PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed dead?



rob1990312
02-26-2016, 11:59 AM
ubisoft are currently fighting a take over bid and risk losing jobs if they fail, with assassins creed currently starting to slow down having been milked to death it could end up not being released again for a long time or never if ubisoft are taken over by media company vivendi what are peoples thoughts? would you be satistfied if syndicate ends up being the final game

MikeFNY
02-26-2016, 12:47 PM
i see there's an aura of optimism around this franchise lately :)

I'm afraid all we can do is to play the waiting game, Rob.

VestigialLlama4
02-26-2016, 05:55 PM
Assassin's Creed will not die. It's one of the gaming industry's most valuable IP and I doubt that Vivendi would want to buy Ubisoft without AC.

Still Vivendi's move is pretty underhanded in my view. But that's capitalism for you.

cawatrooper9
02-26-2016, 06:13 PM
ubisoft are currently fighting a take over bid and risk losing jobs if they fail, with assassins creed currently starting to slow down having been milked to death it could end up not being released again for a long time or never if ubisoft are taken over by media company vivendi what are peoples thoughts? would you be satistfied if syndicate ends up being the final game

I'm confused. You complain about the series being "milked to death", but taking a year off means it's "dying"?

Jessigirl2013
02-26-2016, 07:56 PM
i see there's an aura of optimism around this franchise lately :)

I'm afraid all we can do is to play the waiting game, Rob.

Haha :rolleyes:

OP I doubt Syndicate will be the last game, its one of their main IPs and I doubt they will kill it until they have too.:cool:

crusader_prophet
02-26-2016, 07:57 PM
I'm confused. You complain about the series being "milked to death", but taking a year off means it's "dying"?

No he is worried about Vivendi taking over and doing his own thing and potentially screwing with the franchise

Jessigirl2013
02-26-2016, 11:43 PM
No he is worried about Vivendi taking over and doing his own thing and potentially screwing with the franchise

Well that's a possibility I guess.

I don't know about how take over of game devs work, but wouldn't they keep the staff :confused:

Sorrosyss
02-27-2016, 01:38 AM
Ubi is trying to shore up Canadian investors to try and stall Vivendi. I hope they do, as they have a pretty terrible reputation given the infighting they had with Activision.

As for AC dying. Mmm not yet. Some IPs can go on for decades, even games. The beauty of genetic memory means you have a near endless supply of settings and locations. In essence it can reinvent itself over and over again. The movie will certainly shore up more interest in the IP, and with a more polished game title next year the franchise will hopefully get back on track after a few sad missteps.

crusader_prophet
02-27-2016, 05:09 AM
Well that's a possibility I guess.

I don't know about how take over of game devs work, but wouldn't they keep the staff :confused:

When Vivendi takes over the only motto will be making money and noting else, so that he can take over the next one. he has no interest in the well being of the company. and yes it leads to layoffs.

Jessigirl2013
02-27-2016, 12:54 PM
Ubi is trying to shore up Canadian investors to try and stall Vivendi. I hope they do, as they have a pretty terrible reputation given the infighting they had with Activision.

As for AC dying. Mmm not yet. Some IPs can go on for decades, even games. The beauty of genetic memory means you have a near endless supply of settings and locations. In essence it can reinvent itself over and over again. The movie will certainly shore up more interest in the IP, and with a more polished game title next year the franchise will hopefully get back on track after a few sad missteps.

Its sad its only misstep really was Unity.:rolleyes:


When Vivendi takes over the only motto will be making money and noting else, so that he can take over the next one. he has no interest in the well being of the company. and yes it leads to layoffs.

And people make UBI sound like the bad guy...

rob1990312
02-27-2016, 02:43 PM
i think it is starting to die the fact that an ac game isnt coming out this year says a lot, the only reason a game isnt coming out this year is because sales are dropping

Mr.Black24
02-27-2016, 06:18 PM
So apparently right under our noses, Vivendi had been trying to buy out Ubisoft for some time now.

"Video game publisher Ubisoft Entertainment SA, maker of the Assassin’s Creed series, is seeking the backing of Canadian investors to help fend off a creeping takeover in France from media giant Vivendi SA. Ubisoft officials, led by founder and chief executive Yves Guillemot, confirmed they’re meeting this week with a dozen potential investors in Montreal and Toronto in an attempt to build support for the company’s founders and current management. Canada is already key for Ubisoft as a major game-development site, with Montreal home to its largest global studio. Now its financial community is being asked to play a role as well."

Usually with these kinds of things, projects and staff would be cut off and/or fired. Not to mention Vivendi is a billionaire media giant. I can't imagine they have any other aim in this than money, hence the takeover. I mean, as much as people dislike Ubisoft for their annualisation, microtransactions, and Uplay antics, Vivendi won't be any better about it. After all, Assassin's Creed is a giant and popular series. Can you imagine them in their hands? You say Ubisoft is milking it, well these fellas might just do EXACTLY that, compared to what people believe Ubi is doing during these years. This is the last thing Ubisoft and their games need.

