Ubisoft: No New Games Unless They Can Be Made Into Franchises

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dr. Octogonopus:
Its time to calm a llama down internet. So Ubisoft has made a decision you dont like. So what? Some people like sequels some people like stand alone games. Some people like COD some people like Journey. Ubisoft doesnt have to cater to every demographic. Now I do agree that they are releasing AC too frequently but hey people are buying them so why should Ubisoft change that? It's simple supply and demand.

Im just so tired of gamers pulling the 'oh you have an opinion that is different to mine therefore you can go to hell' card.

Actually people are expressing discontent and announcing their decisions not to purchase Ubisoft products. Just because it's profitable doesn't mean the entirety of humanity is going to cheer for it.

Genocidicles:

Ubisoft has already proved themselves with Assassin's Creed, where each game ends on an even bigger cliff-hanger than the previous one, so they can hook people into buying the next one. So I'm not expecting any resolution to Watch Dogs' plot, at least not until they're tired of milking the franchise anyway.

Why do you imagine they would end it at all? Once cliffhanger 8 doesn't generate enough sales they're just going to cancel the franchise without ending the story. Ubisoft is literally guaranteeing that everything they make will be a never ending story, all cut short by sales shortfalls.

On a different note I'm guessing this means Conquest: Frontier Wars isn't getting its cliffhanger resolved ever either. =(

I think i threw up in my mouth a little.

really Ubisoft, really?

And to think i used to enjoy Assassins Creed, back when i believed it was going to have a good story with an actual end

bug_of_war:

CardinalPiggles:
I just lost a lot of interest for Watch Dogs honestly.

I get the feeling they will be holding back features on the first game so they can ever so slightly improve it's later iterations without putting in any extra creative effort.

It's what companies do with DLC. They hold back content so they can sell it down the line. Sequels are just a slower process.

This is pure speculation, don't get me wrong. But given how some companies handle DLC I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is how they handled their new interesting franchise.

I've only ever seen Capcom do the whole DLC thing you're talking about, what other companies have done this?

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Forl%C3%AC_(DLC)

Wasn't that "missing sequence" a big hint? I believe it was DNA sequence 13 or something?

Also I think Risen 2 had DLC already in the game that they expected you to pay extra for. Not entirely sure on that one so don't hold it against me.

as much i am looking forward to watch dogs and surprisingly AC4, this attitude makes me think twice now if i should get a game from them again.
i hope this will backfire soon and they will learn from their mistakes. but i guess this will never happen.

CardinalPiggles:

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Forl%C3%AC_(DLC)

Wasn't that "missing sequence" a big hint? I believe it was DNA sequence 13 or something?

Also I think Risen 2 had DLC already in the game that they expected you to pay extra for. Not entirely sure on that one so don't hold it against me.

Honestly forgot about that entirely, never even knew there was DLC for the missing sequence.

kajinking:

Riobux:

kajinking:

This is literally my only reaction to the idea that EVERYTHING needs sequels.

Did no one learn anything from guitar hero?!

Honestly, my reaction to this starts at 0:48.

LOL

I don't even like silent hill or have played any of the games and that was painful

Well I'll call that reaction very on point. The fact is the reason a game like GTA is so special each time it comes out is because it's rare and we don't get a new one every year. Eventually if you keep spamming games no one can tell which from which and any identity they may have had goes out the window. I've still yet to finish AC II after enjoying the first and with all these new games coming out I'm honestly not sure if I want to even bother since it's not like I'll ever get to the end of the story.

One of the core reasons why I play computer games is for the unique experience. A thrill of being in control and experiencing something brand-new and fresh, in contrast to my life which the biggest compliment I can provide it is it is always able to find new ways for me to lose faith, get depressed and die inside. So when a game provides something that's new and fresh, it's fantastic. It's not that GTA comes out far-and-few that makes it special, it's that each new GTA provides a different experience that is completely fresh. Sure, the ground work is the same, but everything built upon the ground-work differs. Oh, you can now do X mechanic. Now Y character will provide a completely new introspection of narrative. What about Z plot twist, now didn't that provide philosophical thought? Say what you will about Heavy Rain, a game that gets a heavy amount of criticism, but one thing you can't deny is it is fresh.

Assassin's Creed IV though is a symbol of what I just look and sigh. A game built by economists, not those passionate about their craft. Instead of providing a fresh narrative by making a game based in a setting that is unique (e.g. Christian Crusades and, even, the Italian Renaissance period), they've made it based on a time period so bloated and over-done it's just simply tiring. Instead of pushing a new main character that might provide some interesting stories, we get a bloated dull character that seeks to provide nothing. I'm sure Assassin's Creed IV will have somewhat of a fun experience, but it looks deeply hollow. If the writing is anything like Assassin's Creed III (as in, dull, although I have to give credit that it's at least not entirely offensive to the English nor did it stir up "GO 'MERICAH" mentality), it'll be just as much of a slog.

