Ubisoft: We'd be stupid to not release an AC game every year

#1 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11524 posts) -
#2 Edited by darkspineslayer (19487 posts) -

I suppose since I did end up buying AC4, I have no right to complain.

That said, I am wary of Unity and will probably ignore comet completely.

#3 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

#4 Edited by cainetao11 (16620 posts) -

Yes, I agree. Gamers buy anything. We all know it. Why would any business not do it? I am glad R* doesn't. Don't think they can maintain the quality of GTA in yearly and they know it. But I don't blame companies for doing it.

#5 Edited by jake44 (1943 posts) -

I can't play another AC game unless they change things up. Would love a revamped combat system or if they took the game in a more stealth direction.

#6 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (13133 posts) -

Gotta get dat Grip, make that paper, stack that doe tho.

#7 Posted by Desmonic (13180 posts) -

Oh boy...

#8 Edited by kinectthedots (1588 posts) -

Hope it flops on an epic level and I don't even wish flops on xbone exclusives.

What do they mean, "They would be stupid not to yearly ass creed games?" No no no.

One stupidest vocalized comments I've ever heard a game producer say. Even if you would want something like this, why would you openly say that? It's not like this is a sports game. Games like this should mean something, with yearly incarnations they will be cut and paste minimal advancement works of episodic content.

They will basically be releasing patches of content that could have been add-ons released as DLC but they want a full $60.

#9 Posted by clyde46 (44132 posts) -

I don't see why they aren't looking at the likes of COD with its yearly releases.

#10 Edited by PhazonBlazer (11524 posts) -

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

#11 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

The games are rated well enough.....and they sell. Of course they'll ride that train. If you don't like the series...don't buy it. Simple enough. But complaining about is silly.

#12 Posted by Desmonic (13180 posts) -

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

#13 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11524 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

I said mostly :P

(we don't talk about Revelations)

AC3 was fine though IMO

#14 Posted by DocSanchez (1520 posts) -

You're the consumer. If you don't want it, don't buy it. They will get the message. And likewise, if they release one per year (or in this case, two, for the two different generations, which I'm glad about because it means the next gen wont be held back by the previous 360, PS3 and wii u tech) and it sells well, then the message is quite clear. People are okay with it.

#15 Edited by Desmonic (13180 posts) -

@PhazonBlazer said:

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

I said mostly :P

(we don't talk about Revelations)

AC3 was fine though IMO

I know we don't XD

Eh, like I said those two particular aspectes were great but everything else felt broken. Either due to being rushed or the team simply not being able to make a cohesive enough experience or whatever reason it was...

Though I hear AC4 (which I have yet to try) is miles better in every single aspect :)

#16 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

You can either have a franchise that lasts a really long time and makes a lot of money each time it releases, or you can have a franchise that makes less money and releases every year until people get tired of it.

It's hard to fault them for making that call from a business perspective, but as a gamer, it sucks.

#17 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

You can either have a franchise that lasts a really long time and makes a lot of money each time it releases, or you can have a franchise that makes less money and releases every year until people get tired of it.

It's hard to fault them for making that call from a business perspective, but as a gamer, it sucks.

Depends on how well done the game is and what they do to keep it fresh.

#18 Posted by DarkLink77 (31695 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

You can either have a franchise that lasts a really long time and makes a lot of money each time it releases, or you can have a franchise that makes less money and releases every year until people get tired of it.

It's hard to fault them for making that call from a business perspective, but as a gamer, it sucks.

Depends on how well done the game is and what they do to keep it fresh.

Well, I personally lost interest in Assassin's Creed after Italian Simulator 2009, but I did love Pirate Simulator 2013. In between? Didn't give a shit.

It's hard to keep a series fresh when you're getting it every year, especially if it takes place in a popular genre, like open-world games.

#19 Edited by Kaze_no_Mirai (11027 posts) -

I'll pass on them, if I ever do feel like playing them I'll just rent them or something.

#20 Edited by GreySeal9 (24010 posts) -

@DarkLink77 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@DarkLink77 said:

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

You can either have a franchise that lasts a really long time and makes a lot of money each time it releases, or you can have a franchise that makes less money and releases every year until people get tired of it.

It's hard to fault them for making that call from a business perspective, but as a gamer, it sucks.

Depends on how well done the game is and what they do to keep it fresh.

Well, I personally lost interest in Assassin's Creed after Italian Simulator 2009, but I did love Pirate Simulator 2013. In between? Didn't give a shit.

It's hard to keep a series fresh when you're getting it every year, especially if it takes place in a popular genre, like open-world games.

I personally lost interest in AC after the first game since it was terrible (and it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I never tried another one despite people saying that the games improved), but the new setting is fascinating IMO (the French Revolution).

#21 Posted by lostrib (33450 posts) -

Well if people are willing to buy it, why not

#22 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16025 posts) -

Ubisoft has about a thousand people working on Assassin's Creed. With such a huge high quality work force, they would be stupid not to release one every year. Ubisoft has not made a bad Assassin's Creed game yet, while Call of Duty finally reached that peak with Ghosts.

