PDA

View Full Version : Would you like to see a delay to 2018?



UnknownGamer1994
05-22-2017, 02:02 AM
Due to the fact the next installment of Assassin's Creed will be coming within the financial year of 2017-2018 (April 2017-March 2018) it could be a possible scenario that we will see the next Assassin's Creed game being released only in the first quarter of 2018.
Would you like Ubisoft to take a few months to delay this game or a one year break was enough for you?

Personally, as much as I like to play an Assassin's Creed game this year I wouldn't mind if Ubisoft will take a few months to polish the game, extend the experience in some ways, giving us an engaging playable present day segments etc. As long as we have an idea of what we are waiting for this E3, it would be enough to keep my appetite until the game will be released :) :rolleyes:

Megas_Doux
05-22-2017, 02:30 AM
If that means I get a 8.5 or higher...I'm in.

LoyalACFan
05-22-2017, 02:51 AM
Well... not really. If they can't get it done in four years, I'm not particularly optimistic about the whole endeavor. I mean, I know firsthand that games can run into all kinds of setbacks that necessitate delays, but considering the fact that they broke with their annual release schedule specifically to accommodate this game, I would certainly hope they can get it out by November.

ERICATHERINE
05-22-2017, 12:44 PM
Unless they use the totality of the delay to do a playable md, I'm fine with just the 1 more year we had to wait. From my point of view, everything related to the past days is great, but I would way more prefer the md to be playable than just some cutscenes. That's the only thing that need to change/return, from my point of view. ^-^

m4r-k7
05-22-2017, 12:55 PM
If its in the state that AC Unity was in, in terms of framerate more importantly, YES.

I don't think it will get delayed though. I am quite confident that this game will be one of the good ones - it might not be the best, but I don't think it will flop like Unity. Although what do I know? Unity was in development for 5 years and it still had an awful story, unfinished gameplay mechanics and released in a horrible state so I have no idea.

cawatrooper9
05-22-2017, 02:54 PM
I think most people are generally of the opinion of "if a delay will significantly improve the game, I can wait).

But as Loyal points out, the way these games are developed, a year might not make much of a difference at this point.

To be honest, I kind of wonder even how much the new game was improved by taking 2016 off. Not to say that I think it'll be bad- personally, I've mostly enjoyed ACU and ACS. I just think it may have been more of a placebo to help with the franchise fatigue that so many complain of, rather than a delay for development. But that's just my crazy conspiracy theory.

VestigialLlama4
05-22-2017, 04:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1_50T5GwZ8

This video explains that the problem of buggy releases has almost nothing to do with times, deadlines and other things. It's a much bigger issue than what some of us think about.

Ubisoft haven't announced a release date yet.

In any case, given that Ubiisoft is in danger of being bought out by Vivendi they need a sure thing to assure their shareholders. They don't have a bigger gun than AC. That movie was surprisingly successful commercially which proved the strength of the brand.

So I would be quite surprised if Ubisoft decided to take longer time.

They took a year off for 2016 but they had the movie. They really do have to go forward.

ModernWaffle
05-22-2017, 05:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1_50T5GwZ8

This video explains that the problem of buggy releases has almost nothing to do with times, deadlines and other things. It's a much bigger issue than what some of us think about.

Ubisoft haven't announced a release date yet.

In any case, given that Ubiisoft is in danger of being bought out by Vivendi they need a sure thing to assure their shareholders. They don't have a bigger gun than AC. That movie was surprisingly successful commercially which proved the strength of the brand.

That was quite a useful video, hadn't seen the problem of buggy releases in that light before. But the point about Vivendi makes a lot of sense, especially as the latter said they were going into the 'second phase' in their plans for the Ubisoft takeover this year. Plus, it's better to release a game in fall rather the first quarter of the year so just another reason why I can't see them going for Q1 release.

Personally wouldn't want it to come out early 2018 anyway, can't enjoy a new AC just before the exam period.

