New GTA every two years would degrade series value

[uzi 9mm]

It's true, too much of something can be no good, it will ruin gta's reputation.

 

If they'd have released a new gta every 2 years, people's attitude's towards the series would be like 'not another gta!', but, since r* space out the time gap between gta releases people become more eager for it and are more like 'I can't wait for gta!!!'

 

It's ok with COD games, there's not really much more they can do for the game until the next gen is released, that's why there are so many of them being released so frequently, it's just a shoot em up with a good reputation, decent graphics, and a huge fan base for the online play. most people don't even do the 1 player campaign, the just go straight for the online multiplayer.

 

gta shines in its single player mode, and by the looks of it, the multiplayer is going to get the attention it deserves in V, so the game will be an all rounder, and will definitely be worth the wait.

Edited March 9, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[ExtremoMania]

I prefer GTA to be released three to four years. If they always release it every year or two years, it might degrade the interest of many people. Sure it's okay for COD since it does concentrate greatly on online MP whilst GTA is about SP and maybe MP now as well.

 

Patience and timing is what makes GTA a game that is highly anticipated by many people and gamers all around. And I have to agree with R* idea of marketing their games, making sure upcoming series presence remains covert after they released their current series 3-4 years later before unveiling it's info, the trailer and the start of marketing.

Edited March 9, 2013 by ExtremeLimitations

[Andreas]

 

Perhaps so, although some might dispute that. Just because the games have better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to more dev time. Sure the graphics are better, but so is the hardware and software they are using now to create those games. My point was that a quality game every 2 years would NOT make the franchise to down hill (IMO).

The graphics are not everything that improves, they do play a role in the development of a game but they are not everything. Rockstar was always known as a company that puts a lot of effort into their games and especially the small details are something that takes a lot of time to do. But since the start of this console generation, the details greatly improved compared to past games. The programming is much harder now than it was in the PS2 era and that was for example one reason why GTA IV was delayed by a half year. However, the programming of the next-generations consoles will be most likely easier than it's for example on the PlayStation 3 which could mean that the development of future games will take less time. We can only hope that this is what is going to happen.

 

Releasing a new sequel of the same game series every two years would degrade the series' value according to Rockstar Games and Take-Two and I kinda agree with them. They take their time to develope their games and that is why all their titles are masterpieces. When each new title is an upgrade compared to the past games of the series then there is a point where more time has to be invested into the development, if the goal is to keep surpassing older titles. GTA III was the first GTA game in 3D and it had freedom that we have never seen before in a videogame, it revolutionized the videogame industry. The goal of GTA Vice City was to give the player the feeling that he is playing a game that is set in the 1980's and Rockstar did that perfectly in my opinion.

 

GTA San Andreas then, was an upgrade in terms of quality and quantity compared to III and Vice City. GTA IV was based on a new engine, it was the first openworld game from Rockstar that had a whole gameworld in HD, the story had a depth that we have never seen before in a GTA game before, and the game was from a technical standpoint, a big upgrade compared to the games of the past console generation. Now GTA V will surpass all that with things like the biggest amount of vehicles and weapons, the new multiple protagonists system and a lot of other things that they haven't done yet. The game is some sort of revolution for Rockstar and probably for us, the customers and the fans, and maybe even for the industry.

 

One thing that also has an impact on the development time of all games is that when a game is only a few months or so away from being finished, then all Rockstar studios help the studio that finishes a game.

 

 

LA Noir? Ya, I'm really glad they spent 5 years on a point and click adventure, but the game was lame.

Actually the game was in development for over 7 years! L.A. Noire sold 5.25 million copies between its release in May 2011 for the consoles and in November 2011 for PC until today. That is more than you would usually expect from a new IP, at least from a business standpoint. In case you don't know, L.A. Noire was a Team Bondi project, just that Rockstar got the rights to publish the game in spring 2006 and later then, they helped in the development of that game since it took way too long due the mismanagement of Team Bondi. The game was delayed multiple times, in the end by a few years.

 

 

One would assume that V's "story" is done, right? Yeah. So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI.

[...]

So why even bother "developing" these games for 5 years when they must know its going to sell 10% of what a GTA or COD will sell.

GTA is not the only game series that Rockstar is developing and the story creater(s) are not only working on the stories of the GTA games.