#23 Posted by foxhound_fox (87379 posts) -

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

This x1000

#24 Edited by MlauTheDaft (3273 posts) -

The quality has been pretty good but this is why we can't have nice things.

#25 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13892 posts) -

I've only played the shitty spin-offs and I hated them. Vita and PSP version oh god they are horrid.

I do want to play Black Flag on pc but it's so poorly optimized just going to get it on ps4 when I can afford it.

#26 Edited by Demonjoe93 (9517 posts) -

Well, they do sell. One of these days, I need to start getting into those games again. Brotherhood and Revelations left a bad taste in my mouth because of how rehashed they were, but I heard III and IV changed things up quite a bit.

EDIT: Oh, and the downdrop in quality of the single-player didn't help either. II had an awesome story, while Brotherhood's sucked and Revelations, while better, wasn't all that great.

#27 Posted by Animal-Mother (26420 posts) -
#28 Edited by lundy86_4 (42875 posts) -

Unfortunately, they're right. Those that would disapprove of such a move, would likely be the minority... AC is a blockbuster hit.

#29 Posted by jg4xchamp (47094 posts) -

It's been Madden territory for awhile, and unlike Madden it can't even rest on the fact that it at least has some gameplay depth.

But yes they would be exceptionally stupid to ruin their current model. They make buckets every year, and it allows them to fund other shit. Until the market shows it's sick of it, make it rain.

#30 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

see no issue...

you get the same amount of games if they released yearly or every 2-3. Yet you risk the fans losing interest because you making them wait too long. 10-30hr SP game yearly is a decent flow

new story, new timeline, new map ~ they should take a leap and push little more to get out of that city white/tan theme little bit

#31 Posted by AcidTango (509 posts) -

Ubisoft wants to be the next Activision.

#32 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6006 posts) -

I was sick of Assassin's Creed after Brotherhood. Revelations was just bad and 3 was boring, but I put up with it to see how it ended. People rave about 4, but I still haven't bothered because it's just too damn many.

I hear people saying things like, 'if they're good, then why not?' It's because being fed the same thing over and over again kills your taste for it eventually, no matter how tasty.

If there had been no Arkham Origins, I would have gone out an bought a One to make sure I was able to play it on launch day. But the combination of Arkham Origins' failure plus the announcement of another Arkham game for the following year and the next gen buy in price all conspired to leave me completely uninterested in playing the(for now) final chapter of the series.

#33 Edited by ChronosChris (163 posts) -

People will grow tired eventually of this worn out, tedious franchise. In fact people already are. It's just a matter of time before all this milkage will backfire on them.

#34 Edited by silversix_ (13924 posts) -

The only stupid is you ubi

#35 Posted by magicalclick (22389 posts) -

The first AC is super boring for me, so, I haven't played other games. But couldn't they make other games instead?

#36 Edited by Salt_The_Fries (8288 posts) -

^ It's all about franchises for them, bro because these big shots think console gamers are too dumb to v realize it's even made by the same company.

#37 Posted by WallofTruth (1411 posts) -

Hope it flops on an epic level and I don't even wish flops on xbone exclusives.

What do they mean, "They would be stupid not to yearly ass creed games?" No no no.

One stupidest vocalized comments I've ever heard a game producer say. Even if you would want something like this, why would you openly say that? It's not like this is a sports game. Games like this should mean something, with yearly incarnations they will be cut and paste minimal advancement works of episodic content.

They will basically be releasing patches of content that could have been add-ons released as DLC but they want a full $60.

So Assassin's Creed IV could have been an addond/DLC for Assassin's Creed 3? And that the devs work on each game for over 3 years doesn't mean anything as well, right?

I really don't get what people's problem with the AC franchise is, it's not like they're just copy and pasting everything game like CoD does lately, plus, if you're tired of the franchise then shut up and don't buy the games yearly anymore, no one forces you to. There are millions of gamers who buy their games yearly, so obviously there's a demand for them to be released on a yearly basis, so yes, they are correct, they'd be stupid if they don't release the games yearly since there are obviously people who want to buy them yearly.

#38 Posted by Cloud_imperium (2292 posts) -

Didn't buy AC4 . Played it a little bit to give it a try , uninstalled it after few hours . I just can't bring myself to play the same game that I play every year . So I can complain about it being milked to death .

I may return to it someday but right now , I'm moving away from AC series for sometime just like COD .

#39 Edited by SNIPER4321 (10142 posts) -

Ubisoft is stupid? in other news water is wet

#40 Posted by Vatusus (4361 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

AC3 combat was alos better. So lets see, AC3 improved parkour and combat? Basically everything in its gameplay? Sorry, but I highly disagree with those who complaint on AC3. Revelations and AC4 are the only ones I havent played yet and AC3 is my favorite cause improved the terrible, terrible combat of the previous ones despite its uninteresting setting.

#41 Posted by BattleSpectre (5954 posts) -

Yes they would be stupid, they make a shit ton of money by releasing a new Assassins Creed every year, why would they stop now? I won't be buying the next one though, I wasn't a fan of AC4.

