PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft killed AC over 1$ (Desilet's AC)



Gold31415
12-03-2015, 10:08 AM
Like every episode of anything people want to find out what happened to their favorite heroes.

That's why AC: Revelations was good in terms of story, it brought Ezio and Altairs stories together.

Who was the most charismatic assassin since Ezio? Most would say Edward...

But because Ubisoft did not want to pay the 15,000$ in royalties to Matt Ryan, etc. we never got the continuation, we never got depth.

Every episode of AC nowadays starts new. All our previous interests, heroes, vanish (royalties too expensive). In the end the 5 year olds are like mommy, mommy Jacob is the bestest assassin. The BESTEST MOMMY!! And a franchise dies because cents were more important than creating great artful stories...


Yeah, Arno never cared about his father getting murdered eventhough he could have found out and battled Shay, but the royalties to be paid to Steven Piovesan (the voice actor for Shay, mere cents in the whole budget of the game) were apparently too high for Unity.

Watch the panel with Craig Smith and the art director for ACIII where they uncomfortably mention this.

Enjoy the preschool level storylines.

Sushiglutton
12-03-2015, 10:49 AM
Yeah, Arno never cared about his father getting murdered eventhough he could have found out and battled Shay, but the royalties to be paid to Steven Piovesan (the voice actor for Shay, mere cents in the whole budget of the game) were apparently too high for Unity.


Aaaah so that's why. What a shame :mad:! Refusing to make a $50 Million (?) game to save a few bucks. Ubisoft needs to get their priorities straight! We should come together in the community and donate Christmas food to Steven because it can't be easy living on a couple of cents every other year. I know he makes his own luck, but this is ridiculous.

VestigialLlama4
12-03-2015, 12:57 PM
It's a fact that voice actors are not well treated in the gaming industry, barring select exceptions. Rockstar Games didn't treat Ray Liotta very well and that's why they avoided celebrity voice actors from GTA 4 onwards. And the guy who voiced Niko Bellic didn't get paid well either.

Ubisoft is fairly cheapskate.

cawatrooper9
12-03-2015, 03:22 PM
Well, as far as I'm concerned, Ubisoft can hire me to voice the next Assassin. Celebrities might complain, but I bet the pay isn't anything to scoff at, either.

D.I.D.
12-03-2015, 04:06 PM
Source? What you're saying sounds implausible without some heavy proof.

$15k is a drop in the ocean. It doesn't make a lot of sense as either an amount of money Ubisoft would refuse to pay, given the immense profits from any successful game, and it also doesn't make sense as a stipulation in a contract. How much do you suppose Ubisoft makes from a game like AC4? What percentage of those millions is $15k? I realise that you're not just talking about Matt Ryan but a chunk of the main cast, bearing in mind pretty much everyone is dead by the end of the game, but let's says that's 5 actors; the situation doesn't change if it's $75k.

So what's more likely, that Stupid Evil Ubisoft, killed awesome and hugely profitable sequels because it couldn't bear to pay out small figures from the budget, or:

- That you're overrating how much of a need there is for these sequels anyway. You think Shay is a big deal? He's the protag of a minor game, mostly unknown to the market. Edward was great, but he wasn't the reason people played AC4; that was the pirate experience.
- Aside from money, bringing back Matt Ryan would have been a headache. Wasn't he already contracted to make Constantine at the time, and didn't the "will they, won't they?" renewal campaign drag on for ages? Those other actors aren't sitting on their hands hoping that Ubisoft will give them a call either. Sarah Greene was signed up as a major character on Penny Dreadful, James Bachman's been engaged in his usual mixture of TV and film work, and so on.
- Arno couldn't have battled Shay. Shay's quite old when he murders Arno's father, and Arno is a boy. If Arno took on Shay as a sequel, we're talking about hunting a man in his late 60s/70s. The subplot about Napoleon means Arno couldn't pursue him until 1808, when Shay would be 78. If they'd put this plot into Unity, how lumpy would that game be then? Remember how disappointed people were at the paucity of cutscenes and nodes in the story? How, and why, would you cram killing Shay into that, and why would Shay still be in Paris decades later? The main audience isn't going to play Rogue as well and may not even know it exists, but you're imagining that they're just like us and reallly give a monkey's about this character. They don't.
- Unlike films, because of the way AC is made, Ubisoft would have to sign on the voice actors for the sequel(s) when they're contracting them for the first one. There isn't the flexibility anymore like there was for Ezio, when his VA didn't have to do mo-cap, and VAs have to be involved earlier in the production and for a longer spell. You're imagining a situation where the actors really want to come back, but Ubisoft is chomping a cigar and shouting "NO DICE, RYAN" before slamming down the phone. They've known since day one that they're not returning immediately. But when you have VAs doing appearances at conventions, they don't want to upset fans, upset Ubi or close the door entirely on some work in the distant future so they say, "I'd like to, but we'll just have to see what the future holds".
- Edward's story closes unusually well for an AC game. That looks like the intended ending to me.
- Tristan D. Lalla has appeared in two more games since Black Flag, and Roger Aaron Brown came back in Rogue, so how does this fit into your theory? I don't think it does. I think it starts to look like a more sensible picture where Ubisoft decides what stories it wants to tell and for how long, and then it goes and pays the people it needs to work again.

