Thank you Take-Two for being realistic about spacing your game releases. I agree that this reduces the cannibalization of previously released IP. I also feel that this provides more time to improve the next title in line and creates a higher quality game. I love Call of Duty, but that approach is fatiguing me, and I've noticed the lack of creativity from one title to the next, whereas the Grand Theft Auto series continually improves at a steady rate.

Two points here...

1) Why are people so bothered by annualized releases? I just don't understand the argument. If the demand is there fora new CoD title every year, and clearly Activision has demonstrated that there is, then what's the problem? I don't buy the idea that annual releases are somehow robbing the series of creativity and innovation. Go back and look at Modern Warfare 1 -- what exactly in terms of gameplay and mechanics was so innovative about that game? MW1 was about taking the military shooter genre and perfecting it with top-notch design, not overhauling it with new features. And MW1 looks a lot more like the original WWII titles in the series than the more recent releases.

2) I find Zelnick's comments a little disingenuous. First, from 2001 with GTA3 to 2009 with Liberty City episodes, Take Two released a major GTA title every yeard except 2003 and 2007. So sure, you don't have annualized releases....but you're not off much. I find it a little silly that Zelnick's trying to make it sound like he's so against saturating the market with GTA content. Yes, the last couple years have been quiet, but man, just look at the release schedule before that. Plus, GTA 4 was released in 2008 and hit 25 million copies sold this year. Okay, fine -- but Black Ops 1 was released in 2010 and hit 25 million copies in less than a year. So there you have it. Maybe Zelnick has been tired of analysts and media members asking where GTA V is and why didn't Take Two release it sooner, and he felt like lobbing a few grenades at Activision. And who knows, maybe an annual GTA game wouldn't have the same success as a CoD titles (different genres, less focus on MP, more content, etc.). But to me his logic here just seems way off.

It may be true that annualized IP eventually canabalizes sales. But the real question is which method will allow you to milk the most value out of an IP.

IE, money has a time value, and the present value of annualized IP over 8 years could be greater than non-annualized IP over 15 years. Assuming the same number of releases and no risk of IP becoming irrevelant due to outside factors.

I want to believe this is true, it seems more respectful and logical, but then I see ActiBlizz still announcing annual "Call Of Dooty" and selling millions.

It's to the point now where I hope to read news of ActiBlizz failing miserably....and I'm normally such a reasonable person!

I guess it boils down to beat it dead and take your wheelbarrows full of cash to the bank or invest in an IP people will want in the future too. As an investor looking for a return, I can't fault the beating it dead strategy, you just have to know when to take your money and run.

I wouldn't be surprised if they invest more in marketing than developing the actual call of duty game.