|
Sound Off: On Sequel Spacing
|
|
DICE, as a rule, has released a new Battlefield game every two years or so. Which, for some reason, the majority of game fans seem to have forgotten when they took to the web to bitch about Battlefield 4 coming out too close to Battlefield 3. A two-year cycle has always worked for DICE, and it’s likely they’ll continue that into the near future.
Battlefield’s biggest competitor is, of course, Call of Duty, a franchise which brings a new title to market every single fall. And, naturally, each subsequent yearly release manages to stomp the hell out of the previous release’s sales tally. For all the complaining people do about CoD’s yearly release schedule, they don’t seem to be backing away at the sales counter.
So, QJ readers, we want to know what you think: Is it okay to release a new sequel every year, or should publishers keep their franchises dormant for longer periods of time? Are you a fan of the Activision model, or of the Valve model?
Sound off!
|
Comments
Bad company,1943(remake still counts)battlefi eld heroes,Bad company 2,battlefield online/play4free,bf3
six games in the past 4-5 years,not bad EA/DICE
Reply
For single-player games such as Assassin's Creed, it's up to the people making it. If they want to release a new game every year, by all means go ahead. If the story is new and the gameplay is updated, it's up to the fan base to decide whether or not they want to play a new version. This makes sense considering you can't just add a whole new game worth of story as dlc (for PC's maybe but not for consoles at least).
Reply