Also, that "mommy, mommy" thing you keep repeating? I expect it's meant to make you sound like the adult and to make other people sound like children, but it's having the opposite effect.

cawatrooper9
12-03-2015, 04:22 PM
- Arno couldn't have battled Shay. Shay's quite old when he murders Arno's father, and Arno is a boy. If Arno took on Shay as a sequel, we're talking about hunting a man in his late 60s/70s. The subplot about Napoleon means Arno couldn't pursue him until 1808, when Shay would be 78. If they'd put this plot into Unity, how lumpy would that game be then? Remember how disappointed people were at the paucity of cutscenes and nodes in the story? How, and why, would you cram killing Shay into that, and why would Shay still be in Paris decades later? The main audience isn't going to play Rogue as well and may not even know it exists, but you're imagining that they're just like us and reallly give a monkey's about this character. They don't.

I think the general consensus is that if that were to be a game, Shay would be an older Templar, perhaps posessing a POE. Something along the lines of Torres, perhaps, in that he may not necessarily be much of a physical threat anymore, but he is intelligent and knows how the game is played by now- plus, I'm sure he'd have some beefy bodyguards.

D.I.D.
12-03-2015, 04:38 PM
It wouldn't fit too well with his character, given that he's defined by his horror of these artefacts that he considers to be at best sinister and at worst evil.

It might be fun, don't get me wrong. It just seems like an odd idea to me. Same with Arno - he's not defined by revenge over his father's murder. That death is the event that gets him raised in a Templar household, and that's the key to the rest of his story. Having him displaced again makes it believable that he'd look for meaning and a sense of belonging within his father's organisation. If the OP is concerned about simplistic, "pre-school" stories then I don't know why this person's calling for a revenge plot. Seems kind of basic, like the animé market's idea of "epic".

cawatrooper9
12-03-2015, 05:53 PM
It wouldn't fit too well with his character, given that he's defined by his horror of these artefacts that he considers to be at best sinister and at worst evil.

That is true. I suppose there are a variety of explanations for this: both Arno and Shay are racing to a POE to prevent the other from getting it even though no side realizes that the other doesn't even want it, Shay's been corrupted by a POE, etc. But yeah, it does seem out of character for him as is.


It might be fun, don't get me wrong. It just seems like an odd idea to me. Same with Arno - he's not defined by revenge over his father's murder. That death is the event that gets him raised in a Templar household, and that's the key to the rest of his story. Having him displaced again makes it believable that he'd look for meaning and a sense of belonging within his father's organisation. If the OP is concerned about simplistic, "pre-school" stories then I don't know why this person's calling for a revenge plot. Seems kind of basic, like the animé market's idea of "epic".
Also true. I think why so many people (including me) find this story to be so driving is that it just feels like there's some serious beef to settle between these characters (I mean, I'm sure Arno would be pretty angry if he knew Shay had killed his father). I think this drive is amplified if you, like me, played Unity first and immediately followed it with Rogue. Having two characters be so entwined just begs for a confrontation between them.

Civona
12-03-2015, 07:53 PM
Uh, you do realize that it would be much less expensive to stay in the same general settings with the same characters because then there'd be less new asset creation which is probably the #1 most expensive and time-consuming thing in game development, right?

Your argument doesn't work at all. Voice actors arent paid very well but that can't possibly have anything to do with the decision to only give each character one game.

there's as much storytelling time in each game as in a full season of a TV show. they should be able to wrap it up in that time.

LoyalACFan
12-03-2015, 11:24 PM
@Llama, I know nothing about the Ray Liotta incident, but the guy who played Niko (Michael Hollick) wasn't really treated unfairly by Rockstar per se. He doesn't make any residuals based off of the marketing or sales performance, but that's pretty much standard; the Screen Actor's Guild doesn't ensure the same pay rate and benefits to video game actors that it does for film or TV stars. It's a larger issue than just saying "Game Publisher X was being greedy." I mean it would be great if the corporate arm of Ubisoft and Rockstar generously paid their actors thousands more than the base SAG rate based on their games' sales, but that's just not how large-scale capitalism works.

It's honestly a pretty nuanced issue with decent arguments on either side. On one hand it really sucks that VG actors get screwed financially despite being just as talented and hard-working as their film/TV peers, but on the other hand there's really no such thing as "star power" in games; actors don't really drive the sales of games in the same way they do in non-digital media. People will shell out cash for a new Leonardo DiCaprio or Matthew McConaughey movie just because it has Leonardo DiCaprio or or Matthew McConaughey in it. The same isn't true for Nolan North or Troy Baker, even though they're really famous and respected in the gaming community.

EDIT- but in any case OP is wildly off-base, AAA games regularly take tens (even hundreds) of millions to develop and market. $15,000 is nothing.

SunderedStar
12-12-2015, 07:58 AM
They couldn't even get the same Benjamin Franklin voice actor from AC3 and Rogue to voice his single line in Unity. That's gotta tell ya something about this silliness.

SixKeys
12-12-2015, 06:10 PM
They couldn't even get the same Benjamin Franklin voice actor from AC3 and Rogue to voice his single line in Unity. That's gotta tell ya something about this silliness.

Yeah, it tells me it would have been silly to pony up a bigger sum for an actor to return to do a single line of dialogue. They would either have had to write more lines for him to make it worthwhile or they could just get a similar-sounding, cheaper actor to say one line. It's just common sense to go with the latter.