Some say however, the possibilities might be positive. Perhaps with new leadership, some good changes can come about it. Perhaps a new ambitious direction, maybe projects and staff wouldn't cut out at all.


So my question is, should we, the fanbase of the company and their IP, Assassin's Creed, should be worried about their plans? This situation itself?

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/ubisoft-asks-canada-to-help-head-off-hostile-takeover-by-vivendi/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ubisoft-turns-to-canadian-investors-to-fend-off-takeover-bid/article28920702/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ubisoft-turns-to-canadian-investors-to-fend-off-takeover-bid/article28920702/)

HDinHB
02-27-2016, 07:08 PM
No, we shouldn't be worried. There are lots of really important things that might be worth worrying about, but this isn't one of them.


It's been talked about here for months:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1303955-Are-all-of-you-happy-that-Ubisoft-has-been-bought?p=11098730&viewfull=1

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1397328-Assassin-s-Creed-dead?p=11417289&viewfull=1

VestigialLlama4
02-27-2016, 07:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1397328-Assassin-s-Creed-dead

Already another thread about this. Though that doesn't go into the corporate stuff.


Usually with these kinds of things, projects and staff would be cut off and/or fired. Not to mention Vivendi is a billionaire media giant. I can't imagine they have any other aim in this than money, hence the takeover. I mean, as much as people dislike Ubisoft for their annualisation, microtransactions, and Uplay antics, Vivendi won't be any better about it. After all, Assassin's Creed is a giant and popular series. Can you imagine them in their hands? You say Ubisoft is milking it, well these fellas might just do EXACTLY that, compared to what people believe Ubi is doing during these years. This is the last thing Ubisoft and their games need.

Having someone buy Ubisoft or take Assassin's Creed from them is like someone trying to buy Nintendo and imagining Mario and Zelda from another team. It's surreal that this kind of thing can happen to Ubisoft. I don't know how these hostile takeovers work myself.

I wish Ubisoft the best wishes as a fan of the series, and muster as much empathy as a multibillion dollar corporation can command from me.


Some say however, the possibilities might be positive. Perhaps with new leadership, some good changes can come about it. Perhaps a new ambitious direction, maybe projects and staff wouldn't cut out at all.

Well they said the same thing about Patrice Desilets and 1666 when ubisoft bought him after THQ fell...and here we are. If I were religious, I would see this as Karma, but instead it's just funny. Of course it isn't funny for Ubisoft's large pool of employees, in these kind of things, the top team walk away with some amount of payouts but it's the ordinary employees that suffer.

If Ubisoft survives this, I want them to plot Abstergo's downfall this way, they get bought out by one of the Intiates billionaire backers. Assassin's Creed: Corporation, the true sequel to Syndicate.

From what I have read Vivendi simply likes to buy assets, so this might be that they buy Ubisoft just to get their hands on that sweet Assassin's Creed, Rayman, Far Cry moolah, but they won't interfere with development, because after all AC still makes a great deal of money and if it ain't broke, which contrary to fan complaints, it hasn't, no need to fix it. So it might be a case of status quo for a couple of years. But fundamentally, Ubisoft is no longer their own master then and that is kind of scary.

What will really change is that Ubisoft is in the hands of someone who really doesn't care about the products, so you might have a Konami situation where Vivendi says make products for the mobile market or casual products, more AC:Identity, and less AAA games. Likewise, you might have even more restructurings and changes...you might see a full AC reboot, and a MD Assassin's Creed where the historical stuff is scrapped for good. And if Vivendi makes a hash of things and suffers a failure, the owner decides to auction IPs, and AC gets tossed into the wildnerness alongside other IPs.


So my question is, should we, the fanbase of the company and their IP, Assassin's Creed, should be worried about their plans? This situation itself?


There is quite literally nothing we can do. I think Ubisoft will muster enough to stop this threat. I think this problem is a result of UNITY and the stock falling. I think Vivendi bought shares as a result of that poor launch reducing prices and that gave them a window, and Syndicate while it has sold well, has perhaps not quite satisfied shareholder confidence.

But this means more pressure. If the movie fails, critically or commercially, expect Vivendi to try another bid, if EMPIRE fails, expect them to gobble things up even more. It might be that shareholders who sold stuff to Vivendi are starting to believe that Ubisoft and AC has peaked and that now it's the slow decline and they might decide to leave while the going is good.

Jessigirl2013
02-27-2016, 07:50 PM
I thought UBI had enough money to prevent them from being taken over.:confused:
I have no idea how these things work, but why is UBI wanting to sell?

LoyalACFan
02-27-2016, 08:37 PM
I thought UBI had enough money to prevent them from being taken over.:confused:
I have no idea how these things work, but why is UBI wanting to sell?

They don't want to sell; Vivendi wants to buy. Ubi can't control who buys their stock (barring whatever is held by the CEO/board/employees), and Vivendi wants to slurp enough of it up to have a majority interest, which essentially means that they would have control over what happens in the company. I've heard that over 50% of Ubi's stock is held in-house though, so idk. A Vivendi takeover would definitely be bad news (new management means the workflow and release cycle gets even more f***ed than it already is) but I personally don't think it's likely to happen in the immediate future. Obviously that's just my opinion and I'm not a student of economics, but hey ho.

