PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft has 3 Assassin's Creed games in development right now



pacmanate
06-14-2013, 03:44 PM
You can read here = http://kotaku.com/ubisoft-has-three-assassins-creeds-in-development-vow-513376223?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflo (http://kotaku.com/ubisoft-has-three-assassins-creeds-in-development-vow-513376223?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow)

This is why the series is getting tired. Yves says the teams have innovation and bring something new etc but what we need is not having yearly releases!

Shahkulu101
06-14-2013, 03:50 PM
3?!!! Wow. How can they consider feedback from previous games If they're already making THREE?!
I think this may be why AC3 had the same issues the games before them had.

Farlander1991
06-14-2013, 03:53 PM
At least one of them has to be a mobile/handheld title.

And the main console series sooner or later just has to take a break to allow to refocus everything, because due to the yearly releases feedback gets processed at least a year later than it should be.

lothario-da-be
06-14-2013, 04:03 PM
-assassin's creed 4 black flag
-Assassin's creed 2014 (ac5?)
-Assassin's creed rising phoenix, a vita game?
-Assassin's creed Utopia?
-A mobile game?

montagemik
06-14-2013, 04:13 PM
At least one of them has to be a mobile/handheld title.

And the main console series sooner or later just has to take a break to allow to refocus everything, because due to the yearly releases feedback gets processed at least a year later than it should be.


AC IV - pt 2 (i still think there's a reason for AC4 having a SUB title) , AC V & a VITA probably .

ArabianFrost
06-14-2013, 04:27 PM
This is why Ubisoft is murdering the franchise. In the article Yves says"We give them enough time to change the concept so it can be fresh...". See, Yves, this is where your absolutely wrong. The concept of the Assassins and stealth doesn't need to change, but only merely improved. Don't add new concepts if the base concepts such as investigation, stalking and assassination missions haven't improved since AC2. With every iteration they keep adding new concepts (naval, underwater, tree-running), when the basic concepts such as stealth, navigation and assassination haven't changed a bit and if they keep doing that, along with the gruesome yearly releases the I reckon the series will only be less and less inviting to play.

pacmanate
06-14-2013, 04:43 PM
This is why Ubisoft is murdering the franchise. In the article Yves says"We give them enough time to change the concept so it can be fresh...". See, Yves, this is where your absolutely wrong. The concept of the Assassins and stealth doesn't need to change, but only merely improved. Don't add new concepts if the base concepts such as investigation, stalking and assassination missions haven't improved since AC2. With every iteration they keep adding new concepts (naval, underwater, tree-running), when the basic concepts such as stealth, navigation and assassination haven't changed a bit and if they keep doing that, along with the gruesome yearly releases the I reckon the series will only be less and less inviting to play.

Agreed, and we need a break, thats what is tiring. I wouldnt mind this small changes every year if they had a year gap

Escappa
06-14-2013, 04:47 PM
Agreed, and we need a break, thats what is tiring. I wouldnt mind this small changes every year if they had a year gap

Yeah, they should REALLY take a break from releasing until 2016 or even more, so when AC5 gets announced we'll say "FINALLY" :P

AherasSTRG
06-14-2013, 04:57 PM
It's sad that people who know nothing about software developement circles actually critisize the yearly releases. I guess that Internet is like democracy: people of all mental levels and attitudes are allowed to use it...

Rakudaton
06-14-2013, 05:16 PM
It's sad that people who know nothing about software developement circles actually critisize the yearly releases. I guess that Internet is like democracy: people of all mental levels and attitudes are allowed to use it...

Well aren't you adorable? Someone disagrees with your opinion, so they must have abnormal "mental levels". Cute. You spelled "criticise" wrong, by the way.

Consider the following:

-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about cooking actually criticise this restaurant dish"
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about writing books actually criticise this novel"
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about driving a formula 1 car actually criticise Louis Hamilton's performance"

Stupid, right? You don't need to be an expert in an area to be able to tell good results from bad. I and many others don't think the latest AC games are living up to their full potential: that is a fact. We don't need to know about software development circles to tell you that.

Sushiglutton
06-14-2013, 05:20 PM
And who can blame them? The fifth game sold >12M, Ubi would be mad to not keep doing what they are doing. That gameplay suffers doesn't really matter as the vast majority of AC fans aren't experienced/skilled enough gamers to notice or care. The AC4 gameplay showed @E3 sadly looked just as automatic and hand-holdy as AC3, but the response seems overall positive.

FR0ZENZiNE
06-14-2013, 05:47 PM
To be honest ,that worries me.

Azin-Morosa
06-14-2013, 06:04 PM
The only AC games I like are those with Patrice Désilets.(AC1 - AC:B). Since he is gone... it doesn`t feel right. This series is now a nearly empty Franchise. A cashcow that screams for a break. Give this game a break. Make some new plans. Search for solutions from the fans what they like and what not. And then boom another great AC game like AC2.

silvermercy
06-14-2013, 06:07 PM
The only AC games I like are those with Patrice Désilets.(AC1 - AC:B). Since he is gone... it doesn`t feel right. This series is now a nearly empty Franchise. A cashcow that screams for a break. Give this game a break. Make some new plans. Search for solutions from the fans what they like and what not. Look what can be created and what not. And then boom another great AC game like AC2.
With Ezio being resurrected of course... lulz

dxsxhxcx
06-14-2013, 06:18 PM
Edit: And bring back the big citys.

the cities already are big enough, IMO it's about time for them to return to AC1/2 style with more but smaller cities...

souNdwAve89
06-14-2013, 06:23 PM
Meh. I'm not surprised by this at all. I'm sure one of them is a pure next gen game since AC4 is a hybrid of both current and next gen. One of them is probably a Vita title and the third could be a mobile or tablet game.

catkiller97
06-14-2013, 06:34 PM
We are making sure the teams who are creating the different iterations have enough time—two years, three years, so that they can take risk and they can change the concept enough so that it can be appealing and fresh.”

“Our job is to make sure the teams have enough power, enough energy and enough time to take the necessary steps to create a high quality game.”

“Really, what we see is that we can have the capacity to regularly come with innovation. That is, for me, the formula: if you can really change the game on a regular basis and bring in innovation your fans want a product very regularly. Our job is to make sure the teams have enough power, enough energy and enough time to take the necessary steps to create a high quality game.”



As you can read each AC development getting 2 or more years.

Its true though yearly release make people lose interest from the franchise.

Sushiglutton
06-14-2013, 06:38 PM
As you can read each AC development getting 2 or more years.

Its true through yearly release make people lose interest from the franchise.

The 2 years development time is not entirely true. Some parts of the team have two years and some don't. For example the MP is developed in a year. I would also guess that some of the gameplay systems (for example combat and freerunning) are made by the same teams for every game and they release an "update" yearly. It's very complicated since Ubi has so many teams working on the game.

AherasSTRG
06-14-2013, 06:47 PM
Well aren't you adorable? Someone disagrees with your opinion, so they must have abnormal "mental levels". Cute. You spelled "criticise" wrong, by the way.

