On Not Milking the Franchises... And why that's a lie.

[TheHumanIsland]

Inspired by this locked thread I came too late to participate in, I want to say something.

 

Now, the thread itself was really not a discussion in reality because they said nothing about that being why RDR wouldn't be released, that thread was basically not indicative of what the article linked in it was saying.

 

However, there is something to discuss about the article.

 

How are fans to believe that these series are not milked? Fatigued with NEW content? no. Milked? I think so. I can see the point that some of the series would fatigue or lose value and overall lose quality by being released yearly - look at Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and Battlefield for downward slopes. Now, I'm not talking to saying "all" of the releases from those series are worse and worse, just that there is a lot of fatigue around them and a lot of fans who say they lack innovations and so on.

 

But let's take a look at the T2 lineup, particularly the rockstar releases, and specifically the gta releases.

 

My question to the fanbase of GTA is this: How is it not milking series when you consistently port to mobile and new gen the same games over and over? How is it not milking when you release old gen just before new gen consoles arrive, wait, release next gen, wait again, and then release the PC version? A 2 year cycle of staggered releases marketed as "the latest and greatest" version each time.

 

How many have bought GTA V 3 (or more) times now?

 

And the mobile remakes, PSN/XBL releases, the constant re-releasing of games which in some part target new players who may have missed them before, joining the series later on, but also in large part are there to re-sale them to existing players. I bought all the old GTA's 2 times on PS2 (who didn't scratch there PS2 games back then and see a value in the Trilogy release?), bought them all on PC discs, then on steam, and now on PS4 I have re-bought the trilogy again, just because it as a good deal. Talk about milking, eh? And they run really poorly on PS4 - cash grab, milk, without quality control or ensuring they run great.

 

I don't really doubt that they don't want to fatigue the brands, that part of the article is solid in my opinion. But the part about milking it sounds like some snobby stab at annual releases, from a publisher and co publisher that milks with more re-releases of the same exact content over and over again, while keeping fans in the dark about future releases and plans.

 

I mean, at least the other companies participate in the gaming community with development insight and so on.

 

Rockstar has come a long way in this regard since the advent of the Social Club and particularly the NewsWire and their 'recent' marketing techniques with informative trailers and player-participant live streams, but they have a long way to go in this regard still, when we look at who is at E3 and other venues every year, and who is not. When we see who is on interviews and special features/developer gameplay and development progress walkthroughs.

 

That all said, what is your opinion on all of this?

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheHumanIsland

[Blackened]

While certain aspects could be considered "milking", writing off ports as milking isn't accurate in my eyes. If it weren't for the porting process, many fans wouldn't exist or would be forced to buy a specific platform to participate on. Porting allows these fans to stay where they want and still get to enjoy the same games.

 

I don't get what relevance replacing broken discs has or choosing to rebuy multiple games on your own accord has to do with milking franchises. Sure, it's additional profit, but you know what you're buying. I will question the release of GTA V on last gen, when it could have been a better scenario to build for current gen/PC, but during that launch window, current-gen adoption rates were uncertain. The "console sellers" hadn't even been announced yet.

 

It's very obvious when a publisher or developer is milking it's customers, and so far, I don't think that line has been crossed... Yet. The potential is still there. Surely, the availability of games across all platforms is a positive for both sides. I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to buy into exclusivity deals, I'd rather be where I am now where I can play GTA anywhere I want, be that PC, PS, Xbox, iOS or Android.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Blackened

[DetectivePhelps]

Now it's made its way to video.

 

 

 

Not sure how legit this is, the reaction is clear from YouTube ppl, period!

[Maibatsu545]

I think a new game every 20 years would be milking it. They should wait 40 more years for GTA6 and RDR 2. We can all play GTA Online until then.

[The Dedito Gae]

I think a new game every 20 years would be milking it. They should wait 40 more years for GTA6 and RDR 2. We can all play GTA Online until then.

Why you always exagerate like this?