 

As for the reason why Rockstar bothers to develope 'less seccessful' games for five years, I can only said they they should either close all their studios or they should move all their employees to one studio and Grand Theft Auto should be the only game series they are working on. Oh, and before I forget it, they should release a new GTA game every other year! But seriously, that is what you basically said. Rockstar is a videogame developer and they want to make profit like any other developer and publisher, but they have a certain standard when it comes to the quality and they want to keep it up.

[THEMANatwar]

Even if they say they were making one every two years they couldn't. It would be delayed and come out in "spring."

[Supernutz40]

Perhaps so, although some might dispute that. Just because the games have better graphics doesn't necessarily equate to more dev time. Sure the graphics are better, but so is the hardware and software they are using now to create those games. My point was that a quality game every 2 years would NOT make the franchise to down hill (IMO).

The graphics are not everything that improves, they do play a role in the development of a game but they are not everything. Rockstar was always known as a company that puts a lot of effort into their games and especially the small details are something that takes a lot of time to do. But since the start of this console generation, the details greatly improved compared to past games. The programming is much harder now than it was in the PS2 era and that was for example one reason why GTA IV was delayed by a half year. However, the programming of the next-generations consoles will be most likely easier than it's for example on the PlayStation 3 which could mean that the development of future games will take less time. We can only hope that this is what is going to happen.

 

Releasing a new sequel of the same game series every two years would degrade the series' value according to Rockstar Games and Take-Two and I kinda agree with them. They take their time to develope their games and that is why all their titles are masterpieces. When each new title is an upgrade compared to the past games of the series then there is a point where more time has to be invested into the development, if the goal is to keep surpassing older titles. GTA III was the first GTA game in 3D and it had freedom that we have never seen before in a videogame, it revolutionized the videogame industry. The goal of GTA Vice City was to give the player the feeling that he is playing a game that is set in the 1980's and Rockstar did that perfectly in my opinion.

 

GTA San Andreas then, was an upgrade in terms of quality and quantity compared to III and Vice City. GTA IV was based on a new engine, it was the first openworld game from Rockstar that had a whole gameworld in HD, the story had a depth that we have never seen before in a GTA game before, and the game was from a technical standpoint, a big upgrade compared to the games of the past console generation. Now GTA V will surpass all that with things like the biggest amount of vehicles and weapons, the new multiple protagonists system and a lot of other things that they haven't done yet. The game is some sort of revolution for Rockstar and probably for us, the customers and the fans, and maybe even for the industry.

 

One thing that also has an impact on the development time of all games is that when a game is only a few months or so away from being finished, then all Rockstar studios help the studio that finishes a game.

 

 

LA Noir? Ya, I'm really glad they spent 5 years on a point and click adventure, but the game was lame.

Actually the game was in development for over 7 years! L.A. Noire sold 5.25 million copies between its release in May 2011 for the consoles and in November 2011 for PC until today. That is more than you would usually expect from a new IP, at least from a business standpoint. In case you don't know, L.A. Noire was a Team Bondi project, just that Rockstar got the rights to publish the game in spring 2006 and later then, they helped in the development of that game since it took way too long due the mismanagement of Team Bondi. The game was delayed multiple times, in the end by a few years.

 

 

One would assume that V's "story" is done, right? Yeah. So, could then think that the "story creator" is done with V, therefore has time to work on VI.

[...]

So why even bother "developing" these games for 5 years when they must know its going to sell 10% of what a GTA or COD will sell.

GTA is not the only game series that Rockstar is developing and the story creater(s) are not only working on the stories of the GTA games.

 

As for the reason why Rockstar bothers to develope 'less seccessful' games for five years, I can only said they they should either close all their studios or they should move all their employees to one studio and Grand Theft Auto should be the only game series they are working on. Oh, and before I forget it, they should release a new GTA game every other year! But seriously, that is what you basically said. Rockstar is a videogame developer and they want to make profit like any other developer and publisher, but they have a certain standard when it comes to the quality and they want to keep it up.

Well said sir.

 

"but they have a certain standard when it comes to the quality and they want to keep it up."

 

This part... I would have to argue a little bit, and soley because of Max Payne 3.