Sushiglutton
02-27-2016, 11:22 PM
Well it's hard to think a Vivendi takeover would be a good thing in any way. I don't exactly expect them to focus on more Valiant Hearts- type projects lol (really liked that game).



i think it is starting to die the fact that an ac game isnt coming out this year says a lot, the only reason a game isnt coming out this year is because sales are dropping

Nah it's just a pit stop to switch out some of the most rusty parts :).

GunnerGalactico
02-28-2016, 09:39 PM
AC is not dying. Ever since the series became an annualized, everything went downhill. This is just a maneuver to put this series back on track (hopefully) and win back people's faith.

Civona
02-28-2016, 10:03 PM
I think I'd care more about the jobs lost than assassin's creed not coming out. Not that I wouldn't be excited for a cool new AC, but I feel like I've enjoyed a large amount of games in the series and don't really think I'm owed any more. It would be nice if it kept going and was good, but I could deal with it ending now.

Jessigirl2013
02-29-2016, 05:41 PM
I think I'd care more about the jobs lost than assassin's creed not coming out. Not that I wouldn't be excited for a cool new AC, but I feel like I've enjoyed a large amount of games in the series and don't really think I'm owed any more. It would be nice if it kept going and was good, but I could deal with it ending now.

Also the lost potential/quality of future AC games that would of been made if they didn't meddle in.:(

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-01-2016, 01:33 AM
AC is not dying. Ever since the series became an annualized, everything went downhill. This is just a maneuver to put this series back on track (hopefully) and win back people's faith.

^ Pretty much this

rob1990312
03-01-2016, 01:48 PM
AC is not dying. Ever since the series became an annualized, everything went downhill. This is just a maneuver to put this series back on track (hopefully) and win back people's faith.

that is definitly not the reason its more likely a financial decision you would have to be naive to think they care about peoples faith in the game

ze_topazio
03-01-2016, 02:25 PM
What the OP is asking is if AC is at risking of dying because of Vivendi attempt to buy Ubisoft, personally I don't see how Vivendi who wants to buy Ubisoft for profit would kill Ubisoft's most profitable franchise, unless Vivendi's president has some kind of grudge towards AC and I don't really think they want to buy Ubisoft because of Petz, Pure Football or Beyond Good & Evil.

rob1990312
03-01-2016, 02:39 PM
What the OP is asking is if AC is at risking of dying because of Vivendi attempt to buy Ubisoft, personally I don't see how Vivendi who wants to buy Ubisoft for profit would kill Ubisoft's most profitable franchise, unless Vivendi's president has some kind of grudge towards AC and I don't really think they want to buy Ubisoft because of Petz, Pure Football or Beyond Good & Evil.

what im actually getiing at is this....
ubisoft has milked the franchise, it is now starting to slow down as sales for the game have started to drop, now they are taking a year out who knows it could be more, if ubisoft is bought out mid developement of a game it could lose a lot of vital devs which could delay the game or kill off the game, if the new ubisoft or watever it ends up being called then releases a terrible game it could lose the fans altogrther
so in short this could all be the beginning of the end, other game franchises have died in the past and more will go in the future its just the way things go
also one of ye tried to say that assassins creed is as big a franchise as super mario, that it is too big to fail
assassins creed is no where near the same level as mario when it comes to branding and sales, if you asked a person who knows nothing about games who super mario is they would probably know the same can not be said about ac
ETZY WHO?

ze_topazio
03-01-2016, 03:02 PM
Takeovers are not that fast, this could months or years, developers also have contracts, so at best they would only leave after finishing the game.

Jessigirl2013
03-01-2016, 03:10 PM
that is definitly not the reason its more likely a financial decision you would have to be naive to think they care about peoples faith in the game

Yeah... Its a PR move if anything.:rolleyes:

pacmanate
03-01-2016, 03:11 PM
Wouldn't mind Vivendi taking over AC. Would be interesting to see what they do with it.

Whatever comes after AC Syndicate from Ubisoft I can feel will be different from the dry formula we have had the past 2 years.

So why not let Vivendi have a go? Then again if the takeover does happen, it will take a while like others have said.

I don't like AC where it has gone since 2012, so I don't really care who gets AC as long as they make it good again

rob1990312
03-01-2016, 03:12 PM
Takeovers are not that fast, this could months or years, developers also have contracts, so at best they would only leave after finishing the game.

very true but devs can also choose to break contracts and jump ship if they decide they dont want to work with vivendi


Wouldn't mind Vivendi taking over AC. Would be interesting to see what they do with it.

Whatever comes after AC Syndicate from Ubisoft I can feel will be different from the dry formula we have had the past 2 years.

So why not let Vivendi have a go? Then again if the takeover does happen, it will take a while like others have said.

I don't like AC where it has gone since 2012, so I don't really care who gets AC as long as they make it good again

it could be intersting id prefer if they would just give it it to the same team for every game it would keep it consistant game and would mean slower releases

Jessigirl2013
03-01-2016, 03:37 PM
very true but devs can also choose to break contracts and jump ship if they decide they dont want to work with vivendi

That's the potential issue which could affect not only AC but all of UBIs IPs.

