PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Why is Assassins Creed released so often?



JustLikeFisher
06-11-2018, 11:10 PM
Aside from the fact that the game is "more polished" over time, why do we have so many Assassins Creed releases and no Splinter Cell yet again :confused:

gulderr
06-11-2018, 11:13 PM
It consistently makes Ubi money.

ModernWaffle
06-11-2018, 11:23 PM
It consistently makes Ubi money.

I don't really understand this logic to be honest. Releasing annually will make a series die faster. You have other great gaming franchises that make a ton of money from like 3 years release windows or more and have much longer longevity because they're given the time to make proper improvements.

Yes, I understand that releasing annually might be a safer way to ensure more profits but what margin of extra profits do they get in this development scheme in comparison to one that allows the series to take a short break between games. If I wanted to really draw this argument out, I would even say look at Rockstar, GTA V became the third highest grossing game of all time. Of course that came about from a team of great talent which isn't necessarily accessible to all studios, but AC certainly had the quality and popularity to sell absolutely critically received games nonetheless IMO starting from AC2 onwards.

Will_Lucky
06-11-2018, 11:36 PM
I don't really understand this logic to be honest. Releasing annually will make a series die faster. You have other great gaming franchises that make a ton of money from like 3 years release windows or more and have much longer longevity because they're given the time to make proper improvements.

Yes, I understand that releasing annually might be a safer way to ensure more profits but what margin of extra profits do they get in this development scheme in comparison to one that allows the series to take a short break between games. If I wanted to really draw this argument out, I would even say look at Rockstar, GTA V became the third highest grossing game of all time. Of course that came about from a team of great talent which isn't necessarily accessible to all studios, but AC certainly had the quality and popularity to sell absolutely critically received games nonetheless IMO starting from AC2 onwards.

Tell that to Call of Duty.

I have no problems whatsoever, occasionally we hit a dud here or there but truthfully that goes for every game out there. I recall GTA V was amazing, but GTA IV was probably my biggest disappointment of the generation so it doesn't always work out even if you give a game all the time in the world.

One thing to take into account of course was by delaying Origins by a year it just gave every other project in the lineup an additional year to get their titles up and running faster, and with Origins forming such a strong backbone that left them more time to get designing actual content.

shobhit7777777
06-12-2018, 07:51 AM
I don't really understand this logic to be honest. Releasing annually will make a series die faster. You have other great gaming franchises that make a ton of money from like 3 years release windows or more and have much longer longevity because they're given the time to make proper improvements.


Economics of the business.

It doesn't make sense to craft a vast game world with a huge number of models, animations and game systems and to only do it as a one off. Game dev takes a lot of time and resources and it would be blindingly stupid to make a "One off" game.

Odyssey shares it's blueprints with Origins. It's simpler, cost effective to release another game with largely the same systems, assets and tech than to completely drop it altogether. If they wait for 2 years to release a whole new title...it's a new cycle entirely...new tech (Since this one would be rather obsolete) and new systems to match higher expectations.

Which is why you see the franchise do loads of sequels

AC1 (Standalone)

AC2/ACB/ACR (Same tech and engine, many assets shared)

AC3/ACRo/AC4 (Same engine, many assets shared)

ACU/ACS (Same engine, many assets shared)

ACOr/ACOd (Same tech, many assets shared)

The engines go through evolutions, but doing it too frequently is stupidly expensive. So it makes sense for them to utilize their assets and tech to the fullest in order to ensure they are making the most out of what they have.

Hope that makes sense.

ModernWaffle
06-18-2018, 12:33 AM
Economics of the business.

It doesn't make sense to craft a vast game world with a huge number of models, animations and game systems and to only do it as a one off. Game dev takes a lot of time and resources and it would be blindingly stupid to make a "One off" game.

Odyssey shares it's blueprints with Origins. It's simpler, cost effective to release another game with largely the same systems, assets and tech than to completely drop it altogether. If they wait for 2 years to release a whole new title...it's a new cycle entirely...new tech (Since this one would be rather obsolete) and new systems to match higher expectations.

Which is why you see the franchise do loads of sequels

AC1 (Standalone)

AC2/ACB/ACR (Same tech and engine, many assets shared)

AC3/ACRo/AC4 (Same engine, many assets shared)

ACU/ACS (Same engine, many assets shared)

ACOr/ACOd (Same tech, many assets shared)

The engines go through evolutions, but doing it too frequently is stupidly expensive. So it makes sense for them to utilize their assets and tech to the fullest in order to ensure they are making the most out of what they have.

Hope that makes sense.

This makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification it soothes the pain a bit ;)

I guess it's too easy to criticize from a safe distance from the developers without appreciating how difficult it is to rebuild things from the ground up every time.

