The lights are on
One of the hallmarks of this generation is that publishers have become far more aggressive about monetizing popular intellectual properties. While some series still take a couple of years between iterations, some are arriving every year.
On one end of the spectrum, we've got Grand Theft Auto and The Legend of Zelda. On the other, there are series like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. There's even a middle-ground where games like Batman Arkham, inFamous, and Halo live.
Which do you prefer? Do you like your favorite series to have time to breathe, or would you rather have them come fast? What do you think the ideal time between releases is?
Let us know in the comments!
Email the author Mike Futter, or follow on Google+, Twitter, and Game Informer.
Long enough for the bugs to get worked out...and the game is played at launch.
Every other year is good for me.
Looking forward to a new CoD or AC game every year is great. However, taking their time to make the games, such as LoZ, proves to have better results. Wouldn't mind annual Ace Attorney releases though...
I'd prefer developers take the time to innovate. More of the same, even when a good formula, does a disservice IMO. So if that takes years instead of months, so be it.
I like every three years. it gives me time to thoroughly enjoy the game and get sufficiently pumped up for the sequel. other wise I usually am not excited about the new one coming out. five years feels like too much in some respects though. if your going to wait five years in between games, the game had better be damn good.
I'd say release a new game every two years. I like it when games like Batman Arkham come out a year after the next. For me, bi-yearly release schedules are better for Arkham, Sonic, and very other game series that needs to take a deep breath. Going on annual releases is a bad idea.
I would prefer for devs/pubs to take their time, work out bugs, make the gameplay as well rounded and innovative and immersive as possible... but in todays market, some companies simply just cant do that. They cant afford the extra time, or $$$. You would think the longer they keep the game out, the more money in the long run they would gain from all the extra publicity, polishing, and innovating. But there reaches a certain point where that isn't so. I checked an inflation calculator yesterday, and we we've been paying $60 for games since 2004. In today's money, that would equate to buying a game for $75. I feel like if companies went ahead and raised the price of games for next gen to $75 or $80, then companies would have more resources and could afford to take the risk of extending development and releasing farther apart than having to rush games. I think games would also, as a result, on average be more polished and innovative, and would be WORTH the increase in money (because gamers always want their value in money).
Depends on the game. I don't mind Call of Duty or Madden comong out once a year because you'll never be able to fundamentally change them. More complex games like RPG's should take few years in order to ensure they feel sufficiently different from their previous entry.
I prefer quality over quantity. I would much prefer a sequel to have much more content and be far superior to the original then just a rushed game thats trying to be a cash grab because the original did well.
It's different with each series, but a few years seems about right.