VestigialLlama4
03-02-2016, 05:27 AM
Wouldn't mind Vivendi taking over AC. Would be interesting to see what they do with it.

Vivendi is not really a development company. They buy things, they own properties but they don't really make anything. As a corporate house their involvement in the process would be, "More like AC2, more Ezioclones, more pirate games" you know, repeate past successes.


So why not let Vivendi have a go?

You mean aside from the pride Ubisoft have in their own product, the IP that raised their profile from a decent developer of Michel Ancels games, cool Prince of Persia reboots to one of the biggest names in the industry. That is quite a weird attitude for a fan to have.


I don't like AC where it has gone since 2012, so I don't really care who gets AC as long as they make it good again

2012 is four years ago...just because a company has a glut (as per your perception), Ubisoft must surrender its autonomy. Wow.

Of course if Vivendi is willing to bring back Patrice Desilets and make him head-of-creative, then I suppose it would be different, but that is absolutely not what's happening here.

RVSage
03-02-2016, 08:56 AM
If you are a fan of AC, vivendi buying Ubi is the worst thing that can happen. When an acquisition happens, people get layed off more often than not., And It is mostly some senior people (not all, but some). Why senior people? Because you pay them more. So sacking them = more money.

AC has already lost senior people like Raymond, Corey May and Patrice, we cannot lose any more

So Ubi being bought, will only lead the series to further go down the barrel. They may not necessarily kill AC the product, they will kill whatever soul is left of it

That being said. I see Vivendi buy gameloft than Ubisoft. The Canandian Prime Minister, recently visited the Montreal Studio, I guess they might have talked about getting investors in, with him. All the more probability of new investors, So there is positive signs, and all hope is not lost

GunnerGalactico
03-02-2016, 07:28 PM
If you are a fan of AC, vivendi buying Ubi is the worst thing that can happen. When an acquisition happens, people get layed off more often than not., And It is mostly some senior people (not all, but some). Why senior people? Because you pay them more. So sacking them = more money.

AC has already lost senior people like Raymond, Corey May and Patrice, we cannot lose any more

So Ubi being bought, will only lead the series to further go down the barrel. They may not necessarily kill AC the product, they will kill whatever soul is left of it

That being said. I see Vivendi buy gameloft than Ubisoft. The Canandian Prime Minister, recently visited the Montreal Studio, I guess they might have talked about getting investors in, with him. All the more probability of new investors, So there is positive signs, and all hope is not lost

^ This 100%

I don't understand what people are actually complaining about. They criticize Ubi for annualizing AC, recycling assets and for the lack of direction in the franchise. When Ubi does respond to feedback regarding those issues... they complain even more. The fact that they are taking the year off to re-evaluate the series is a step in the right direction IMO.

Jessigirl2013
03-02-2016, 09:09 PM
^ This 100%

I don't understand what people are actually complaining about. They criticize Ubi for annualizing AC, recycling assets and for the lack of direction in the franchise. When Ubi does respond to feedback regarding those issues... they complain even more. The fact that they are taking the year off to re-evaluate the series is a step in the right direction IMO.
Agreed.

rob1990312
03-02-2016, 09:30 PM
^ This 100%

I don't understand what people are actually complaining about. They criticize Ubi for annualizing AC, recycling assets and for the lack of direction in the franchise. When Ubi does respond to feedback regarding those issues... they complain even more. The fact that they are taking the year off to re-evaluate the series is a step in the right direction IMO.

i highly doubt the main reason they are taking a year out is to evaluate the series, people have been complaining about annual releases since acr i doubt they have decided to listen now, the reason is more likely that sales have started to fall having finally peaked look up what the law of marginal diminishing returns means, this is one of the reasons i think the series is coming towards the end weather its one game or 5 left, at the end of the day each new game is just a remake of the last and it doesnt have the online play to back it up like other annual franchises

Ureh
03-02-2016, 11:07 PM
Let's wait and see what they do with this time. In 2017 we'll know if it helped or not.

rob1990312
03-02-2016, 11:34 PM
Let's wait and see what they do with this time. In 2017 we'll know if it helped or not.

it doesnt matter if the game is good if sales arent as good as ubisoft want it will hurt the franchise it doesnt make a differnce what a few die hards on here think of the game

JamesFaith007
03-03-2016, 01:41 AM
i highly doubt the main reason they are taking a year out is to evaluate the series, people have been complaining about annual releases since acr i doubt they have decided to listen now, the reason is more likely that sales have started to fall having finally peaked look up what the law of marginal diminishing returns means, this is one of the reasons i think the series is coming towards the end weather its one game or 5 left, at the end of the day each new game is just a remake of the last and it doesnt have the online play to back it up like other annual franchises

Yes, people were speaking against annual releases in past but it never was such big deal as you made it. AC4 was annual yet huge success and annual releases caused more worries then direct complains in 2013. Breaking point was Unity in November 2014 when annual release was generally considered as main cause of Unity technical problems. And because ACS was already in late phase of development, time for reconsidering of franchise logically come in 2016.

