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

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/28/ubisoft-would-be-very-stupid-not-to-make-yearly-assassins-creeds

Well, so much for any hope of a break.

As long as they can continue to pump out high quality titles, that's just fine.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I said mostly :P

(we don't talk about Revelations)

AC3 was fine though IMO

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.

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

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).

Well if people are willing to buy it, why not

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.

This x1000

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

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.

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.

I don't think it's a problem with the amount of titles. But they almost go from good to suck every other year.

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

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.

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

Ubisoft wants to be the next Activision.

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.

The only stupid is you ubi

^ 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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.