Consider the following:

-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about cooking actually criticise this restaurant dish"
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about writing books actually criticise this novel"
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about driving a formula 1 car actually criticise Louis Hamilton's performance"

Stupid, right? You don't need to be an expert in an area to be able to tell good results from bad. I and many others don't think the latest AC games are living up to their full potential: that is a fact. We don't need to know about software development circles to tell you that.

It's not the same. All the examples you are giving are results of the writing, of the cooking, of competing. If the people before me were critisising the games themselves, which are truly the results of the proccess of developement, then I would agree with them. They are critisising the developement proccess, which they know nothing about.
Your analogies go like:
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about [developement proccess] critisise the [result of the developement proccess]"
But rather, what I am saying, is:
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about [developement proccess] critisise the [specific element of the developement proccess]"
Anyone can talk about the results and critisise them, since they are the consumers of the final product (or the watchers of a race). However, the way the product (or the athlete's perfarmance) came to be is a delicate matter, which is not known to the wide public.

The reason why I am making such a big deal out of it, is because I believe that the key in unlocking the full potential of an AC title lies with the developement team, their goals and direction. Therefore, the community should focus in encouraging the team and support them to deliver the best experience possible, rather than talking about things they are completely oblivious about.

MadJC1986
06-14-2013, 07:03 PM
I hope at least one of those is a real Next Gen title as Watch Dogs for example.

Rakudaton
06-14-2013, 07:21 PM
It's not the same. All the examples you are giving are results of the writing, of the cooking, of competing. If the people before me were critisising the games themselves, which are truly the results of the proccess of developement, then I would agree with them. They are critisising the developement proccess, which they know nothing about.
Your analogies go like:
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about [developement proccess] critisise the [result of the developement proccess]"
But rather, what I am saying, is:
-- "It's sad that people who know nothing about [developement proccess] critisise the [specific element of the developement proccess]"
Anyone can talk about the results and critisise them, since they are the consumers of the final product (or the watchers of a race). However, the way the product (or the athlete's perfarmance) came to be is a delicate matter, which is not known to the wide public.

The reason why I am making such a big deal out of it, is because I believe that the key in unlocking the full potential of an AC title lies with the developement team, their goals and direction. Therefore, the community should focus in encouraging the team and support them to deliver the best experience possible, rather than talking about things they are completely oblivious about.

Ok, I guess that's a somewhat more legitimate argument, and I apologise for misunderstanding. Still, a lot of people think the games feel rushed (myself included). Perhaps some other factor is at work, but it seems to me the most obvious cause of that feeling would be because... well, the games were rushed. As in their development cycle was too short. Maybe that's jumping to conclusions, but Ockham favours it as the simplest answer.

(By 'rushed', I mean: Not enough assassinations, side content not fleshed out enough, considerable number of glitches/problems that should have been obvious in testing, etc)

But yes, I agree that we should encourage the development team, because it's a great franchise and they mostly do a great job. It's just that some of us have concerns that that high standard is dropping, possibly because the team is on too tight a schedule now that it's a yearly thing.

TheOnlyEzio
06-14-2013, 07:25 PM
It's all business. We can complain about how they are ruining the franchise, but at the end of the day, every person on this forum will more than likely buy the game. Especially because ubi are making silly mistakes by allowing new players to come in at any point in the franchise, look what they did with AC3! They will milk it until there is nothing left....

AherasSTRG
06-14-2013, 07:54 PM
Ok, I guess that's a somewhat more legitimate argument, and I apologise for misunderstanding.
No problem, man. I was being a ****** anyway...


Still, a lot of people think the games feel rushed (myself included). Perhaps some other factor is at work, but it seems to me the most obvious cause of that feeling would be because... well, the games were rushed. As in their development cycle was too short. Maybe that's jumping to conclusions, but Ockham favours it as the simplest answer.

(By 'rushed', I mean: Not enough assassinations, side content not fleshed out enough, considerable number of glitches/problems that should have been obvious in testing, etc)

But yes, I agree that we should encourage the development team, because it's a great franchise and they mostly do a great job. It's just that some of us have concerns that that high standard is dropping, possibly because the team is on too tight a schedule now that it's a yearly thing.

I found Revelations and Brotherhood satisfying games, but I can agree on the fact that AC3 (especially the modern day parts) were really rushed. I expected the Vidic and subject 2's parts to be epic, but... nothing. Moreover, the game was so horribly optimized that I thought that my computer was not working properly. Maybe they srewed up with the new AnvilNext engine, maybe they rushed, we do not really know...
Personally, I am waiting for AC4 to make up my mind on whether I should look forward to each AC release or the franchise is going to be another one of which I only buy during steam summer sales...

kaileena750
06-14-2013, 07:56 PM
Ubisoft is leading AC to the same hole they took Prince of Persia. The only difference is that POP was just left behind and AC is being pushed too much.

Both sagas could perfectly live together ... But they will just destroy both of them.

Spider_Sith9
06-14-2013, 09:32 PM
Well this confirms it. Connor is dead.

AC2_alex
06-14-2013, 09:36 PM
Well this confirms it. Connor is dead.

How???

SixKeys
06-14-2013, 09:39 PM
How???

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh548/SkySpazer/bth_imagination_zpsa2cb3e79.jpg

AC2_alex
06-14-2013, 09:43 PM
http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/hh548/SkySpazer/bth_imagination_zpsa2cb3e79.jpg

lolololol

TinyTemplar
06-14-2013, 09:59 PM
Three??? But what about Prince of Persia? I'm not ready to wait for it till 2017! It's totally unfair.

AC2_alex
06-14-2013, 10:01 PM
Three??? But what about Prince of Persia? I'm not ready to wait for it till 2017! It's totally unfair.

One's got to be a vita game. I'm not too worried....

TinyTemplar
06-14-2013, 10:04 PM
"Really, what we see is that we can have the capacity to regularly come with innovation,"
Yeah right...

kaileena750
06-14-2013, 10:16 PM
Ubisoft couldnt do AC and POP like they did in the begining:

2007: AC1
2008: POP
2009: AC2
2010: POP: TFS

If they had followed that path, things would be perfect. But now one saga is dead and the other one is getting stabbed with every game. I´ve stopped playing AC because it looks NOTHING like the first ones. As people said about POP:08, the new AC games are not Assassins Creed, they´re just other games named AC to sell more.

silvermercy
06-14-2013, 10:31 PM
Ubisoft couldnt do AC and POP like they did in the begining:

2007: AC1
2008: POP
2009: AC2
2010: POP: TFS

If they had followed that path, things would be perfect. But now one saga is dead and the other one is getting stabbed with every game. I´ve stopped playing AC because it looks NOTHING like the first ones. As people said about POP:08, the new AC games are not Assassins Creed, they´re just other games named AC to sell more.
As a newer fan of the series, I will have to disagree as I don't see it that way at all; perhaps because I don't have this intense "nostalgia" older fans seem to have... who are almost always looking for some kind of "vintage" AC repetition. For me, if they went back like that, it would be a boring turn off.

Assassin_M
06-14-2013, 10:53 PM
One of them is MORE thank likely not a console main game...

