Right now I can think of two triple-A series that have have a sequel popping off each year: Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed.
Each year there’s some game that’s a follow up to an earlier entry. In some cases there are many years between each entry. In the case of the Deus Ex series there was three years between the original and Invisible War and then eight more years before the world would get Human Revolution. In the case of Madden, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, or–while they were still being made–Guitar Hero; one only need wait twelve months, or less, before another entry would hit store shelves and digital download platforms.
Without fail people get upset, very upset, when the latest title is announced. That’s what I’m going to talk about today, why that anger is so pointless and misguided.
Yet Ubisoft is “going for” their fans. They’re giving them exactly what they want.
Let’s focus on the titles in the CoD and AC series’. As soon as we hear news of the next Call of Duty or see the dubstep infused trailer there will be those that roll their eyes and think, or say, “Here we go again. Activision ruining the the genre even further. Just bury it already, it’s been dead for years.” Others will become downright livid. I’ve seen it happen with Assassin’s Creed more lately.
Maybe people have given up hating Call of Duty as much as they did a couple of years ago. I suppose some folks might have come to terms with the realization that, yes, we will be getting another one this year too. Even though the first Assassin’s Creed came out more than six years ago back in 2007, it feels newer. At least it does to me, I couldn’t tell you why. (For reference the very first CoD game came out in 2003. It wasn’t until November of 2007 that we’d see the first of the Modern Warfare titles. In other words: What many people think of as CoD now–the Modern Warfare arc–is actually newer and more title concentrated than the Assassin’s Creed games.)
Games in these two series, as of now, is a fact of life: Each year we’re going to see a new CoD and a new AC game. Getting upset about this is as useful as getting angry that tomorrow will follow today, that the sun will be hot, or that water is still wet.
The follow up to that point is that this anger, even if minimal, is aimed in the wrong direction entirely. When a game in one of these two series’ gets a game announced people tend to target the publisher with their ire. This is no different than getting mad at a developer on Kickstarter after a successful money raising campaign for delivering exactly what they promised to. The only difference being that we don’t know for certain a publisher will follow an exceptionally well received title with a sequel, but it’s kind of a given these days. (Honestly, when was the last time you heard that Game XYZ was selling like hotcakes the first few weeks after its release and then a month later see articles about said game getting a follow up?) A publisher is a company, a business, and it’s their job to make as much money as they can. I’m not going to get all Cliffy B here and say that the likes of EA should be ramming a big one up our butts every chance they get. What I am saying is that when people buy games and ‘vote with their wallets’ they’re telling the creators of that purchase, “I want more of this.” Don’t get mad at the publishers and developers for answering that call for “more!”, yell at the people making those votes.
Another game with Mario, Nintendo? Seriously?
This brings me to the end of my point. If you dislike something the best thing to do is avoid that thing entirely. Completely. Going to Ubisoft’s forums and making a post about how Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag shouldn’t even come out, that they should take a break, or any other comment only gives Ubisoft more attention. You may have once heard the saying, “There’s no such thing as bad press.” That’s truth you can take to the bank.
I have another thought on this subject. One that I hope might turn that frown upside down. When a publisher finds a cash cow like Activision and Ubisoft have with their CoD and AC series’ and milk them for all they can. It allows them to take risks they might otherwise not have. Take a look at Watch_Dogs a new title coming from Ubisoft getting a lot of praise already. Do you think this would have ever seen the light of day if Ubisoft didn’t have the capital from the success of Assassin’s Creed? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it.
What about Bethesda publishing Dishonored thanks–I’m sure–to the massive sales of Skyrim. If a publisher isn’t making money they’ll die. Look at THQ. We, the ‘voters’, can only blame ourselves for their death. I do not, for a second, regret paying full price on Steam for Darksiders II or buying the first title twice. I support games I want more of and avoid those like the plague I dislike.
A very, very well made card game on the iOS set in the Assassin’s Creed universe.
Yeah, you’re right – If Rosa Parks doesn’t like sitting in the back of the bus, she should just walk!
This article stinks of “Gamer Entitlement”. Fans of a series are allowed to hate the series if the developers shit out copy/pasted annual releases of it, damaging the quality of the experience for the fanbase.
Have you seen AC3′s ending? It was atrociously rushed, it looks like they made it in a weekend; it was terrible. Yet my “anger” (because apparently disagreeing with what somebody does makes me “angry”), is misguided because I blame the company solely responsible for producing the content? Really?
I thought you guys were smarter than this.
I think there is a divide between the logic for complaining. I’m with you on the frequency of the titles decreasing the quality of them (compared to Valve and Nintendo spending just as long polishing a game as they do making it), and that it’s all fine and good how often they release a game so long as they take the time to make it good, but as seen the shorter the development time the worse the game quality.
This article seems to be arguing against getting mad at ONLY the frequency of releases. It’s more of what the publisher sees the consumer wanting, hence the push for faster releases in order to keep the cash flow. Though this more often than not directly correlates to a shorter development cycle and therefor a product of a lesser quality, getting mad at a yearly launch for a popular series is futile. However, as this article does not mention it, there is no problem complaining about quality. That is not entitlement, that is normal.
If anything you buy is worse than promised make sure to let the developer know, and if it turns out the publisher pushed the developer into making a lesser product for the sake of development time, that’s when you can turn around and point the finger back at EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. But it’s hard to blame the publisher for publishing more of a successful series.
That said, I really doubt that many people are angered because of annual releases alone, they probably hate what entails with such a thing (lesser quality product).