[Maibatsu545]

 

I think a new game every 20 years would be milking it. They should wait 40 more years for GTA6 and RDR 2. We can all play GTA Online until then.

Why you always exagerate like this?

It's just a joke guys...not everything has to be so serious all the time!

[Fuzzknuckles]

Every 3-5 years would be fine. Anything longer and the wait will break people, any shorter and the game will be sub par.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[slimeball supreme]

Milking =/= Ports.

[stobe187]

Staggered release for GTA V can of course be seen as T2 squeezing out as much profit as possible – or it could be seen as keeping up with the tech that is out there. It's more than likely a mixture of both.

 

I don't see how you need sarcasm in saying that the versions they've put out have been better each time. The PC guys had to wait the longest, but the version they got is on a whole new level when compared to the earlier releases. Latest and greatest, as you said.

 

Making the most out of the products they have? Yes. Milking? No.

[Kauf Me]

They've been living off of GTA V for over two years with the various platform releases. Plus Online which uses the same world. It's hard to deny that they haven't milked the hell out of one game which also fatigues the brand and the franchise itself. It could be argued that they are driving said brand into the ground.

 

I'm all for quality over quantity but when there's not even a hint of expanding that brand or bringing something new to it...that itself is fatiguing to the fans.

 

That's why they have to announce something this year. It would be really stupid not to.

[PhillBellic]

Well, they are Milking their Grand Theft Auto Online 'Brand', in to the Ground.

 

My $0.05 (Damn Inflation!).

[Blackened]

They've been living off of GTA V for over two years with the various platform releases. Plus Online which uses the same world. It's hard to deny that they haven't milked the hell out of one game which also fatigues the brand and the franchise itself. It could be argued that they are driving said brand into the ground.

I'm all for quality over quantity but when there's not even a hint of expanding that brand or bringing something new to it...that itself is fatiguing to the fans.

That's why they have to announce something this year. It would be really stupid not to.

I don't think porting GTA V and providing content for online is pure and simple milking. As long as people still play it, there's still a market to sell to. Is it fair for them to abandon fans who are still investing time into their game on mulitple platforms? Because that's the argument that would be made - "R* left GTA V to rot for their next big thing". It's a lose/lose scenario in terms of fan's judgment because one camp will always feel offended or alienated, as is shown on this forum daily.

 

(by the way, I'm aware of the lack of DLC for single player and it does bother me)

 

As far as a new release, we'll just have to wait it out, just like we always do. Millions will flock to whatever game that is and then we'll be back to repeating fhe cycle, probably having the same debates. Just remember as customers and fans, you can choose to create awareness if this is something you feel strongly about. Continue to vote with your wallet and remember it's just video games. Most here will probably reach a time in their life where they don't even really have time to worry about games. I barely even play anything nowadays, I'm just here to pass time at work.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Blackened

[Fuzzknuckles]

There's only a few franchises that really milk the audience, and they're the main FPShooters and the Assassin's Creed franchise.

 

I'm pretty sure Ubisoft would milk every IP they own if they could get them on a yearly cycle. In ten years time, we will all, literally everyone in the world, be working for Ubisoft, so they can achieve this dream. And it will suck balls.

[ChiroVette]

First off, the people claiming Take2 is milking the franchise are completely missing the entire point of the article linked.

 

That article was ONLY addressing audience fatigue that occurs when a new game is released every year. They were in no way, shape, or form talking about or even hinting at creating different versions of a game to awiden the install base of the same game!

 

Porting San Andreas, III, and VC, for instance, to the PC and XBox over a decade ago, and not re-introducing special anniversary versions and porting them to mobile devices is not milking the franchise, it is only porting the game to different users. The article was specifically talking about how GTA is different than CoD, BF, Madden, MLB, and NBA games. Porting a game to get it into the hands of other users, particularly when so many people had already been clamoring for Take2 to task Rockstar to do it, is not the same as milking a franchise and causing buyer fatigue.