That statement, though just shows how much dem corps cares about people complaining about annual releases....it`s like

"Annual releases are awesome"
"Ugh..but we-"
"They`re AWESOME"
"Alright listen a-"
"INNOVATION"
"..."
"Nothing?"
"no"
"Good....ANNUAL RELEASE FTW"
"AHHHHHHHHH"

Jexx21
06-14-2013, 11:08 PM
I don't think the problem is that they can make them in a short time frame, I think the problem is that some fans are getting franchise fatigue.

Jexx21
06-14-2013, 11:12 PM
I'm assuming that these are the three games:

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (Main)
Assassin's Creed IV: <subtitle> (Main)
Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix (VITA/3DS)

Assassin_M
06-14-2013, 11:41 PM
some fans are getting franchise fatigue.
It`s mostly this...lets not forget Alex`s words in January in a QA, he would`v loved a few more months for AC III

roostersrule2
06-15-2013, 12:36 AM
It`s mostly this...lets not forget Alex`s words in January in a QA, he would`v loved a few more months for AC IIIBut to Ubisoft a few more months is a few less monies, so no more months for Alex.

ArabianFrost
06-15-2013, 12:38 AM
It`s mostly this...lets not forget Alex`s words in January in a QA, he would`v loved a few more months for AC III

I don't reckon he still has a job at Ubisoft after saying that?

/jk

Jexx21
06-15-2013, 01:09 AM
You see, I think that instead of their release schedule being yearly, it should be every year and a half an AC game comes out. I'm not sure how well that would mesh with Ubisoft's release schedule, but that's what I think is ideal.

That extra half of a year would help a lot I think.

I-Like-Pie45
06-15-2013, 01:19 AM
I don't reckon he still has a job at Ubisoft after saying that?

/jk
Hutchinson is prob. stranded in some Quebec river in a leaking canoe with no paddle right now with nothing but Yves + EA prez. signed copies of AC3, Spore, and Army of Two to entertain him right now

Jexx21
06-15-2013, 01:30 AM
but AC3 was a good game..

I-Like-Pie45
06-15-2013, 01:33 AM
but it probably wasn't the game that Alex wanted it to be in the end

ArabianFrost
06-15-2013, 01:40 AM
Hutchinson is prob. stranded in some Quebec river in a leaking canoe with no paddle right now with nothing but Yves + EA prez. signed copies of AC3, Spore, and Army of Two to entertain him right now

It seems the canoes he removed from AC3 came back to hunt him Muahahahahahahaha

Jexx21
06-15-2013, 01:43 AM
Yea, I agree.

ACRules2
06-15-2013, 03:22 AM
Wow...
Three games already in production!?!?!
AC needs just one year- ONE YEAR- to refresh the series. I'd be fine with that.
I'm still loving AC to bits, but it needs to take a break, give itself some breathing space, to get even better.

monster_rambo
06-15-2013, 03:27 AM
As you can read each AC development getting 2 or more years.

Its true though yearly release make people lose interest from the franchise.

Just because it is in development for 2 years does not mean it is good quality. ACB-AC3 in particular. Call of Duty also have 2 development teams: Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Are you trying to say those games are good quality as well?

And I wouldn't blame them, if it makes money then if I was the CEO, I couldn't care what the gamers think. The casuals don't care. Unfortunately. hardcore fans from this series do.

And to be honest, even if it is good quality, people are growing fatigue after five games. People need breaks from the series and AC needs a break too.

monster_rambo
06-15-2013, 03:33 AM
Ubisoft is leading AC to the same hole they took Prince of Persia. The only difference is that POP was just left behind and AC is being pushed too much.

Both sagas could perfectly live together ... But they will just destroy both of them.

POP discontinued long time ago didn't it. The Forgotten Sands and the fourth one was utter failure. The trilogy is always the best IMO.

pacmanate
06-15-2013, 08:16 AM
I think the point of this isn't quality, but that we are still getting yearly releases.

I don't care how much time you put into a game, it doesnt make it better. Having 2 teams work on games before and after each other is a recipe for plot holes. There have always been incosistancies in AC games and I am convinced its because both teams that worked simultaneously with each other only had the core idea of what the other was putting into their game.

kaileena750
06-15-2013, 09:15 AM
Ubisoft is going to screw AC sooner or later. Too many teams working on just one IP when they have other famous IPs waiting to be released ... Remember POP? Beyond G&E?

Sadly, I know that Ubisoft doesn´t care about their games ... much less about their fans. So keep smiling at them pushing AC more and more. I´m glad that POP went on pause seing this. I wouldnt want this for POP. And I wouldnt have money to buy the games neither. Each game they release is another stab to the franchise. And everybody knows that Ubisoft has high hopes on WatchDogs.

Warning: WatchDogs can be to AC the same thing that AC was to POP. So don´t be surprised if they start cancelling AC games after WatchDogs hits hard when it comes out.

And Ubisoft is firing everyone who seems to care about the franchise ... So yeah, I think AC has a problem.

Seriously Ubisoft is a fool. Instead of going slowly with all their games, giving the fans time to finish them and create hype for the next one, they forget about some franchises and push others too much. And plus, they don´t keep secrets about AC. Just see people´s reactions at the E3 from the last E3 events. Not excitement at all, because everyone knows everything.

POP: 4 years with no game -> Pause
Beyond G&E: 10 years waiting for the first sequel -> Still waiting
AC: 1 game every year or less, the franchise needs a break -> No break, more games coming!

And that´s Ubisoft logic ...



I say: Give AC a break for a couple of years and release Beyond G&E and POP at the same E3, and Earth will shake.

dex3108
06-15-2013, 09:24 AM
Well ACB, ACR and AC3 were in production at the same time in one moment. I agree that it is not best solution for franchise but there is possibility that one, two or all three project will be canceled if they feel it is not what they want. That happened to many Ubsoft titles (project Osiris was most recent one). They have i think 26 studios and they are opening new ones so they have capacity to work on many titles at the same time.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 10:57 AM
Well ACB, ACR and AC3 were in production at the same time in one moment. I agree that it is not best solution for franchise but there is possibility that one, two or all three project will be canceled if they feel it is not what they want. That happened to many Ubsoft titles (project Osiris was most recent one). They have i think 26 studios and they are opening new ones so they have capacity to work on many titles at the same time.
ACB and ACR weren't made at the same time.

Assassin_M
06-15-2013, 10:59 AM
ACB and ACR weren't made at the same time.
Indeed...Work to PORT ACR from the 3DS to consoles started after finishing ACB

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 11:03 AM
Indeed...Work to PORT ACR from the 3DS to consoles started after finishing ACB
I realy wonder how acr would have looked as a 3DS game.

Farlander1991
06-15-2013, 11:07 AM
I realy wonder how acr would have looked as a 3DS game.

According to a Ubisoft dev I spoke to once, it was similar to AC2: Discovery (and one of the reasons why it was cancelled after E3 2010 was because the management saw all the 3DS titles presented, and felt that Lost Legacy was really unimpressive in comparison).

Also, it wouldn't have had Altair playable sections in it.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 12:31 PM
According to a Ubisoft dev I spoke to once, it was similar to AC2: Discovery (and one of the reasons why it was cancelled after E3 2010 was because the management saw all the 3DS titles presented, and felt that Lost Legacy was really unimpressive in comparison).

