I often wonder whether these yearly franchises, games like FIFA, F1 , CoD etc...can ever improve beyond the superficial when they have so little room to breathe and experiment.
Codemasters would have started on this year's game as soon as the last game was released, I'd imagine.
They would have left a skeleton staff on 2016 while the majority of their talented team were put on 2017.
This ends up giving those who had just bought 2016 when it was released a sub par post release experience, and those who eventually bought 2017 (namely us) a game that has only had a year to try and rework or reimagine, and then we get the skeleton staff to respond to bugs just like the year before...and the cycle continues.
I'm not saying this is necessarily how it works, but I suspect it is.
Take the pressure off, allow Codemasters at least 2 years to redesign any flaws, upgrade their game engine, allow plenty of play testing, and eventually release something that is;
A) Finished Bug free C) Up to-date
Unfortunately, as we all probably know instinctively, it simply won't happen that way.
The yearly release is a great cash grab, offering what amounts in a lot of cases to the same game every year for the same money and earning a small fortune.
I mean, classic cars aside, you could argue that without livery updates this is f12016.
Yes, the cars look different...a bit.
But is there enough different, I mean really different, that makes it necessary to have yearly updates?
I'd much rather have a game that releases livery updates every year as paid DLC and keeps the core game the same, so that we have consistency.... similar to I-Racing.
I accept it would be easy on p.c but less so on console.