these annualized series are what allows them to create other games like Dragon Age, Zelda or Far Cry.

Here lies part of the problem. EA/Ubisoft/Nintendo are at least partially lying to you. The annualized series were not needed to allow them to create games...and certainly not the 3 games listed.

And the lies in general are what people are complaining about.

Let's look at WoW specifically since we are WoW-Champion...er, MMO-Champion. You can pull the Blizz financials, and you'll find that they are spending substantially less each year on the creation of expansions and support of WoW as time goes on. The reality is not that they need to do annualized content to be profitable or to afford the ability to create new products; the reality is that this is simply profiteering. They are offering you less for the same price (or more) with less effort expended on their own part.

WoW cost something like $200 million to make. Blizz got their money back within a few months, and they have been swimming in money ever since. Blizz used to then use the sub fees to make a lot of new content for nothing more than the price of that sub fee. The first 2 expansions also involved a good deal of effort and substantially more content than WoD offered...including completely new features that didn't exist prior to those expansions that affected everything (e.g. new races, new classes, new continents, new professions).

WoD demonstrates exactly why people are concerned with the annualized content. The only new thing offered was a mockery of player housing. Fewer raids than ever. Fewer dungeons than ever. More reused content than ever. Blizz was massively lazy with this expansion and is now using sub fees almost exclusively for profit instead of providing more content as they used to do.

People are absolutely right to be questioning what is going on. Stop accepting corporate PR uncritically.

[Tech614]

Here lies part of the problem. EA/Ubisoft/Nintendo are at least partially lying to you. The annualized series were not needed to allow them to create games...and certainly not the 3 games listed.

Nintendo does not have an annualized series.

[stellvia]

The reason they get hate is there is almost no legitimate reason for it other than a huge cash grab. Especially for the sports games—what they sell as a "new game" for $60 could easily be a roster update for $10 or something. And then you have stuff like CoD which has been releasing the same game since MW1. The biggest issue is they force the titles out the door to meet that yearly mark, so they're often the most bug-ridden pieces of crap on the market.

[Keile]

First Monster Hunter game- 2004

First King's Field game- 1994

Nice try.

Watch gameplay of Kings Field...it has almost nothing in common with DS or Bloodborne other than things hit hard. It's slow, clunky, there's almost no movement involved other than "strafe slowly to the left or right!" I see no dodging (other than the before mentioned slowly moving left and right), no countering, no real...movement or action. One of the slowest games I've ever seen, actually.

If anything the combat shows about as much depth as an Elder Scrolls title, except getting hit is more punishing.


THIS SAID: They should totally make another, last one was on PS2. Give it more movement, speed up the combat a bit and make it more of an open world title than Souls or BB. I'd be all over that...