Ubisoft Says to Expect More Annual Sequels
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fuck this noise. This would have been good news only if AC3 delivered a fuckin' closure. But it didn't. So now I'm supposed to buy a new one every year hoping the story will make sense in the end and that I won't feel like I wasted my time. It took them 5 games to get to the most anti-climactic piece of shit ending. And the only reason people weren't outraged was the fact that it was overshadowed by Mass Effect 3 controversy. 5 fuckin' games and they pull that shit. Why would I bother with this crap anymore? I'm not even gonna get this one. I'm gonna read spoilers to see if they'll finally wrap up that stupid first civilization crap. If they don't, I'm done with AC.
And I already said in another topic that the biggest reason franchises like TES, Fallout and GTA are so successful is because they take their time. They make us crave for more and they have enough time to deliver something gamers will actually enjoy for a long time. Quality thrums quantity. You can't have both in this industry. People will get tired of AC very soon because they're giving us too much of the same in a short period of time. Objectively those games might be of high quality, but it doesn't matter. It's just too much. AC just doesn't feel as special as it once did.
I used to be excited about AC announcement. Now I'm indifferent, and sometimes a little frustrated. Instead of thinking: "WOW! ANOTHER ASSASSIN'S CREED", I think "meh, just another AC game".
And I already said in another topic that the biggest reason franchises like TES, Fallout and GTA are so successful is because they take their time. They make us crave for more and they have enough time to deliver something gamers will actually enjoy for a long time. Quality thrums quantity. You can't have both in this industry. People will get tired of AC very soon because they're giving us too much of the same in a short period of time. Objectively those games might be of high quality, but it doesn't matter. It's just too much. AC just doesn't feel as special as it once did.
I used to be excited about AC announcement. Now I'm indifferent, and sometimes a little frustrated. Instead of thinking: "WOW! ANOTHER ASSASSIN'S CREED", I think "meh, just another AC game".
Okay, so I wait until the sequel comes out and then buy the original at half price. Wait three years, and then buy the truly original sequel at half price again. I got ACII for $15 I think. Only one I've bought. Works for me, I don't know how the publishers are going to support that. Oh wait, I do, online pass-based multiplayer. But since AC is more single player anyway, I hope the series doesn't collapse because of people like me.
I wish games like TES, DA:O, and Mass Effect took on this model. Instead of abunch of shitty micro-transactions; release full-priced, possibly-standalone expansions. But of course the work to price ratio is so fucked up for micro-transactions, small DLC are never worth their price compared to full games, that I can't see it changing. And its hard to swear off small dlc because we love the series so much. Truly evil.
I wish games like TES, DA:O, and Mass Effect took on this model. Instead of abunch of shitty micro-transactions; release full-priced, possibly-standalone expansions. But of course the work to price ratio is so fucked up for micro-transactions, small DLC are never worth their price compared to full games, that I can't see it changing. And its hard to swear off small dlc because we love the series so much. Truly evil.
So, when the series crashes and burns (as I assume is inevitable with this kind of release schedule) they'll already have another AC sequel half-done by a semi-different team? So their choice is either:
Give up and lose the money put in so far;
Finish it and throw good money after bad in wages and "No, we promise, this one is better" PR costs;
Spend more money rebadging it to try avoid a poison IP.
And this is the same industry that lays off whole teams the second they're done a game with a "we have to save money" justification, right?
Give up and lose the money put in so far;
Finish it and throw good money after bad in wages and "No, we promise, this one is better" PR costs;
Spend more money rebadging it to try avoid a poison IP.
And this is the same industry that lays off whole teams the second they're done a game with a "we have to save money" justification, right?
Except that the games aren't good. AC2 was the last one that put anything big and new to the table. Brotherhood was okay, but nothing spectacular. Revelations was so dull I didn't even bother finishing, and AC3 was just so damn poorly written that I returned it afterwards because I knew I wouldn't play it again.
So Ubisoft will soon be renaming itself to Abstergo with an all new triangle logo ...
I personally enjoyed the AC series until III, it was great exploring new places and following the life of Ezio, so I didn't mind Brotherhood and Revelations, but I simply couldn't bring myself to play a lot of ACIII, maybe it was the setting, or Connor, I'm not sure and don't really know what to except from Black Flag, I'm not into the whole pirate theme that much.
The problem I have with Abs...Ubisoft's strategy is that they seem to be focusing almost all of their attention on the Assassins games, I know there will be a new Splinter Cell, hopefully better than Conviction and DA, and Watch Dogs is looking great, but I would really love a new Prince of Persia game, or that new project called Osiris, which has also been put on hold next to PoP.
Ubisoft has a lot of great franchises, I doubt they would really need a new AC every year, they could have great and different games each year, with greater time lapses between them, so all of their games even the AC games could feel fresh every time we get a new one.
