The yearly titles we should not pay full price for

I personally don't understand why people want to buy these games at full price, when you can just wait a few months and just play the previous ones in the mean time. I've talked about the lack of patience of gamers, and the reason these games are released once a year is because of the lack of patience. We have the regular sports games that people like getting. FIFA, NHL, Madden, NBA, etc each year. We have also seen other franchises have yearly releases like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed. We might actually also see this with Battlefield.

Forza has even become a yearly release for the last few years. I think forcing developers to release games in a timely fashion is wrong, and it stops the creativity for the game. We don't see the big changes in this game except for being really polished. There are also a few additions each time, but they barely have anything new in them. It's rather unfortunate that we're seing the industry choosing money everytime over game quality.

The best games we have seen the last few years have not been these yearly titles. Madden never wins game of the year. That should be telling, but somehow people settle with that. The games are great, but they could be excellent if given more time. Seing how if games are rushed, it does not help the developers. Because it affects the quality of the game itself.

I would suggest that they rather release updates for the games digitally for 40 bucks and you can buy additional stuff with 60 bucks for example. This just me thinking out loud, any input?

If someone wants to play it why shouldn't they go ahead and buy it? Not really seeing what you're trying to argue besides that you have different gaming preferences than the people who play these yearly releases. (for the record, I agree with you that the yearly releases are far from the best games)

That's kinda my point, when is the quality acceptable enough for us to pay full price?

To be fair, the GOTY award is not even a legit award so It doesn't really matter who wins....

Anyway.... Theres nothing we can do about it... I have a friend who buys FIFA everywhere and he's well aware that he can wait for a price drop if he wants to.... He just doesn't want to wait..... So yeah.... When people want it to be this way then you just have to let them be.

I don't get how people even remain interested in rehash after rehash. Soooo many Assassins Creed games. I'm really surprised that series is still popular. Call of Duty has the mp aspect that I can understand, but AC is the same single player over and over and over and over again. It is all just download content. It would be literally the same thing as if Nintendo decided that every Mario game on wiiu used the NSMBU engine and swapped characters and altered maps. NSMBU was a great game, but do I want to play 5000 levels over the course of a console generation? No thanks.

@Heirren

To be fair, Assassin's Creed goes to a different location everytime. Its not exactly a rehash, and even if it was, its one that takes alot of work to make.

It is a rehash as the gameplay is a rehash, mostly. People these days don't see quality--they see a name attached to something. Assassins Creed may have been something at some point, but since the publisher knows it will sell, they will rush it out regardless of the state it is in--even if they see it may take a few more months to a year to polish it up. That is what separates a good publisher from a bad one. So, essentially, buying these rehashed/rushed games is having a direct effect on the direction the industry is going.

Not many games are worth $60 to begin with. Yearly installments? I have nothing nice to say about them. $19.99 bargain bin, maybe. I'm irritated that Assassin's Creed and Battlefield have become annualized. It's getting very, very tiring. I don't care about those games anymore.

@Heirren

Agreed but when I make the same "gameplay is a rehash argument" I get the "theres more to a game than gameplay" defense....

People have Double Stanards.

Ya well I would love for Fifa to cut the yearly price to 40, but they know people will spend the $69.99 every year just for minor tweaks and updated rosters.

I personally do not buy anything at full price, gaming prices drop so quickly nowadays it does not seem worth it to me. However, you will always have a large group of people who simply must have the latest madden/fifa etc on day one, and since these people are willing to pay 60 dollars, the developers will never feel the need to reduce the price of these rehashes.

I have no problem with games that come out on a yearly basis. If a game is good then I'll buy it whether it comes out once a year, every 2 years, 3 years, or whatever. I buy the new Call of Duty games every year when they first come because I find them to be excellent games that I get a lot out of. Since they are developed by 3 different teams they have 3 years of development time per each release. Also I see plenty of sales for these games not long after release so they're pretty much the same as any other game in regards that you have those who want it and buy right away and those who wait and get it cheaper.

Also Forza isn't a yearly release. Horizon is a different type of game made by a different developer.

There are certain games I don't mind paying full price for but on the whole I usually wait for a game to drop significantly in price.

i agree. But you see that this comes at a cost. Broken ass games like Unity and even COD was broken at some point.

