“Infinity will contain multiple settings with room to expand to others in the months and years following its debut...”

When I read that part, I was reminded of the Helix opening in AC Unity:

@pesto I would prefer to keep speculation to a minimum until we know more, but if AC Infinity were to be something like Abstergo’s Helix, that would be pretty sweet. Rather than short narrative moments, each setting could be its own open-world sandbox map with several story missions, side-activities, and re-playable content. There could still be a IRL main character that explores all of the different time periods and protagonists... perhaps an Abstergo employee looking for information or artifacts across time.

@paviu7 I like how you’re thinking about this... especially since this would be a way that Ubisoft could give us fans the epic Arno/Connor/Shay crossover we’ve been long desiring.

@Maledicus Ubisoft explored sandboxed co-op missions with Unity, as you may recall, but it would have been interesting if a second player could jump into the single-player open-world mode and help you out, as you are suggesting. Like, if you were Arno and your wife were Elise, eh? Now that’s what I would call ‘unity’.

@C-Pick I do share your concerns, but as I just noted above, perhaps Ubisoft will be good enough to keep the game primarily single-player, but allow for another player to jump in as a different character with your consent.

@thenorfolkian well it’s all about speculation at this point. That’s what makes it interesting to see different people’s ideas on what might be, what they hope for and also what they dread.

@pesto Well, as far as speculation is concerned, I concur with the majority sentiment that a MMORPG would be the worst way to reorient the AC experience and genuinely hope Ubisoft has enough sense to limit ‘multiplayerism’ to choice-based co-op. AC Infinity need not to be a singular huge open-world that constantly expands in its scope like WoW.

My Problems with the idea of multiplayer or Coop (whatever it will be) are:
1) like in AC3s and Blackflags Wolfpack or Unitys Coop, I was unable to trust my "teammates" in 90% of the time, who misstook it for Call of Duty
2) AC is mainly Singlplayer-driven,with at least most of the time, a strong story, and I believe this would be very hard to fullfill in this New Format!

@pesto Sounds to me more like Elder Scrolls Online than GTA5 or Fortnite ....Frankly I'm not even going to worry about something that isn't going to happen until 2024 or 2025 ..... Seems to me like it's a day late and a dollar short when even Microsoft is dropping their "Windows as a Service" model now .... By 2024 this fad could be over .... I can remember a few years back all the so-called tech pundits were predicting the demise of the PC because of tablets and smart phones .... Well now the PC is having record sales to the point of component shortages

@katzenkrimis71

Considering Quebec created AC Odyssey and was arguably the BEST game in the trilogy... I'm excited that Quebec will be in charge. Considering the buggy mess that Montreal created with Valhalla, I'd take Quebec over Montreal anytime.

Reading these comments, it appears that some people think "game as a service" means multi-player, but that's not what it means. It just means a game that is constantly updated with new content... some of these type of games MAY have multi-player aspects, but that doesn't mean multi-player is required or that it even has to include multiplayer. It seems like every game I've tried that is single-player focused but throws in multi-player content, the multi-player content always fades away over time. Then you end up with multi-player content that hardly anyone is playing, making that entire aspect pointless and unplayable. They are not MMOs and should stop trying to become MMO-light type games and just focus on the core aspect- which is the single-player stories. One of the reasons WOW is failing is because they lost focus on what their players wanted, and instead started focusing on monetization over content... so players started leaving in droves. I see the AC franchise starting down that slope, and I hope they take some pointers from Blizzard's failed approach and return focus to creating an enjoyable game with a great story.

@pesto I wouldn't get my hopes up. Look how breakpoint turned out!!! It flopped down the toilet.

@adarklore Basically anything as a service implies a subscription model or similar that gives the corporation a continual stream of money .... Xbox Game Pass and Ubisoft+ are services .... Elder Scrolls Online is a service .... Nearly every mobile game for smartphones is a service model these days ... Some benefit both the corporation and the Consumer like Game Pass but most of them only benefit the corporation which makes me skeptical of all service based business models

I'm utterly disgusted by it. As far as I'm concerned this is the ruination of the series and Valhalla is effectively the last game. I should be grateful (and I am) that there are 12 main games that I enjoy to this day. That's significantly more than most game franchises get.

Live Service is horrible and FOMO tactics are shameful. Looking at other attempts at live service, taking Marvel's Avengers or Breakpoint as a better example, it can easily go very, very wrong. And given that they've already done something multiplayer focused with Unity, which did a ton of brand damage that I'd argue can still be felt today, I've every right to be pretty sceptical if not completely.
Always online, live service games are not the way to go. Their profit margins may disagree, but this series, particularly over the last 3 games, was among the last hopes for single player AAA games, something that I'd argue is dying, slowly.