I look for fresh and interesting experiences, something that the mentality that a new game has to be able to be turned into a franchise can't deliver at all.

bug_of_war:

CardinalPiggles:

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Forl%C3%AC_(DLC)

Wasn't that "missing sequence" a big hint? I believe it was DNA sequence 13 or something?

Also I think Risen 2 had DLC already in the game that they expected you to pay extra for. Not entirely sure on that one so don't hold it against me.

Honestly forgot about that entirely, never even knew there was DLC for the missing sequence.

I've noticed that no one brings that one up these days. But yeah, Ubisoft are not above holding back content.

I'm probably still going to get Watch Dogs at some point, but I think I'll wait until it's a little cheaper now.

CardinalPiggles:

I've noticed that no one brings that one up these days. But yeah, Ubisoft are not above holding back content.

I'm probably still going to get Watch Dogs at some point, but I think I'll wait until it's a little cheaper now.

People have spent too much time hating on EA.

Or they just forgot like I did.

Either way, good example

So they are planning for a rehash train? Maybe they got their inspiration from Final Fantasy and went like "Hey everybody! Watch Dogs 1 to 13 will make us more money than Bethesda's TES 3-5 did. It will take a bit longer but a yearly rehash will speed things up and make us mountains of cash! Promotions and bonuses up the ass!".

This is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to sequels of great games feeling forced and empty. Ubisoft, if you are reading this, FORCE your execs to watch Jimquisition and LEARN from it. We are tired of these things!

D-Class 198482:
Ah, all the people saying they are stupid. You lot do realize that without this attitude, they'd go bankrupt?
I don't even like Ubisoft, but come on.

By this logic, indie developers would be bankrupt from the moment they release their first game.

Why would they go bankrupt? Because they need money for AAA budgets? Because games absolutely NEED to be on AAA budgets?

You can try to justify the excess monetization of videogames however you want, but you're naive if you think it's the only way for industry to survive.

Dr. Octogonopus:
Its time to calm a llama down internet. So Ubisoft has made a decision you dont like. So what? Some people like sequels some people like stand alone games. Some people like COD some people like Journey. Ubisoft doesnt have to cater to every demographic. Now I do agree that they are releasing AC too frequently but hey people are buying them so why should Ubisoft change that? It's simple supply and demand.

Im just so tired of gamers pulling the 'oh you have an opinion that is different to mine therefore you can go to hell' card.

If he had said this in early 2000, we might have been able to give him a little leeway. But we've seen what happens when franchises start relying on name branding.

Also he basically said to every potential developer (that may have been interested in Ubisoft) that "your game must be able to sustain a franchise or we won't support it." That amount of creative interference disgusts me.

bug_of_war:

CardinalPiggles:

I've noticed that no one brings that one up these days. But yeah, Ubisoft are not above holding back content.

I'm probably still going to get Watch Dogs at some point, but I think I'll wait until it's a little cheaper now.

People have spent too much time hating on EA.

Or they just forgot like I did.

Either way, good example

They had kept themselves mostly outside the controversy zone aside from their excessive sequel making and DLC. Last year they scrapped their Always-On DRM which was a good PR move.

Until now, I was willing to consider them a lesser evil

Damnit, Ubisoft. You were almost working your way off my "do not buy" list with interesting releases and lack of stupid ****, then you go and do this. I was almost looking forward to Watch Dogs. Guess not...

But any new franchise would be in "acquisition mode" for the first game, the only way that particular justification makes any sense is if they don't plan on making any new franchises any more either, and just relentlessly sequelise the ones they have, who's ready for Assassin's Creed 15 set in revolutionary Cuba? anyone?

Genocidicles:
Well I guess I'm not getting Watch Dogs. I'm not wasting my money on something that will likely have no plot resolution just so they can stretch the franchise out.

We can only hope they got this idea after reaching the point where Watchdogs can't be changed drastically to fit the new policy anymore.

SkarKrow:

fix-the-spade:
Well that's torpedoed my interest in Watch Dogs, welcome to the eight hour set up for Watch Dogs 2, enjoy!

Yeah I sure as hell can't wait to play maybe a 6th of a story... Shame since it looked interesting...

Why is it that the people in this thread cry about confirmed sequels, but also cry like little girls when something doesn't get a sequel. You're essentially being promised a full storyline or different stories in the same universe spanning multiple games. I don't see why this is bad. This worked for Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls.. I can continue. For hours.

ItsNotRudy:

SkarKrow:

fix-the-spade:
Well that's torpedoed my interest in Watch Dogs, welcome to the eight hour set up for Watch Dogs 2, enjoy!