It's really starting to have the Call of Duty feel to it ...
I personally enjoyed the AC series until III, it was great exploring new places and following the life of Ezio, so I didn't mind Brotherhood and Revelations, but I simply couldn't bring myself to play a lot of ACIII, maybe it was the setting, or Connor, I'm not sure and don't really know what to except from Black Flag, I'm not into the whole pirate theme that much.
The problem I have with Abs...Ubisoft's strategy is that they seem to be focusing almost all of their attention on the Assassins games, I know there will be a new Splinter Cell, hopefully better than Conviction and DA, and Watch Dogs is looking great, but I would really love a new Prince of Persia game, or that new project called Osiris, which has also been put on hold next to PoP.
Ubisoft has a lot of great franchises, I doubt they would really need a new AC every year, they could have great and different games each year, with greater time lapses between them, so all of their games even the AC games could feel fresh every time we get a new one.
It's really starting to have the Call of Duty feel to it ...
If Call of Duty can do it, why can't Assassin's Creed? It's exactly the same. People who want more AC will buy more AC. It's not like the games are the size of Skyrim where you can easily pour over 100 hours into it. They're 20 hours at most. And they're being developed by multiple studios with Ubisoft Montreal heading them all. If I loved the AC series, I'd want a new one each year.
This could only work if the games are made in an episodic manner. If the same quality of a franchise has to be continued, the limited time can thus only convert into a small amount of gameplay hours.
"Every Assassin's Creed has one dedicated core team working more than one year on their projects. We call that a roadmap. It takes into account the creative content - the settings, the where and what - the technology and the team."
Yeah, you did the same thing with the Splinter Cell franchise. Quality was wishy-washy from title to title because no one knew how to be consistent. The AC series has quite literally turned out the same way... wishy-washy.
Yeah, you did the same thing with the Splinter Cell franchise. Quality was wishy-washy from title to title because no one knew how to be consistent. The AC series has quite literally turned out the same way... wishy-washy.
Ubisoft, we'll bring you Assassin's Creed 75 before we even consider touching Beyond Good and Evil 2, or anything else for that matter.
They seem to be commenting on this all the fucking time, which is surely an indication that the players are telling them already?
Assassin's Creed 3 was a hit, yes, but Revelations underperformed. Which makes you wonder if people didn't just go to AC3 to finally see a resolution to something they'd started.
I am just fucking bored of it, and since we hear about the bloody thing all the time I doubt I'll ever be not bored of it again. They're also not very good anymore. AC3 was a bloody mess and Revelations was a struggle to get through.
The healthiest relationships have people who know how to give each other space.rasputin0009 said:
Besides which, the situation has already caused massive issues in the story department. They established multiple threads in Brotherhood and Revelations in order to excuse the series' expansion beyond their planned trilogy, all of which were abandoned anyway because the storyline had gone on so long that people were getting sick of it.
They also pack in far more systems and ideas than CoD, only they don't have the time to prioritise their inclusion or, as it seemed with AC3, even decide on what their main components are (because it apparently isn't assassinating or free-running anymore); nor do they have time to react to the criticisms of previous entries. It's all well and good saying each game gets 3 years spent on it, but for 2 of those years they're working without any feedback to the previous entry.
Welp, I'm okay with it. I liked Assassin's Creed 3 a whole hell of a lot, and AC 4 looks pretty good to me. Then again, I don't immediately pounce on yearly releases like a lot of the people around here do.
Considering ACIV has been in production since 2011, it's safe to say they're not simply pandering to the fans of naval combat.deathbydeath said:
Just chalk this up to a pleasant coincidence.
EDIT: Also, it seems that the game will be 60% on land, and the rest on water, so sailing isn't even the majority of the game.
I honestly can't understand why so many people were disappointed by AC3. Its story was a decent throwback to AC1, the gameplay didn't feature too much in the way of pointless minigames (save for the naval combat which, suffice to say, was awesome), there was plenty of actual assassinating, more augmentations to the stealth...
Then again, I'd call myself an Assassin's Creed fanboy. I have enjoyed every AC game since AC1.
I suspect this game will live up to the expectations of many, and the rest will be the uppity people who are never pleased by anything...
Whatever. It doesn't affect the fact that I will definitely enjoy it
eh....
I can't get worked up about this one way or another. Ubisoft is just one of those publishers that don't make anything I want.
I can't get worked up about this one way or another. Ubisoft is just one of those publishers that don't make anything I want.
In other news: people with half a shred of foresight say to expect further declining sales, Ubisoft.
If that game ever gets made, they better damn well have the MOST sarcastic lampshade hanging of that whole situation by murphy ever.VanQ said: