A recently snapped [photo of a Target preorder card](http://ps3.ign.com/articles/122/1223929p1.html) has confirmed the next “Call of Duty” game as “Call of Duty: Black Ops 2” for a release date of Nov. 13. This isn’t huge news; you knew another “CoD” game was to be expected shortly not only because of the several leaks and rumors along the way, but also because a “CoD” game comes out every year.
However, this article is not meant to berate Activision and the “CoD” franchise, but it is in fact meant to delve into the reasoning behind _every single_ producer/development team that has turned to the annual game release model. I’m looking at you, every-sports-game-ever-created, not to mention “Battlefield,” “Need for Speed” and “Assassin’s Creed.”
What this means for the gaming industry is up in the air — are we on the way to cheaply produced games for the sake of profit, or is there a bright side in all of this?
In a two-to-three year release cycle, developers have time to add more content, experiment with new and innovative ideas, add a layer of polish to the title and even increase demand due to the longer wait time. As a gamer, I like to know time is taken to make the game so I get the most out of my $60, not that I’m paying for something resembling new DLC with a lack of any new ideas. I don’t know about you, but when a game comes out every year, it makes that game feel a lot less important.
However, are long release cycles really needed anymore? As advanced as we are in the current generation of gaming, is it unreasonable for us as consumers to expect an annual release from publishers and developers? The size of development teams on games is almost triple what it was when the first wave of games was published for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. With such an increase and the learning curve to the new console diminished, maybe developers only need a year to produce what they used to need two or three years for.
If it is the appearance of companies pumping out a game a year that we don’t like, because it makes it seem like there was little done to improve upon the previous experience, there is something else we should keep in mind. For instance, there are several development teams working on the “CoD” franchise. So although there are annual releases, each game has a development time of two years. That being said, are we getting upset about the appearance of cash cows with small development times, or the efficiency companies like EA and Activision are able to achieve?
Regardless, the name is still a watered-down version of what it was previously. Take “Assassin’s Creed.” “AC” has recently followed an annual release schedule, but what was unique about this process was that while “AC: Brotherhood” and “AC: Revelations” were being produced for arguably weaker and weaker annual releases, “Assassin’s Creed III” was in development for more than two years as a sequel to “AC II.”
You were hooked on the series because of the first few installments that likely featured larger changes than between the later games. Because of this successful hook, the producer/development team takes advantage of the success to crank out titles that feature the same winning mechanics but with minimal change.
It really comes down to what the final product looks like. No matter what Activision is doing with its developer cycles on “CoD,” a quality-produced game is coming out with little to no innovation. We always like to think our games are a labor of love because countless development hours are poured into them by teams that love the project rather than an assembly line of production to finish the next title.
Bottom line: More content is always appreciated—but only if it is good content. We don’t want glorified expansions, developers. If you’re going to do this, do it right.
