So you're questioning my opinion but then say it's subjective later? Or are you genuinely asking whether i mean to the developers or gamers? Because obviously I am talking about many gamers including myself. Not all of them of course. I'm glad you enjoy this model, seriously, have fun then! 

As long as the games are good I don't care how long or little developers spend on them. A longer development time doesn't necessarily equate to a better product. There are plenty of examples of games that should have been the second coming of gaming Jesus for how long they took but just ended up being good. Then there are other games that just took a few years and blew minds. There are some franchises that I just get sick of and others I can't get enough of. The Far Cry games never did it for me. Didn't care much for their settings. However, a post-apocalyptic setting? Certainly not some new idea but more appealing to me than running through a jungle from modern drug dealers.

That's kind of a circular argument though, is it not? You're basically saying that you don't like it when people mention their opinion, because it's contradictory to other people's opinions, but the opposite would also be true, so then no one would be able to voice their opinion. You're just saying one side specifically needs to be quiet. 

Both the idea of shortening and lengthening release schedules have valid arguments behind them, so only mentioning one valid argument for smaller release schedules ("you can skip them and a lot of people would prefer to have more than less") is just trying to make the situation look one-sided from the perspective of it's always better to have more. Whereas I was merely stating my opinion early, not arguing it. Like for example, who actually wants game development to get longer for no net return? That would just be the difference between holding back titles arbitrarily and not doing so. I think just about everyone who asks for longer development wants them for the sake of new innovations. So that's an argument for longer development times. In the case of a publisher as big as Ubisoft with as many development teams as they have, there are as many arguments for a longer development time as there are against. Which is why I'm just mentioning my preference. 

Edit: And of course, I'm not talking about the "quality" necessarily of this game. Just Ubisoft's overall release schedule. For all I know this might be the Far Cry game to make me interested in them again. 

Lol so much for that late 2019 release date speculation. Game looks like hot garbage.

Looks pretty cool, and I typically love the post-apocalyptic setting, but yeah it is being a bit overdone in games nowadays.

I loved Primal (and so far loving 5 which I just started) in large part because of their unique premises/settings. 4 didn't do much for me because it felt like more of the same.

Yeah this really didn't do anything for me. Definitely NOT what I was hoping to see. Rage 2 made me not even give this a second look. Multiplayer or not.

I was surprised they flat out ruined the ending to FC5 like that. The game isn’t that old.

Anyways we’ll see on this, depends on how close to GOTG Rage 2 it launches.