Megas_Doux
05-22-2017, 11:57 PM
Well... not really. If they can't get it done in four years, I'm not particularly optimistic about the whole endeavor. I mean, I know firsthand that games can run into all kinds of setbacks that necessitate delays, but considering the fact that they broke with their annual release schedule specifically to accommodate this game, I would certainly hope they can get it out by November.

It depends on the company, I guess.

See, after the relatively "warm" reaction after the first demo and the need for that game to rock, Naughty Dog decided to delay Uncharted 4 and now Rockstar did the same with Red Dead Redemption 2.

Helforsite
05-23-2017, 05:48 AM
Now with RDR2 being released in Spring 2018 and Vivendi looming over them, I see no way that the next AC is getting delayed to 2018.

Weirdazoid
05-23-2017, 11:54 AM
If it is necessary to provide a quality product, yes. No more buggy games at launch please.

poptartz20
05-23-2017, 03:28 PM
I don't think it will matter at this point if they wait or not. I'm sure this game was already in development in 2014. So with that being said, I doubt one more year will make that much of a difference. Plus more dev time doesn't equal a better game. so that logic isn't pointless persay, but doesn't always work out.

Helforsite
05-23-2017, 03:48 PM
Plus more dev time doesn't equal a better game.
I wish more people would get this. For me, more dev time means reduced fatigue and better feedback integration.

poptartz20
05-23-2017, 04:47 PM
yes! now if we could just get a better quality check team. like the ones they have on the farcry team perhaps.

pacmanate
05-23-2017, 09:45 PM
Well... not really. If they can't get it done in four years, I'm not particularly optimistic about the whole endeavor. I mean, I know firsthand that games can run into all kinds of setbacks that necessitate delays, but considering the fact that they broke with their annual release schedule specifically to accommodate this game, I would certainly hope they can get it out by November.

This.

Also "a few months to polish the game"... what? As LoyalACFan said, if in 4 years they still need extra time, I lose all optimism.

Megas_Doux
05-24-2017, 12:54 AM
Plus more dev time doesn't equal a better game. so that logic isn't pointless persay, but doesn't always work out.

Yes and no!

Not only time but also focus!! See, the main problem, at least in PC, is when companies outsource the porting, usually to a "cheap" company to save money; Arkham Knight for instance. Again, delays don't 100% guarantee quality, but rushing things even less......

pirate1802
05-24-2017, 06:04 AM
Delay doesn't just help with technical issues and making the game better, it also helps in assuaging franchise fatigue. Look at the kind of euphoria generating around the reveal of RDR2. It pains me to say that that kind of effect we'll probably never see for an AC game. The sad thing is ubisoft can afford this. They've got Assassins Creed, they've got FarCry and now they've got Watch_Dogs. And also a few other franchises. So they can easily rotate each of these and ensure each game has about four year gap between them and the audience's mind remains fresh for reception.

Also, unpopular opinion: I think we as customers are also to be partially blamed for this. We have to decide whether we want to be blown out of our minds, say, every four years; or go "well..another new AC" every year. We have to decide whether we treat these games as something to be savored or just quick fixes to take a quick drag from and then forget, only to return next year.

ERICATHERINE
05-24-2017, 07:12 AM
"well..another new AC"

I truely never said anything like that. In fact, each time I bought a new ac game, I was overjoyed and I bought them as soon as I could, sometimes even in prebuy on the ps store to preload it and play it as soon as possible and with each new story finnished, I was thinking how good it was. Sure there is always a few bad things, may it be "too much collectibles" or "not enough md" or some bugs, but for the collectibles, when we do it just for the story once we don't need looting the chest anymore to get cash, we just have to not do it anymore. Once we bugs are discovered they can get fixed, by patches. Unity was the only time I didn't bought a game on it's release date since I became fan, because I wanted to play rogue before it. By the time I bought a ps4 and unity, every single bug I could have come across since then were patched and again these days on the forum I can hear people saying that they played unity again, but without bugs makes it much better which makes it worth the buy from my point of view. Of course I'm not saying that the fact unity had bugs wasn't bad. Just that from my point of view, it isn't anymore, since many people are happy to have bought anyway.

