Ubisoft Says to Expect More Annual Sequels

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Soviet Heavy:
And if the games are crap? Does nobody learn from the Guitar Hero debacle, even now?

Nah, the reason Guitar Hero failed to sell was because they could only sell so many $80 plastic instruments. Pure video games, however, have much more longevity. Hell, just look at sports games. Hence my skepticism that COD and AssCreed will lose significant sales. Perhaps a drop in review scores may hurt sales, but I doubt anything higher than an 80 on Metacritic would do so, maybe even 75.

AzrealMaximillion:
Haven't bought an Assassin's Creed game since Brotherhood and won't until the series is done. I was under the impression that we were getting a trilogy of games. Apparently not.

Right? remember when 3 didn't actually mean 5?

Still, I do somewhat agree that yearly releases are fine as long as the games are good. But 3 needed improvement in a lot of areas, and better writing (Since 3 was fucking abysmal. It took four games to finally do something with Desmond, and when they finally did...he was killed off. Bullshit. And Connor's story was less about being an assassin, and more a retelling of american revolution events with some templar/assassin bollocks thrown in for...whatever reason. Remember when the game was about actually assassinating people, not witnessing historical events and fighting in large battles?)

CriticalMiss:
Wait, are Ubisoft co-owned by EA and Activision or did they just decide to try and run their franchise in to the ground all on their own? I can see it now: Altair's Pro Stabbing. Ezio Hero: Legends of Stab. Assassins Creed 2014: Modern Sea Battle-fare.

The AC series has slowly droped the whole assassin theme of suddenly killing your targets. Its if someone at Ubi said 'Didn't you hear? according to market research stabbing people is on the way out!'

So the the first two titles wouldn't be made.

But the forth one is a given.

Canadamus_prime says to expect him not to buy them

Hey, as long as they keep selling 8 million copies with each Assasssin's Creed title released I don't think they really care what their "fans" think about the annualization.

With that said, AC3 was terrible (naval battles exceptions) and since I'm glad all the bullshit with Desmond is finally over, I'll be getting AC4 because their themes intrigue me (PIRATES FTW!).

OT: I'm not surprised, considering they've been doing annual sequels and spin-offs since it debuted back in 2007. Contrary to most of the people around here, though, I did quite enjoy ACIII, especially after Brotherhood and Revelations both just bored me.

Doubt I'll buy any on launch still, since the franchise sits squarely in my "Kinda fun, but not something I care about" section of new games.

Also, I'm disappointed Captcha doesn't accept "Ghostbusters" as an answer to "Who you gonna call?"

StewShearer:

The Assassin's Creed developer believes that annual sequels can continue as long as the games are good.

Oh really. It's just too bad then that the Assassin's Creed series has, in my opinion, continually gotten worse since number 1.

I mean, could you at least spend TWO years on developing the next sequel? We can wait.

Untill they go to a setting that is actually interesting count me out. Renaissance Italy, wow awesome! Crusades?! =O stunning! ... Colonial america... Age of Pirates... Both politically speaking are pretty irrelivant and are just symptoms from larger forces at play. If they go to the old west next (which I wouldn't at all be surprised) then I'll know for sure they don't know what made the series great at the start.

I've already got a shelf and steam library full of queued games, theres only so much not Beyond Good & Evil 2 that I have the stomach for.

AzrealMaximillion:
Haven't bought an Assassin's Creed game since Brotherhood and won't until the series is done. I was under the impression that we were getting a trilogy of games. Apparently not.

No-one ever said it would be a trilogy, they did state that AC3 would be the end of a story, and it was.
I do know they need to bring something new to the table, AC3 was poor, the story and (most) characters uninteresting, and for a three/four year development (as they claim) it was buggy as hell!

The Assassin's Creed developer believes that annual sequels can continue as long as the games are good.

Then they probably should have stopped after 2 or maybe brotherhood at a push. The games are just bland now. I think that they had the right idea with the 2 year gap between AC 1 and 2, it was aggravating but at least it made for a highly polished and game which was better in almost every way than its predecessor.