Also, it wouldn't have had Altair playable sections in it.
I am happy we have revelations then.Discovery looks pretty boring , i would have hated another game with Ezio that i can't play.

Farlander1991
06-15-2013, 12:37 PM
I am happy we have revelations then.Discovery looks pretty boring , i would have hated another game with Ezio that i can't play.

I played Discovery on my DS, it was actually pretty fun.

Assassin_M
06-15-2013, 12:38 PM
I played Discovery on my DS, it was actually pretty fun.
was more fun than Altair`s chronicles, that`s for sure...

SixKeys
06-15-2013, 02:24 PM
Warning: WatchDogs can be to AC the same thing that AC was to POP. So don´t be surprised if they start cancelling AC games after WatchDogs hits hard when it comes out.


AC and Watch Dogs are two different genres, though. One is historical action-adventure, the other one more like GTA with hacking. PoP was put on hold because Ubisoft didn't want two historical adventure games competing with each other. (Kind of stupid IMO. Just because one likes AC doesn't automatically mean they also like PoP or vice versa.)

Honestly though, if the quality of the AC games continues to decline, I won't even be mad by the time Ubisoft decides to abandon it or put it on hold. I will forever treasure the first three games and will continue replaying them. The only thing that really sucks is that the day will come when I will no longer be able to play the multiplayer.

Farlander1991
06-15-2013, 02:39 PM
PoP was put on hold because Ubisoft didn't want two historical adventure games competing with each other.

One of another Ubisoft devs I spoke to (yeah, I spoke to a few of them now that I think about it :D Though this one was an ex-Ubisoft dev when I talked to him) said that the movie flopping was actually the reason (or at least one of the reasons).

SteelCity999
06-15-2013, 02:56 PM
It`s mostly this...lets not forget Alex`s words in January in a QA, he would`v loved a few more months for AC III


but it probably wasn't the game that Alex wanted it to be in the end

I think this is the biggest issue with the series. AC3's bucket list of things to accomplish was entirely too big and ambitous given a fixed development time. You can't fault Alex for wanting to include so much but you really have to wonder how much of AC3 was lost due to time constraints. New York before the fire is one big example. Here is a part of the game they worked on and had to abandon because they couldn't get the AI to work correctly. At some point with such as fixed time frame, stuff has to work or get dropped. Another exampe is Philadelphia. How much was worked on ebfore they dropped it. Working on stuff you eventually drop is lost time they could have worked on other stuff,

AC3 I think screams that it was to be a bigger game than it was in the end. I almost feel like there were 2 sequences missing and alot of Frontier side missions that didn't get in the game (like random events).

They may have extended creativity creation to complete their vision (the dev team) but they don't necessarily have the time frame to reivent anything especially if it causes time issues. So, to me Ubi Corporate is at fault and not necessarily the dev teams.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 02:58 PM
One of another Ubisoft devs I spoke to (yeah, I spoke to a few of them now that I think about it :D Though this one was an ex-Ubisoft dev when I talked to him) said that the movie flopping was actually the reason (or at least one of the reasons).
I thought the movie was a succes? I realy liked it.

SixKeys
06-15-2013, 03:04 PM
The PoP movie flopping would be a ridiculous reason to stop making the games. So much so that I doubt the veracity of that claim. Everyone knows video game movies tend to suck and the movie was criticized for being a bad movie, not for the source material it was based on.

Farlander1991
06-15-2013, 03:29 PM
The PoP movie flopping would be a ridiculous reason to stop making the games.

No it's not.

Prince of Persia from 2008 has sold 2-3 million copies in a year, which is much more than two times less than what the first Assassin's Creed has sold in a year (and Assassin's Creed II has sold in a week almost as much as PoP in a year). See where I am going?

Awesome movie -> more widespread positive knowledge of the franchise (since hardcore gamers' knowledge is not enough to cover the budget) -> more sales -> game actually making a profit (something that PoP2008 has failed to do despite its critical success, not sure about The Forgotten Sands though, tbh, but I think situation is roughly the same otherwise the franchise wouldn't have stopped there).

With the movie (and Disney's plans to turn it into a franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean) flopping, so were the plans to bring PoP back into the fray were put on hold, in favour of Assassin's Creed.

SixKeys
06-15-2013, 03:38 PM
No it's not.

Prince of Persia from 2008 has sold 2 million copies in a year, which is much more than two times less than what the first Assassin's Creed has sold in a year (and Assassin's Creed II has sold in a week almost as much as PoP in a year). See where I am going?

Awesome movie -> more widespread positive knowledge of the franchise (since hardcore gamers' knowledge is not enough) -> more sales -> game actually making a profit (something that PoP2008 has failed to do despite its critical success, not sure about The Forgotten Sands though, tbh, but I think situation is roughly the same otherwise the franchise wouldn't have stopped there).

With the movie (and Disney's plans to turn it into a franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean) flopping, so were the plans to bring PoP back into the fray were put on hold.

By that logic, if the AC movie in 2014 flops, Ubisoft should put the game series on hold.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think it's bad logic. It's the same line of thinking movie producers use when a movie like Batman & Robin bombs at the box office. "It can't be because it was a terrible movie, it must be because moviegoers are sick of superheroes!" Hence why for years afterwards it was difficult for any superhero movies to get greenlighted. PoP the movie's weaknesses had nothing to do with the games or their popularity. If the moviegoing public goes to see a video game-based movie, whether or not they're familiar with the games, they're going to judge the movie on its own merits. Of course, if they're not familiar with the games and the movie sucks, they might get a skewed view of the franchise. That's a risk that's always gonna be there when adapting any medium to film, though. Book lovers are always going to view the movies as inferior to the books, game lovers are always going to view the movies as inferior to the games they're based on. That's why movies should strive to be good movies first and good adaptations second. If the movie alone was good, people wouldn't care so much if it was faithful to the games. The PoP movie flopped because it failed both as a movie and as an adaptation.

Farlander1991
06-15-2013, 03:47 PM
By that logic, if the AC movie in 2014 flops, Ubisoft should put the game series on hold.

No, because AC doesn't face the problems of sales declining. In fact, they're steadily increasing. While in PoP's case, they were steadily decreasing. PoP2008 and TFS figures were much lower than the original Sands of Time games figures.

Their logic wasn't 'The movie is bad so let's stop making the games', their logic was, 'PoP games sell less and less even though they have good critic reviews, so let's use the movie to boost up the sales, and, oh ****, it didn't work'.

And it's not like Ubisoft is not putting money into something that's not inherently profitable (look at the new Rayman games, for example), but they decided that it's not good business strategy to put in triple-AA budget into something that's not going to sell. (Considering that they're probably doing exactly the same thing with Beyond Good & Evil 2 for quite a while anyway, i.e. putting triple-A money into something that won't necessary sell, given all the hints and teasers we've been getting throughout the years, so it's not like they want to add PoP to the mix too).

ze_topazio
06-15-2013, 04:58 PM
PoP was put on hold because Ubisoft didn't want two historical adventure games competing with each other.