I don't see any reason to consider it a bad omen.

SixKeys
03-03-2016, 02:49 AM
Yes, people were speaking against annual releases in past but it never was such big deal as you made it. AC4 was annual yet huge success and annual releases caused more worries then direct complains in 2013. Breaking point was Unity in November 2014 when annual release was generally considered as main cause of Unity technical problems. And because ACS was already in late phase of development, time for reconsidering of franchise logically come in 2016.

I don't see any reason to consider it a bad omen.

Actually AC4 performed underwhelmingly compared to AC3 at the time of its release. Sales picked up later as the game got good reviews and word of mouth began to spread. Outside of the hardcore fandom AC4 is viewed as an anomaly in an otherwise declining series. Go on any gaming site/forum and you'll see the general public thinks AC2 and AC4 are shining stars in the midst of mediocrity. So yes, annual releases are absolutely a big deal for the overall reputation of the franchise and hopefully Ubi is finally realizing that.

VestigialLlama4
03-03-2016, 12:56 PM
Actually AC4 performed underwhelmingly compared to AC3 at the time of its release. Sales picked up later as the game got good reviews and word of mouth began to spread. Outside of the hardcore fandom AC4 is viewed as an anomaly in an otherwise declining series. Go on any gaming site/forum and you'll see the general public thinks AC2 and AC4 are shining stars in the midst of mediocrity. So yes, annual releases are absolutely a big deal for the overall reputation of the franchise and hopefully Ubi is finally realizing that.

Well the point is the games were basically successful, commercially and also critically (AC3 had better critical notices than among fansites), until Unity...Unity dropped the stock prices, which I am willing to bet is what led Vivendi to start making inroads into Ubisoft.

The negative publicity of Unity and bad news probably created greater panic and led some shareholders to sell out more shares, and the underwhelming performance of Syndicate which is unlikely to become a Black Flag-esque dark horse and raise esteem by word-of-mouth.

The point is let's not be too black-and-white and look for scapegoats. Annualization brought successes like Brotherhood and Revelations as well and Black Flag would never have been made on a biannual cycle, leave alone tri-annual cycle. Remember that Ubisoft Montreal gets a lot of subsidies from the Canadian government to do its work and they needed to maintain a constant output and success. Making AC games every year worked in that respect. Ubisoft could have been a small respectable company and made one AC game every three or four years, but they would not have been the same company nor make the same games.

In my view I think they made a big mistake in not taking a year off with Unity. I think that was the ideal time to do it. Doing it after Syndicate makes them look weak and caving to public pressure. Not healthy for investor confidence.

Farlander1991
03-03-2016, 01:43 PM
Actually AC4 performed underwhelmingly compared to AC3 at the time of its release. Sales picked up later as the game got good reviews and word of mouth began to spread.

Well, it's not only that, but it's also the new gen release where there's a lot of players who don't buy a cross-gen release on either of gen platforms until a console becomes more valuable (and possibly cheaper), that's an awkward moment. It's a very awkward time for game sales.

That said, speaking of AC4 sales in retail (digital aren't openly tracked), it's got now 13.03 million retail sales, and AC3 at the moment has 13.06 million retail sales. This year AC4 will become the best-selling AC game (if it hasn't already thanks to digital, as there's no open information for that).

dxsxhxcx
03-03-2016, 04:42 PM
Yes, people were speaking against annual releases in past but it never was such big deal as you made it. AC4 was annual yet huge success and annual releases caused more worries then direct complains in 2013. Breaking point was Unity in November 2014 when annual release was generally considered as main cause of Unity technical problems. And because ACS was already in late phase of development, time for reconsidering of franchise logically come in 2016.

I don't see any reason to consider it a bad omen.

AC4 was a success because of the naval mechanic, this "re-evaluation" of the franchise is probably happening because of Unity's disastrous reception that also affected Syndicate' sales and would most likely affect the next releases as well. It's a good thing that they are doing it, but If it wasn't for Unity this wouldn't be happening. It's a PR move (made to restore people's faith in them and the franchise) more than anything.

rob1990312
03-03-2016, 08:48 PM
AC4 was a success because of the naval mechanic, this "re-evaluation" of the franchise is probably happening because of Unity's disastrous reception that also affected Syndicate' sales and would most likely affect the next releases as well. It's a good thing that they are doing it, but If it wasn't for Unity this wouldn't be happening. It's a PR move (made to restore people's faith in them and the franchise) more than anything.

what do you think is a pr move?

also to clarify what im saying about annual releases i mentioned the law of diminishing marginal returns but none of you will look that up so il give a very simplified explanation
so your thirsty and you buy a can of coca cola, you drink it and its great and you are totally refreshed and you cant wait for another one so you go buy another one straight away and drink it and its just as good as the first if not better. Then you think why not buy another what could go wrong? the first two were great, so you drink the third one but this time its not as good you didnt get the same satisfaction but you think to yourself maybe this coca cola was just a bad one maybe the next one will be ok again. So against your better judgement you buy a fourth drink, this one is definitely not as good as the first two although it is identical in every way, you start to feel sick and you decide that enough is enough you are going to take a break from drinking coca cola before you end up sick, so you turn to go home but before you do the shopkeeper runs out and says WAIT, we have new coca cola and this one is the best ever everything is improved. you are weary as the last one made you feel sick but because you loved the first two so much you say what the heck and you drink it and it does somehow taste a little bit better but you ultimately end up vomiting every where, and that is it you decide that you are never drinking coca cola again.

