No Assassin's Creed III beta a 'hard decision' - Ubisoft

Multiplayer game director says building a beta "takes a lot of time", Ubisoft made the "hard decision" to not hold beta so it could add more content.

Ubisoft hosted multiplayer beta periods for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed: Revelations, but no such pre-release trial will be held for this October's Assassin's Creed III. Explaining the decision to XboxGameZone, Ubisoft Annecy multiplayer game director Damien Kieken said that while betas can be helpful, they also take up time that he said would be better spent adding more elements to the game.

Gamers won't get to try Assassin's Creed III before release.

"To be honest, it’s something we want to do every year because we get community feedback that helps us tune the game. It is also a good reward for the community that has followed us from the beginning. But doing a beta takes a lot of time," Kieken said. "We’d need to polish a version, submit it to the platform holders and support it when it’s out. And all the time put into the beta doesn’t go into the final game. Because we wanted to push so many things into the game, we took the hard decision to favor the final game content instead of doing a beta and we believe it will be favorable in the end."

Set during the American Revolution, Assassin's Creed III features a new protagonist with a mixed Native American-English heritage. Named Ratohnhake:ton but going by Connor, the hero of Assassin's Creed III will inject himself into the ongoing struggle between the Templars and the Assassins. The game is being built by Ubisoft Montreal and six collaborating studios on a new engine called Ubisoft-AnvilNext.

Assassin's Creed III will arrive for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC on October 30. A Wii U version is also in development, though its release date remains unknown. For more on Assassin's Creed III, check out GameSpot's latest preview.

Written By

Want the latest news about Assassin's Creed III?

Assassin's Creed III

Assassin's Creed III

Discussion

0 comments
Mertyref
Mertyref

At first when i saw the gamplay I was like, man this is cool but not that gamechanging i was hoping for. But after watching this Im more than sold, I belive in Connor...Dent? this game will be fucking EPIC!

longestsprout
longestsprout

Or they could push the release date back. These games are annual, it wouldn't hurt anyone to wait a few months more if it guarantees a quality release.

guildclaws
guildclaws

Good, they should focus on their game instead of making Demos and Betas which cost time and money.

PlatinumPaladin
PlatinumPaladin

I don't play this game for its multiplayer. If it sucks, I'll live.

tightwad34
tightwad34

I think we have already heard and seen enough of this game that we really don't need any sort of beta.

OurSin-360
OurSin-360

translation - "Brotherhood and Revelations were the beta's for this game having another one would be redundant"

mogqwai
mogqwai

Ubisoft decided not to make a beta because it wouldn't need ridiculous DRM.

They would implode trying to make something without it.

servb0ts
servb0ts

Like GOW series i couldn't get into this series,only played 1/2 of AC that was more than enough.

Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

So what they're saying is not to play multiplayer on release because it'll be bugged and exploitable.

 

Noted.  I'll wait a month.

zpluffy
zpluffy

There is no beta because they are putting that time to make another new shooter that would actually sell.

Piccolo_Jr
Piccolo_Jr

Multiplayer for games like AC, Dead Space, Bioshock, GTA, and other primarily single-player game experiences can go to Hell. The extra time gained by not running a beta will inevitably be used for DLC and other such nonsense, in addition to the obligatory tweeking. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that multiplayer will not be there. It just means that people will only get to play multiplayer on release and see how pointless it is after they've already bought the game.

SavoyPrime
SavoyPrime

I don't even play the multiplayer for the AC games anyway. So I'm fine with this.

Daemoroth
Daemoroth

Hmm, have developers confused the meaning of the word "beta" with "demo"?

DeadSoulKing
DeadSoulKing

"Hard decision" my ass. Now no one can say "I won't buy Assassin's Creed 3 because I didn't like the beta."

ShadowOfKratos
ShadowOfKratos

"Multiplayer game director says building a beta "takes a lot of time", Ubisoft made the "hard decision" to not hold beta so it could add more content."

