New GTA every two years would degrade series value

[VATG]

 

COO Karl Slatoff says it "doesn't make sense" to release new entry in open-world action series biennially.

 

Take-Two Interactive has explained why it does not release a new Grand Theft Auto game every two years. Speaking during the Wedbush Transformational Technologies Conference this week, chief operating officer Karl Slatoff explained doing so would degrade the franchise's value.

 

"Often times people ask us 'Why don't you come out with Grand Theft Auto every two years?' To us, that doesn't make sense, because Grand Theft Auto, every single time it comes out, is a brand new experience. You can't possibly do that in two years. And if we did that, our product would fatigue and the franchise would degrade from a value perspective."

 

Slatoff's comments match up with Rockstar North developer The Benz, who said in November that the company could develop a new GTA title every year, but won't.

 

"We could easily have churned out a new version year after year without really progressing as a franchise, but if we did that, eventually the fans would lose interest," he said at the time.

 

Grand Theft Auto V is due out on September 17 across the world. Slatoff reiterated that this game will feature a world larger than Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas combined.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/take-two-new-...s-value-6404967

[r0eladn]

Yeah read it.

 

Good post, i think there are a lot of people out there wondering why they dont bring out a new GTA every 2 years.

[Deffpony]

Of course.

[111]

I would never want to see GTA become a cash-cow like the Call of Duty series.

 

That said, over five years is too long, especially when you should have most of the engine already in place.

[Petsevsky]

That's why we are getting GTA V 5 years + a delay after IV.

[Dominik1411]

I have no problem with it because R* release a game every year. I dont need a GTA everytime. A new RDR oder Max Payne or La noire etc. is nice too.

[LeThaL AsSeT]

I like that they take at least 4 years to develop a gta game, if they released it yearly or bi-yearly, Id stopp buying there games, Im not buy the next Assassins creed game beacuse of the yearly releases plus Im not into th whole pirate theme

[T0X1C]

I prefer years between GTA games, it makes them all more unique. Still playing spot the difference with the last 2 COD titles I purchased. It's bloody hard.

[Kris194]

I prefer years between GTA games, it makes them all more unique. Still playing spot the difference with the last 2 COD titles I purchased. It's bloody hard.

[fastetshot]

So the franchise remains fresh and every one GTA is a new experience for the players. I think more companies should be heading this way...

[TakinThyBacon]

I'm happy with the 5 year timeline. That said I think releasing DLC like Lost and the Damned and Gay Tony every year there after would be a great way for them to keep us with new content.

[FiendishDog]

I'm glad Take2 and Rockstar still have integrity. I think releasing a game in a franchise annually does devalue the series. I used to love Call of Duty when the Xbox 360 first came out. I had Call of Duty 2 (back when it was WW2), Call of Duty 3, And the first Modern Warfare. After that, they kept releasing a game every year and I just lost track of the series. I like to spend time on my games, and not just brush them aside for whatever is new and shinier. Not to mention they barely change anything from game to game.

 

Also, since they mentioned open-world games in the interview, I'd like to mention another series that is starting to suffer from this, and it's the Assassin's Creed series. I really love that series, but they need to slow down. The gap from the first game to the second was about 2 to 3 years, and they made so many beautiful changes to the series. Assassin's creed 2 was a 10 out of 10 in my book. Then they released Brotherhood a year later, and I felt that devalued Assassins Creed 2 a lot. It continued the story, but didn't introduce much. Still a great game, but for a $60 value, it didn't feel like I was getting a lot. Then revelations came out a year after that. Didn't really introduce much and was a lot shorter than Brotherhood and AC2. Then Assassin's Creed 3 came out A YEAR AFTER THAT. There were a lot of new features in that game, and felt like a full-fledged title, but I never got around to buying it because off all the time and money I spent on the series so far. I figured I'd just get it used in a year and play it for the story, but then I learn that now Assassin's Creed 4 is coming out A YEAR after AC3. That's ridiculous, there was no wait period whatsoever. I get that AC is a cash-cow for Ubisoft, but they're just moving too fast with it.

 

Now 5 years for a GTA game is a hell of a wait, but the series doesn't feel stale to me at all. I just hope they deliver with a ton of new features and it actually feels like a 5 year jump between games.

[H.I.M.]