I wouldn't call Prince of Persia historical just because it takes place on a highly fantasized version of Persia, that would be like calling historical to all those games with medieval inspired settings like Dragon Age or The Elder Scrolls, by that logic even God of War would be a historical series.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 05:26 PM
I wouldn't call Prince of Persia historical just because it takes place on a highly fantasized version of Persia, that would be like calling historical to all those games with medieval inspired settings like Dragon Age or The Elder Scrolls, by that logic even God of War would be a historical series.
God of war is more a mythical game.

TheOnlyEzio
06-15-2013, 05:27 PM
You are all going to buy AC4, stop your complaining...

AherasSTRG
06-15-2013, 05:31 PM
The PoP series was put on hold because of the low sales of the latest titles. The movie contract was signed in order to raise the sales, something which did not happen, leading to the franchise being dropped out for the time being. Simple as that. There is no evil plan behind the whole situation, just bussiness.

AherasSTRG
06-15-2013, 05:32 PM
You are all going to buy AC4, stop your complaining...
Agreed.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 05:35 PM
You are all going to buy AC4, stop your complaining...
Euhm NO, its not because we are going to buy it we must be happy with bad descisions or what?

AherasSTRG
06-15-2013, 05:35 PM
I think this is the biggest issue with the series. AC3's bucket list of things to accomplish was entirely too big and ambitous given a fixed development time. You can't fault Alex for wanting to include so much but you really have to wonder how much of AC3 was lost due to time constraints. New York before the fire is one big example. Here is a part of the game they worked on and had to abandon because they couldn't get the AI to work correctly. At some point with such as fixed time frame, stuff has to work or get dropped. Another exampe is Philadelphia. How much was worked on ebfore they dropped it. Working on stuff you eventually drop is lost time they could have worked on other stuff,

AC3 I think screams that it was to be a bigger game than it was in the end. I almost feel like there were 2 sequences missing and alot of Frontier side missions that didn't get in the game (like random events).

They may have extended creativity creation to complete their vision (the dev team) but they don't necessarily have the time frame to reivent anything especially if it causes time issues. So, to me Ubi Corporate is at fault and not necessarily the dev teams.
Your points sound legitimate, but I have to comment the fact that 3 years of developement are more than enough to make a game, especially if one is part of one of the largest video game companies in the world. For example, when you play a game and the sequel comes 4 years later, that does not mean that the second game was being developed for 4 consecutive years. Rather, it means that the team took a long break of 2 years and they developed it for the next 2.

AherasSTRG
06-15-2013, 05:36 PM
Euhm NO, its not because we are going to buy it we must be happy with bad descisions or what?
Which is the bad decision? Annualisation?

Jexx21
06-15-2013, 06:09 PM
I don't imagine that you just "take a break" in developing games.

You don't just release a game, stop work for 2 years, and start work for another 2 years. It's a job, you're always working on something.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 06:12 PM
Which is the bad decision? Annualisation?
I didn't ment anything specific. But anualization is one of my concersn for AC, still gonna buy every ac game though.

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 06:14 PM
I don't imagine that you just "take a break" in developing games.

You don't just release a game, stop work for 2 years, and start work for another 2 years. It's a job, you're always working on something.
What about making a new game in the meantime?

Mr_Shade
06-15-2013, 06:17 PM
This is why the series is getting tired. Yves says the teams have innovation and bring something new etc but what we need is not having yearly releases!
Who said what the games are and on what format?

You don't really know - no one outside of Ubisoft knows.. So people shouldn't assume it's the same gameplay /format /style of game.


Before all you know - One is a board game.. like scrabble... played with chocolate figures you eat when you assassinate them..#



Hmm that's a good idea.. ;)

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 06:18 PM
Who said what the games are and on what format?

You don't know - so shouldn't assume it's the same gameplay /format /style of game.


Before all you know - it's a board game.. like scrabble...
lol only make words that are ac related...

Mr_Shade
06-15-2013, 06:19 PM
lol only make words that are ac related...
indeed ;)

Jexx21
06-15-2013, 06:19 PM
You know, I still really hope that Ubisoft brings an AC game to the 3DS/ And then also an exclusive Wii U game, just for fun.

But no, I would love to see Ubisoft put actual work into a 3DS game (and not just a game like Altair's Chronicles or Discovery). Liberation was apparently a big enough game that they flaunt it as part of the main series on the official Assassin's Creed website. They don't even do that with Bloodlines.

TheOnlyEzio
06-15-2013, 06:21 PM
Euhm NO, its not because we are going to buy it we must be happy with bad descisions or what?

Everyone here seems to have a problem with the annual releases. Face it, ubi will keep pushing out games every year... We aren't helping our argument by buying each game...

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 06:22 PM
indeed ;)
how exciting!

Mr_Shade
06-15-2013, 06:28 PM
You know, I still really hope that Ubisoft brings an AC game to the 3DS/ And then also an exclusive Wii U game, just for fun.

But no, I would love to see Ubisoft put actual work into a 3DS game (and not just a game like Altair's Chronicles or Discovery). Liberation was apparently a big enough game that they flaunt it as part of the main series on the official Assassin's Creed website. They don't even do that with Bloodlines.

I almost posted it could be a 3DS game - when trying to say it could be 'anything' however I know there is demand for that, however I didn't want people to jump to the assumption one is coming, which I'm sorry to say, I can't confirm.

Any details about potential new titles - will be released when the time is right...

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 06:32 PM
I almost posted it could be a 3DS game - when trying to say it could be 'anything' however I know there is demand for that, however I didn't want people to jump to the assumption one is coming, which I'm sorry to say, I can't confirm.

Any details about potential new titles - will be released when the time is right...
* Eagerly waiting for rising phoenix to be anounced,while i know there is a big chance its a fanmade rumor*

pacmanate
06-15-2013, 07:42 PM
Screw handhelds. Give me glorious graphix

lothario-da-be
06-15-2013, 09:31 PM
Screw handhelds. Give me glorious graphix
This

Rugterwyper32
06-15-2013, 09:40 PM
You know, I still really hope that Ubisoft brings an AC game to the 3DS/ And then also an exclusive Wii U game, just for fun.

But no, I would love to see Ubisoft put actual work into a 3DS game (and not just a game like Altair's Chronicles or Discovery). Liberation was apparently a big enough game that they flaunt it as part of the main series on the official Assassin's Creed website. They don't even do that with Bloodlines.

Agreed. It specially annoys me considering how Lost Legacy was cannibalized into Revelations. Revelations was good, sure, but it took time away from development that should have been focused on AC3. And it was a missed chance to have a cool AC handheld game.

Ureh
06-15-2013, 11:15 PM
This is great news. I used to be ambivalent for annual releases, but then after AC3 I felt that they still have a lot of momentum left. Really looking forward to more AC!

Thanks to the Devs!

Zrvan
06-16-2013, 01:52 AM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1607_435098359921360_2042768070_n.jpgPeople be like:
http://i1317.photobucket.com/albums/t634/danyokomari/1zsze_zps3cc05c3e.jpg

Whereas I be like:

http://i1317.photobucket.com/albums/t634/danyokomari/1zt2b_zps85c4df9a.jpg

Gi1t
06-17-2013, 12:02 AM
No, because AC doesn't face the problems of sales declining. In fact, they're steadily increasing. While in PoP's case, they were steadily decreasing. PoP2008 and TFS figures were much lower than the original Sands of Time games figures.