Yeah I sure as hell can't wait to play maybe a 6th of a story... Shame since it looked interesting...

Why is it that the people in this thread cry about confirmed sequels, but also cry like little girls when something doesn't get a sequel. You're essentially being promised a full storyline or different stories in the same universe spanning multiple games. I don't see why this is bad. This worked for Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls.. I can continue. For hours.

When did I cry "like a little girl" about something not getting a sequel?

I'm not irritated by the fact there will be sequels, I'm irritated because if Ubisoft bleeds what looks like a fascinating new IP dry like it has Ass Creed with it's incrementally worse and less focused sequels I will be rather disappointed.

Remember assassins creed 2? Where you actually assassinated things? That was great, fast forward to revelations where "OMG tower defense!" or three where "OMG sailing".

I'm worried that it will end up as another game with 15 studios with their dicks in the deliciuous cream pie for 9 month development cycles and steadily reducing quality and steadily lost focus.

I have nothing against sequels, I do have something against the way Ubisoft keeps it's head up it's arse and waters things down horribly as time passes.

As for the final point you make, it isn't bad, provided it's done well, but Ubisoft's big franchise this gen has hardly delivered on it's multiple game spanning storyline.

ItsNotRudy:

Why is it that the people in this thread cry about confirmed sequels, but also cry like little girls when something doesn't get a sequel.

It's not "confirmed sequels" it's the fact that a publisher is issuing the requirement that a game must have a sequel, that it must form a franchise, that it must be a full series that will result in GAME X 5: Plasma Boogaloo. Unless you have plans already, why not let us play the game first before you decide to put all your eggs in one basket? Let the market decide if a sequel is necessary or wanted. Why does a game need to be the biggest and best there ever was?

ItsNotRudy:

You're essentially being promised a full storyline or different stories in the same universe spanning multiple games.

Yes, good in theory. Alternatively (in the case of Ubisoft) sequels that reach too far and accomplish very little.

ItsNotRudy:

I don't see why this is bad. This worked for Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls.. I can continue. For hours.

Mass Effect was planned as a trilogy from the beginning by Bioware.

Bioshock was announced as a franchise after the first game was released.

Elder Scrolls games take time to develop.

Oh yeah, I love getting a new Assassin's Creed every year, and having it be substantially more broken and uninspired than the last (I still consider AC:R to be the worst game I have ever played, purely because it has no reason to exist beyond being a cash-grab).

This is one of the shittiest attitudes I've seen from a developer in a long time. It makes good business sense, to a point, but he doesn't seem to realise that it's not the endless sequels that keep people coming back to companies like Nintendo: it's the fact that their games are always well made and fun, even if they are often rehashes of old ideas.

Ubisoft, from my experience, in no way delivers quality games on the same consistent basis, and by the time this dipshit realises people aren't always going to buy something just because you slapped 'Assassin's Creed' across the front, it'll probably be too late for the company.

"Because now we're in (a) blockbuster world, and Watch Dogs needs to be a blockbuster because it deserves to be and as a company that's what we need it to be,"

What The Fuck?

Somebody seriously call Jim Sterling, this pretty much begs an emergency Jimquisition

Captcha: don't be late.....i think its referring to Jim :p

I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of this article. Ubisoft is not saying that they want to make more sequels, they are saying that it's necessary to make sequels for the revenue stream to even cover the production costs.

Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost more like $100, not to mention the fact that video game production has a long turnaround time and is incredibly expensive.

The responsibility to make triple-AAA development lucrative is on us, the customer. And by AAA-titles, I mean The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, you know all those games you freaking love. If you want this video game tier to survive and not be replaced by fucking Angry Birds and endless free-to-play titles, it's time for gamers to stop pretending that this isn't a real problem.

The only franchises that would survive are Call of Duty and the likes; the juggernaut franchises that will outsell everything no matter what. The rest is just going to be an endless mess of microtransactions, DLC, free-to-play, mobile games (a market where games are actually very lucrative still) and other desperate corporate attempts of making back the money publishers lose every time they try to launch new IP.

Fuck you Ubisoft, fuck you up the bung hole. I was a genuine fan of the Assassin's Creed series until I started to realize you were just reselling me the same game every year with cliffhangers to bait me into buying the next installment. At least Nintendo waits a good 4 to 5 years between Zelda's and makes sure each one gets decent plot resolution.

Also, thanks for making me get a Uplay account to play those games, so that it could then get hacked. I've now uninstalled Uplay and never intend to install it on my computer again. If you want me to buy your games, release them either via Steam or as stand alone programs. I'm tired of having a separate program installed on my computer for every single developer I've ever bought a game from.

So ya, ignoring Ubisoft for now. I can do without Watchdogs.

