The fuck he talking about? Obviously it has worked before. How else can you explain yearly COD releases making billions in revenue?
That it’s a losing strategy in the long term was always obvious, but get this: whomever’s in charge only cares about the numbers of the following quarter. That the company will go under in 10 years is literally not his problem, that’s the next schmoe’s problem.
Yearly CoD releases are taking longer to make and costing more to produce though; the most recent CoD we have numbers for, which was a number of years ago at this point, cost $700M to make, and that was the most expensive one at the time. They used to have two studios alternating releases every other year. Now there are three studios on a rotation with about a dozen support studios that all used to make other games, and now they just make CoD.
“Charging more” is where this gets ambiguous though. A game like Assassin’s Creed charges less these days than it used to, relative to how much content they put in the box. I’m long since checked out of Assassin’s Creed, but I think the average game could stand to be leaner and cost the same in the interest of coming out faster and for less money to produce. That would be called shrinkflation in any other industry, which is the same as charging more.
I don’t think this is quite right. CoD titles do take a long time to develop. They‘re just rotating studios, so they can achieve a yearly release cadence (the last six entries in the series had five different studios working on them).
Also, they are by no means getting cheaper. According to court documents development costs rose from $450 million to over $700 million from 2015 to 2020 alone.
Aren’t the cod games made by 3 different studios that take turns with their releases? Or did they stop doing that? I remember infinity ward, Treyarchand I can’t recall the 3rd
The fuck he talking about? Obviously it has worked before. How else can you explain yearly COD releases making billions in revenue?
That it’s a losing strategy in the long term was always obvious, but get this: whomever’s in charge only cares about the numbers of the following quarter. That the company will go under in 10 years is literally not his problem, that’s the next schmoe’s problem.
Yearly CoD releases are taking longer to make and costing more to produce though; the most recent CoD we have numbers for, which was a number of years ago at this point, cost $700M to make, and that was the most expensive one at the time. They used to have two studios alternating releases every other year. Now there are three studios on a rotation with about a dozen support studios that all used to make other games, and now they just make CoD.
“Charging more” is where this gets ambiguous though. A game like Assassin’s Creed charges less these days than it used to, relative to how much content they put in the box. I’m long since checked out of Assassin’s Creed, but I think the average game could stand to be leaner and cost the same in the interest of coming out faster and for less money to produce. That would be called shrinkflation in any other industry, which is the same as charging more.
I don’t think this is quite right. CoD titles do take a long time to develop. They‘re just rotating studios, so they can achieve a yearly release cadence (the last six entries in the series had five different studios working on them). Also, they are by no means getting cheaper. According to court documents development costs rose from $450 million to over $700 million from 2015 to 2020 alone.
Aren’t the cod games made by 3 different studios that take turns with their releases? Or did they stop doing that? I remember infinity ward, Treyarchand I can’t recall the 3rd