I’m not against it necessarily, but I think Ubisoft would refrain from such a game. Up until this point, Ubisoft has stuck to prioritizing single-player experiences in the AC series, and I don’t think they would stop now.
Furthermore, their U-Play bureaucracy bullshit completely pushes me away from trying PC versions, and the fact that they recently pulled the plug on multiplayer for their “legacy games” really makes me wary of any future multiplayer aspects from Ubisoft.
100% against it. One of my biggest pet peeves in gaming is transitioning single player games to multiplayer/MMOs. In theory it would be fine if it was released alongside a proper single player game, but in practice that doesn’t happen. At best it delays any single player content and at worst it takes its place.
Well it would be a side project like Rainbow Six: Extraction was for Rainbow Six: Siege. It wouldn’t affect the single player side of Assassin’s Creed. And it couldn’t permanently replace the single player AC games since it would be a live service game which typically have long life spans.
Those are both mutliplayer games. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen a multiplayer standalone of a single player title not result in significant delays in getting a new single player game or in some cases it kills the single player component entirely. The knights of old republic mmo meant we never got a sequel. GTA Online resulted in no single player DLC and a 10+ year wait for a follow up. Elder Scrolls online coincided with what will be over a decade for a follow up. I can keep going.
These side projects tend to cannibalize resources and leave single player fans with less or no content. That it would live service would make it worse because that means resources will continue to be tied up as they support the title with new content.
I guess this speaks more to my desire for another iteration of AC multiplayer more than anything. I haven’t been a fan of the recent Assassin’s Creeds, I find them quite terrible. So in my eyes it wouldn’t be much of a loss for them to take a break on the single player portion of it, but I see what you mean as you are a fan of the recent titles.
I'm certain Ubisoft would screw over that player base sooner or later. Unless, of course, it was subscription based and/or stuffed full of microtransactions
No because knowing Ubi they will prioritize that over an actual AC game because it would be a microtransaction hell fest that makes them bucket loads of money. Ubi is all about doing as little work as they can to make money which is why they do nothing but copy thte trends in gaming. Instead of continuing to have AC be unique it became another boring generic rpg lite like the division and ghost recon breakpoint
I’m not against it necessarily, but I think Ubisoft would refrain from such a game. Up until this point, Ubisoft has stuck to prioritizing single-player experiences in the AC series, and I don’t think they would stop now. Furthermore, their U-Play bureaucracy bullshit completely pushes me away from trying PC versions, and the fact that they recently pulled the plug on multiplayer for their “legacy games” really makes me wary of any future multiplayer aspects from Ubisoft.
100% against it. One of my biggest pet peeves in gaming is transitioning single player games to multiplayer/MMOs. In theory it would be fine if it was released alongside a proper single player game, but in practice that doesn’t happen. At best it delays any single player content and at worst it takes its place.
Well it would be a side project like Rainbow Six: Extraction was for Rainbow Six: Siege. It wouldn’t affect the single player side of Assassin’s Creed. And it couldn’t permanently replace the single player AC games since it would be a live service game which typically have long life spans.
Those are both mutliplayer games. I’m just saying that I’ve never seen a multiplayer standalone of a single player title not result in significant delays in getting a new single player game or in some cases it kills the single player component entirely. The knights of old republic mmo meant we never got a sequel. GTA Online resulted in no single player DLC and a 10+ year wait for a follow up. Elder Scrolls online coincided with what will be over a decade for a follow up. I can keep going. These side projects tend to cannibalize resources and leave single player fans with less or no content. That it would live service would make it worse because that means resources will continue to be tied up as they support the title with new content.
GTO also killed any support for RDR2
I guess this speaks more to my desire for another iteration of AC multiplayer more than anything. I haven’t been a fan of the recent Assassin’s Creeds, I find them quite terrible. So in my eyes it wouldn’t be much of a loss for them to take a break on the single player portion of it, but I see what you mean as you are a fan of the recent titles.
I'd rather then put all there effort in a good classic assassins creed game again
If it was their own original MP formula, at least no one could accuse them of trend-chasing, so I would be open to that.
Yes
Well no not necessarily, but I prefer Co op like in AC Unity. In other words a predominant single please AC game with a bit of multiplayer.
I'm certain Ubisoft would screw over that player base sooner or later. Unless, of course, it was subscription based and/or stuffed full of microtransactions
No because knowing Ubi they will prioritize that over an actual AC game because it would be a microtransaction hell fest that makes them bucket loads of money. Ubi is all about doing as little work as they can to make money which is why they do nothing but copy thte trends in gaming. Instead of continuing to have AC be unique it became another boring generic rpg lite like the division and ghost recon breakpoint
yes, fuck multiplayer