Their logic wasn't 'The movie is bad so let's stop making the games', their logic was, 'PoP games sell less and less even though they have good critic reviews, so let's use the movie to boost up the sales, and, oh ****, it didn't work'.

And it's not like Ubisoft is not putting money into something that's not inherently profitable (look at the new Rayman games, for example), but they decided that it's not good business strategy to put in triple-AA budget into something that's not going to sell. (Considering that they're probably doing exactly the same thing with Beyond Good & Evil 2 for quite a while anyway, i.e. putting triple-A money into something that won't necessary sell, given all the hints and teasers we've been getting throughout the years, so it's not like they want to add PoP to the mix too).

The problem with their logic goes far, far deeper than that. They're ignoring a franchise based on their personal failures with trying to increase its commercial success. The problems with the sales of their recent PoP games didn't come from the games being bad ideas; they came from a lack of effort. 2008 succeeded in an area that many games only get decent marks for at best; the story and characters drove the game's success, but it was held back by a lack of game content. They really only laid out a basic game style and just let it go like that. The game needed a lot more content to fill out its levels and combat and that really limited its sale to those interested enough to overlook a pretty major lacking quality. FS got even less effort and seemed to just be a splash of random attempts to make it like other games. It was all right, but nowhere near the level of what people wanted them to do. As for the movie, again, they just expected it to do all the work for them, but FS and the movie were both under par for what even fans expected. There was no way people outside the franchise would be swayed so easily. THey've just been throwing out half-***** offerings now and then ever since 2009 and expecting people to just fawn all over them. But people aren't being fooled. They're looking at this stuff saying 'come on, you can do better than that.'

Their conclusion seems to be that it's not their fault. They appear to think 'oh, we made AC; it's perfect, thus we are master designers and any game we make that isn't raking in the cash is just a bad idea.' They're just acting like it's not their fault and closing themselves into an AC bubble where people eat up even the worst of their offerings like chocolate when they should be trying to make a PoP game that's really a great game. Don't just make A game and then try to figure out how to get people to buy it. Make a game that's actually great. Otherwise, the reaction will ultimately be lukewarm even if you market the hell out of it. Fix PoP's identity crisis and get rolling on a good story again and finish it. They already started a great one in 2008. Then start a new story when you finish that. Maybe something aimed at a different audience. But finish each story in turn, otherwise people won't know what the hell the franchise is.

While a franchise having trouble is plenty of reason to take a break, it's pretty obvious bull when it's been years since you even TRIED to make a game and still saying it's on hold, while you're cranking out so many AC games that even the fans are yelling at you to stop and take a break. Some of those resources could temporarily go toward making something else. I'm not saying I expect them to change any time soon. It's obvious the'yve gone off the deep end. -__-

FrankieSatt
06-17-2013, 02:15 AM
This series is just turning into a disaster now. First we have ACIV turning into a Pirate Ship simulator and now you have 3 AC games in the works at the same time.

They can't milk the cash out of this cow fast enough and what we'll have it 3 extremely poor games... starting with Black Flag.

captin_qwark7
06-17-2013, 02:28 AM
This series is just turning into a disaster now. First we have ACIV turning into a Pirate Ship simulator and now you have 3 AC games in the works at the same time.

They can't milk the cash out of this cow fast enough and what we'll have it 3 extremely poor games... starting with Black Flag.

Wow what an eloquent and well thought opinion. Did you know that Ubisoft have been releasing AC games annually since Brotherhood?
Not to mention that you haven't even played Black Flag. Only time will tell.

FrankieSatt
06-17-2013, 02:43 AM
Wow what an eloquent and well thought opinion. Did you know that Ubisoft have been releasing AC games annually since Brotherhood?
Not to mention that you haven't even played Black Flag. Only time will tell.

They have not been releasing AC games every single year. Furthermore, I have seen plenty of Black Flag and so far 90% of what I've seen is Pirate Ship Simulator.

No thanks, I'll pass.

captin_qwark7
06-17-2013, 03:05 AM
They have not been releasing AC games every single year. Furthermore, I have seen plenty of Black Flag and so far 90% of what I've seen is Pirate Ship Simulator.

No thanks, I'll pass.

Assassin's Creed- November 13 2007
Assassin's Creed II- November 17 2009
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood- November 16 2010
Assassin's Creed: Revelations- November 15 2011
Assassin's Creed III- October 30 2012
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag- October 29 2013

See a pattern? You do the math.

FrankieSatt
06-17-2013, 04:13 AM
Assassin's Creed- November 13 2007
Assassin's Creed II- November 17 2009
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood- November 16 2010
Assassin's Creed: Revelations- November 15 2011
Assassin's Creed III- October 30 2012
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag- October 29 2013

See a pattern? You do the math.

Brotherhood and Revelations were nothing more than DLC. I personally think we were ripped off having to pay $60.00 for those.

If that is what we can expect for the next 2 games after Black Flag than we are just going to get ripped off again.

There is a reason why AC I and AC II were the best of the series and you just showed us why. A prime example of why 3 games in 3 years isn't a good idea.

captin_qwark7
06-17-2013, 04:44 AM
Brotherhood and Revelations were nothing more than DLC. I personally think we were ripped off having to pay $60.00 for those.

If that is what we can expect for the next 2 games after Black Flag than we are just going to get ripped off again.

There is a reason why AC I and AC II were the best of the series and you just showed us why. A prime example of why 3 games in 3 years isn't a good idea.

Well I think most AC fans and critics will beg to differ. If you don't like the latest games then stop posting ignorant comments on our forums.
I can't be bothered arguing with someone like you over such a trivial matter so excuse me while I continue playing Revelations.

Gi1t
06-17-2013, 05:55 AM
Well I think most AC fans and critics will beg to differ. If you don't like the latest games then stop posting ignorant comments on our forums.
I can't be bothered arguing with someone like you over such a trivial matter so excuse me while I continue playing Revelations.

I guess, but really, the forums for most games tend to be populated by as many disgruntled fans as pleased ones, if not more. As far as how many people liked them and how many didn't I'd have to guess that in general, most of the people who play any game are at least satisfied with it and many really enjoy it whether they can find fault with it or not. But I think many of them would also be interested in seeing a lot of the things the critics on the forums tend to demand. :)

I also think there's some significance to the fact that a lot of people who really, truly liked the series before are becoming so thoroughly dissatisfied and though there's no reason why only those people should call all the shots (they may beg to differ XD) I think Ubisoft has been really bad about trying to answer many of those concerns directly.

Jexx21
06-17-2013, 06:21 AM
Brotherhood and Revelations were nothing more than DLC. I personally think we were ripped off having to pay $60.00 for those.

If that is what we can expect for the next 2 games after Black Flag than we are just going to get ripped off again.

There is a reason why AC I and AC II were the best of the series and you just showed us why. A prime example of why 3 games in 3 years isn't a good idea.