#42 Posted by misterpmedia (3363 posts) -

When you develop and finally ship that Japanese or Chinese related Ass Creed game Ubi, then I give you my permission to let it die. Never before.

#43 Posted by Desmonic (13180 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

AC3 combat was alos better. So lets see, AC3 improved parkour and combat? Basically everything in its gameplay? Sorry, but I highly disagree with those who complaint on AC3. Revelations and AC4 are the only ones I havent played yet and AC3 is my favorite cause improved the terrible, terrible combat of the previous ones despite its uninteresting setting.

The combat did not change one bit. Not in any significant way at least. All you need to do is still guard and counter, you could literally take over entire bases like that. Not much to it...

They improved the free/running, added some interesting features like hunting, taking over enemy bases, etc, but the game felt broken. It never felt like a cohesive experience. you just had a bunch of systems in place that did work (for the most part) but didn't really connect nor did they end up adding much to the game itself.

As for AC4 what I hear is that they've improve on that a lot, and the whole experience feels and plays better.

#44 Posted by The_Last_Ride (69836 posts) -

I am not surprised, i wouldn't be stunned if that happend to Watch Dogs

#45 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16256 posts) -

@treedoor said:

Rockstar doesn't release a new GTA game every year, and their last one made a billion dollars in 3 days, and chances are that GTA will still be relevant many years from now if they keep the same philosophy on how they release, and support their games.

Ubisoft is doing to Assassin's Creed what Activision once did to Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, and is currently doing to CoD (the last of which sold much, much less than Black Ops 2).

Yes,

Rockstar: create better sequels that improve a lot but take longer to make, making sure the series will be alive for a good number of years. i.e. long term profit

Activision and Ubisoft: Milk the crap out of a franchise while it's popular. Don't do much improvements in a sequel so they can be made every 1-2 years. i.e. short term profit.

Though Rockstar does also milk GTA at times (if you count all the handheld games too). I mean how many systems is GTA III, VC and SA on these days ? A lot !

And Ubisoft also makes great sequels to their games (Rayman Origins) so it's not all black and white. Activision is a huge culprit though, they milked Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk and COD and 2 of those franchises died because of that already...

#46 Posted by Vatusus (4361 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@Vatusus said:

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

AC3 combat was alos better. So lets see, AC3 improved parkour and combat? Basically everything in its gameplay? Sorry, but I highly disagree with those who complaint on AC3. Revelations and AC4 are the only ones I havent played yet and AC3 is my favorite cause improved the terrible, terrible combat of the previous ones despite its uninteresting setting.

The combat did not change one bit. Not in any significant way at least. All you need to do is still guard and counter, you could literally take over entire bases like that. Not much to it...

They improved the free/running, added some interesting features like hunting, taking over enemy bases, etc, but the game felt broken. It never felt like a cohesive experience. you just had a bunch of systems in place that did work (for the most part) but didn't really connect nor did they end up adding much to the game itself.

As for AC4 what I hear is that they've improve on that a lot, and the whole experience feels and plays better.

The combat didnt change one bit? wat? It literally required you to pay more attention to counter ala batman arkham series instead of a hold to block mechanic. Was it perfect? no. But it was certainly a VAST improvement over the tedious combat in the previous games. Sorry, but you're wrong. AC3 combat wasnt nearly as bad as the one in previous AC

#47 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6902 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@Vatusus said:

@Desmonic said:

@PhazonBlazer said:

@kinectthedots: Except that every release they've done so far has been mostly high quality and has changed the formula in significant ways.

*coughRevelationscough*

And I'd say we fans (and non-fans) agree that for the most part AC3 was more of a step backwards than forward. The only real salvageable parts were the naval battles and improved free running/parkour system :P

AC3 combat was alos better. So lets see, AC3 improved parkour and combat? Basically everything in its gameplay? Sorry, but I highly disagree with those who complaint on AC3. Revelations and AC4 are the only ones I havent played yet and AC3 is my favorite cause improved the terrible, terrible combat of the previous ones despite its uninteresting setting.

The combat did not change one bit. Not in any significant way at least. All you need to do is still guard and counter, you could literally take over entire bases like that. Not much to it...

They improved the free/running, added some interesting features like hunting, taking over enemy bases, etc, but the game felt broken. It never felt like a cohesive experience. you just had a bunch of systems in place that did work (for the most part) but didn't really connect nor did they end up adding much to the game itself.

As for AC4 what I hear is that they've improve on that a lot, and the whole experience feels and plays better.

AC4 has the same combat as AC3. Nothing has changed at all, in terms of combat or parkour, actually. It's just more of the same, only there is a much larger focus on sailing. The sailing is pretty great, just like it was in AC3, but the campaign is easily the worst in the series, so unless you like the idea of sailing around a gigantic open world and ticking things off a completionist list, I just can't recommend AC4 to anyone. I didn't love AC3, but I thought it brought enough new concepts to the series to kind of like it. AC4 didn't do anything new, and while building a game around the excellent sailing from AC3 is a great concept, AC4 does a horrible job of making anything you do feel meaningful. The game just feels aimless.