Of course I can't say anything about the lack of md other that "it's the only reason I think worth taking some time off. If they really need more time to make md great again, then they just have to take it, because it's like THE reason why we (or at least I, if you prefer) do all this stuff in the past. To make it advance. Without md advancing doing all this stuff in the past is worthless to my eyes, because I don't see the impact it have in the md. Syndicate was a step in the right direction about that, but I still would have way more appreciated to play md instead of just watching cutscenes and hearing audio files. ^-^

cawatrooper9
05-24-2017, 04:51 PM
Franchise fatigue is a tricky subject.

On the one hand, and I want to be absolutely clear on this- franchise fatigue affects both hardcore and casual fans alike. On the other hand, other hardcore and casual fans may want a game every year. So I absolutely do not want to sound like I'm saying that only true AC fans want an annualized release.

That being said, as someone who does want AC games as quickly as they're able to make good ones, I do find it a bit strange when someone seems to genuinely want less of what they supposedly like. I'm not trying to diminish that opinion- just stating that I personally cannot relate to it. The way I see it, if you're tired of AC, take a break from it for a while and come back when you're ready. No reason to be a squeaky wheel and ruin it for everyone else.

However- we have to account for the fact that, if there is a significant enough amount of people who are going to be "taking a break" during a time, it may not be profitable enough for Ubisoft to adhere to an annualized release schedule.

So really, the logic goes around and around. I think the best thing to do is to vote with your dollar. If you like Assassins Creed as an annual release, buy it near launch (near enough that you might at least allow yourself to read reviews first, if you find that necessary). If you have fatigue for the franchise, don't force yourself to play something that you are not currently finding joy in. Franchise fatigue is a complex issue, but the solution to it is rather simple, at least on the consumer's end.

crusader_prophet
05-24-2017, 05:14 PM
Horizon: Zero Dawn, a current gen console exclusive game that is both open-world, ambitious, complex and fun with good storytelling - that managed to release in a near-perfect state without glitches, bugs or performance issues - took them 6 years to make.

Just putting it out there.

cawatrooper9
05-24-2017, 07:11 PM
Horizon: Zero Dawn, a current gen console exclusive game that is both open-world, ambitious, complex and fun with good storytelling - that managed to release in a near-perfect state without glitches, bugs or performance issues - took them 6 years to make.

Just putting it out there.

Sure, but let's not let correlation imply causality. Horizon Zero Dawn's Guerilla Games is a relatively small company- of course a project of that magnitude is going to take longer.
As an inverse, Bethesda takes several years to make their games, too, and they're infamous for bugs.

pacmanate
05-24-2017, 08:49 PM
Horizon: Zero Dawn, a current gen console exclusive game that is both open-world, ambitious, complex and fun with good storytelling - that managed to release in a near-perfect state without glitches, bugs or performance issues - took them 6 years to make.

Just putting it out there.

It was also a completely new IP and nothing the team had ever faced before.

AC on the other hand has 10 years of knowledge behind it.

LoyalACFan
05-24-2017, 11:14 PM
Sure, but let's not let correlation imply causality. Horizon Zero Dawn's Guerilla Games is a relatively small company- of course a project of that magnitude is going to take longer.
As an inverse, Bethesda takes several years to make their games, too, and they're infamous for bugs.

Plus, HZD was only built for one console. Quite often, performance problems are the result of poor optimization, moreso than anything else.

crusader_prophet
05-24-2017, 11:42 PM
Sure, but let's not let correlation imply causality. Horizon Zero Dawn's Guerilla Games is a relatively small company- of course a project of that magnitude is going to take longer.
As an inverse, Bethesda takes several years to make their games, too, and they're infamous for bugs.

I'm not though. I simply stated a correlation. I'm not saying time is the only reason for a poor product, it is a factor as world building and iterative optimization have become more challenging now. I'm all for annualization if a company or developer can achieve the HZD level of smoothness and quality every year. I want to play new AC game/expansions every six months actually, are you kidding...but not at the cost of mediocrity and broken games. If they can provide unique quality content in an annual or semi-annual frequency, I'm all in with my wallet. but I doubt that is possible because of the increase in complexity of modern game development I would assume.


