This "Annual-ization" Of Franchises Is Concerning
I'm sorry, but I find the entire practice worrisome. It can start with Call of Duty and Madden but where does it end?
I distinctly recall Ubisoft saying - several times - that Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood would be Ezio's last story. ...and yet, here he is again for Revelations, slated to arrive exactly one year later. And oh look, there's Altair, another pre-designed character. Now, I'm not saying the developers aren't doing their damndest to create yet another engrossing atmosphere - the second-to-none environments in AC is the primary reason I adore the series - but you can't tell me they aren't rushing things for the sake of an annual release approach. It's just impossible to avoid.
EA seems hell-bent on keeping pace with Activision in the shooter department and to do so, you can bet they'll have to release a high-profile FPS every year. This year it's Battlefield 3 and next year it'll probably be Medal of Honor 2; it isn't the same franchise, but we're looking at similar technology and shared ideas between internal studios. Now, we're talking about the most popular video games in existence so where does it end? The question isn't whether the annual installments are good; the question is, what do designers have to sacrifice?
Fantastic games take a while to make. It's just a fact. What would happen if Konami forced Kojima to put out a Metal Gear Solid title every year? It would never happen; Kojima would say it's impossible because he's a perfectionist, and each title wouldn't be able to fulfill his ambitious visions. What if Sony told Naughty Dog we needed an Uncharted every year? One could even make the case that Square Enix is trying to release a Final Fantasy title every year; exactly when did they decide on Final Fantasy XIII-2? I'm actually afraid of the answer.
I think it was right around the time they saw CoD and AC - both massive multi-million unit sellers - ruling the roost each year. Then they looked at their flagship franchise, realized it was just about the only chance they had left to restore their former glory (sorry, Deus Ex: Human Revolution probably won't do it), and said..."hey, we need to 'annual-ize' FF.'" I'm just worried about the future, and what we can expect...
7/15/2011 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (28 posts)
Pandacastro
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:04:24 PM
Lawless SXE
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:25:45 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:15:46 PM
Reply
Codeez
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:24:01 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:37:13 PM
Codeez
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:48:56 PM
Temjin001
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:25:31 PM
Reply
On a related note.
What I find interesting about the annual game releases of big franchises, is that I believe gaming critics have somewhat paved the way to allow the market to be shaped this way. They've directed gamer interests for many years as to where their money is best spent. Games like Black Ops got nominated for GotY on Spike TV.
I can't say I'm totally against annual releases. I can't say I expect more of a different or better football game every year from Madden.. though, I'm not entirely qualified to say. I also think Ubisoft has done a good job at keeping the AC series strong year to year (though, BH's last 1/5 or so was rushed, no doubt) I think for some franchises the annual model is more palatable than for others. If the quality can remain high for the game type, I don't think it's an issue. Games like MGS require exhaustive effort because it's like creating both a 10 hour, or so, movie, and also an action game. It takes a lot more man hours to construct something like that compared to an open world-sandbox game or also a football game that has a very defined game template.
telly
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:25:50 PM
Reply
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:39:32 PM
Reply
Lawless SXE
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:43:10 PM
Dancemachine55
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 1:05:33 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 1:06:56 AM
SoulController
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 10:48:44 PM
Reply
I love a AC now but dont think Ill buy Revelations.
A lot of these so called journalist need to do their job and call out this obvious cancer to gaming. Dont let us end up like the movie and music industry please!!
Dead Space is my favorite Multiplat franchise. If it was yearly I'd have a fit
Excelsior1
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 11:25:03 PM
Reply
i don't want to franchises ruined with yearly installments, but i do think there are some games that can get by with it. i'm sorry the cod series is not junk. plus they were alternatng between iw and treyarch so it wasn't like it was the same developer cranking out a yearly intallment. 6 developers working on a game to get a game our is pretty crazy. though.
annualization is defintely a bad thing as a whole, but as long as gamers continue to snap up yearly installments of cod it's probably going to continue.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/15/2011 11:29:21 PM
PSTan
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 12:29:27 AM
Reply
Good example: Dragon Age II. While by no means the abomination people make it out to be, I agree with most fans that it wasn't close to the level of detail and polish of Origins. And that game took about 4-5 years to make.
This doesn't mean that some developers are up to the challenge: Naughty Dog produces consistently quality titles over 2 year cycles.
I honestly wouldn't mind waiting 3-4 years for a new game in a series, granted that developers put more time and effort into it.
But perhaps yearly iterations are a result of a need for a source of revenue. Game development is getting more expensive and publishers need to be able to make money.
Dancemachine55
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 1:04:26 AM
Reply
Imagine how big and incredible AC3 would be with 4 years development time instead of one and a half!!!
I think it's amazing Naughty Dog have churned out Uncharted 3 so quickly considering most still rave about Uncharted 2. 2 years is perfect. I'm hoping to see Dead Space 3 no earlier than the end of 2012.
2 years is perfect for franchises. Gives it extra time to be polished and can alternate each year depending on when the busy periods are.
2011 will no doubt be remembered as the greatest time for gaming. More big titles than 1999's incredible year.
TheOldOne
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 5:22:57 PM
Highlander
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 2:46:20 AM
Reply
Beamboom
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 7:08:00 AM
It *used* to be a widespread attitude back when the decision making layer were closer to the ones actually creating the software, cause it sure is how most any developer would prefer to work.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/16/2011 7:39:00 AM
Highlander
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 6:35:16 PM
Beamboom
Sunday, July 17, 2011 @ 2:42:51 AM
And now that it was mentioned I recall all this. Also, it crashed a lot. It's just, back then we never really thought of it as errors, but more like "it's just how it runs".
That made me think, maybe it was not that the software was much less buggy back in the days, it was just us, the users, who were more used to having to cope with it cause without todays easy access to patches it sure wasn't going to change anyways?
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/17/2011 2:44:39 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 2:54:18 AM
Reply
___________
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 4:04:53 AM
Reply
this is different to COD or sports games, those are a flooded market where assassins creed is a more individual title.
where else are you going to find a game like assassins creed?
closest game is PoP the other game made by the same developers.
if it was in a crowded genre like COD then ok, interest for it will grow stale with yearly releases.
but AC is such a unique game your really only getting one a year.
as appose to what 40 COD titles per year?
or 20 or so sports titles per year?
as long as they dont skimp on the quality, and try to change anything, im fine with the yearly releases.
in fact the more the merrier, AC is one of my favorite games so the more i get to play it the better!
Excelsior1
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 4:24:08 AM
Reply
i'm not particularly concerned about the ac series either becuase it seems the quality has remained high. i don't think it's our place to judge games based on their develpment cycles. it's the final product that should be judged. each game and situation is unique.
telly
Saturday, July 16, 2011 @ 11:03:17 AM
Reply

View Large Image









Lawless SXE
Reply
Friday, July 15, 2011 @ 9:48:57 PM
A recent IGN interview with Ted Price of Insomniac mentioned that one of the things that he would most like to see in the industry is a reduction in iteration time. I can see how that would be a good thing from Insomniac, as they switch between their franchises, but the same is not the case from most developers. The only other ones that I can think of to even think of doing something similar are Visceral, with Dead Space/Dante's Inferno/Ripper (reportedly) and Platinum Games. It gives them a reason to expand their offerings, and ultimately blend in elements from their different trials.
In general though, annualisation is a bad thing, as it results in iteration evolution, rather than revolution. Everything starts to feel too similar and that leads to boredom. Alas, it's a bona fide way to print money, as the masses get more into gaming and stick with their core franchises, rather than branching out.
Peace.