Should Some Video Games Use A Two Year Life Cycle?

Hey guys/gals

I was just sitting here bored and thinking about how there is nothing I want to play right now on my xbox, which is sad. But I was thinking....why don’t more game companies make games that last for two years?

My examples would be sports games and even say Call of Duty.

The biggest one for more would be sports games. Why not label the game 2019 & 2020 or something. One this could give devs more time to make a better game and two people would think they are getting their monies worth. What really changes year to year? The rosters, music, small game play tweak? I would much rather spend $60 and feel like I get a good solid game that last.

Call of Duty type games could be the same too imo. Just give us regular updates/new game modes/maps/etc.

I guess I just get burnt out on buying the same games all the time. I stopped buying sports games every single year and only a hand full of games interest me anymore. And for god’s sake...please stop with the Battle Royales.

Anyway, rant over for now. Hopefully others feel the same as I do.

Y'know it really seems to depend on the game. I've never been a fan of sports games, unless they're of the, "Kooky," variety. Even still, only up until about the Sega Saturn/PS1 era. Stuff like Madden has never interested me. I would assume, however, that they don't do that because the team lineups change every year. If it wasn't tied to specific players and franchises that can change month-to-month, I would guess that they might do that. Every time a new game comes out they make tons of cash though, so I'm sure they're not complaining about just having to make some minor tweaks here and there. That's just what I think based on extremely limited information, though, I don't have any understanding of sports.

Now with the Call of Duty games... I kinda agree, it's pretty much all Activision friggin' has now, as anything other than just a publisher. But it sells! And every 8 months, or whatever, there's a new Call of Duty game that a handful of my friends run out to buy just so they can blow each other up in...new? and...exciting? ways? I guess?

I mean, for me, Unreal GOTY 1999 has had a 20 year life cycle.

Also, yeah, Battle Royales I can live without, but maybe it's not so different from all of the arena shooters that started to come out around 1998 and didn't stop until 2006.

It really depends on the game. As for the sports games, they still come out labeled with years like Madden NFL 19 or WWE 2K19, you get the point. Same with Call of Duty, despite the efforts and setting changes, it's mostly the same game over and over. 

Good point on the UT 1999, but officially it's not supported by the devs anymore. Quite opposite example with this one when Rockstar ported some previous installments of Grand Theft Auto on mobile devices. That's very neat.

Battle Royals and arena shooters can be fun too, but there are too many variables for this. And don't forget about people who play only trendy things. 

They've been making UFC games at a 2 year cycle at least since EA got the rights to make them. This does build up hype for the next release, but me being a huge fan of UFC games I kinda do wish they made them every year. That, or take even more time if it meant getting a Universe or GM mode added into the games. Something to add a lot of replay value to the single player portion of the games, instead of relying solely on the multiplayer part to keep players busy.

But back to the main topic, I really don't buy the 2K sports games or the main EA Sports titles like madden anymore, period. And on second thought, having a UFC game every year. I would hate to see the UFC license get milked with a piss poor amount of effort going into the games.

Whew, what was I thinking.

Short answer: annual shareholders meeting. Companies want to show growth and if everything were on a two year cycle, you'd have this roller coaster of revenue OR net zero growth.

This is exactly why Blizzard will show a spike of players every two years when WoW expansions release, despite a fairly rapid decline over the last 5 years anyway. They can get away with it because they're Blizzard (too big to fail, but still answer to Activision), but for the average company/publisher it will cost jobs when they don't perform.

It's fun to romanticize in a perfect world why don't more companies make bi-annual franchises because I do feel that's the sweet spot, but the reality is it just doesn't support capitalistic ways.

That's all irrelevant because 'game as a service' now rules the world. 

Whoaaa said:

That's all irrelevant because 'game as a service' now rules the world.

Click to expand...

Which I don't mind because it's the MMO model applied to games I would otherwise like to see maintained through stupid people with money. Fallout 76 was a surprise hit for me and we still play it when new events happen in that game, albeit not so much now as it has fatigued. I like the idea of being able to return to a game I really enjoyed and seeing change where it merits it, primarily online games or in expansion format.

There are of course stupid applications of this method, such as FFXV which doesn't have any sort of online or MP component, even asynchronous. SE was just ing greedy about that one.

i am a fan of both camps i use my PC for more day to day stuff but i use macs for more creative stuff like editing music, video, also use macs for file sharing P2P stuff since i dont have to deal with malware and virus