http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/02/11/watch-dogs-sequel-confirmed-for-release-in-the-next-year

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-dogs-2-confirmed-due-out-before-april-2017/

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-dogs-2-will-launch-before-april-2017/1100-6434710/

 

Oké.

Edited February 12, 20169 yr by AwesomeKHfan

Yeah. Because the first Watch Dogs game was soooo great (sarcasm).

I haven't played the original game, but from what I know it didn't live its expectations.

yea the first one made enough money for Ubisoft to take another stab at it. i'm sure they'll make public statements saying how they've listened to the complaints people had about the first game and are working to improve them in the sequel. This will draw back in the naysayers who swore off the series after being burned by the fake pre-rendered trailers and misleading gameplay videos. the hardcore fans of the series will be back, no doubt, so Ubisoft doesn't need to worry about them. it'll probably sell well again and people will say it's a good game just because it's not the first one, which lowered the bar for it's inevitable sequel. its the perfect crime. 

make average game and sell it on hype.

when busted, admit fault and promise to try harder.

make slightly above average sequel that seems great in comparison to previous game.

make bank.

 

the tagline for the series could be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times....Watch Dogs trilogy confirmed."

yea the first one made enough money for Ubisoft to take another stab at it. i'm sure they'll make public statements saying how they've listened to the complaints people had about the first game and are working to improve them in the sequel. This will draw back in the naysayers who swore off the series after being burned by the fake pre-rendered trailers and misleading gameplay videos. the hardcore fans of the series will be back, no doubt, so Ubisoft doesn't need to worry about them. it'll probably sell well again and people will say it's a good game just because it's not the first one, which lowered the bar for it's inevitable sequel. its the perfect crime. 

make average game and sell it on hype.

when busted, admit fault and promise to try harder.

make slightly above average sequel that seems great in comparison to previous game.

make bank.

 

the tagline for the series could be "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times....Watch Dogs trilogy confirmed."

 

You must have an astounding amount of faith in Ubisoft to be able and willing to pull off an unnecessarily complex plan like that. Watch Dogs cost somewhere around $68 million to make; that's a lot of money to sink just to lose a lot of reputation and then presumably more millions of dollars in a sequel. Not really seeing how that is supposed to "make bank".

 

Personally, I'm hoping for an Assassin's Creed situation: the first AC game was clunky and weird, so they reworked it and made it better in every way, and then Assassin's Creed 2 comes along and it's a good game in it's own right, not just compared to the first one. All Watch Dogs 2 needs to do is improve everything (and hopefully drop Aiden Pearce like they did Altair).

Edited February 13, 20169 yr by HeyMouseSayCheese

I actually thoroughly enjoyed Watch_Dogs, and I hope this one lives up to the expectations. Honestly, I didn't mind Aiden, and I hope they flesh him out and make him a better overall character and fix what was wrong with the first game. Like gun stores.

 

In Chicago.