Plus, HZD was only built for one console. Quite often, performance problems are the result of poor optimization, moreso than anything else.

Exactly my point, that HZD which was literally built for a dedicated console and with a tight group of people, even then it took them 6 years to make it! Imagine the challenge to be able to achieve similar results across multi-platforms within a shorter amount of time (2 years dedicated development instead of 6).

joshoolhorst
05-27-2017, 12:51 PM
I'm not sure myself but if it keeps the yearly release not happening I am okay with it.

I am okay with it IF
- The story get's improved
- Less day one patches
- More improvement in gameplay
- Better not cliche ending COUGH FEMALE DIES COUGH CLIFFHANGER
- That modern day just keeps one way of story telling because after AC3

(2013) AC Web: initiates videos and messages
(2013) AC4: First person Abstergo we never see him/her again, emails and multiplayer
(2014) AC Unity: Random woman appearing on screen for 10 minutes
(2014) AC Rouge: First Person
(2015) AC Syndicate: Random woman returns with characters from previous AC games for 12 minutes or so

It's really hard to keep track of all of this
- More variety in the world

I personally think the series should be a every 2 years release or so and people might check out on the books and comics because some of us need a AC every year or so

Sorrosyss
05-27-2017, 08:32 PM
I've always advocated that more development time does not necessarily mean a better final product. There are examples of great games developed in short time frames, and some with much longer cycles. However, with the recent negative press over the technical issues that blighted Mass Effect Andromeda, the AC franchise cannot afford to have another Unity fiasco with visible and frequent technical issues. If they have done sufficient testing with this extra year of development, then great - release this year so long as its ready. But in a market where you have open world games like Horizon, which I had not a single issue with in over 70 hours, the press will be very quick to pick up on any problems with the next AC.

It really is make or break now, and if a beloved series like Mass Effect can be toppled by popular ridicule, then other developers should be taking a great deal of care with what they put out the door. Its an area that Ubisoft has on occasion been very lax with - even with its flagship franchise. It can't happen this time.

Sushiglutton
05-27-2017, 09:30 PM
The important thing to me is that the deadline is not entirely set in stone. So that if the game is not ready they won't ship it (within reason of course. I don't mind some bugs at launch). It's the ship-at-fall-no-matter-what mentality that has been annoying. Also that some old mechanical problems like AI never seem to get adressed and some very boring mission types getting recycled to fill out the game.

But if the game is finished this fall I'd love to play it. If not I'd rather wait.

ajl992015
05-27-2017, 11:04 PM
I also think franchise fatigue contributes to it. I kind of wish AC took the release date Far cry just got and far cry was coming out in the fall. I think a new AC every 18-24 months is perfect. I need a little time to pass so that I can miss it, but not so much that I need to wait 5/6 years for a sequel. I think what is a good idea is 2 teams. The quebec team anf the montreal team, each take turns being the lead on a project, with other studios in support. Each getting 4 years dev time. so the syndicate team and the black flag team. I think this makes the most sense, gives us a regualr release of ac games and hopefully at a high quality where they can learn from the mistakes of the previous title due to a 2 year gap.

BUT I am ALL for annual releases because I only really disliked unity, otherwise I like every other ac game. unity had a terrible story and characters but arno was cool. but couldn't save the game. Hated it. Otherwise up until AC4 I was all in.

Helforsite
05-28-2017, 04:05 PM
I also think franchise fatigue contributes to it. I kind of wish AC took the release date Far cry just got and far cry was coming out in the fall. I think a new AC every 18-24 months is perfect. I need a little time to pass so that I can miss it, but not so much that I need to wait 5/6 years for a sequel. I think what is a good idea is 2 teams. The quebec team anf the montreal team, each take turns being the lead on a project, with other studios in support. Each getting 4 years dev time. so the syndicate team and the black flag team. I think this makes the most sense, gives us a regualr release of ac games and hopefully at a high quality where they can learn from the mistakes of the previous title due to a 2 year gap.

