A few thoughts on this. First of all, bullshit. A long wait makes games infinitely more anticipated. Regardless of the other games released in between, Total War: Rome II is one of the most highly anticipated PC games right now because it was last released in 2004. Yearly releases dull down gameplay and is unsustainable in the long run of a franchise (MW4 or MW5 will crash and burn).
However, there is 1 upside to yearly releases. The vast majority of games released/funded by/produced by these large game companies don't break even. Milking fans of large franchises out of as much money as possible every year allows the developers to continue funding smaller games and new IP's and not worry about sales figures. Basically, in order to see innovation and new games on other fronts, the current AAA titles have to milk the consumers for everything they can get.
So for this business model to work, something new and innovative needs to step to the forefront by the time the gaming community is fed up with the current big name titles. Then that franchise will be released yearly with annoying DLC.
@AngelCage-2 Jeez dude. I wasn't trying to start up an argument here. I'm not referring to multitasking in general. I mean in terms of technology. We grew up in an atmosphere where using multiple devices at once was commonplace. I'm simply stating that the ability to do that (though people of my generation are very good at it) is not the same as the coordination needed when playing a Wii U. Needing to use them simultaneously TOGETHER is very difficult because our eyes can't look at 2 different things at once (coherently). I just don't see the screen as being particularly useful, at least until someone thinks of something really revolutionary to do with it. Everything so far just seems gimmicky, which is textbook Nintendo.
@Ankalian I agree with the multitasking. People our age are capable of doing multiple things at once no problem. Check facebook in the middle of a game of NHL. However, I really don't see how multiple screens can be beneficial in any situation where fast reactions are needed. If something pops up on one screen and you're looking at the other, TS.
@BlackaliciousX I guess his article does what he implies in the title. I just think that the information is relatively useless. I'd be more interested to know when the most GOOD new IPs come out. As a developer, you want to know when the best time to launch a new IP is, and as a consumer, you want to know when to expect the best new IPs during a console cycle. Sales and % of total sales could convey that. Number of IPs released doesn't really mean anything. It simply means that developers apparently THOUGHT that was the best time to release them.
As for the month-to-month opposed to year-to-year, you're definitely right. Year to year is easier to look at and makes more sense. I'm no statistician. I'm an engineer. I'm usually interested in the highest resolution regardless of how ugly it is, then filter it later. I'd rather see a spreadsheet full of numbers that I can play with than be shown 1 graph that you can't really draw conclusions from.
This article is severely flawed. Statistics may not be their strong suit. Any company can release a bunch of new IPs. If they all crash and burn, that doesn't change the fact that they were new. Quantity of new IPs does not mean it is the best time for new IPs. Here are some more important observations I would have liked to have seen.
1) Year-to-year sales of new IPs - Total number of sales for new IPs in a given year would be a better indicator of when new IPs are the strongest. Month-to-Month would have been even better to see when all of this stuff happened.
Of course, the downside to this would be that sales naturally go up over the lifecycle because more people own the hardware, so there are more possible consumers. To take this out of the equation, the most interesting thing to be would have been
2) Year-to-year new IP % of market - how much of the pie did new IPs take compared to old IPs. Times where new IPs took the biggest chunk of the revenue were the obvious times when developers were creating the most revolutionary stuff (with a few months of lag between development/release and popularity).
I know why they did this. I'm a strong BO1 fan, but HATED MW3. And I pre-ordered it, and I felt betrayed and cheated for how horrible a game it was. Makes me very hesitant to ever pre-order a game again because of how bad it was.
Activision is worried that it scared people away from pre-ordering. So what do you do? Throw in the best map the previous game had to offer, the one map that no one EVER quit because it was so fun. People (like me) who don't even want to pre-order it are now considering it because we want that amazing map back.
They're trying to suck the life out of their fans, and it sorta bothers me.
@rarson The presentation this is from appears to show some sensors on either side of the TV. This could mean detailed head tracking in the future, which imho is more immersive than 3D technology. Check this short vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SDGG9HhbgQ
@ArabrockermanX I was hoping for a pretty strong next-gen as well. Granted this presentation (which I read the entirety of) is from 2010. I wonder if Epic's Unreal 4 demo a few months ago persuaded them to go more powerful. Keep in mind what we saw at E3 w/Watch Dogs and the FF demo. Developers are only gonna make something that can run on SOMETHING.
@digitaltiger @z50macdaddy Well compare it to new generations of Turtle Beach Headsets. The X12's launched at the exact same price as the X11s at the time. And the new $99 subscription xbox drops that price point down on the current hardware.
MusclesJAM's comments