LogFAQs > #955832018

Jagr_68 posted...

>live service
>improving a franchise

Pick one

I might agree with you, but AC has operated a lot like a live service series for years now. Instead of new games, content drops happen in the same game. The gameplay and mission design of all these entries is pretty mediocre yet somehow enjoyable, and very easy to generate content for. The stories are also really bad, so no loss there. They've already introduced cosmetic microtransactions as early as Unity. The current "climb literally anything" system allows devs to drop in new and creative environments without worrying about the climbing system. Content drops for new locations can easily include the sorts of gameplay gimmicks that come along with new games (like War Frame).

It's difficult for me to see the big hit to quality would be, unlike something like GTA Online where the Online is legitimately terrible because GTA's gameplay mechanics suck ass without writing to back it (imo). AC never really had great writing to back it; it was always the environmental design that mattered. And I don't see why that would be greatly hindered by a live service model. Maybe this even gives the series a chance to bring back its fun multiplayer: both the PVP in the Ezio games and the co-op mode in Unity.

Now, this is contingent on one thing to be beneficial: it doesn't do the CoD model where it's a live service, but they still want you to drop $60 every year. An AC that's supported between 3-5 years with yearly or bi yearly content drops seems like a much better way for the series to deliver its content imo.

Edit: AC as a series already PLAYS like a live service game imo.

---

<insert sig here>