BUT I am ALL for annual releases because I only really disliked unity, otherwise I like every other ac game. unity had a terrible story and characters but arno was cool. but couldn't save the game. Hated it. Otherwise up until AC4 I was all in.

I dont really understand, Syndicate came out November 2015, so if the next game releases in October/November it will have been 2 years.

crusader_prophet
05-28-2017, 06:57 PM
I've always advocated that more development time does not necessarily mean a better final product. There are examples of great games developed in short time frames, and some with much longer cycles. However, with the recent negative press over the technical issues that blighted Mass Effect Andromeda, the AC franchise cannot afford to have another Unity fiasco with visible and frequent technical issues. If they have done sufficient testing with this extra year of development, then great - release this year so long as its ready. But in a market where you have open world games like Horizon, which I had not a single issue with in over 70 hours, the press will be very quick to pick up on any problems with the next AC.

It really is make or break now, and if a beloved series like Mass Effect can be toppled by popular ridicule, then other developers should be taking a great deal of care with what they put out the door. Its an area that Ubisoft has on occasion been very lax with - even with its flagship franchise. It can't happen this time.

Very true. I mean ME Andromeda isn't just plagued with non-optimized gameplay, but it also lacks in character depth, story, narrative, mission design. I don't care about any of the characters. The guns feel and play like a step back from previous ones (even ME1, I dare say). I don't know what they did to my Mattock, it fires like a rubber band. There is constant input lag when firing non-auto rifles. Network lag is in every game in multiplayer. It's a mess. They needed more time, ME Andromeda is hugely ambitious like Unity, and considering the complexity of the modern game development, they needed at least 2 more years.



I dont really understand, Syndicate came out November 2015, so if the next game releases in October/November it will have been 2 years.

Lol 2 years isn't long time between game releases. Most good and successful games release with a 4 - 5 years gap. I am not going to start listing them here, because they are easily found on the internet.

Farlander1991
05-28-2017, 08:13 PM
It's interesting to read these conversations about development times and player's perceptions of those (here and on reddit and on other places online). Kind of forgot I was thinking the same way before delving deeper into games industry 6 years ago.

Here's a funny thing that's not visible from player's perspective and might seem weird. Regardless of how long the game is in development, be it 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years or 10 years, the main actual production phase is usually 2 years (+/- 0.5) tops.

The rest is usually pre-production which is mostly about prototyping (finding the core), creating technology and also fleshing out the concept and planning. The funny thing about that is regardless of how well you flesh something out or plan, production always changes everything, so unless the technology isn't finished or there's troubles with figuring out the core, there's really no reason to stay in pre-production long.

And the funny thing about post-alpha and post-beta polishing stages is that it doesn't equate 'the longer the period is the more polished the game is', as if this period is too long then there's diminishing returns. Because it's impossible to have games without glitches.

Horizon: Zero Dawn took 6 years to make. But what does that technically mean? From 2011 to end of 2013 the project had only 20 people pitching ideas and figuring out how the hell to do an open-world game. More people didn't join the team until the end of 2013/beginning of 2014 when people started transferring from the released Killzone Shadowfall to Horizon. And even then, while there's no detailed accounts on development, we'd need to have at least 6-8 months more of pre-production - concept art, people getting used to tools and trying different things, etc. Then it's two years of production until the middle of 2016 and then close to planned release date it was moved to beginning of 2017 (so 2016 is when main production would be stopped and focus would go on polishing). So saying that it took 3 years to make Horizon is closer to the truth (and while the previous 3 years were important for sure due to technological reasons and the first definition of concept, as I said most of the stuff would change during production because it always does).

Or let's take Diablo 3. First work on Diablo 3 started in 2001. The game was released in 2012. It is important to note that it wasn't a single game developed for 11 years. There were at least 3 Diablo 3s in development.