 

Like the article says, we don't get a new GTA every year like we do with CoD.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ChiroVette

[chilleverest]

First off, people saying RS is not milking GTA V is just ignoring the truth.

 

At this point, its literally fans asking for RDR 2 and next bully, or any other IP for that matter so i dont really get their point on franchise fatigue? But then there is online, its a great business model,, they worked hard for it and they make easy money off it (recent articles attest their micro-transaction success) so why spent a sh*tload of money, milk it until it runs dry.

Edited March 9, 2016 by chilleverest

[Fuzzknuckles]

So anyway, back to the topic at hand.

 

It seems like many think that milking the franchise and expanding previous games into new platforms are the same thing, which really isn't the case. If they were milking the franchise we'd be getting the same game with tiny little incremental differences every year or so. Which is clearly not what's happening.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Fuzzknuckles

[Arachne]

To me, I only consider milking if the same game (with nothing new, just the same thing as previous) is released every year.

[theNGclan]

>Rockstar ports GTA V to three new platforms

>it's a success and allows for better DLC because of the increase in memory

>All DLC thus far has been free

 

OMG MILKING!!!!111eleven!!!

 

Please. That's not milking. Rockstar's working on something other than GTA right now, I'm sure of it.

 

@Maibatsu45, it's time for a new Red Dead game. We already had Red Dead Redemption.

Edited March 9, 2016 by theNGclan

[Blackened]

First off, people saying RS is not milking GTA V is just ignoring the truth.

 

At this point, its literally fans asking for RDR 2 and next bully, or any other IP for that matter so i dont really get their point on franchise fatigue? But then there is online, its a great business model,, they worked hard for it and they make easy money off it (recent articles attest their micro-transaction success) so why spent a sh*tload of money, milk it until it runs dry.

 

What truth is being ignored? The assumption pessimists have deemed true?

 

The article/thread OP references has absolutely zero information regarding a new RDR, and any "truth" extrapolated therein is a rumour based on assumptions of disgruntled fans, nothing more. How do you know the next big R* game ain't RDR, and we won't have to wait 2/3 years after that for the next GTA? Maybe we haven't seen an SP expansion yet because they want to prolong the life of the game during that time?

 

The answer is nobody here knows, and these assertions designed to point fingers are baseless. It's fake drama for the sake of it. Nothing is confirmed until THEY say so, whether you, I or anybody else likes it or not.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Blackened

[CarlitoDorito]

At least we haven't had a PG-13 movie based on the game and don't get yearly updates. That's when you know things are being milked.

[The Dedito Gae]

>Rockstar ports GTA V to three new platforms

They made more money with the same game.

 

That's milking.

 

>it's a success and allows for better DLC because of the increase in memory

>All DLC thus far has been free

* For online, all new missions and content are for online.

[Fuzzknuckles]

 

>Rockstar ports GTA V to three new platforms

They made more money with the same game.

 

That's milking.

 

 

Naw it isnae. Most games are multi-platform, and loads of games have been on CG and LG consoles (and PC).

 

They just took their time over it and added stuff to those later versions. Updating the content and releasing it to more people isn't milking it. If they'd put out the exact same content that released on PS3 and 360 to the CG consoles and PC, that'd be milking it. Re-releasing it on the same platforms as a GOTY edition is milking it.

[theNGclan]

So because they released a game on a couple of platforms, that's milking? That isn't milking. It's literally bringing it to a new platform.

[Blackened]

I suppose people want a "one gaming machine for all" next, right? I mean f*ck ports, they're milking it/us dry by forcing us to buy on multiple platforms. A world lacking competition, with stagnated games and stagnated tech advancements.

 

Multiple platforms creates competition, a good thing for us. Being able to play your favourite series on any platform you choose is also good. Why are ports being twisted into this anti-consumer conspiracy again?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Blackened

[The Dedito Gae]

My crossplatform point has been proved moot (i can accept that), i was gonna make a point about online, but all DLC has been free and shark cards are not mandatory to buy.

