Ubisoft Montreal head explains annualized Assassin's Creed
Ubisoft Montreal head Yannis Mallat explains why the sales response to Assassin's Creed games hasn't slowed its annualization, and how a yearly game doesn't mean a yearly development cycle.
The Assassin's Creed series is a consistent money-maker for Ubisoft, and that has turned the series into an annualized juggernaut. That can run the risk of franchise fatigue, but Ubisoft Montreal head Yannis Mallat doesn't think that's a problem for the series.
"The players will tell us. Right now there are more and more coming into the franchise, so I don't see that day," Mallat told Eurogamer. "It's our breakthrough. When you have quality content, the frequency of coming out with the game is not an issue at all. On the contrary, people expect more and more of that content. So it's natural to be able to provide that content. The gamers are happy and it's our job to make them happy."
In other words, as long as players are buying Assassin's Creed games, the message to Ubisoft is that fans want more of the series. Mallat also noted that making the games occur yearly doesn't mean the churning development cycle that the term often implies.
"When we say we are annualising the franchise, we don't say the teams only have one year to work on a project," he said. "It's mature enough in growing the talent and the core teams so we can have several core teams working on the next one and other projects on the brand. That's why every Assassin's Creed has one dedicated core team working more than one year on their projects. We call that a roadmap. It takes into account the creative content - the settings, the where and what - the technology and the team."
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Ubisoft Montreal head explains annualized Assassin's Creed.
Ubisoft Montreal head Yannis Mallat explains why the sales response to Assassin's Creed games hasn't slowed its annualization, and how a yearly game doesn't mean a yearly development cycle.-
-
Even the king of annualization, Call of Duty, is running into a headwind. Earlier this year, Activision Publishing president Eric Hirshberg told financial analysts to not expect another "biggest entertainment release ever" announcement for this year's Call of Duty release. And Call of Duty has been running on a "leapfrog" development strategy of "two teams rotating, with each team getting two years of dev time" since 2003. And the past three releases, Activision has been calling in help from side studios like Sledgehammer and Raven. Even then, many gamers and critics have been complaining of Call of Duty running out of steam creatively, becoming stale competitively, and watering down the single-player campaign to a QTE-laden roller-coaster railshooter.
-
-
I don't mind. I buy Call of Duty at launch and get a good 80-100 hours out of each game. I know I'm pretty much paying for yearly maps but that's worth my $60. Assassin's Creed has consistently been pretty good, though it shares some complaints about repetitiveness like Call of Duty, but if you're enjoying it then there's little problem.
-
-
-
-
I'm not a big fan of the franchise, but I still wonder how much better, deeper, richer and fulfilling each AC game so far would have been with an extra year of development. Regardless of what Ubisoft heads say, an Assassin's Creed game every year makes the franchise seem more predictable and less important. At least with the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Black Ops there's a distinctive theme to both franchises that differentiates them, and there are camps that gravitate towards one or the other, or both.
-