But even then, let's take a look at some of the highest-rated and beloved games. Uncharted 2, a proud holder of 96 points on metacritic, tons of game of the year awards and accolades, took 2 years to make in total, all development stages. GTA:Vice City, 94-95 on Metacritic, tons of accolades? 1 year. Batman: Arkham City, 96 on Metacritic, tons of accolades? 2 years. It's predecessor Arkham Asylum also took 2 years to make, all game dev stages from pre-pro to release. In comparison, Arkham Knight had 4 years of development time total, and yet it's the worst received of the three, both critically and by gamers (and not speaking of the PC port here, but the game in general)

TL,DR - game development is weird, and years don't necessarily mean anything.

ArmanYeghoyan
05-28-2017, 08:53 PM
No,hell NO !!!! I can't wait one more year.I'am hardly survive 2016 :D

BananaBlighter
05-28-2017, 09:19 PM
It's interesting to read these conversations about development times and player's perceptions of those (here and on reddit and on other places online). Kind of forgot I was thinking the same way before delving deeper into games industry 6 years ago.

...

TL,DR - game development is weird, and years don't necessarily mean anything.

That's actually really interesting. I never realised so much time is spent creating the concept. I'd assume with something like AC where you've already got the core pillars and the lore in place, it'd be easier to get past this stage.

Farlander1991
05-28-2017, 10:12 PM
That's actually really interesting. I never realised so much time is spent creating the concept. I'd assume with something like AC where you've already got the core pillars and the lore in place, it'd be easier to get past this stage.

I would just like to note that time is not spent 'just creating the concept', but prototyping gameplay and working on technology, that's an important point.

For example, if we take Horizon... there's a gif that went around at some point.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ked0JodL--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/ucoln8kedwfglsrlxvm5.gif

This is pretty standard stuff, but when you have a proprietary engine not suited for open-world games (because it was done for FPSes) at all and you want to make open-world game, it's what you need to work on and figure out before production starts. Technically working on that means game is being in development, but it might not even have entered pre-production stage at that point.

And, you know, it all depends on the project. Assassin's Creed originated 3 years before the PS3/X360 era began as a totally different project, a Prince of Persia game. It took four years in total before the game released, but it wasn't 4 years of full production, 200 people working on it all time.

In general, if the proper production takes more than 2-2.5 years that's a sign of a problem (heck, I would say 2.5 years of production is borderline pushing it). It might be that the scope is too big and there's not enough resources, or development is not moving efficiently, or things like that. It's not a written rule anywhere, just an observation based on talking to lots of different people from industry about lots of projects.

ajl992015
05-28-2017, 10:45 PM
I dont really understand, Syndicate came out November 2015, so if the next game releases in October/November it will have been 2 years.

I am saying from now on we get an AC game every 2 years with 2 teams working on them:

ac syndicate (quebec team) - 2015

ac empire (black flag/montreal team) - 2017

ac 'mystery' (quebec/syndicate team) - 2019

ac 'mystery 2' (black flag/monteal team) - 2021.

each of them will have 4 years but 2 years from the release of the previous title so they will have time to implement any changes to things that players don't like from the previous title. That's what I was getting at.

Megas_Doux
05-28-2017, 11:14 PM
Pretty interesting stuff by farlander, as always.

joshoolhorst
05-29-2017, 05:51 PM
No,hell NO !!!! I can't wait one more year.I'am hardly survive 2016 :D

What did you say? 2028!!! OKAY LET'S DELAY IT!

Sushiglutton
05-29-2017, 06:09 PM
Farlander which phase do you think they spent the majority of the extra year on, if you don't mind me asking? I guess the decision to skip a year was made early 2015, right after Unity. And Ash/Darby etc probably began working on Origin after Blackflag, say early 2014?

Must be hard to get an extra year in the middle of the project. Just ask Chris Roberts about getting unexpected extra resources :D!

cawatrooper9
05-30-2017, 03:13 PM
Farlander which phase do you think they spent the majority of the extra year on, if you don't mind me asking? I guess the decision to skip a year was made early 2015, right after Unity. And Ash/Darby etc probably began working on Origin after Blackflag, say early 2014?

Must be hard to get an extra year in the middle of the project. Just ask Chris Roberts about getting unexpected extra resources :D!


Not to try to lead you with this question, Farlander, but do you think this delay was even done for production at all, or to combat franchise fatigue? Or, to give the movie its own year?