 

I don't usually go to church but... Halleluya!! An old-school Game Director!

nurnberg
nurnberg

Translation : "we are not putting any more ressources in this tacked-on online mode".

emperiox
emperiox

I'm sure they will release an AC3 beta on the PC because 95% of all PC gamers are pirates and they need our 5% of PC sales...wait a minute!

Gladiator_Sofi
Gladiator_Sofi

I just hope that this "more content" he talked about really is for improving the single player of the game and  isn't that episodic DLC we heard about a little while ago or some other DLC.

blackothh
blackothh

I find it strange that they cant do both at the same time, its not like they have not done a beta before or never made a game before. If they are that pressed for time, (which i know is total bull) then i would opt to put out a beta then whatever content does not make this seemingly magical release date then add it in free DLC later.

 

But lets cut the crap here, make the beta, while content is being made, then release the game, whats the problem?

 

Dormahhu
Dormahhu

Really what the hell are you all talking about do you see anything around exept from yourselves? assasins creed is far from dead every year when i check every AC forum existing on the net(because im a really huge fan)the only thing i see is people madly waiting for the new AC to realease i dont know if you like it or not but you cant say its dead unless you've seen people EXCEPT YOU saying so and i dont mean at AC forums but in general gaming forums!About that decision i think its the best because as they mentioned they wanted to put more content into the game (or sadly into the DLC) and the only thing we are going to lose is a small MP beta so good call Ubisoft

SDBusDriver1979
SDBusDriver1979

If Ubisoft wasn't so dead set of forcing out an Assassin's Creed game ever year. Maybe they would find the time to do a proper beta.

mikeyMKII
mikeyMKII

Not interested in the multiplayer anyway.

Evanduil
Evanduil

That's ok. More stuff in the game is by far the better trade-off, so go ahead Ubi.

valium88
valium88

I'm all about single-player in AC so I couldn't care less..I'd rather they cut out the multiplayer and focused everything on the SP. Looks good though!

Derejin
Derejin

 @OurSin-360 Aaaactually, Assassin's Creed III is built on an entirely new engine - Brotherhood and Rev were on updated versions of the Screed II engine. While they might've tested ideas in Brotherhood and Rev,  Screed III seems to have a great deal of entirely new capabilities and content.

I'm also hopeful that not spending time on a beta will help the overall game, as they say it will. I also hope that the result won't require a whole bunch of patches for egregious issues. XD

Piccolo_Jr
Piccolo_Jr

No, I haven't played the multiplayer, but I have seen it played. You guys seem to have a much better grasp of the multiplayer then I do, so I'll take your comments to heart. I'm just very cynical of games that I believe to be very single-player driven adding in a multiplayer  element simply to cash in on what they believe to be the only way of giving their games any lasting appeal, which I believed AC to be doing with Brotherhood and Revelations. Same way I feel about games like Red Dead Redemption or Max Payne 3, or Bioshock 2.

Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

 @Piccolo_Jr Normally, this is true.  However, the multiplayer for AC is actually interesting and cool and very well designed.  One could say they put more effort into the multiplayer in AC:B/AC:R than the single player.....

shadow580
shadow580

 @Piccolo_Jr Have you tried the multiplayer in AC? It's surprisingly fun. I thought it would be complete garbage when it appeared in Brotherhood but I did enjoy it for a while.

MugenAkagi
MugenAkagi

 @DeadSoulKing No, but they would when they pop the game in day one and the MP is broken. A Beta is ALWAYS worth the time and effort. They could have 1000 maps and 2000 modes, but if they play like shit, so what? Are people really that blind now-a-days?

 

david1230
david1230

 @SDBusDriver1979 this game has been in development for the last two years, maybe instead of you talking out your ass you should understand how the gaming industry works, you do realize that ubisoft doesn't force every single developer that works for them to work on the same game so while you complaining about something you know nothing about i'll give u a rundown on where there dev's are at, ac3 has been in the making for nearly 3 years as well you have watchdogs and as well the new prince of persia that they were keeping secret until just recently so you comment would make sense if they had their entire development team working on solely the AC series, but you fail to realize they are branched out to many other games, now recently Square Enix now that it is finished fully with FFVIII-2 they are sending nearly the entire staff to work together to get FFvsXIII and that game like u said about making games quickly, they've been working on it for 6 years, and like how AC 3 is going to be great from knowing what to set the game up for and knowing your programming FFvsXIII has the hard time of using a brand new next gen engine and that requires understanding how to code properly for the ps3 and for their engine, and even though it takes forever it'll be able.