Actually, there's a lot of differing things that defines which game in the series would be the best. It's not objective to which games were the best, since people value certain aspects of a game higher than other aspects. In terms of combat, AC3 is probably the best. I'd say stealth was the best either in AC1 or AC2. Crowd AI was the best in AC3. Enemy AI didn't really change much in AC2-ACR, so thus I have to say enemy AI was the best in those series (in terms of chases anyway). Graphics were the best in AC3, ACR following close behind. Assassination mission design was best in AC2 and AC1. I'm not sure which game had the largest gameplay area, but I think it might be AC3. Story can be objective, but I personally think that ACR and AC3 had the best stories. AC1 and AC3 had the best assassination targets in terms of character, personality, and motives (not their assassination missions). Which main Assassin you think is the best is subjective, but I'll say my part: Ezio is the most likable character due to his personality, but Connor is more human in terms of how he acts and behaves.

Overall, a lot of factors goes into saying which game is the best, and pretty much everything I listed up there is also subjective in a way (except graphics, that's actually objective. Sure, you might not like the aesthetics as much, but AC3 definitely has the best graphics in the series). Personally, I can't really pick a favorite AC game.

Farlander1991
06-17-2013, 07:38 AM
The problem with their logic goes far, far deeper than that. They're ignoring a franchise based on their personal failures with trying to increase its commercial success. The problems with the sales of their recent PoP games didn't come from the games being bad ideas; they came from a lack of effort. 2008 succeeded in an area that many games only get decent marks for at best; the story and characters drove the game's success, but it was held back by a lack of game content. They really only laid out a basic game style and just let it go like that. FS got even less effort and seemed to just be a splash of random attempts to make it like other games .

While I see your point, AC faced a huge lack of content too, and yet things turned out to be fine for it.
And FS' biggest weakness was the combat system, really - it had really cool platforming sections with all that water manipulation, it was still at the least a decent game (at least from what I played, I haven't finished it).

pacmanate
06-17-2013, 09:29 AM
https://static.prtst.net/asset-proxy/acc2e3fd6b41132f0805fa6bfc6a8c102f7c62cb/687474703a2f2f626f6263657363612e636f6d2f77702d636f 6e74656e742f75706c6f6164732f323031322f30312f506f70 636f726e2d5374657068656e2d436f6c626572742e676966/http://bobcesca.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Popcorn-Stephen-Colbert.gif

montagemik
06-17-2013, 12:03 PM
Brotherhood and Revelations were nothing more than DLC. I personally think we were ripped off having to pay $60.00 for those.

If that is what we can expect for the next 2 games after Black Flag than we are just going to get ripped off again.

There is a reason why AC I and AC II were the best of the series and you just showed us why. A prime example of why 3 games in 3 years isn't a good idea.


You weren't ripped off having to pay $60 for those - You chose to pay $60 for those rather than wait for a price drop.

You have the same choice for Every game that's launched. Shouldn't really blame others for your choices .

Dosenwabe
06-17-2013, 12:23 PM
Great, more Ubisuck crap. Please would you eat your **** yourself?

Farlander1991
06-17-2013, 12:25 PM
You weren't ripped off having to pay $60 for those - You chose to pay $60 for those rather than wait for a price drop.

Didn't ACB and ACR have a 40$ price tag? (though, that could be on PC only?)

FrankieSatt
06-17-2013, 01:59 PM
Well I think most AC fans and critics will beg to differ. If you don't like the latest games then stop posting ignorant comments on our forums.
I can't be bothered arguing with someone like you over such a trivial matter so excuse me while I continue playing Revelations.

I never said they are crap, I said they weren't worth $60.00 and they were not. Nothing really new was added to either of those games. They were decent games but should have been no more than $20.00


You weren't ripped off having to pay $60 for those - You chose to pay $60 for those rather than wait for a price drop.

You have the same choice for Every game that's launched. Shouldn't really blame others for your choices .

I bought Brotherhood thinking it was going to be a new game that added some new things, it ended up being ACII with barely anything new but the irritating dens. I dd buy Revelations know it wasn't worth the price. That still doesn't excuse UbiSoft for putting out DLC and charging $60.00 for it. You better believe though I'm not paying full price, if I buy at all, the next 3 supposed "AC Games"


Didn't ACB and ACR have a 40$ price tag? (though, that could be on PC only?)

It might have been for the PC, but for the XBox both games were $59.99 and Tax.

Farlander1991
06-17-2013, 02:30 PM
I never said they are crap, I said they weren't worth $60.00 and they were not. Nothing really new was added to either of those games. They were decent games but should have been no more than $20.00

I agree that 60$ for them is overpriced (40$ seems more reasonable to me, though one might say that it's still too much). However, ACB had an absolutely new multiplayer mode added, though (which, if a person is interested only in single-player, it doesn't mean anything of course, but multiplayer is no small thing nonetheless).

Ureh
06-17-2013, 03:01 PM
Pubs and devs keep arguing that $60 is barely enough to cover the game and pay everyone, the remainder goes towards future projects. Dunno if that's true.

Most new copies of a game drop to $20 a few months after launch. AC games are a good example of this. :o

Gi1t
06-18-2013, 03:21 AM
While I see your point, AC faced a huge lack of content too, and yet things turned out to be fine for it.
And FS' biggest weakness was the combat system, really - it had really cool platforming sections with all that water manipulation, it was still at the least a decent game (at least from what I played, I haven't finished it).

Yeah, that's what I hear about it. Good luck with finishing it. Hope I don't see you on the PoP threads complaining of a game breaking glitch. :D (We got a lot of those.XD)

AC was definitely the kind of game that's easy to sell. I wouldn't blame them for putting more money and effort into it than other games that really need to hit their marks to sell, but with AC 2 they managed to really improve reception and they did their best to target the problems with the first game and it paid off. Everyone just assumed Prince of Persia was due for the same treatment, but then they just sort of lost it suddenly and they didn't even try. -__ - They had just an easy set-up for another game too. Everything about the way they ended the first one allowed for nearly infinite possibilities. They could have addressed pretty much any complaint about the game and still made it work perfectly with the story. They inevitably have to take chances with new IPs all of which have no pre-existing fans and a lot less established backgrounds. If they're willing take a chance like that, they should be more than willing to do this. (Honestly though, it does seem like they may havve lost the guts to take those chances because every project they start lately seems to end up turning into an AC game.) XD

Assassin_M
06-18-2013, 03:37 AM
Any game i no likez, iz not worth 60 bucks...dats how AH roll

CountessSzilagy
06-18-2013, 07:03 AM
mmehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I have mixed feelings about this.

I am okay with these new games but do they have to be yearly releases? I feel like the quality has suffered a bit because of it.

I am hoping that one of them would be like a Brotherhood 2.0 thing, though. Except that it's for AC3. It'd be cool to do some sort of co-op with Aveline and Connor.

montagemik
06-18-2013, 10:01 AM
I bought Brotherhood thinking it was going to be a new game that added some new things, it ended up being ACII with barely anything new but the irritating dens. I dd buy Revelations know it wasn't worth the price. That still doesn't excuse UbiSoft for putting out DLC and charging $60.00 for it. You better believe though I'm not paying full price, if I buy at all, the next 3 supposed "AC Games"

It might have been for the PC, but for the XBox both games were $59.99 and Tax.