[MT90]

One fact who makes me like GTA the most is that R* take their time to do their games and not rush anything. And all the mystery around their GTA are always thrilling, it's this who makes GTA the best video game series I think. It's like Daft Punk in music... 15 seconds of new sound and the world go crazy. Imagine 15 seconds of GTA V gameplay now ^^...

 

For example, I completely lost the Assassin's Creeds games cause there's just too much... One a year is too much, and the game in itself is not so good...

 

 

[AtomicPunk]

Yeah, people'd be like "Oh, ANOTHER GTA? Pffft. No point since it's the same thing with a different story."

Peeps wouldn't be that way every 3 years. R* just needs to hire more people and better manage them. Set realistic goals. Monitor very closly so they know exactly what's getting accomplished. It could be done. It would double their income too.

[thatstupidbug]

I haven't read all the posts above, but :

 

1997 Grand Theft Auto

1999 London, 1969 - London, 1961 - Grand Theft Auto 2

2001 Grand Theft Auto III

2002 Vice City

2004 Advance - San Andreas

2005 Liberty City Stories

2006 Vice City Stories

2008 Grand Theft Auto IV (2007 before delay)

2009 The Lost and Damned (Xbox360) - The Ballad of Gay Tony (Xbox360) - Chinatown Wars

2010 The Lost and Damned (PS3/PC) - The Ballaf of Gay Tony (PS3/PC)

2013 Grand Theft Auto V

 

until 2010, we already had a gta game every 1-2 year, gta V is the first to skip this timeframe...

[Neo Arcadia]

 

I haven't read all the posts above, but :

 

1997  Grand Theft Auto

1999  London, 1969 - London, 1961 -  Grand Theft Auto 2

2001  Grand Theft Auto III 

2002  Vice City 

2004  Advance -  San Andreas 

2005  Liberty City Stories   

2006  Vice City Stories 

2008  Grand Theft Auto IV (2007 before delay)

2009  The Lost and Damned (Xbox360)  -  The Ballad of Gay Tony (Xbox360) - Chinatown Wars

2010  The Lost and Damned (PS3/PC) - The Ballaf of Gay Tony (PS3/PC)

2013  Grand Theft Auto V

 

until 2010, we already had a gta game every 1-2 year, gta V is the first to skip this timeframe...

Exactly. Two year gaps don't harm the series in the slightest. They're just making excuses for how the mismanagement drastically extends development time. For f*ck's sake, V was apparently supposed to come out in 2011.

[meson1]

I agree that GTA should not be an annualized or biannualized series. But it should be one main GTA every three years, four at a push. Not five years going on six.

 

They have made every effort to try to make sure that each game is more ambitious than the last. GTA:III was impressive for it's day. GTA:SA was impressive for it's shear scale. The GTA:IV was impressive for it's largest city yet AND for it's intense detail. Now they tell us that GTA:V is going to be the largest GTA yet WITH IV's level of detail. Each time they try to out do their last game.

 

But now it does concern me that the development times are getting too long between games. What do they do after V? Are we going to get something yet bigger? You see development times seem to be a function of size times detail. So if they go bigger and more detailed with GTA:VI, how long are we going to have to wait? Eight years? Ten years?

 

I think sooner or later something is going to have to give, because otherwise GTA will become a Decadized series!!

[DS 17]

I haven't read all the posts above, but :

 

1997 Grand Theft Auto

1999 London, 1969 - London, 1961 - Grand Theft Auto 2

2001 Grand Theft Auto III

2002 Vice City

2004 Advance - San Andreas

2005 Liberty City Stories

2006 Vice City Stories

2008 Grand Theft Auto IV (2007 before delay)

2009 The Lost and Damned (Xbox360) - The Ballad of Gay Tony (Xbox360) - Chinatown Wars

2010 The Lost and Damned (PS3/PC) - The Ballaf of Gay Tony (PS3/PC)

2013 Grand Theft Auto V

 

until 2010, we already had a gta game every 1-2 year, gta V is the first to skip this timeframe...

I don't see the IV DLCs as stand-alone-games. I mean it was only a different story and some things added, but nothing else. No new map, no new city. This is what a GTA is differenting from each other.