I dont understand why people drink or smoke or go out to eat when you can make it yourself.

It´s just something people do because they can and have different priorities in life then you do.

But compare a game like Last Of Us compared to COD.

Yes it is, it's exactly like the other releases with FIFA, COD, etc. They also have different developers

Any game marked at an MSRP of $59.99.

True, i got to admit that the only game i get each year is PES, but i've been doing that for 20 years. So it's not something new for me. But buying COD and other games that are just the same at full price is wrong

This is really all there is to it.

/thread

I think the sports franchise should be bi-annually with just a dlc roster update after year one and then a new full game on year two. This would give the developers two full years. The issue with this, money, they don't want to lose 15 million Fifa sales at £40ish a copy each year.

I see no problem with people buying yearly releases at whatever price is good for them. None of the yearly franchises that actually exist are ones that interest me but talking more generally I can totally see why people would buy them and I bet most of us have an equivalent in some other part of our lives if not in gaming. (E.g. The casual musician that sticks with the same instrument year after year) When we find something we like we sometimes just want more of it with just enough changes to keep it feeling fresh.

Just because they are yearly releases doesn't mean they aren't worth full price. Each of the AC and Forza games are riddling with content that will last you longer than most games these days. Even though I don't enjoy the COD games, if you factor in how much people play the MP you could put those games in there with the amount of potential play time.

Compare them how? They're different games. I never played Last of Us but by all accounts it sounds like an excellent game however so are the CoD games. Still though they are completely different types of games whose experience aims are also quite different.

No it is not exactly the same. Forza Motorsport is a sim-style racing game whereas Forza Horizon is an open world arcade style racing game. They are different types of games that provide different experiences.

I don't see a problem with buying games at launch, I think that the publishers just need to stop taking advantage of this fact, and just stop yearly releases in general. I feel like they think that because people will buy it that they can slap together any game they want, even if it is just a broken game or a carbon copy of another game, and yes, I am talking about Assassins Creed unfortunately

My point is you make better games when you have longer time to develope the game

Umm yeah ok. Well CoD games get three years of development, two years prior to Advanced Warfare. This is the typical timeframe for most every game. The CoD games turn out to be excellent games as well so I'm still not getting what point you're trying to make with this comparison here.

@Archangel3371: They're still generic pieces of crap. Compare a game of Nintendo for example to COD, they're worlds apart

No they are not. Generic doesn't automatically make something crap. They've been consistently well reviewed games so while you may not like them personally, which is fine, that also doesn't make them crap. I've also noticed that you're basically just back-pedalling from the fact that the CoD games have had a 2 and now 3 year development cycle which is just as long as most any other game. Now you're just falling back on the old "Wahhhhhhhh but CoD is crap!" logic. Also a game spending more time in development doesn't automatically make it a better game either.

Duke Nukem Forever proves this. lol

Yeah I was going to mention that one but I felt sorry for old Duke. lol

Then why are games that have longer development time like Last of Us, Mass Effect, Mario, Zelda, Halo, etc all are better rated than COD?

So what. First off I never said that there weren't any games that were better rated then CoD, there are. Second it's not like none of those games you mentioned weren't developed in a 2 year timeframe plus I guess I need to mention again that Advanced Warfare was a 3 year game. Third it's not like the CoD games haven't received excellent reviews as well. I don't know how all the ratings for all these games tally up but what I do know is that the difference between them isn't so vast as to classify CoD as "crap". Finally I never said that development time couldn't help construct a quality game just that it's not a gaurantee for a quality. You're grasping at straws to justify your dislike for CoD.

I have no issue with others paying full price for games or myself doing the same. I would not say the reason for yearly releases is due to a lack of consumer patience. In capitalist economics, there is the system of supply and demand. There are cases when demand exceeds supply and the vice versa is true. I have viewed many people saying they do not want yearly Assassin's Creed despite its quality. The same is true for Call of Duty.

