They certainly have the resources, and it's great that they want to take the risk. That said, gamers expect so much from these types of games, that they forget the origins of the big franchises like GTA. I don't think any open world game that is built on a new IP has been as feature rich or complete as the GTA series, and that's because Rockstar actually built a fan base around a successful concept and then went open world.

Watch Dogs was new IP, and successful, but Ubisoft had a reputation built around Assassins Creed. It also didn't perform anywhere near as well as GTA 5, and despite Ubisoft saying it was a franchise, we haven't heard much if anything about a potential sequel.

Hopefully, EA can come up with an interesting hook, and build a small scale open world that is successful and can slowly build a fan base that allows for a bigger budgeted sequel. There's certainly room for at least 10-20 ish more sprawling open world games to fill the gap between new GTA5 releases, but will we, as gamers, see past the flaws that inadvertently come with building new IP, and the negativity associated with EA in general, to even give the game a chance?

@luciferous: Precisely. Don't have to click on it. There is usually a dearth of news worthy information this time of year as much of what has to be said on a game was written up after E3, and TGS etc. I also find it funny how we expect breaking news on a daily basis. Whatever happened to the good ole days of monthly magazines?

@Sindroid: Well there are a few reasons: 1) Nothing new to report on 2) The game is set to launch real soon 3) While I'm not certain that Gamespot or other 'Journalistic' websites get paid directly to make these articles, there must be some sort of contractual obligation to write about a game that will receive advertising around and post launch, with signed embargoes about what their opinion is of the game. It wouldn't necessarily be bad if it weren't for pre-order campaigns and the game turns out to be less than what you expected.

I really enjoyed Tomb Raider, and am looking forward to Rise of the Tomb Raider. The original was very good. Even when you died falling off a cliff, there was a great death animation. Some were cringe worthy and a little extreme. Items were used as plot devices to move the story forward, so, it was a lot more like a Metroid / Zelda game than, say, the equally excellent Uncharted, which is more of 3rd person narrative.

Can't wait.

@sprankel: I did my homework. I'm no expert, but I'm not wrong in this. There are databases you can consult that confirm my arguments. So, yes, the difference in cost to make the product is a huge factor. It doesn't mean you should go buy their games if they don't appeal to you, but the teuth remains that people expect way way too much from AAA games and publishers.

@West123: In defense of EA and Activision: They couldn't have made the Witcher 3 on the same budget. The average salary in Poland is less than 900$ USD / month. Witcher 3 cost $81 million USD to produce with 250 in staff. Supposing we say staff members make 2x the average = 17.5 million in 3.5 years of salary. Take the same 250 employees and make the game in the united states at an average of $100,000 salary (covering the broadest range of salaries possible) and the cost skyrockets to 87.5 million in salary alone, not accounting voice over and advertising which, if we take the same costs as CD projekt red into account is an additions 70 million, and you're looking, at a 157 Million dollar investment. If a lot of the additional work was done in Poland, than the cost may be more like 200 million if made by a North American studio owned by EA. This would also make it a new IP, which means no install base and very high risk.

I love the Witcher 3 and applaud Projekt Red for making it, but please, quit whining about how the industry should follow suit, because it absolutely cannot.

@Gordaton: Not only that, but the game had all of 2-4 hours of content, but lasted much longer because of no saves and limited continues. As much as I appreciate how games have evolved, and how developers constantly strove to outdo themselves with every new game, it just couldn't last. I think Many companies, EA included, is looking for a happy middle ground with consumers. I guess there are a lot more people who were introduced to video games at the height of the era, meaning the last 10 years have spoiled gamers. Two facts to consider: 1) Many if not all AAA games that have released recently and are in development, are richer in content (Art, music, mechanics) than games of 10 - 15 years ago, but cost insanely more to produce and 2) The fact is 85% of gamers never finish the games they buy, and indeed, consume less than half the content produced for that game. Companies like EA have capitalized on these two facts and are making games that are less content rich, but massively appealing. Studios like projekt red are to be lauded, certainly, but there's no way the witcher 3 could have been produced in the U.S. at a reasonable cost, and the sad truth is: 85% of people who purchased the witcher 3 will never even finish it.

@playstationzone: Not sure if it will fail, but decisions regarding what Nintendo does come mostly from Japan, and apparently it's terribly organised, any single person in management can veto a decision (!!) and some of them have been there since NES (!!!) and can't possibly understand the importance of online vs local couch (!!!!).

Nintendo won't fail outright, but, they may slowly fade from existence in 15 years (3 consoles from now).

I think people aren't factoring in the cost to complete the game. $120 might be a bit much, I agree, especially from people living in countries with a currently unfavourable exchange rate (like us Canadians). However, the DLC model has been adopted specifically because many people wait for price drops, purchase the game discounted at $20 and then buy some DLC, so spend $60-$80 for the 'complete' game.

Also, DLC content id produced mainly by different teams with their own schedules, and even DLC made available just weeks post-launch, just wasn't ready before, and couldn't be on the disc.

Many people purchase a game and never buy DLC. So, it really is a numbers game. Despite EAs financials being what they are, every AAA game is a risk, and judging by the sound and graphics design, this game must have had a much bigger budget than many people realise.

I personally had a lot of fun with the game, especially survival mode because of how tense it was.

Despite what many people believe, studios like EA are keeping AAA gaming on console alive and kicking, and while certain practices may seem dubious, you can bet that they're in place to make sure the company is still around 20 years from now.

@rai1gun: Actually, I agree with you. Most of the recent articles on Star Wars Battlefront read and look like commercials / advertising. I played the Beta and really liked it, and will probably buy the game. However, the side content made by the Lobby and others seem to point to many journalists not liking the game, whereas these 'Main' articles seem to point to the game being the best thing ever. I wouldn't be surprised if it got a 7.5 from reviewers, and a solid 9 or 10 from people who enjoy it.