[Gurjot95]

People are comparing this with Assassins Creed, well let me clear this for you is that each Assassins Creed game was spearted by 2 years at least. Ubisoft have divided teams which work on Assassins Creed next title even before the current one releases. Revelations had 2 years development time, AC III had about 3 years, now AC IV is developed by a new team with about 2-3 years development time. That said there is no denying that Assassins Creed series has lost it's shine since Brotherhood.

 

GTA could have followed the same by dividing teams but I don't think that will work well. GTA game made by different team wouldn't feel like 'GTA'. I think this is what Assassins Creed is suffering from.

[Supernutz40]

But now it does concern me that the development times are getting too long between games. What do they do after V? Are we going to get something yet bigger? You see development times seem to be a function of size times detail. So if they go bigger and more detailed with GTA:VI, how long are we going to have to wait? Eight years? Ten years?

 

I think sooner or later something is going to have to give, because otherwise GTA will become a Decadized series!!

This. This is what I should have said to start. When should we expect VI? I know it's early to start talking about VI, but if takes 5 years to make V, where does that leave VI? In 2020? At the rate GTA games are taking more and more time we will for sure miss the next gen all together. Time will tell I suppose. Realistically I would be pissed if they only made 1 GTA every 6-10 years, but I would still buy them and play the sh*t outta them. --- I fear that statements like the one I just said are the reason why they take so damn long. They know we will buy it no matter what.

[Dick Valor]

Yeah, people'd be like "Oh, ANOTHER GTA? Pffft. No point since it's the same thing with a different story."

Peeps wouldn't be that way every 3 years. R* just needs to hire more people and better manage them. Set realistic goals. Monitor very closly so they know exactly what's getting accomplished. It could be done. It would double their income too.

Agreed. It's ridiculous to suggest players would get burned out by a bi-annual release of GTA. An open world game of IV, RDR, or V's caliber every 2 years is perfectly reasonable, especially if R* streamlines its development pipeline and drops intermittent titles like Max Payne or Midnight Club. As you said, there is no question they would make more money, considering RDR sold between 3-4x more copies (13 million) than MP3 (3.5 million), and IV sold between 7-8x more copies (25 million)!

[jamieleng]

People saying "All they need to do is hire more developers & manage them better", ever heard the saying 'Too many cooks spoil the broth'. Why are you trying to tell them how they could do it better? Everything they make is gaming gold & you're trying to tell them how to suck an egg, do me a favour.

[HaythamKenway]

Yeah, people'd be like "Oh, ANOTHER GTA? Pffft. No point since it's the same thing with a different story."

Peeps wouldn't be that way every 3 years. R* just needs to hire more people and better manage them. Set realistic goals. Monitor very closly so they know exactly what's getting accomplished. It could be done. It would double their income too.

Agreed. It's ridiculous to suggest players would get burned out by a bi-annual release of GTA. An open world game of IV, RDR, or V's caliber every 2 years is perfectly reasonable, especially if R* streamlines its development pipeline and drops intermittent titles like Max Payne or Midnight Club. As you said, there is no question they would make more money, considering RDR sold between 3-4x more copies (13 million) than MP3 (3.5 million), and IV sold between 7-8x more copies (25 million)!

I doubt MP3 is the reason why V took so long. Even though North worked on MP3, I think main bulk of their team was still working on V the whole time.

 

It's hard to make a decision. Five year timeframe is insane, but would I sacrifice the amount of detail and work that went into V to have it come out in 2011? I wouldn't be surprised if the game has changed significantly since then and probably for the best. And I want R* to stray from their comfort zone too. I want them to make games such as MP3, that are different from games they usually make.

 

I'd like to have new GTAs more often, but if that means compromises in quality and innovation and getting rid of other titles, then I would rather wait longer.

[TyphoonJames]

And they are correct. I don't mind waiting 5 years for a game that will keep me entertained for 5 years.

[jpm1]

i think 5 years is much better than 2 years . first i don't want to ever hear the devs have been forced , or the are going into depression you know . for me this is the most important , and if i ever hear something like that someday i could stop everthing . man i love GTA a lot this is a fantastic game , but i love human being even more . second GTA is a highly moddable game . and if you spend hundred of hours modding your game an then you have to "send it all to the trashbin" few time later i don't see the interest . i think this is very important for moddable games like GTA or flight simulator to let the gamers enjoy their modding . and last thing when i see the level of quality of GTA IV man i could wait 5 years without any problem for such stuff . i prefer to wait for something breathtaking than to throw my bucks through the window

[PhillBellic]

SA was def the most inovative. All they did with IV was give us better graphics and multiplayer while taking away a bunch of what made SA so inovative to start with.