the moral is in the long run the game will go stale, die hard fans on this site defending the game today could end up hating the games in 5 years, of course maybe ubisoft will have new fans by then, but why should original fans have to pay for it
that is my problem with annual releases

Jessigirl2013
03-05-2016, 11:59 AM
Well the point is the games were basically successful, commercially and also critically (AC3 had better critical notices than among fansites), until Unity...Unity dropped the stock prices, which I am willing to bet is what led Vivendi to start making inroads into Ubisoft.

The negative publicity of Unity and bad news probably created greater panic and led some shareholders to sell out more shares, and the underwhelming performance of Syndicate which is unlikely to become a Black Flag-esque dark horse and raise esteem by word-of-mouth.

The point is let's not be too black-and-white and look for scapegoats. Annualization brought successes like Brotherhood and Revelations as well and Black Flag would never have been made on a biannual cycle, leave alone tri-annual cycle. Remember that Ubisoft Montreal gets a lot of subsidies from the Canadian government to do its work and they needed to maintain a constant output and success. Making AC games every year worked in that respect. Ubisoft could have been a small respectable company and made one AC game every three or four years, but they would not have been the same company nor make the same games.

In my view I think they made a big mistake in not taking a year off with Unity. I think that was the ideal time to do it. Doing it after Syndicate makes them look weak and caving to public pressure. Not healthy for investor confidence.

Well said, I never understood the anti-annualisation argument and IMO its not necessary.



Well, it's not only that, but it's also the new gen release where there's a lot of players who don't buy a cross-gen release on either of gen platforms until a console becomes more valuable (and possibly cheaper), that's an awkward moment. It's a very awkward time for game sales.

That said, speaking of AC4 sales in retail (digital aren't openly tracked), it's got now 13.03 million retail sales, and AC3 at the moment has 13.06 million retail sales. This year AC4 will become the best-selling AC game (if it hasn't already thanks to digital, as there's no open information for that).

That's nice to hear that ACIII is on par with sales with AC4, IMO ACIII is the better game.:rolleyes: (Apart from that ending..... *facepalm.)

Jessigirl2013
03-05-2016, 12:01 PM
Well the point is the games were basically successful, commercially and also critically (AC3 had better critical notices than among fansites), until Unity...Unity dropped the stock prices, which I am willing to bet is what led Vivendi to start making inroads into Ubisoft.

The negative publicity of Unity and bad news probably created greater panic and led some shareholders to sell out more shares, and the underwhelming performance of Syndicate which is unlikely to become a Black Flag-esque dark horse and raise esteem by word-of-mouth.

The point is let's not be too black-and-white and look for scapegoats. Annualization brought successes like Brotherhood and Revelations as well and Black Flag would never have been made on a biannual cycle, leave alone tri-annual cycle. Remember that Ubisoft Montreal gets a lot of subsidies from the Canadian government to do its work and they needed to maintain a constant output and success. Making AC games every year worked in that respect. Ubisoft could have been a small respectable company and made one AC game every three or four years, but they would not have been the same company nor make the same games.

In my view I think they made a big mistake in not taking a year off with Unity. I think that was the ideal time to do it. Doing it after Syndicate makes them look weak and caving to public pressure. Not healthy for investor confidence.


what do you think is a pr move?

also to clarify what im saying about annual releases i mentioned the law of diminishing marginal returns but none of you will look that up so il give a very simplified explanation
so your thirsty and you buy a can of coca cola, you drink it and its great and you are totally refreshed and you cant wait for another one so you go buy another one straight away and drink it and its just as good as the first if not better. Then you think why not buy another what could go wrong? the first two were great, so you drink the third one but this time its not as good you didnt get the same satisfaction but you think to yourself maybe this coca cola was just a bad one maybe the next one will be ok again. So against your better judgement you buy a fourth drink, this one is definitely not as good as the first two although it is identical in every way, you start to feel sick and you decide that enough is enough you are going to take a break from drinking coca cola before you end up sick, so you turn to go home but before you do the shopkeeper runs out and says WAIT, we have new coca cola and this one is the best ever everything is improved. you are weary as the last one made you feel sick but because you loved the first two so much you say what the heck and you drink it and it does somehow taste a little bit better but you ultimately end up vomiting every where, and that is it you decide that you are never drinking coca cola again.

the moral is in the long run the game will go stale, die hard fans on this site defending the game today could end up hating the games in 5 years, of course maybe ubisoft will have new fans by then, but why should original fans have to pay for it
that is my problem with annual releases

Because its glaringly obvious.:rolleyes:

rob1990312
03-06-2016, 12:02 AM
Because its glaringly obvious.:rolleyes:

what is glaringly obvious who are you replying to

Farlander1991
03-06-2016, 12:18 AM
That's nice to hear that ACIII is on par with sales with AC4, IMO ACIII is the better game.:rolleyes: (Apart from that ending..... *facepalm.)

