Ubisoft Says to Expect More Annual Sequels

[shrekfan246]

Spoiler: Joke, inspired by what Andy Shandy did a few days ago.

Canadamus_prime says to expect him not to buy them

Canadamus_prime says to expect him not to buy more Assassin's Creed. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.404928-Ubisoft-Says-to-Expect-More-Annual-Sequels?page=2#16794748]

The Escapist forum-goer believes that Ubisoft should expect lower sales by a count of at least one.

Sequels have been big business this generation. This has, in part, been a result of the times. Development costs are higher than ever and sequels are a far safer bet than investing in new properties. That said, as some franchises have begun falling into annual release cycles, there are those who have expressed their doubts as to whether that sort of business model <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122592-Take-Two-Says-Frequent-GTA-Releases-Would-Degrade-Franchise>can continue much longer. One such naysayer is canadamus_prime, whom we can only assume is a Canadian Transformer.

"Don't expect me to buy them", prime said in reference to a news article about a quote from the head of Ubisoft Montreal, Yannis Mallat. The Assassin's Creed franchise has grown significantly more popular and profitable since the first game launched in 2007, thanks in no small part to a consistent string of sequels, but it seems this user isn't content with such an annual string of 'new' games.

Shortly after the release of Assassin's Creed III, Ubisoft announced Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, slated for a 2013 launch. It was also revealed recently that another Assassin's Creed game <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-28-jade-raymonds-ubisoft-toronto-collaborating-on-new-unannounced-assassins-creed-game>could already in the works for 2014. We are currently unsure of canadamus' stance on these announcements, but feel it would be closely in line with his previous statement on the subject.

Source: The Escapist Forums [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.404928-Ubisoft-Says-to-Expect-More-Annual-Sequels?page=2#16794748]

Permalink

OT: I'm not surprised, considering they've been doing annual sequels and spin-offs since it debuted back in 2007. Contrary to most of the people around here, though, I did quite enjoy ACIII, especially after Brotherhood and Revelations both just bored me.

Doubt I'll buy any on launch still, since the franchise sits squarely in my "Kinda fun, but not something I care about" section of new games.

Also, I'm disappointed Captcha doesn't accept "Ghostbusters" as an answer to "Who you gonna call?"

 

[C117]

The Assassin's Creed developer believes that annual sequels can continue as long as the games are good.

Oh really. It's just too bad then that the Assassin's Creed series has, in my opinion, continually gotten worse since number 1.

I mean, could you at least spend TWO years on developing the next sequel? We can wait.

 

[Scorpid]

Untill they go to a setting that is actually interesting count me out. Renaissance Italy, wow awesome! Crusades?! =O stunning! ... Colonial america... Age of Pirates... Both politically speaking are pretty irrelivant and are just symptoms from larger forces at play. If they go to the old west next (which I wouldn't at all be surprised) then I'll know for sure they don't know what made the series great at the start.

 

[Johnson McGee]

I've already got a shelf and steam library full of queued games, theres only so much not Beyond Good & Evil 2 that I have the stomach for.

 

[putowtin]

Haven't bought an Assassin's Creed game since Brotherhood and won't until the series is done. I was under the impression that we were getting a trilogy of games. Apparently not.

No-one ever said it would be a trilogy, they did state that AC3 would be the end of a story, and it was.
I do know they need to bring something new to the table, AC3 was poor, the story and (most) characters uninteresting, and for a three/four year development (as they claim) it was buggy as hell!

 

[Sethzard]

The Assassin's Creed developer believes that annual sequels can continue as long as the games are good.

Then they probably should have stopped after 2 or maybe brotherhood at a push. The games are just bland now. I think that they had the right idea with the 2 year gap between AC 1 and 2, it was aggravating but at least it made for a highly polished and game which was better in almost every way than its predecessor.

 

[Nazulu]

I wish the video game industry was more like the classic film industry, more original titles and a lot less sequels, if any sequels.

Stop whoring all the franchises God dammit!

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

As long as they use the money to fund some more interesting titles and to do a little trailblazing, then all power to 'em! I couldn't give less of a damn about AssCreed.

