Would you rather sports titles not be annualized?

I usually go every other year.

quote:

---

had an amazing single player mode.

---

IT was great until Spike Lee got involved and screwed it all up.

quote:

---

IT was great until Spike Lee got involved and screwed it all up.

---

This. I love 2K but Frequency Vibrations and the story were terrible.

quote:

---

You realize that if they do this, they would just have to charge $180 instead of $60

---

Not necessarily. They'd be able to do meaningful DLC updates, and they'd likely get better sales at retail without the buyer fatigue that comes with annual franchises.

quote:

---

They'd be able to do meaningful DLC updates, and they'd likely get better sales at retail without the buyer fatigue that comes with annual franchises.

---

The consumer would come out the loser. They would up the price of the game if it only came out every three years. Maybe they wouldn't triple it but it would be a significant increase. The DLC is going to be a pretty penny too. They can't just have revenue spikes every three years. That's no way to run a business. They aren't going to restructure their revenue model where they get less money.

Personally I think for games like Madden, FIFA and NCAA there's no problem in having a title every year. Rosters change, jerseys, sponsorships and stadiums.

I believe the new Rory golf game by EA is going to be a biannual title. That is more understandable. Golfers don't change a ton and neither do the courses.

quote:

---

They can't just have revenue spikes every three years. That's no way to run a business. They aren't going to restructure their revenue model where they get less money.

---

So then why don't they release a new halo game every year? Or grand theft auto? There are several advantages to spacing out releases. It generates demand, makes people more willing to buy the game after its initial release because they know it won't be obsolete in a couple months. The devs will be happier because they actually have time to develop meaningful changes and they'll make higher quality games. I know just among my friends who like football and video games, only a couple of us buy the new madden game on any given year. But if it came out every few years we would definitely all get it. It's not a stretch to think they could triple their sales of an annual release. Then you add in the revenue from DLC and I think everyone would be better off

quote:

---

The consumer would come out the loser. They would up the price of the game if it only came out every three years. Maybe they wouldn't triple it but it would be a significant increase. The DLC is going to be a pretty penny too. They can't just have revenue spikes every three years. That's no way to run a business. They aren't going to restructure their revenue model where they get less money.

---

I don't agree. They have no zero chance of increasing the MSRP of the game. Absolutely none. Certain argument for potential pricing of DLC.

And as far as release schedules, that's literally how EA (and every other publisher in the world) operates. Games have release schedules and developers often have 2-5 years in between releases. I still believe they'd be able to make more on it as their costs would go down. They wouldn't have to overstaff and rush a product out.

They could also schedule it so every fall has a different sports title out or something like that. People would be more likely to buy each one.