I wish the video game industry was more like the classic film industry, more original titles and a lot less sequels, if any sequels.

Stop whoring all the franchises God dammit!

As long as they use the money to fund some more interesting titles and to do a little trailblazing, then all power to 'em! I couldn't give less of a damn about AssCreed.

I've never really blamed EA for their yearly sports releases. I just don't buy them. If they make enough money from the witless fools that buy them to stay afloat, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to let them make ;). It's all the other things like DRM, lying to my face, microtransactions up the ass and just plain disrespectful attitude towards the gamer population in general.

Ubisoft got rid of their always on DRM and don't nickle and dime you with microtransactions for already paid games. In my book, that makes them a hell of a lot better than EA, despite the craptacular UPlay and lackluster annual releases.

Mr.Galactus says expect more daily fuck-yous

Considering how much they watered down Ezio after AC2 with the expansion this sounds like kind of a bad idea.

There are a few fundamental flaws with this since annual releases greatly inhibit games being good.

Even if you give it a proper 2-3 year development cycle that still means that most of the game is set in stone by the time you even get week one feedback on the previous one, let alone the proper feedback from months down the line.

They should've finished Assassin's Creed on III and stopped on a trilogy. Black Flag looks awesome, hence the fact that I've pre-ordered it, but it doesn't look like an Assassin's Creed game. They should've started a whole new franchise on this concept.

That said, the yearly releases are fine by me so long as quality remains.

I enjoyed Assassins Creed. It was flawed but it had some good ideas.
However the Sci-Fi story elements never really clicked with me. I think the games would have been better off leaving this completely out instead concentrating on a political plot within the time line.
Apparently the pay off wasn't good anyway.
That said I haven't bought any Assassins Creed past the first one nor played one after the second. I only borrowed the second one from my brother and while it improved the narrative a lot the combat was still left broken.
What I'm saying is I don't see the appeal of this series that sales so many units each year. I handle this like CoD. I buy the ones that do something interesting and leave all other alone (only bought CoD2 and MW1).
Therefore I might buy Assassins Creed: Black Flag depending on how they implement the sea as well as the story but after that I will probably stay away from it for a few years again.
I urge everyone to do something similar and don't buy annual releases just because. Don't be a fan. Nothing good comes from it.

I really don't mind if they release 1 game a year as long as it's actually good but then again people never criticised good yearly releases, except that they tend to be extremely rare and what you end up with are yearly cash grabs. The reason I'm sure many people criticise AC for yearly releases is that they tend to rush the things a lot otherwise if the games were actually really good people wouldn't mind a new one every year.

as much i enjoy the series, i have to stop at one point. i havent touched a splinter cell game since 3. even when blacklist does sound interesting and AC4 seams to have at least a fun game play.

Is anybody actually surprised by this?
The only company worse than Ubisoft is EA. They're both scum who only manage to scrape by because the people actually making the games aren't as greedy and incompetent as the useless shits that manage and market them. They're just trying to make a good game, and generally succeed until the higher up dickbags start pushing too hard. Then we get shit like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3 and the PC port of Ass Creed 3, AKA the most unoptimized game ever sold.

Eagerly awaiting the video game crash that's gonna happen again soon. Probably right around the time Durango and the PS4 don't get any sales. Nintendo are already feeling it with abysmal WiiU sales, and i bet right now they're pushing damn hard to get Wind Waker HD and the next Zelda made, which is going to reduce their quality noticeably.

Only they aren't really good, they are borderline OK. It is really a shame that publishers are so afraid of people losing interest in their games, that they shit one out every year.

sigh. I guess they've never heard the term "oversaturation". I used to like this franchse a lot. Now I'm fed up with it. I was looking forward to Assassin' Creed 2 A LOT and loved the crap out of it when it came out. Haven't bought any game since Brotherhood though. Not because I want to send a message or anything like that. I'm just not interested anymore. I've had enough of it. It's like Call of Duty, too much of a good thing.

