Ben-DutkaSome developers have spoken out against "annualization;" i.e., the controversial practice of releasing one new – or rather "new" – installment in a franchise every year.
This generation, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed have made a habit of doing that, as we've seen a new title in each series for the past four years running. And as has been recently revealed, it'll happen again in 2013: Activision has confirmed another CoD and Ubisoft has revealed a new Assassin's Creed . Really, nobody is surprised.
Ubisoft did say we could expect a new hero, story and setting, so that's good. And maybe we'll get something entirely new (not Modern Warfare 4 ) for CoD. However, there are many who believe these franchises should take a year off for the sake of innovation and advancement. But if you had to pick only one, which do you think most needs an extra year to revamp and retool? Which do you think would most benefit from the extra time? And perhaps above all, from a financial standpoint, which company would suffer more if a new entry in their flagship series didn't drop this year?
I hesitate to pick a side on this, because I'd want to see where the new games are headed. If the next AC really looks a lot different and Ubisoft promises some control refinement, and I see the same ol' same ol' from Call of Duty , I know what I'd pick. But you never know; Activision could really surprise us, and Ubisoft might be the publisher simply looking to cash in for another year. What say you?