I Bought Brotherhood knowing it was a game originally intended as DLC to conclude the AC:2 Story - This wasn't a state secret before it launched.
Forums were abuzz with news & speculation AC-B / AC-R were just filler games to tide the playerbase over until AC:3 released.
Most features & new elements were mentioned in previews / reviews before launchday .

No idea where your over expectations came from with these 2 games . & Launchday full price was your choice for both , After being dissapointed by AC-B filler game , diving straight at ACR @ $60 was again your own decision.

Sounds like you based your purchases on Hype rather than known features or reviews. "Lesson Learned" as a wise old man once said.

Jexx21
06-18-2013, 02:39 PM
I would have been disappointed if I bought AC1 at full price tbh.

I got AC1 for $10, AC2 (Digital Deluxe) for $20, ACB (Digital Deluxe) for $25, ACR for $25, ACR DLC for $15, and I got AC3's UbiWorkshop CE (with the encyclopedia, Subject 4 graphic novel, and art prints) for $100.. I have yet to get any of the DLC, but they're still selling them in a combo of the season pass for $30, so that's what I'll get.

Ureh
06-18-2013, 02:43 PM
@Jexx21 I can't believe you paid $15 for ACR dlc. Ouch.

Jexx21
06-18-2013, 02:48 PM
The Lost Archive + MP Characters, I wasn't too fussed about it.

Besides, I got the previous games all for cheap (because I got them through steam sales).

lothario-da-be
06-18-2013, 03:50 PM
I feel like an idiot spending 800+ euro on AC but not buying any dlc.

Bastiaen
06-18-2013, 04:14 PM
I have to say, if you need a break, take one. In a few years the game may be better. If you can't handle missing the games, then get over it. These are great games.

lothario-da-be
06-18-2013, 04:21 PM
I have to say, if you need a break, take one. In a few years the game may be better. If you can't handle missing the games, then get over it. These are great games.
My problem is i want to buy CE's but i can't keep buying them every year for more then 5 years, but i still want all that stuff...

SixKeys
06-18-2013, 04:56 PM
My problem is i want to buy CE's but i can't keep buying them every year for more then 5 years, but i still want all that stuff...

http://i.imgflip.com/1bhf.jpg


Ebay, maybe?

lothario-da-be
06-18-2013, 05:00 PM
http://i.imgflip.com/1bhf.jpg


Ebay, maybe?
You serious? Its about the price, and i can tell you that ebay isn't very cheap.

montagemik
06-18-2013, 05:20 PM
My problem is i want to buy CE's but i can't keep buying them every year for more then 5 years, but i still want all that stuff...

If they don't release any CE's in USA - I'm giving away the 'Buccaneer' collectibles to some members who were left out. (in USA)

Hans684
06-18-2013, 07:27 PM
ACIVBF sequal(by jade)

ACIVBF(currently in devoloment) &/or Unknown AC.

AC: Rising Phoenix(rumor)

STDlyMcStudpants
06-19-2013, 01:11 AM
Assassins Creed IV Black Flag
Assassin Creed IV Vita
And Assassins Creed 5 or Genesis
Duh -_-

Jexx21
06-19-2013, 01:25 AM
ACIVBF sequal(by jade)

ACIVBF(currently in devoloment) &/or Unknown AC.

AC: Rising Phoenix(rumor)

Jade Raymond is working on Splinter Cell: Blacklist right now, so I doubt it.

Assassin_M
06-19-2013, 01:29 AM
ACIVBF sequal(by jade)

ACIVBF(currently in devoloment) &/or Unknown AC.

AC: Rising Phoenix(rumor)
Jade`s studio will be working on it...JADE`S STUDIO....Jade is not the creative director, she`s not making the next AC game, just like how Montreal`s studio leads AC development....Montreal is Yannis Mallat`s (CEO) studio, but he doesn't make the games....although Jade has a larger role than Yannis, she being a producer, I doubt she`ll "make" AC4`s sequel

Jexx21
06-19-2013, 02:28 AM
technically the creative director isn't the maker of the game either..

I hate how people give all the credit to the creative directors. sure, they give the game it's vision, but they aren't the people who carry it out.

And Ubisoft Toronto is confirmed to be working on the next AC game?

Assassin_M
06-19-2013, 02:32 AM
technically the creative director isn't the maker of the game either..

I hate how people give all the credit to the creative directors. sure, they give the game it's vision, but they aren't the people who carry it out.

And Ubisoft Toronto is confirmed to be working on the next AC game?
The creative director is not the maker of the game, the entire team is the maker...i used creative director, because that position is a part of the team actually WORKING and developing the game..and yeah some time ago, Jade confirmed that Toronto will be working on the next AC. Montreal still leads, though...nothing changed...it`s just one more studio to the 8 or 9 already working on AC

Jexx21
06-19-2013, 03:01 AM
Oh, so they won't be the sole studio working on it.

I was wondering, because Toronto is the sole studio working on Splinter Cell Blacklist, one of the three working on Rainbow Six Patriots, and there's also another Splinter Cell game slated for 2015 that wikipedia says they're working on (probably as the sole studio working on it aswell).

Ureh
06-19-2013, 03:34 AM
It would probably be more expensive (and less efficient) to have the game only developed in Toronto than to outsource some of the jobs to overseas.

SixKeys
06-19-2013, 03:40 AM
Every game since ACB has had something like 7 studios working simultaneously on each new sequel.

Hans684
06-19-2013, 05:53 AM
Jade Raymond is working on Splinter Cell: Blacklist right now, so I doubt it.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Assassin-s-Creed-4-Black-Flag-Sequel-Already-in-Development-at-Ubisoft-341213.shtml


The Toronto and Montreal studios of video game publisher Ubisoft are already working on a sequel to the upcoming Assassin’s Creed 4: Black Flag, which will presumably be launched on next-generation consoles during 2014.

The information comes from Jade Raymond, the leader of the Toronto studio, who told Polygon about the project, but failed to offer any details about it.

She stated, “The thing that’s great to me is that there is still some of my favorite people who, you know, we were in the trenches shipping that first one. We lived through all of that stuff together and some of those guys are still on the franchise and have been there.”

It’s unclear whether this new Assassin’s Creed title will continue the story told in Black Flag or whether the publisher is creating two parallel series based on the same universe, similar to what Activision has done with Call of Duty.

Raymond has also talked about other projects that will soon be announced, adding, “We have two big collaborations coming that we’re not talking about, on two of the biggest franchises at Ubisoft. We also have two new IP.”

Jexx21
06-19-2013, 08:03 AM
Biggest Ubisoft franchises:

Assassin's Creed
Far Cry
Tom Clancy games (I'm gonna count them all as one franchise, even though I know there are different lines)
Prince of Persia (seemingly on hiatus)

Two new IP:
Watch Dogs
Unknown

Watch Dogs seems set to become a new franchise.

With collaborations, I wonder if they mean a collaboration between franchises, or if they mean that they are collaborating with other another studio (montreal? quebec?) as the main studios of the game. They say they have two new IP, I wonder if that means Ubisoft Toronto directly, or Ubisoft as a whole? If they mean Ubisoft as a whole, then these collaborations could be anything.