Ubisoft: Gamers want Assassin's Creed every year

Beware this model, Ubisoft. AC3 was a beautiful enormous environment, with not that much to do in it (other than running). There are only so many things your audience can kill by pushing SQUARE TRIANGLE CIRCLE.

HI :D

you guys look at a couple comments on some websites saying stuff like "we no want AC no more" and start claiming that no one wants them. But each game sells more millions than its predesessor, so yes, people want them. Commentors are mostly but hurt retards with no money, so they start bashing.

"Yannis Mallat says as long as quality remains"... That hasn't been the case for 2 years. He knows full well that Ubisoft can release any sort of trash and it will still sell. Money is the bottom line here and him mentioning the word 'quality' just makes me laugh.

@Andrian Marinov Let's hope that his ancestors wasn't Genghis Khan or Leonidas

@Simon Ourroborros Hurst but, they have been making this game since 2011...I'd even bet that they are already making AC:V...

Ancient Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome

Renaissance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennaisance

Thatis the differencebetween the twohistorical periods.You can readand seethe differencebetweenAncientRomeand Romeinthe Renaissance.

I'm just saying that there will always be whiners whether or not that game is an annual release. I think the problems of AC games are their engine, Anvil (Next) is not a really great engine, and the storytelling is dragging on too long and rushing when close to the ending (since Brotherhood). If the devs can improve those things then, I think, everyone won't mind the annual release.

Still, I really want a new POP game without Anvil.

Are they serious? Why the hell don't these people listen?

"It's our breakthrough. When you have quality content, the frequency of coming out with the game is not an issue at all. On the contrary, people expect more and more of that content," Mallat added.

Ok so where is the quality that they are talking about? I played ACIII, it is/was a beautiful game to look at but it was a damned bug ridden mess. I am not the 1st to say this and I won't be the last. If you are keen on releasing a AC title on an annual basis, then for f***s sake... sort the game's issues first?

Listen to the actual Gamers, not Marketers? This just angers me!

Call Of Creed...

Ubiosft IMO is a great company and most of its games are truly awesome!!

Ubisoft speaks the truth, wonder if they'll ever actually follow these standards

Hit the like button if you think Ubi Soft also another bunch of WANKERS

and so officially the assassins creed holiday starts. fucking milkers

quality remains? game fucking sucks, cant wait to see this go bankruptcy

No we dont.......

This worries me. It's all well and good if they can keep the quality levels up, but there is such a thing as franchise fatigue. You can have too much of a good thing, so perhaps maybe a year or two break now and then might be good.

It's to bad if thas's true as the yearly ones were pretty recycled and cheap compared to AC2 and the latest one.

I tend to agree, if the sales numbers are there it's obvious people want it. Just be sure to keep that word "quality" involved in the process and it'll be fine...

It's funny how alot of people in the comments below assume that just because they release a sequel every year that these sequels were in development for only a year. smh The same people talking about Rockstar is better than Ubisoft because they "a long time" O_O.....were also the same people that bashed GTA 4 saying that "Saint's Row 2 is way better than GTA 4, that failed real life simulater" smh Let Rockstar do what they do and let Ubisoft do what they do, because they have the resources to do whatever they want.

Er, no. They were Brotherhood and Revelations.

AC2 was AC2.

Not sure how you got confused there.

gamers may want a bite of AC every year, but probably not consistently in the form of AAA, full-scale game releases.

Every 2 years should bring a new AAA full-scale title that significantly changes the game in a few important ways and improves on the key features that remain.

The in-between years should be focused on more experimental, downloadable releases that still include the core of the series, but is a shorter experience and offer either more of the same or something completely unexpected from an AC game that, if well-received, could be implemented in an up-coming full-scale release.

I understand people wanting more, more, more... But you over-saturate the content and it quickly becomes boring and/or repetative or something that original fans of the series don't even recognize. Innovation just doesn't happen that quickky in a series with yearly releases.

I don't understand how Mr Mallat can state that gamers aren't complaining. I've seen plenty of complaining around the web and not just here on Gamespot. It's a pretty common complaint about the series and hard to imagine that they aren't seeing these complaints. I am sure his eyes are focused more on sales numbers. As long as each entry is bringing in the $$, there will continue to be yearly releases.

This is my favorite series in gaming right now, as the story, characters, gameplay, atmosphere fit for my taste quite well, more than any other series. As I was reading through the comments, I noticed that some comments made references to Rockstar Games, how they expertly craft their games and release them with a 2-4 year interval, and how Ubisoft should take the same approach to their AC franchise. I absolutely agree with such comments. It would do good for the franchise to have a main game released not annually, and it would also allow for the series to stay more fresh.

Some people will never admit it, but the AC series is still relatively unique, and it is in Ubisoft`s best interests that it stays that way. The fans most likely also want it to stay something special. As a fan, I can say that after Brotherhood, something was missing. Even Brotherhood was missing some small things. Though, in my opinion, Revelations` story was great and AC3`s gameplay was more enjoyable, they both lacked something. For each fan who finds himself/herself in a similar situation as mine, it may be something different, that something special, that is missing. For me, it was most likely that sense of mystery that surrounded the plot of the series. Hopefully, some of that will be fixed in the future.

As for AC4, I can say surely that I will buy it, being a fan and all. And I will not be the only one who will buy this game. I do not condemn Ubisoft Montreal, or the other studios involved, for their work, as they do no small feat, which is to create an atmospheric, detailed, historical world in each game, and it is impressive. I just hope that pretty soon they will lay AC to rest for 3 years or so, and come back with a bang. That would be awesome.

Oh, and I hope they get rid of the multiplayer. It is fun, the story elements are cool, but it does not fit with AC.

p.s I apologize for my English, if it causes problems, as it is not my native language.

I only played the 1st one, the sequels that followed all looked exactly the same.

For those whostillcomplain thatAssassin'sCreedoccureach year, gentlemen,I suggest younotbuy itas soonas it appears,butwaita year or twoafteryou buyit.Andno longercomparewith CODis the differencethattheskyto the ground,Assassin's Creedis more complexwithmany morehours ofgameplayandbring something neweach time.I'veboughtitevery yearandI likedallwillcontinue tobuythemevery year.
The bestfranchises,top ratingfrom me.
PS:ancient Romethe nextAssassin's Creed, please,gentlemenfromUbisoft.

prevention is better than cure