Are you serious? All they did was give us better graphics & multiplayer. What about the R.A.G.E(ngine), Euphoria animation, Bullet physics, incredible attention to detail, realistic npc interaction. None of that counts does it?

 

When I'm playing some other open world games, it still feels like last generation. Hell, even some linear games don't feel much different from last gen. Max Payne 3 is a glimpse of what we can expect from PS4/Xbox Django(sic) & that's why it took so long to make.

 

I think people need to reign in their expectations for what we can expect on next gen's consoles. Development costs are spiralling out of control & that's why the indie scene has flourished recently. I'd rather wait 3/4/5 years between games, than have horrible business practices (day one dlc, micro transactions, multiplayer passes etc). The problem with shareholders is, the more money a company makes the more they expect them to make next year. It's like a balloon, if you don't let a little air out every know & again, it's just going to burst. Maybe the games industry does need to burst, so we can start over again.

Good point jaimeleng on the gaming industry balloon (bubble). It can only get so large until there's a repeat of the Great Video Game Crash of 1983, E.T. also was a catalyst in that crash.

 

I would not be suprised if the bubble burst and took some producers of annualised video games with it.

 

My $0.02 worth.

 

Cheers

[Celticfang]

SA was def the most inovative. All they did with IV was give us better graphics and multiplayer while taking away a bunch of what made SA so inovative to start with.

Are you serious? All they did was give us better graphics & multiplayer. What about the R.A.G.E(ngine), Euphoria animation, Bullet physics, incredible attention to detail, realistic npc interaction. None of that counts does it?

 

When I'm playing some other open world games, it still feels like last generation. Hell, even some linear games don't feel much different from last gen. Max Payne 3 is a glimpse of what we can expect from PS4/Xbox Django(sic) & that's why it took so long to make.

 

I think people need to reign in their expectations for what we can expect on next gen's consoles. Development costs are spiralling out of control & that's why the indie scene has flourished recently. I'd rather wait 3/4/5 years between games, than have horrible business practices (day one dlc, micro transactions, multiplayer passes etc). The problem with shareholders is, the more money a company makes the more they expect them to make next year. It's like a balloon, if you don't let a little air out every know & again, it's just going to burst. Maybe the games industry does need to burst, so we can start over again.

Good point jaimeleng on the gaming industry balloon (bubble). It can only get so large until there's a repeat of the Great Video Game Crash of 1983, E.T. also was a catalyst in that crash.

 

I would not be suprised if the bubble burst and took some producers of annualised video games with it.

 

My $0.02 worth.

 

Cheers

FWIW in the first Crash in the early 80s, there were companies shovelling out games for the NES/Atari/whatever else was out like clokwork, not caring about quality. ET's the most famous example, but there were plenty of other causes that contributed to it.

 

First off, there were too many consoles and systems out. Secondly, hundreds of games being released each week. Imagine firing up Steam today and seeing 200 new games, then tomorrow another 200, that's what was going on.

 

Gaming was then unsustainable, remember,Atari buried thousands of ET cartirdges in the desert because they didn't know what to do with them.

 

Thing is now all we get are rehashes of games that sell (GTA isn't immune to this and is part of the problem, look at all the so-called GTA rip offs there are), that's all the big publishers want to invest in.

[jamieleng]

@PhillBellic & Celticfang

 

It's really depressing that nowadays, a game can sell millions of units but still be considered a failure. Just like the movie business, a game has to sell most of its units the first week of release. When a new IP does well they just get tunnel vision & try to make as much money from it as possible, as quickly as possible. It's all about short term profits & damn the future (a bit like the banking crisis).