If they put out an always online, evolving game, that turns out to be riddled with live service BS and sheds players like crazy and gets shut down prematurely... No thank you. I don't want an AC game that relies on a server and feels like a job. 2024 is a long way away, hopefully by then someone would have the bright idea to take the project somewhere more sensible, unless it is truly something unique that justifies it. Their official statement is so vague but the line "This change means we’re also evolving along with the video game industry" fills me with no confidence.

This basically feels like the end of the road, like they've given up on it and want to turn it into a pure cash cow. At least, that's what they hope. If they're going to tell small stories in different settings, then they're also going to completely waste what could be full fledged games in the name of quick money. So the series feels over to me, If this is as successful as R6 Seige, or any other Live Service game that's long in the tooth, then it will be. Especially with a name like "Infinity".

And to add to that.

It doesn't even make any sense either, this series is already so diverse that we've effectively been playing "Infinity" since 2007. There's no other point to this other than to milk it for all its worth.

Well AC as live service dosnt even fit the lore of the game you play inside ancestors memories and if u only got one character kinda defeats the purpose of the lore thats just my thoughts Never the less i will try it still when it comes out i hope they dont stick with one character id love to see the animus become like a hub for memories have one game to rule them all not just go in once AC infinity shouldnt even be a game just a hub for the next titles i hope ubi can figure it out ‍️

I am looking forward to this if im honest. I do feel its not fully suited to the AC ethos but worth a play.

It is a terrible idea and seeing all the examples of this kind of game that either failed hard, or never ended so a new game could finally come out neither fate is good for AC. The best case is if it fails hard and Ubisoft understands the message of "no we do not support or want this garbage, go back to what worked the past 12 plus games in the series".

Ubisoft clearly does not know the phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it" because if they did they would not be trying this horrible idea for a story driven single player series.

@pesto E/A with Bioware is going back to the roots because of loosing there fanbase.
Multiplayer adventure (Anthem) total chance of the Mass story with Andromeda has cost them loads of money, time, important staff, developers etc.
The remake (legendary edition) of the Mass series proves the success of single player 3e person rpg today!
They skipped the whole multiplayer idea from Dragon age 4.
Time for UBIsoft to create a real AC game.

@alphagoose46219 It’s crazy how much advertising and marketing hype there was behind Anthem, only for the game to be surprisingly lackluster in just about every way.

Anthem was a development mess though, they didn’t have actual working demos until way later than they claimed, constantly reworked, depending on who you talk to either no direction or being pulled in too many directions.

Unfortunately that’s what everyone is saying “Skull and Bones” is too. We’ll see how that goes, it may temper Ubisoft on these grand multigenerational games as service designs, or embolden them.

What tends to work best is if there’s one person with a strong and focused creative vision in charge. It’s like the movies, you see too many production companies, too many writers, multiple directors in the credits, you know it’s going to be a total (and often bland) mess. Production throws good moneys after bad when a project goes sideways rather than cutting their losses because they’re in too deep and desperately hope that counter to all practical experience they will at least make the money back or be able to offload the debt to some poor schmuck who gets dragged into the pyramid scheme at the last minute.

Its way too early to know’s going on with AC Infinity, the project has literally only just been greenlit and announced as an interest for investors. Maybe it is just one persons pet project and idea, let’s see. Even then success there is like success with battle royale games, there’s only ever room for a couple of big players who make bank, everyone else eats crumbs.

@pesto It’s funny you bring up Skull and Bones in this thread because at one point it was going to be a spin-off title called Black Flag Infinite. Honestly, Ubisoft should have simply made another expansion for AC IV, where Kenway or Adewale goes off to the Indian Ocean for some reason and has to contend with the horde of pirates in the region. I’d like to think that some of the original development for this expansion/spin-off/whatever went into the updated ship combat mechanics and features we saw in AC Rogue. Regardless, Ubisoft really had a good idea and failed to capitalize on it in time. The development kept getting rebooted, and I wonder if Microsoft’s Sea of Thieves had something to do with it. I personally don’t care for Sea of Thieves... it reminds me too much of the 2005 reboot of Sid Meier’s Pirates... too comical.

Last I heard, Skull and Bones is going to be launched on live service model instead of a standalone title. If this remains true, it should be the deciding factor for whether or not AC Infinity will indeed be put on a similar platform.

@thenorfolkian Actually the spin off to Black Flag was Rogue which came out at the same time as Unity

@thenorfolkian, @longjohn119, Regarding Skull & Bones, (only because I caught it on a jorraptor video earlier, although I'm always interested on any news on S&B). He shows that S&B was originally planned as a Black Flag DLC, then a BF spin-off, then a brand new Pirate game. Personally, I wish they would bring it back to it's roots & make it A New AC game with further adventures of Edward Kenway, & drop all the multiplayer crap!

Anyhow, here's the video. The references to Black Flag are about 2mins - 30 secs, to about 3mins in.

Live service online = no offline = DRM just for DRM's sake = Game will die when the servers one day go offline.

No thank you.