Ubisoft Developing Next America's Army Game
altodarknight writes "Ubisoft annouced today that they are developing the new America's Army game: 'America's Army: Rise of a Soldier'. Working with the US Army, it will be released summer 2005 on XBox and PS2. The only question is, will it be free like past AA games?"
Of course it wont be free. If it was free, all those TERRORISTS! could get it. Then we'd be attacked again, and they'd eat our babies!
Roses are red
Violets are blue
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you!
It probaly won't be free.
1. They have had great success with the game and it has grown into it's own franchise.
2. Distribution costs
3. Can you really se Ubisoft doing anything for free?
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
I played it, and was struck by how many times I died. This seemed highly instructive.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I agree, but not as trollishly. The most recent game, while being very realistic, lacks the action of newer games. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for source, but, IMHO, it isnt fun at all with the +8 min rounds. If you happpen to get killes in the first munite or so, you have time for a snack...or two...
Its just annoying, and compared to other games, even (shutter) halo 2, it cany quite compete. Frcry was great, if a little pricy (this can be expected of new games) and mabey, Ubisoft can pull this off, funded by our (your...I'm still a minor) hard earned taxes.
I for one, welcome UBIsoft as the devoloper od a new game with a great potential, but ugly, and kinda smelly past.
(As long as its free, which is a different debate)
w00t
A French company developing a US military recruitment tool.
Kill, kill, kill..... Doesn't anybody **** anymore ?
I am not going to venture a stab at if it will be free or not, but I find it a possibility. Certainly Ubisoft won't do it for free, but that doesn't mean that the military won't pay Ubisoft to develope/distribute it for free.
I suppose it depends on if it is still seen primarily as a recruiting tool, which I suppose depends on how successful it has been as a recruiting tool. Some analysis on it's success in that regard would be VERY interesting, to say the least.
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
the bill same with the other AA games!
I used to be an avid America's Army player, until I got so sick of all of the bugs. Half of the weapons dont work and aren't used in any maps, like the shotgun and fists.. which have been bugged for years. It also runs like absolute crap. I can play Doom 3 and HL2 both at 1024x768 with moderate settings and they play smoothly. With all the settings turned down in AA, I still get lag on any map more compliacted than Bridge Crossing. Sometimes it would bug causing your teammates to look like OpFor. I once hit a guy in the chest with a 203 round, it exploded, and didn't do a single bit of damage. This game is written like crap, and any time you complain to the community about it, you get 1000's foreigners crying "Quit bitching! It's FREE!". Well no sir it is most certainly not free to us Americans who's tax dollars were used in its creation. I have no problem with them making a game for recruitement but I would expect it to at least be commercial quality, i have seen open source projects done better than that game. I have since quit AA completely, and play Counter Strike Source exclusivly, but if Ubisoft can make this game, and make it right, I very well might switch back. Under current circumstances however, I find it to be unplayable.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.