Burek said:
Let me understand this? The industry would be better off if games didn't compete with each other, forcing price drops? So you're saying that we should just have one shooter, one RPG, one platformer..... because if another shooter gets published, the other one would be forced to be sold cheaper? Or you are saying that the publishers should not make sequels to their games because of that reason? Please elaborate, because I have no idea what your reasoning is. |
Competing with ones own games is what I mean.
People can make as many shooters as they want as long as the shooters differentiate themselves from each other. Also annualisation is stupid and one reason why you cannot sell AssassinsCreed3 for 60 bucks noone would buy it if AssassinsCreed4 is out for 60. (both games are way to similar). Its also pretty bad if you talk about the next game in the series when the last game just came out this month.
None would have a problem if Assassins Creed would come out in 2014 and WatchDogs in 2015 and PrinceOfPersia in 2016 and then in 2017 another Assassins Creed. Or if the games would come out on different platforms.
Those games might share some similarities but still are different.
COD ModernWarfare vs BlackOps is still the same game which forces Activision to reduce MW3s price.
There is a reason why 3 year old fifa is sold for less than 5 bucks.
If you make sequals with a 3 year pause or whatever and/or your games are 1 game of a specific series per generation noone would expect the games to sell for 15 bucks. But if you have 5 games if the same series on 1 system then its just normal to wait for a price drop.