Frag_Maniac
06-18-2018, 03:57 AM
As said because it's their cash cow, but it's also the pathetic addiction and lack of patience of most AC fans, as is exampled by the vote being dominated by the yearly AC option. They'd rather have their AC any way Ubi chooses to dish it out, than wait one more year for something that actually has sense and substance to it.

I voted Splinter Cell, but not if they make a pansy SC. There was nothing wrong with Blacklist, and the Charlie's Missions were not the trash many made them out to be, and could be ghosted with a little patience and skill. When you dole out AAA titles yearly like crack, they become as stale as year old potato chips sitting on the porch.

The problem with the gaming industry is it's been pandering to the whims of millennials for some time now, whom have no patience or respect for quality games. All they care about is horsing around, which is also why games like GTA and CoD sell in mass quantities. Basically there has to be demented demand before their is demented supply.

Wombles-_-
06-18-2018, 11:25 AM
Can't vote because you left out the greed option.

ProdiGurl
06-18-2018, 03:53 PM
Ya,,, the old Greed card :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Even tho they skipped a year with Origins.
I completely agree w/ shobhit7777777 (https://forums.ubi.com/member.php/265993-shobhit7777777?communityUsers=1&f=27) detailed explanation of a business perspective.

I didn't pick any bcuz the poll doesn't represent my opinion at all - I don't mind yearly releases & I don't mind waiting another year. I just want a great game. Plus I never played Splinter Cell, it has nothing to do w/ AC for me.
I don't think a company has to stick to a rigid timeline unless their company is forced to for whatever reason

Wombles-_-
06-18-2018, 05:08 PM
It must have been tight with funds skipping that year out. :p

gehenna27
06-26-2018, 01:55 PM
I wasn't expecting a new release this year but I'm still excited.

Yearly release doesn't mean that they spend a year making it. We already know that the team started working on it after Syndicate just like the Origins team started working on a new game after Black Flag.

I also didn't vote as none of the options accurately reflect my opinion

Swailing
06-26-2018, 07:41 PM
I'm saying "Yes, every year" because like all people who post barbed polls, you set up the positive answers to be over-positive to steer it towards the result you wanted. Ask crooked questions, get semi-honest answers :P

I missed Assassin's Creed in the rare couple of years that we didn't get one. However, the one after Syndicate was 100% necessary, and now every AC that was in development has also benefited from an extra year of polish (for some reason, people misunderstand this and think there should be a year off every year, which makes no sense with multiple title development: AC A would get +1 year, AC B would get +2 years, AC C would get +3 years, and so on). So a fallow year once in a while is probably a good thing.

What I'd really like to see is a break in the insistence on a Q4 release. AC is a big enough series that it could release at any time of year, and arguably should. Originally, the release date was a big corporate showdown between the biggest companies' biggest titles. Well, times change, and AC is unlikely to ever win that fight again, so let's not have it. I'd be happy to see Ubi announce that the planned AC release date was being moved to give more time, and instead of Halloween, it would instead be coming in April, or June.

And while we're at it, Splinter Cell is horrible now. I enjoyed Chaos Theory so much when it came out, and then the series squandered the excellent visual and musical atmosphere to become an extremely unpleasant and jingoistic blandfest. I realise it's a Tom Clancy game, but come on. The man is dead. His depressing attitudes don't have to drag your games down any longer. You can do better with these settings.

MnemonicSyntax
06-26-2018, 08:04 PM
I'm saying "Yes, every year" because like all people who post barbed polls, you set up the positive answers to be over-positive to steer it towards the result you wanted. Ask crooked questions, get semi-honest answers :P

I missed Assassin's Creed in the rare couple of years that we didn't get one. However, the one after Syndicate was 100% necessary, and now every AC that was in development has also benefited from an extra year of polish (for some reason, people misunderstand this and think there should be a year off every year, which makes no sense with multiple title development: AC A would get +1 year, AC B would get +2 years, AC C would get +3 years, and so on). So a fallow year once in a while is probably a good thing.

What I'd really like to see is a break in the insistence on a Q4 release. AC is a big enough series that it could release at any time of year, and arguably should. Originally, the release date was a big corporate showdown between the biggest companies' biggest titles. Well, times change, and AC is unlikely to ever win that fight again, so let's not have it. I'd be happy to see Ubi announce that the planned AC release date was being moved to give more time, and instead of Halloween, it would instead be coming in April, or June.

And while we're at it, Splinter Cell is horrible now. I enjoyed Chaos Theory so much when it came out, and then the series squandered the excellent visual and musical atmosphere to become an extremely unpleasant and jingoistic blandfest. I realise it's a Tom Clancy game, but come on. The man is dead. His depressing attitudes don't have to drag your games down any longer. You can do better with these settings.

His son still stops by the Red Storm studio from time to time to make sure everything is shipshape.

I'd love a new Splinter Cell, especially after Michael Ironside came back for Wildlands, and as I've met a lot of the team that worked on the previous games, it puts what they do into perspective.