Madden and other sports games coincide with game seasons. That is not the same concept as examples used in this thread such as Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. The comparison is not valid because Assassin's Creed takes place in multiple time periods without any sense of urgency after Assassin's Creed III and Call of Duty is similar to Assassin's Creed's release schedule for related reasons. However, Advanced Warfare does conceptualize a near future and that does give a sense of urgency to its themes.

Although the best games are not yearly releases, yearly releases do contain quality of some merit. As has been said, generic does not equate to poor quality. This is not only true for games, but everything in general.

No i am not, because it's generic crap. Most core gamers hate it for a reason. Those games are not quality because they barely change anything in them, they barely have a campaign and the multiplayer is just a reskin

Yes you are. Keep on saying that doesn't make it any more true. You can't refute any of my statements so once again you fall back to the "Wahhhhhh but CoD is crap!" logic. "Most core gamers hate it for a reason." Please. If anything is generic crap it's this kind of sentiment.

@Archangel3371: I have refuted it, i've shown you loads of games that are better rated and are more innovative. COD is the same crap every year just like FIFA. They don't do anything new at all and the singleplayer campaigns are so lackluster it's not even funny.

The game a person see as being worth paying full price for is the game they should pay full price for. If they see th CoD games as something worth paying full price then they will are to pay full price.

No you haven't. You've proved absolutely nothing. You named some games that received better reviews. So what. I could name a plethora of games that got lower reviews and they could be games that took 2 to 3 years to develop as well. You hate for CoD seems to blind you to logic and reading comprehension.

I never said that CoD was the best just that it is a very well-made game that gets reviewed very favourably consistently. So you bringing up games that do better then it doesn't disprove this point at all.

Not being innovative doesn't automatically make a game crap.

You may think the campaign is lackluster but again big deal, that doesn't make the game crap. Personally I really enjoy them. I find them quite exciting with no filler content just to pad length.

You don't care for the games and that's fine but don't try to pass off your reasons as some kind of fact that they should be deemed as crap.

Also there's still the whole fact that CoD games have just as long as a development cycle as most every other game out there so on that alone they don't even fit into this issue you have with devs being allowed more the 1 year to develop a game.

I've played several of the games in the series, and it's generic. It's polished, but if you polish a turd. It's still a turd at the end of the day.

Yes it makes a game boring, if casual gamers want this, fine. But it does not hold the same standard as other games. I would even prefer Far Cry 4 where you have a sandbox to explore to a limited twitch shooter.

They still have a long development cycle, yet they're still the same

For the umpteenth time you may think it's a turd but that does not make it some kind of fact. Your allusion that it is only a game played by casual gamers is equally ridiculous. If anyone wants this, both core and casual, it is fine because it is and I can assure you that there are plenty out there who do. It holds up the standard as most other games just fine because they are well-reviewed just like most other games, a fact which you convienently keep ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative. Also it's far from being the only game franchise that sticks closely to a formula. There's nothing inherently wrong with staying the same.

@Archangel3371: No, i dislike Madden and other games just as much.

Dude, we get it, you like COD. That doesn't mean his points don't hold up. COD is a franchise whose only innovation in the last 7 years was ripped from Titanfall. The fact that it gets 9's every year is something that many gamers acknowledge as ridiculous and a problem with the way the industry reviews games. You can jump from the MP of one COD to another and not notice a difference other than maps. That's a problem.

Since this thread is about price, the bigger problem IMO is the ridiculously priced DLC. 3 maps for 10 bucks, holy crap.

Exactly, him liking the game doesn't take anything away from the game. But it doesn't change the fact that the game is stale and basicly just copies everything from the game before it. How has anything changed really from COD 4 up until now. Not much...

No his points don't hold up. I'm not trying to push my like for the game onto others how he is trying to push his hate for that game. Like I said I don't care if someone likes the games or not just don't come out saying that it's crap as if it was some sort of universal fact or imply that it's ok if just the casual gamers like it and core gamers shouldn't like or buy these types of games, that's ridiculous. Who are these many gamers that think the reviews the CoD games get are ridiculous anyway?

Anyway this conversation has just become a huge waste of time because it's like talking to a brick wall. People can't seem to grasp the simple concept that others like different things and that it's ok to not like something that others enjoy but you can still respect other people's right to enjoy it. That's probably all that I feel like saying on this topic so I'm done.