 

Imagine if Ubisoft or Activision had made Red Dead Redemption (they wished), just how many sequels would we have got by now? R* didn't think that game would be so well received but now it ranks alongside GTA imo. They now have a healthy portfolio of quality franchises; GTA, RDR, Max Payne, LA Noire, Bully, Midnight Club & hopefully Agent will be the new one next gen. Rockstar's current plan of releasing just one game every 12 months or so is perfectly sustainable & means we get quality over quantity. Don't look at their franchises as separate entities, they are all cut from the same cloth (except LAN) & each one is given its time to shine.

 

 

[killahmatic]

Sure, I know what they mean. It cant be like certain other franchises that bring new scenery but other than that its the same game. At the same time, I'd make the argument that no one is really asking for a release every 2 years anyway. We'd just like one sooner than every 5-6 years.

 

What really disappointed fans this time around is that we went nearly a year after the first trailer with no info at all. When they delayed it an extra 4 months, we got angry. Not because of 4 months, but because it was 8 months from that announcement, added on to the roughly 14 months we were already waiting for release.

 

Personally, I feel the reason for a trailer is to get people exciting for something coming soon. Don't release a trailer if you aren't even close to being finished.

 

 

To sum up the point I'm trying to make, we're disappointed the gap between IV and V was well over 5 years, but we were angry that they led us to believe it was coming not too far after Trailer 1 was released in 2011. We dont need a game every 2 years, we just want one in a reasonable time frame, with better timed promotion of it.

 

 

Did I get off topic a little? Oh well, nothing to talk about with the game being a half a year away.

Edited March 17, 2013 by killahmatic

[Andreas]

 

What really disappointed fans this time around is that we went nearly a year after the first trailer with no info at all. When they delayed it an extra 4 months, we got angry. Not because of 4 months, but because it was 8 months from that announcement, added on to the roughly 14 months we were already waiting for release.

 

Personally, I feel the reason for a trailer is to get people exciting for something coming soon. Don't release a trailer if you aren't even close to being finished.

The first GTA V trailer in November 2011 indicated a possible release in 2012. There is a difference between annoucing a game and releasing a trailer to the game. Well announcing games does not indicate a release date but on the other hand, you can't say the same thing about the debut trailer of an already announced title. When Rockstar releases a debut trailer to one of their titles then that indicates that the new title isn't far away. In fact Rockstar tried to release all their games around a half year to a year after the release of the first trailer. There are exceptions like GTA IV which was released 13 months after the debut trailer or Midnight Club: Los Angeles which was released 14 months after the first trailer. However, these games were delayed by six and seven months, respectively. If GTA V releases in September then that are over 22 months after the first trailer which is quite some time. My point is that Rockstar aimed to release GTA V in 2012 but the game was delayed internally for whatever reason(s).

[TellEmRye]

I'm so glad R* don't realise a game every year like Call of Duty, it's ridiculous, milking the franchise to it's finest. That's why GTA will always be the best game, because they focus for years on each title which is why you never have a flop, every GTA I have loved as much as the next.

 

Anyone who disagrees, look at the Assassin's Creed series, absolutely loved it at first and then they began to realise their games really quickly between eachother and in my opinion they have just got sh*tter and sh*tter. And now AC: Black Flag? Oh my god, do me a favour. Total annihilation of a what could have been one of the greatest gaming franchises ever.

[j.hunt]

wait, some of you are comparing 2D top-view games and 3d low definition graphics with minuscule maps with GTA IV and V?

 

some of you guys are stupid as f*ck

[saintsrow]

Sh*t, I'd just be glad to get a new marketing campaign once every two years...

[gsbadreligion]

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

well they did have 8 studios working on it since 2011 so it really isn't the same as most, and i'd consider at least watching more information about it down the line before completely writing it off the new character seems way more interesting than connor who was honestly a complete bore he had no personality at all.

[The Quench]

Completely agree and the Call of Duty series (like others stated) is a perfect example of a deteriorating series. For example, there's no way you can fully discover every aspect that IV had to offer in a mere two years. This also speaks to how great the replay value for IV was and still is.

 

DLC's are a great way to keep the game fresh and new without putting (read:rushing) a completely new game out there when the current one hasn't been completely absorbed.

 

[Killerdude]

GTA could be as valuable as COD...

 

What a world we could be living in, only for a guy who had some level intelligence.

Thank you, That guy.

[EverBlazin]

GTA 3 to VC was one year. VC to SA was 2 years.