Dragdar
Dragdar

 @valium88 Dont be quite so harsh, i like Brotherhood's multiplayer... there's really quite nothing like it out there,,

EctoSpartan
EctoSpartan

 @valium88 Exactly what I was thinking. But Ubisoft needs a reason to make you buy their game new.

Piccolo_Jr
Piccolo_Jr

I would like to add that I'm excited for this game, just not the multiplayer aspect.

DeadSoulKing
DeadSoulKing

 @MugenAkagi What I mean is, gamers don't have an opportunity to try part of the game before buying it this time.

ShadowOfKratos
ShadowOfKratos

 @EctoSpartan 

Curiosity:

When you say "...YOU..." are you talking about this new (perverted) generation of online addicted gaming kids or old-school gamers who socialize offline (outdoors) and have been gaming ever since the 1st Zelda and PoP?

ShadowOfKratos
ShadowOfKratos

 @david1230 

What?

 

Dude, I'm not American, but this is the reason why Americans generally woop everyone else's ass. Because everyone else always thinks they're stupid, it's so much easier for them to prove others (you) wrong. Besides, you can't generalize Americans in one context because unlike most other societies, they have too many differing characteristics between each individual, alot in even constrast.

 

Know what you hate before you hate what you don't know.

 

J4m3sR4n0r72
J4m3sR4n0r72

 @david1230

 We neither need nor want your judgemental attitude around here! Now do us a favor and stay the f**k out of Gamespot for good!

EctoSpartan
EctoSpartan

 @ShadowOfKratos You misunderstood me. Maybe I should of added more to that comment. Multi-player is something Ubisoft uses to slap online passes on games. So people are forced to buy their games new.

JJB03
JJB03

 @david1230Exactly what I was thinking. But Ubisoft needs a reason to make you buy their game new.1. how can you tell this is not meant to be sarcastic as far as I know there is not a widely known typeface for sarcasm yet so till that day comes its something you could consider.2. this comment is probably true, multiplayer is probably the best way to add replay value to a game. So its pretty much a guaranteed to be the sole reason for the game to have multiplayer.So your judgement of this guy being an american and calling him an idiot is really putting you in a really pathetic, shallow light. Just have a little think before you crap all over that comment box.      

Rheinmetal
Rheinmetal

@InvalidName13

And also they invented video games and developped the medium more than anyone else.

Americans are hated it's a big discussion why and how, but indeed the last thing one can say about them is that they are stupid.

InvalidName13
InvalidName13

yes AMERICANS are the stupidest people on the planet. What have americans ever done right? hmm. Oh yeah built the first modern factory, changed war tactics during the revolution. Gave world the idea of mass production through cotton in the south. and the most important of mass production, STEEL. Andrew Carnegie. So stupid right? I mean they only revolutionized the modern computer, undertook some of the greatest concrete projects around the world. Put a man on the moon. Sent rovers to mars. Also brought instant communication to the modern age, Abraham Lincoln and his idea of running a war through his communications office. The light bulb, i think Thomas Edison was his name. The atomic bomb is a little bit of advancement that americans are credited with. Mug shots, guess what the guy with the original idea, American, it became easier for the world to catch bad guys. Henry Ford, the first cheap affordable car for the public. NIXON! no explanation necessary. Facebook,Google etc etc. Dude, americans may be hated, and they have their dark spots in history, but they've brought the modern age to the world. You can't deny them that. 

deviant74
deviant74

 @david1230 We will be Capt. Kirk and you all can be Spock.  We have no problems with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

david1230
david1230

 @ShadowOfKratos  @EctoSpartan shadows he is a idiot and very typical of the gaming community, just like americans are mainly the stupidest people on the planet, that comment spartan made is prove positive he is from the USA.