• mick-myers - October 30, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    An article written by a fanboy with nothing better to do. Cute. Wait till the sales numbers actually come in and we'll see how well this holds up.
  • awesomesauce - October 30, 2013 5:59 p.m.

    Bro i don't how to break it to you, but the sales numbers did come up. This whole article was nothing but numbers & facts. I know it hurts to say but even if, in your opinion, gta is better that won't change the fact that if 5 cod games come out in the time it takes to make one gta, then cod is going to outsell it.
  • kylethemighty - October 30, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    of course if 5 CoD games come out they're going to outsell, it's FIVE GAMES vs. ONE GAME.
  • BladedFalcon - October 30, 2013 6:40 p.m.

    That's exactly the point this article is trying to make... They aren't comparing one game vs five games just because, they are making the point that as successful as GTA IV and GTA V will be, it's not enough profit compared to just annualizing a franchise. Which is SAD, but it's sadly how the industry works.
  • garnsr - October 30, 2013 7:19 p.m.

    But the annualized games that sell a lot aren't bad games. They started as new games that did well, and have continued to be decent games that do add new things every year. If you made Assassin's Creed 4 as the same game but just called Pirate Game, it would take the same amount of man hours to produce and probably not sell as well as when it's called a sequel. Annualized games still take a lot of work to make, they just get more people working at the same time, instead of fewer people working over a longer period. So far we haven't seen any annualized games that have been bad enough to kill the idea, just a few that aren't quite up to the level we hoped for. As long as we get good games from good formulas I don't mind so much.
  • Eightboll812 - October 31, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    I can't argue against you liking the games that are annualized, but I will point out that there are basically two types. There's COD and sports games in one corner, where the game is re-released every year with minimal changes. And in the other corner are games like AC where the gameplay is essentially the same with minor variations, but has new episodes. Let's just put quality aside and say they are all great "quality". In the case of AC, at least its new content in some form or another. If I get sick of it, I can just opt out of the rest of the series. No real harm there. It's COD and other sports games that I have a beef with. A sports game typically adjusts the stats of players, and if a [real] team has a new uniform, the game updates that too. It really is the same game though with new art on the jacket. Why not price it at $20? That's about what it should be priced if I'm paying for the work put into it. But the real issue is that if I play with friends, they all get the new one, which means if I want to keep playing with them, I have to also. That's what bothers me about annualization of multiplayer games. I've said for years that COD was just map packs over and over. The first few years, people were like "NOOOOO! DUDE, THIS ONE HAS A CASH SYSTEM FOR BUYING PERKS, TOTALLY NEW GAME!!!!!!!" but now I see more people now adopting my position that it just new maps every year. For a couple years I grudgingly bought the latest COD to continue playing with friends. (And then there is all the DLC "maps" too lol...) When I finally stopped "upgrading" out of principle, I basically had to give up playing with a very large portion of my online friends, and that's exactly what happened. I don't have a problem with people saying COD is a quality game. Sure, I can agree with that. But why should I have had to buy it at $60 (base game) + $60 (DLC maps) on a yearly basis for 6 years (since MW1) to keep playing it? BOII is the current end product of this cycle, and I'm telling you, while probably a "quality" game, it's certainly not $720 worth of quality gaming.
  • CrashmanX - October 30, 2013 6:37 p.m.

    "Hey guys! The Dark Knight made a ton of money! Let me compare that to the sales of all the twilight movies over the same time period! See Twilight is more successful!" Sorry it doesn't work that way. Even if you compare the last two Nolan-Bat movies with all 3 (or is it 4?) Twilight movies, Twilight sold more. Why? Because there's more of them! Does that make them any better? Nope. They're still shit. Shit that sells well though is still shit.
  • awesomesauce - October 31, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Yeah but it's profitable shit
  • GR HollanderCooper - October 30, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    I actually don't know what I'm being accused of, here.

Showing 21-28 of 28 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.