If they judge their recent releases as good, then thanks for the heads up as I'll be buying no ubisoft games per year.

I might be inclined to pick up Black Flag but I dunno yet.

Here's the problem with the series. I always swear to stop buying after each installment yet what do I do come release week? I GO AND FUCKING BUY IT BECAUSE I AM WEAK.

I really hope they'll fix the fucking combat though, I am sick to death of the shitty combat.

anthony87:
Bleh.

The annual releases along with the fact that they seem to be padding the ever loving fuck out of the story is exactly what put me off the Assassins Creed series. Seems like nowadays it's less about "Assassins vs Templars" and more "Look at this historical figure/time period!"

Which by all accounts is a good thing - I wouldn't shed a tear if they'd completely drop the bloated, nonsensical load of gibberish that is the whole Templar vs. Assassin schtick.

That said, ACIV is the first one in quite a while I'm actually interested in - I'm just hoping they cut back on the retarded conspiracy theories, and come clean about that it's a game where you muck about as a pirate.

AC hasn't been an assassination game for a very, very long time now, but it certainly has its charms as a popcorn munching historically accurate-ish sandbox.

Honestly, I am more concerned about quality rather then sequels. All I care about is that the game remains entertaining enough to warrant a purchase. Does the number on the box have any impact on that? not to me at least.

FloodOne:
My guess is the series is holding pat at around 10 million a year.

My guess is that this is unsustainable.

I don't think this is going to be the game where it dies, however. I think PIRETZ!!!!!!! will be enough. But I suspect this release schedule is untenable.

Maybe that's just me, though. Frequency of release has actually turned me off of the series. However, I don't think I'm inserting my own feelings here.

Im fine with this, as long as the content is of a high standard. Get creative Ubi, you have a story/universe that allows you to explore any time period/setting you want, so why don't yo-WHO AM I TRYING TO KID!?!

Zeckt:
Honestly, I am more concerned about quality rather then sequels. All I care about is that the game remains entertaining enough to warrant a purchase. Does the number on the box have any impact on that? not to me at least.

Yeah, this, its whats inside the game disk!

Everything i have to say has been said in this thread already, so i will just put this here, because it reflects my opinion about this.

:(

Right Ubisoft, business 101 for you:

there's a difference between short-term business strategy, and long-term business strategy.

What you're doing with AC right now is short-term- pump out as many sequels as quickly as possible in order to make as much money as quickly as possible. It can get you more money in the short term, but as a business strategy it has absolutely nothing to offer long term. You're essentially choosing to run a series into the ground in order to get as much short term profit as possible. The problem is that once people get burned out on it, you have to offer them something else instead, and there's no guarantee that they'll like that new something as much. Look at what happened to Guitar Hero- too many instalments, not enough new ideas. Activision essentially killed the series and buried it at the crossroads.

The long term strategy is when you space out your instalments more, and give gamers breathing space between each instalment. It may make less money in the immediate term, but it offers something much more valuable- longevity. If you give your series enough breathing room, you can carry it on indefinitely. Look at the Zelda games. That's a series that's still going after nearly 30 years, and is as popular today as it was on the SNES. How so? Because Nintendo never releases more than two Zelda games on any console, meaning that each game has space to carve out its own appeal, and gamers have tiem to properly savour each game before getting excited for the next one. That, and y'know, changing artstyles, gameplay mechanics, etc.

Or look at Skyrim. That came out, what, five years after Oblivion? And look at how well Bethesda were able to use that wait for marketing. They were starting to hype up Skyrim a full year before it came out, and because it had been so long since gamers had played a new Elder Scrolls game, they got really pumped.

Running a franchise into the ground is never a good idea, as it completely ignores the potential any series has for long term appeal, in favour of short term profits.

Plus of course, there's always that old adage about art being about giving the audience what they need, not what they want. If we're going to keep arguing for games as an artistic medium, then it would be nice if we could bear that in mind.

I still don't even know why people liked the Assassin's Creed games to begin with, to be honest.

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".

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here