 

So i don't think R* is being greedy or milking the game, just lazy.

 

EDIT:

Is a weird milking, some features are seasonal for online while others are unavailable in SP, the f*ck?

 

 

Or maybe they are truly sitting on the DLC, who knows?

 

One thing is for sure, some people here overreact, including the OP of the original thread that's now locked.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Midnight Hitman

[Blackened]

^ True.

 

We just don't know what lies in wait. That's the beauty and the beast of R* game release schedules.

[Fuzzknuckles]

I'm not even sure they're being lazy. Developing the game five times, frequent (monthly in the first year) updates to Online (and minor updates to SP), patches, y'know, it's all a lot of work that needs to be done by lots of people. From the devs to the QA to the community team to the marketing teams... there's really not a lot that's lazy about supporting a game for 2/3 years on five platforms.

 

Since Rockstar started releasing DLC, they've provided some of the best cheap/free content across all their titles, as well as providing some of the biggest and most memorable DLCs for any game on any platform. They don't half-arse things, that's for sure.

 

Lazy devs, to me, are the ones that charge a couple of quid for a gun, and a tenner for a handful of maps, and don't actually progress the core game at all. While that's the case for SP, and as much as it angers many, that's certainly not the case for Online, which has changed massively since it debuted.

[Badman_]

The 'GTA fatigue' is pretty big at the moment. The franchise is in the spotlight since 2011 and GTA V *was* released three times since (without forgetting the GTA SA Remaster). I don't think the series are milked, but right now people are just tired of it.

Taking that into account, it's my belief that the next GTA will take much longer than 3-5 to be released.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Lamarz

[Blackened]

I'm personally shifting my expectations towards an RDR game soon, with GTA following a year or so after. I have nothing to base my claims on, other than an "ex-R* employee" on reddit dropping hints about it, then deleting all his comments. Obviously, if this is true, it will come out before another GTA and will allow the GTA franchise to rest while they finalise concepts and get an alpha built.

 

I'm excited for what the future holds. I never got into RDR so now would be a good time to see a new one and see what they can do with it.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Blackened

[saintsrow]

I'm not even sure they're being lazy. Developing the game five times, frequent (monthly in the first year) updates to Online (and minor updates to SP), patches, y'know, it's all a lot of work that needs to be done by lots of people. From the devs to the QA to the community team to the marketing teams... there's really not a lot that's lazy about supporting a game for 2/3 years on five platforms.

 

Since Rockstar started releasing DLC, they've provided some of the best cheap/free content across all their titles, as well as providing some of the biggest and most memorable DLCs for any game on any platform. They don't half-arse things, that's for sure.

 

Lazy devs, to me, are the ones that charge a couple of quid for a gun, and a tenner for a handful of maps, and don't actually progress the core game at all. While that's the case for SP, and as much as it angers many, that's certainly not the case for Online, which has changed massively since it debuted.

I agree with most of what you said, but allow me to be cynical regarding the last part, about Online changing massively since debut.

 

Yes, it's changed. They took away the few random events that used to be in Online.

 

OK, they added the promised heists, which are basically linked missions.

 

I wouldn't call the addition of more properties, vehicles, or clothes to be a change, especially not massive.

 

I haven't experienced the new gen stuff like VIP. The idea of having structured events seamlessly in free-mode seems like a good idea on the face of it. But I assume that everyone quickly gravitated to the corners of the gameplay, where exploits or griefing or easy money is possible, rather than playing the activities as intended.

 

The thing that --has not-- changed in GTA Online is mindless PvP. And that is the essence of the problem. That's what makes GTA Online so old and tired and pointless.

 

The beautiful GTAV world deserves more than this -- it deserves other modes of play that don't incentivize exploits or cheap competition. How hard is it for Rockstar to add lobby options, which the playerbase has begged for, for years? Then players could actually have fun.

 

Well, I guess, in restropect, there has been a massive change. Rockstar has managed to shut down almost all the fun.

Edited March 10, 2016 by saintsrow