Talk:Assassin's Creed: Visionaries

This is the discussion page for Assassin's Creed: Visionaries. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Unofficial production

I've been under the impression, like perhaps many others, that this book was a joint venture with Ubisoft. However, in a recent interview with Access the Animus, a Studio Lounak representative had this to say (all caps in original):

Q: Naturally you are working with Ubisoft, therefore, some fans might be wondering why you landed on using Kickstarter as a means to produce the novel. Was there any particular attraction to this methodology?

The term "working with Ubisoft" is generally very misinterpreted. I explain myself: When Ubisoft asks us to do an illustration, an animation, a graphic research, whether on the AC universe, R6 [Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege] or Far Cry, for example, at that moment we work FOR UBISOFT, they place an order with us and we deliver it to them. When we want to create and edit a book with AC as a medium (as is the case here), at that moment we are NOT working FOR Ubisoft OR WITH Ubisoft. We use the property of Ubisoft so we pay Ubisoft rights to use the image of their franchise as is the case here with AC...are you following me so far? The current KICKSTARTER project is NOT a Ubisoft project, it is a project from STUDIO LOUNAK. It is WE who ask the fans and future readers of Visionaries to participate financially in the project. NOT Ubisoft.

Since Visionaries is just a fan-made dedication to the series, then, instead of an official collaboration like The Fall/Chain, Brahman, or part of a contest like the Cinders comic, should we still have this page, especially since its Kickstarter will fail and fall far short of its $125K goal within its last week? As well, when asked if the books and prints would still be released if they did not meet the funding, they said:

Lounak (@studiolounak) on Twitter "@RipRoobox30 Not in that form, with all the extras and stretch goals, for sure, but we will find another way to get it in the hands of fans for sure!"

It seems Ubisoft's only part here is letting Studio Lounak play in the sandbox and not suing them to kingdom come. – Darman (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for nuking this page to kingdom come, but I also need to stress that a vote for deletion for this page also means deletion for all files associated with this project, as well as the pages for the artists that only have this as an AC title, namely Yanick Paquette, Rafael Albuquerque, Marcelo Maiolo, and Olivier Vatine. (Marguerite Sauvage, Karl Kerschl, and Nicolas Siner would remain, as they have done work on other AC media). Still, my vote is for deletion. - Soranin (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, deleting all other pages and files associated with this project, and correcting the appropriate [Category:Character/Images] and image galleries, would be a given if we move forward with this. Are there any more votes in favor here, or any in opposition to this? – Darman (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the nuking, but it should be preceded by a conventional orbital bombardment using Taim & Bak XX9 heavy turbolasers (oh wait wrong fandom). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling this "unofficial" is a misinterpretation of what was said. This is an official licensed product, simply not spearheaded by Ubisoft. That Ubisoft is not doing any financial backing is irrelevant. As a licensor, Ubisoft can wholly decide how their property is represented and published and in this case they decided to allow Studio Lounak to work on this product after Lounak approached them about it. As it stands Visionaries is a Lounak produced, Lounak published product, officially licensed by Ubisoft. Even should the Kickstarter fail, and the product never sees the light of day, it would still have a place on the wiki, just like other cancelled products, like The Invisible Imam or Utopia.— Zero-ELEC (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with removing. I think it's good preservation of AC history and was an officially licensed product, even if it doesn't reach market and would have been non canon. — Nstav13 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that fans paying for licensing usage that requires them to abide by certain character depictions is different from the license originators making something themselves or specifically contracting it out to another corporate entity(ies) and/or writer(s), as was the case for all media examples listed above so far. I also cannot see how this would be a preservation of AC history, since the book would not document how the series changed like the wiki or encyclopedias do and instead would have main game characters on non-canon adventures, though perhaps I am being too pedantic on the definition of "preservation". – Darman (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this project as being fundamentally different than BOV other than this is non-canon. As mentioned in the discord this is basically the same as Star Wars Visions. It should remain on the wiki. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

But for Visions, Lucasfilm still reached out to other animation studios to make intentionally non-canon shorts using the Star Wars aesthetic. BOV was originally a fan Kickstarter campaign? Huh. I, uh...never really had read the Development section of its page and always thought it had ties to Ubisoft somehow, other than what is evidently buying license use and being officially supported. Darman (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We also have stuff like the Penny Arcade comic. BOV didn't just start out as fan KS but neither did this. They both had contact with Ubisoft before their campaigns started. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a weird one, since Penny came up with it before AC1 released and it was later included in Limited Editions. Soranin and Sol, what are your opinions? You've both voiced desires to wipe the page and its files, but since you always want justifications for {Propose delete}, why do you two feel so strongly? – Darman (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As of exactly 3hrs ago, the fundraiser has ended and fallen short as we thought it would, ultimately collecting ~64K or 51% of its 125K goal. So now what? – Darman (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree with deleting the Visionaries pages; although non-canon, they are part of AC history as a product. Now, Studio Lounak has confirmed that they will talk with Ubi to see if these stories can be rescued and featured in some other media, so we should keep this for now. What we could do now is maybe ask Studio Lounak if they don't mind for the ACWiki to keep this pages public. What do you think?Cristophorus35 (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I voted for purging all Visionaries prior to learning that it is actually officially licensed by Ubisoft. To be clear, our wiki has established the precedent that articles on fan content and fan communities (but not original fanon works created on the wiki) are permitted at our discretion. When I thought that Visionaries wasn't licensed by Ubisoft, I thought it wasn't a fan project of merit or significance enough to have a place on our wiki. Since it is apparently officially licensed, however, I will have to change my mind and agree that it should stay (apart from being otherwise outvoted that is :P). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)