AC3 is not on part with sales with AC4, AC4 has better sales even though numbers at this moment now are slightly lower.

AC3, released in 2012, got 10 million retail copies in its first big sales period and in 4 years got 3 millions more, with the sales tendency plummeting down really quick.
AC4, released in 2013, got 7 million retail copies in its first big sales period and in 3 years got 6 millions more, with the sales tendency still going strong.

In another 4 years AC4 will have 16-18 million retail copies while AC3 will have 14 max.

Hard to say with digital, because numbers for digital sales aren't openly tracked, but it's safe to presume if AC4 performs better in retail it performs better in digital as well.

rob1990312
03-06-2016, 12:24 AM
are sales a good indicator of weather a game is good or bad, in the long run maybe, but i always think sales show how good the marketing was mostly

VestigialLlama4
03-06-2016, 08:41 AM
are sales a good indicator of weather a game is good or bad, in the long run maybe, but i always think sales show how good the marketing was mostly

Exactly how important marketing is to sales is really hard to gauge and it's often elevated, by marketing people naturally, to show important they are to the success of the product. It definitely does play a role however. AC3's marketing consciously promoted the game as an American Revolution story and not necessarily as an Assassin's Creed game. It was about Native Americans, it was about battles, ship fights and George Washington which brought the game a broader audience. The kind of audience who would buy Assassin's Creed 3 just for the setting rather than the overall franchise. That was the plan, a new protagonist, new setting and new fans which is why so much of the Lore was played down in the games (hence the toning down of rituals, the lack of the Creed and only few references to Altair and Ezio). Problem was that it alienated some of the older fans in the process.

Sales has no real bearing or statement on quality as is evidenced by the great number of good products that are not blockbusters. Ubisoft's Beyond Good and Evil is considered a masterpiece today but it never sold well. It is useful to cite sales however. You also have to keep in mind that in games, console versions and graphical upgrades is a huge problem. Black Flag's sales were helped in no small part for the fact that it was on PS4 and XBONE alongside old gen titles. It's also greatly helped by the fact that Unity and Syndicate are such underperformers so that makes it currently the only great game on Next-Gen platforms.

rob1990312
03-09-2016, 02:16 AM
http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/3/8/11179934/ubisoft-division-interview-future-watch-dogs-2
looks like ac may not be the flag ship anymore

SixKeys
03-09-2016, 05:02 AM
http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/3/8/11179934/ubisoft-division-interview-future-watch-dogs-2
looks like ac may not be the flag ship anymore

I was just thinking today that it feels like a lot of resources and attention has been shifted away from AC and towards The Division lately. Some of our own comdevs have moved on to working on different games which feels like a big move, considering what a large number of comdevs/managers etc. AC has had in recent years. Even the 2017 AC game has been rumored to take advantage of The Division's Snowdrop engine, meaning The Division team has obviously managed to do something right that their work would be used as a template for other franchises. Maybe The Division is where Ubi is hedging most of its bets right now.

VestigialLlama4
03-09-2016, 05:09 AM
I was just thinking today that it feels like a lot of resources and attention has been shifted away from AC and towards The Division lately. Some of our own comdevs have moved on to working on different games which feels like a big move, considering what a large number of comdevs/managers etc. AC has had in recent years. Even the 2017 AC game has been rumored to take advantage of The Division's Snowdrop engine, meaning The Division team has obviously managed to do something right that their work would be used as a template for other franchises. Maybe The Division is where Ubi is hedging most of its bets right now.

Well in terms of profit, Far Cry is behind AC.

As for The Division well it hasn't launched yet and it's too premature to say if it will be the new AC.

rob1990312
03-09-2016, 06:16 AM
I was just thinking today that it feels like a lot of resources and attention has been shifted away from AC and towards The Division lately. Some of our own comdevs have moved on to working on different games which feels like a big move, considering what a large number of comdevs/managers etc. AC has had in recent years. Even the 2017 AC game has been rumored to take advantage of The Division's Snowdrop engine, meaning The Division team has obviously managed to do something right that their work would be used as a template for other franchises. Maybe The Division is where Ubi is hedging most of its bets right now.

where did you hear about ac using snow drop
it would be good if the next ac uses an already existing engine, thelast two acs brought out with new engines were very buggy(ac3 and acu)
i just realised that game was released today i must look it up, i havent followed any of its build up

SixKeys
03-09-2016, 06:38 AM
Well in terms of profit, Far Cry is behind AC.

As for The Division well it hasn't launched yet and it's too premature to say if it will be the new AC.