Of course yes. When we have more we lose the value of it.

[lightningun]

gta 5

[WhitValid]

While I'm glad they don't release one every two years, and agree completely with Take Two's statement, it is a laughable question in that they can't even release one GTA within two years from first trailer release.

[Snake Without a Tongue]

Yes, once every console cycle is much better.

[WhitValid]

Yes, once every console cycle is much better.

Well we can compromise and go 1.5 per console cycle. Actually this is what we're doing right now with a V release 3 months before PS3

 

haha they are just so silly over there.

[Deffpony]

Yes, once every console cycle is much better.

I think this is kind of misconstrued.

 

If you want to go by the standards of COD and AC then ELC were seperate games in themselves. But lets just pretend that TBOGT and TLAD are the equivalent of one game together.

 

Therefore you would have

• GTA IV
• TLAD+TBOGT
• GTA V

Sounds like three games a console cycle if you ask me. Two of which are huge steps above the last

[goh13]

3-4 years is better + Big DLC for each game after 6 month of release to add new things and makes us play more.

 

5 years is just too much. That said, I am happy that GTA is in good hands. Not like Assassin Creed. Poor, poor Assassin Creed.

[Andreas]

 

That said I think releasing DLC like Lost and the Damned and Gay Tony every year there after would be a great way for them to keep us with new content.

Rockstar stated a longer time ago that they are not going to release DLCs in the scale of The Lost and Damned or The Ballad of Gay Tony again for a few reasons; the first add-on was around 8 months and the second add-ons was around 17 months after the original game released. Not only takes it more time to release such big add-ons, it can also have an impact on when the next big title of the series releases, it doesn't sell as well because it releases way after the release of the original game and the most important thing is that DLCs for $20 aren't as profitable as DLCs for $10. Episodes from Liberty City didn't sell that well for the reasons I have already stated and I'm certain that Take-Two would have published a document that states exactly this, a long time ago. Do not expect something big like this ever again from Rockstar Games.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[ayyob]

i agree with it.

releasing a game every 2 years or so will crush the game series, and the best proof is other big hit titles have been crushed.

[SmoothGetaway]

That the COO even needed to explain this concept is both hilarious and really really sad.

 

Isn't this kind of stuff glaringly obvious to most people?

[VATG]

it is a laughable question in that they can't even release one GTA within two years from first trailer release.

yep, this is why i highlighted that new gta game "year after year" bs.

you had five years to developed the game and still had to delay it, so how you gonna come out with that stupid statement?

[Andreas]

 

Isn't this kind of stuff glaringly obvious to most people?

As you can see in the article, they still get some questions so it's probably not that obvious for a lot of people. I don't think that the COO was talking about the fans but rather about the stockholders.

[Mr.Mordecai]

They should have a 3-4 timeframe.I honestly hope the next gta isn't this long.

[WildBrick142]

I think they did that because:

 

 

After five years on the east coast, it was time to go home

[Supernutz40]

How much time was between III and Vice? How much time till SA? We all bought those...

 

[chestycougth]

Yeah 2 years would degrade it, but 5-6 years is just unbearable. They should develop the game in 3-5 years each and either spend the extra revenue on more employees or allow the game to degrade in quality a bit.

[Dick Valor]

Assassin's Creed is a good example of why open world games should not be annualized. I won't be picking up the ridiculously titled AC IV: Black Flag as I've suffered enough franchise fatigue already.

 

However, R* would benefit from releasing, if not a GTA, at least a GTA, Red Dead, or open world game of a similar caliber every two years. Sorry, but the likes of L.A. Noire and Max Payne 3 just don't cut it. The only R* games worth a damn this gen have been IV, RDR, and now V. If we count the time after SA and since 360 (2005), that's three amazing games in eight years, or roughly one per 2.5 years, not including DLC. R* could be doing a lot worse. However, a stellar open world game every two years is a better goal than every 2.5-3 years. Staggering GTA, Red Dead, and new open world IPs will keep the franchises fresh and make the waiting time for GTA VI or the next Red Dead that much more bearable.

[AtomicPunk]

2 years? No thanks. 3-4 years would be acceptable instead of every 5-6 years. These people are so full of sh*t everytime they speak. Will we even see it in september? I don't even think they know. This idiot needs to be sent on his way and far away from our beloved GTA.