I feel like this article missed the mark. I like Pera’s other articles but it feels like Colin Moriarty hacked his account or something.
I probably didn’t get my point across all that well, tends to be a problem–a big one when you write. Thing is I don’t think anyone really does have a ‘right’ to whine when game XYZ doesn’t meet their expectations. Now it’s a very, VERY different thing when a publisher or dev promises something and then fails to deliver. In that case the buyers of that game should get mad, and VERY mad. They were misled. This happened with Mass Effect 3. I forget what BioWare promised, but it was NOT what their fans were given–I recall that much. The whole Tali thing was just another slap in their face.
Yet with something like AC II we were never told, “You’ll have an ending you love.” Even if such a thing were said, it’s absurd! How could they possibly give EVERYONE that played AC III exactly what they wanted? If anyone EVER figures out how to make ANYTHING that pleases every single person that hears, reads, watches, or tastes that thing the creator will be the single most wealthy person ever. Period.
Ubisoft has only what critics and fans do and say to go off of. Fans keep buying the piss out of the AC games AS THEY ARE, so… why change them much? If copy/paste… repeat is making millions every single year then, I mean… it makes a whole lot of business sense to keep doing that.
What I didn’t say–and I should have–is that Ubisoft IS letting their fans down. Even those that do like the AC games (I’m one) likes it more for what it COULD be, I think. I love the idea of going through history as an assassin. The yearly suspense of, ‘Where will it be this time? What time period? Who will be the hero?’ is fun! But when I sit down and play each game I think, ‘Oh, yeah… this combat is AWFUL!’ Even movement is pretty darn bad. I find myself yelling at Connor a LOT. Each AC game’s hero controls a lot like a I recall my first character in WoW. That being at about 5fps and over one of the worst Internet connections ever. Ever input I gave was delayed, noticeably, for a second or so. Connor feels like he’s forever stuck in honey and being told what to do by someone yelling from a hundred feet off. “Left! NO! LEFT! Good. I said GOOD! JUMP. NO! SHIT, BOY! JUMP! UP, not down you imbecile! Oh GOD! WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID!”
And yet I still think the best thing to do is not buy the game if you find faults with it. If a title fails to sell as well as the stock holders predict they’ll ask, “Why?!” Look to reviews and, we can hope, find their answers. #1 The game is stale. #2 The combat is awful. #3 you NEVER feel like either master assassin of combat OR the shadows. #4 Start doing ONE thing right, REALLY right, and refine it.
Why try to immerse yourself in a world of secrecy, shadows, an ancient order or hell, even assassinating when you can be PIRATESEYEPATCHESSHIPSRUMBOOTY?
The choice is clear: Let’s not even have Assassins Creed be about assassination anymore.
It’s interesting because I often run into this as well, the often half-baked excuse of ‘If you hate something just stay clear of it’, a good deal of people who complain about games actively don’t do it because they hate the game or the genre, but the very opposite, they loved it, and wish they still could, but the companies are taking it in a terrible direction where it just doesn’t belong, alienating the longer standing fans in exchange for the younger ones. This is something not only AAA titles are known for doing however, it is very common in MMOs where people can more easily understand however the reason for the older players to dislike the path the developers/publishers take (Easier levels, easier puzzles, too much ‘DLC’/'p2p’). Even some indie titles fall prey to this very often.
Are there people who complain and wouldn’t play either way? Sure. I wouldn’t play CoD, I don’t like the way it’s been going for a long time and don’t like FPS overall, but I don’t complain about it because I don’t care. I complain about RTS, MOBA, games that I enjoy, and I generally try not to complain as much as I try to give feedback that makes sense and explains where I am coming from, however I also understand how people who have been dealing with the problem for a long time stop explaining something simple like “These games have no polish because X Y Z” and instead just say “Another unpolished turd, great”.
IMO they should just go back to selling expansion packs at half the price of the original games instead of trying to trick people that there is enough content for it to be considered it’s own standalone.
Brotherhood and Revelations, compared to Ass creed 2, add so little to the series that i have genuine pity for anyone who was duped into picking either up at full price, that’s saying nothing of the bullshit Activision have been pulling with CoD over the past couple of years.
Also Hacksassins Creed a RISK?
Come on champ, you can do better than that.
Thing is any new IP us a huge risk. Bulletstorm is a good example of a game that had all the markings of a big seller. Made by Epic, Cliffy B talked it up, Xbox Frat Boy mentality written all over it, MASSIVE marketing campaign, and yet it didn’t do well. Any time a publisher backs a new project it IS a risk.
From a sales point of view milking a series like AC for all it’s worth makes all the sense in the world. It’s safe money.
The difference between BS and W_D is that one was released into an market which is over saturated with fps’s and is notoriously ruthless towards new IPs attempting to break in while the other will, as far as we know, be going up against….uh… nothing. Well, nothing unless Ubi decide to directly compete against themselves and release a AC game around the same time.
Ubi don’t just have the multi-platform 3rd person 1 man vs the system parkour simulator market cornered, they ARE the multi-platform 3rd person 1 man vs the system parkour simulator market.
And people were looking at the wrong place for Bulletstorm’s ‘success’, it was an FPS in an already overly saturated market full of every game being exactly the same with 1-2 little ‘features’ that are supposed to set it apart. There’s a reason Brink sucked too.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-27-ea-putting-micro-transactions-into-all-of-our-games
I want this to stop.
Please…