Of course it is, but Ubi seem to be really pushing it. I think they know AC is running out of steam and they're frantically looking for a replacement. They tried it with Watch Dogs but after the initially enthusiastic response, it didn't quite take off the way they wanted to. Now it seems they're pushing The Division to the forefront.


where did you hear about ac using snow drop
it would be good if the next ac uses an already existing engine, thelast two acs brought out with new engines were very buggy(ac3 and acu)
i just realised that game was released today i must look it up, i havent followed any of its build up

http://www.pcgamesn.com/the-division/the-divisions-snowdrop-engine-could-be-used-in-other-ubisoft-games-like-assassins-creed

rob1990312
03-11-2016, 03:43 AM
Well in terms of profit, Far Cry is behind AC.

As for The Division well it hasn't launched yet and it's too premature to say if it will be the new AC.

http://ie.ign.com/videos/2016/03/10/the-division-sets-massive-ubisoft-sales-record-ign-daily-fix

there you go

hughdwys
03-11-2016, 05:58 PM
Well the point is the games were basically successful, commercially and also critically (AC3 had better critical notices than among fansites), until Unity...Unity dropped the stock prices, which I am willing to bet is what led Vivendi to start making inroads into Ubisoft.

The negative publicity of Unity and bad news probably created greater panic and led some shareholders to sell out more shares, and the underwhelming performance of Syndicate which is unlikely to become a Black Flag-esque dark horse and raise esteem by word-of-mouth.

The point is let's not be too black-and-white and look for scapegoats. Annualization brought successes like Brotherhood and Revelations as well and Black Flag would never have been made on a biannual cycle, leave alone tri-annual cycle. Remember that Ubisoft Montreal gets a lot of subsidies from the Canadian government to do its work and they needed to maintain a constant output and success. Making AC games every year worked in that respect. Ubisoft could have been a small respectable company and made one AC game every three or four years, but they would not have been the same company nor make the same games.

In my view I think they made a big mistake in not taking a year off with Unity. I think that was the ideal time to do it. Doing it after Syndicate makes them look weak and caving to public pressure. Not healthy for investor confidence.

I've worked for a subsidiary of an enormous publicly held media company before, and there is constant pressure to increase year-to-year earnings--like for any publicly traded company. The problem with being a subsidiary is that the people demanding immediate economic gratification are so far removed from the product, they usually don't understand it all--including what (and who) makes it special. When performance metrics aren't met, cutting experienced staff is usually the first solution to make up the shortfall, which of course almost always leads to a decline in the quality of the product, and which in turn, unsurprisingly, leads to even worse economic results. That's why I think a Vivendi takeover would damage the franchise even more than the existing profit-driven annual release strategy has damaged the franchise. I think Ubisoft should have at most released a game every two years. Too many problems have persisted from release to release that very likely would have been able to be resolved if they had a more forgiving production schedule. I've worked in digital media production under such conditions. When you're understaffed and on a too-tight schedule, problems are handled on the fly with the easiest and fastest solution possible. You don't have the time or the resources to address the current issues properly much less innovate and improve things for the future. I'm talking about both technical innovation and creative innovation. For a series like AC that can make it hard to hold on to an existing audience and draw in new players. I love AC, but as time has gone by my frustrations have mounted, and my affection has been more for what the series could be not for what it is.

Going4Quests
03-11-2016, 07:14 PM
Killing AC is killing Ubisoft. So unless they're stupid, it wont happen.

rob1990312
03-11-2016, 07:44 PM
Killing AC is killing Ubisoft. So unless they're stupid, it wont happen.

the thread doesnt say they would kill it, just speeds up its natural demise


I've worked for a subsidiary of an enormous publicly held media company before, and there is constant pressure to increase year-to-year earnings--like for any publicly traded company. The problem with being a subsidiary is that the people demanding immediate economic gratification are so far removed from the product, they usually don't understand it all--including what (and who) makes it special. When performance metrics aren't met, cutting experienced staff is usually the first solution to make up the shortfall, which of course almost always leads to a decline in the quality of the product, and which in turn, unsurprisingly, leads to even worse economic results. That's why I think a Vivendi takeover would damage the franchise even more than the existing profit-driven annual release strategy has damaged the franchise. I think Ubisoft should have at most released a game every two years. Too many problems have persisted from release to release that very likely would have been able to be resolved if they had a more forgiving production schedule. I've worked in digital media production under such conditions. When you're understaffed and on a too-tight schedule, problems are handled on the fly with the easiest and fastest solution possible. You don't have the time or the resources to address the current issues properly much less innovate and improve things for the future. I'm talking about both technical innovation and creative innovation. For a series like AC that can make it hard to hold on to an existing audience and draw in new players. I love AC, but as time has gone by my frustrations have mounted, and my affection has been more for what the series could be not for what it is.

great post

Jessigirl2013
03-11-2016, 08:23 PM
Of course it is, but Ubi seem to be really pushing it. I think they know AC is running out of steam and they're frantically looking for a replacement. They tried it with Watch Dogs but after the initially enthusiastic response, it didn't quite take off the way they wanted to. Now it seems they're pushing The Division to the forefront.



http://www.pcgamesn.com/the-division/the-divisions-snowdrop-engine-could-be-used-in-other-ubisoft-games-like-assassins-creed

From what I can tell you play as a mute.

No thanks UBI!:rolleyes:

IMO I just don't care about the division...