 

[lancar]

I've never really blamed EA for their yearly sports releases. I just don't buy them. If they make enough money from the witless fools that buy them to stay afloat, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to let them make . It's all the other things like DRM, lying to my face, microtransactions up the ass and just plain disrespectful attitude towards the gamer population in general.

Ubisoft got rid of their always on DRM and don't nickle and dime you with microtransactions for already paid games. In my book, that makes them a hell of a lot better than EA, despite the craptacular UPlay and lackluster annual releases.

 

[MrGalactus]

Mr.Galactus says expect more daily fuck-yous

 

[Darks63]

Considering how much they watered down Ezio after AC2 with the expansion this sounds like kind of a bad idea.

 

[Dryk]

There are a few fundamental flaws with this since annual releases greatly inhibit games being good.

Even if you give it a proper 2-3 year development cycle that still means that most of the game is set in stone by the time you even get week one feedback on the previous one, let alone the proper feedback from months down the line.

 

[CyanideSandwich]

They should've finished Assassin's Creed on III and stopped on a trilogy. Black Flag looks awesome, hence the fact that I've pre-ordered it, but it doesn't look like an Assassin's Creed game. They should've started a whole new franchise on this concept.

That said, the yearly releases are fine by me so long as quality remains.

 

[Ishigami]

I enjoyed Assassins Creed. It was flawed but it had some good ideas.
However the Sci-Fi story elements never really clicked with me. I think the games would have been better off leaving this completely out instead concentrating on a political plot within the time line.
Apparently the pay off wasn't good anyway.
That said I haven't bought any Assassins Creed past the first one nor played one after the second. I only borrowed the second one from my brother and while it improved the narrative a lot the combat was still left broken.
What I'm saying is I don't see the appeal of this series that sales so many units each year. I handle this like CoD. I buy the ones that do something interesting and leave all other alone (only bought CoD2 and MW1).
Therefore I might buy Assassins Creed: Black Flag depending on how they implement the sea as well as the story but after that I will probably stay away from it for a few years again.
I urge everyone to do something similar and don't buy annual releases just because. Don't be a fan. Nothing good comes from it.

 

[Yokillernick]

I really don't mind if they release 1 game a year as long as it's actually good but then again people never criticised good yearly releases, except that they tend to be extremely rare and what you end up with are yearly cash grabs. The reason I'm sure many people criticise AC for yearly releases is that they tend to rush the things a lot otherwise if the games were actually really good people wouldn't mind a new one every year.

 

[Metalrocks]

as much i enjoy the series, i have to stop at one point. i havent touched a splinter cell game since 3. even when blacklist does sound interesting and AC4 seams to have at least a fun game play.

 

[madster11]

Is anybody actually surprised by this?
The only company worse than Ubisoft is EA. They're both scum who only manage to scrape by because the people actually making the games aren't as greedy and incompetent as the useless shits that manage and market them. They're just trying to make a good game, and generally succeed until the higher up dickbags start pushing too hard. Then we get shit like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3 and the PC port of Ass Creed 3, AKA the most unoptimized game ever sold.

Eagerly awaiting the video game crash that's gonna happen again soon. Probably right around the time Durango and the PS4 don't get any sales. Nintendo are already feeling it with abysmal WiiU sales, and i bet right now they're pushing damn hard to get Wind Waker HD and the next Zelda made, which is going to reduce their quality noticeably.

 

[blackdwarf]

Only they aren't really good, they are borderline OK. It is really a shame that publishers are so afraid of people losing interest in their games, that they shit one out every year.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

sigh. I guess they've never heard the term "oversaturation". I used to like this franchse a lot. Now I'm fed up with it. I was looking forward to Assassin' Creed 2 A LOT and loved the crap out of it when it came out. Haven't bought any game since Brotherhood though. Not because I want to send a message or anything like that. I'm just not interested anymore. I've had enough of it. It's like Call of Duty, too much of a good thing.

 

[SecondPrize]

If they judge their recent releases as good, then thanks for the heads up as I'll be buying no ubisoft games per year.