Holy crap, people. These games aren't cheap to make FFS. You have two choices.

1. A few high quality triple-A releases.
2. A lot of low quality double/single-A releases.

Just because a games earns a couple million dollars does not mean the company will even break even from it. Not to mention the fact that costs for development will continue to skyrocket as graphics get better and better. Take all this into account and then tell me that these publishers are greedy.

Now, some people may say that they don't need those fancy graphics but I'm talking about the people who want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. The people who want just how it is right now without sacrificing anything.

So new fresh ideas and innovation is thrown overboard. Got it Ubisoft. Nice going there, lowering your self
to a lesser standard.

Tsk tsk. All that iteration. A comedian can't kill a joke forever. Eventually he has to come up with new material. And Ubi should focus on promoting a slew of different ideas before hoping on franchises.

Oh yes I can see this going beautifully. Because milking franchises to death worked so well for Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. Amirite?

This is also relevant

Companies are being stupid.

... I honestly give up. There is no point in being optimistic in the video game indsutry anymore, since the companies like trying to derive profits from the dumbest systems imaginable.

What irritates me most isn't that there will be sequels. It irritates me that there will be ANNUAL sequels. Assassin's Creed after Assassin's Creed of samey, Call of Duty-style multiplayer-focused gaming with a watered down story. And this will eventually happen to everything that Ubisoft touches (which makes me especially horrified, considering their work on Deus Ex: HR, one of my favorite games).

Why do we need a new game each year? It was a viable model during the days of the GameCube, PS2, and Xbox, when internet connectivity was unheard of for consoles and the only way to update rosters for sports games was to release a new game each year. Not so much anymore. It doesn't really make sense for other genres to release annual sequels anyway, since there's no roster to update and a year isn't enough time to really improve the game enough to call it a sequel. I mean, Alvin and the Chipmonks movies come out less often, and do you really think a whole lot of creative inspiration is needed to make one of those?

tl;dr: Wrong approach, Ubisoft.

Let's be real. The Assassin's Creed sequels suck pretty bad.

Assassin's Creed could have been something badass, but all those mediocre sequels have made the franchise stale and boring. All you are doing is running a promising franchise into the ground.

Although, maybe that's the winning strategy: find a promising franchise, pump out a ton of shitty and cheap sequels, sequels sell because of franchise alone, run franchise into the ground, and then move onto the next franchise.

Honestly, all this shit would be fixed so long as people buy good games. A ton of people were disappointed with all sorts of shitty sequels. Eventually, even the casual audience will learn to do their research.......I think....

All of these are acceptable responses in my book.



Hasn't this been the way of things for the last... 13 years?

This is what it costs if you want risky and ambitious new projects. They cost a ton to make and a company need to be able to ensure itself that it was all worth it. The other options would be to charge much more for a game or an endless tirade of medium budget safe bets.

You can't expect a company to churn out big games with new mechanics, unique stories and the shiniest new graphic all the time. They have to make safe bets through established franchises.

cikame:
Hasn't this been the way of things for the last... 13 years?

No. Dev costs are higher than ever, as are the consumers' demands, not to mention that today, adjusted for inflation, games should cost about $100 dollars rather than $60.

Globalization, Baby

A recent CNN contributor talked about the Ice Age sequels: while each sequel's ticket sales continually declined in America, this franchise exploded on the world market, and particularly China.

Ubisoft Wants Global Numbers = Franchise

The Head Execs at that company demanded one Assassin's Creed after another because they saw the trend of expanding markets. But the world is becoming more connected, and they need their titles to be apart of the trend. Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs sequels will most likely head straight into the Playstation 5 and Xbox II.

Then close up shop now, how the hell are going to build your Uplay digital distribution monstrosity without churning out games for it? I guess that's a good thing and they will close and a less stupid studio will get their IPs.

TomWiley:

cikame:
Hasn't this been the way of things for the last... 13 years?

No. Dev costs are higher than ever, as are the consumers' demands, not to mention that today, adjusted for inflation, games should cost about $100 dollars rather than $60.

And yet I refuse to pay more than 20$ for my disposable media.

And right there, that mentality, that is the cancer killing the AAA gaming industry.
The simple fact is that even those popular franchises had to start somewhere, and are *not* infinitely sustainable.

Gaming is a creative medium. You can not, -CAN NOT- go on forever without taking some risks on new IP.
The audience will inevitably tire of the same old shit; a lesson Hollywood is learning right now as they desperately try to remake everything looking for that one golden franchise to milk. Some succeed (Marvel's Avengers run), but most are failing dismally to catch on (like the recent Lone Ranger, or 2011's Green Lantern).

"But he said something about turning things into franchises! That can include original IP, so you're wrong!"

Logically, if interpreted that way, his argument becomes utterly meaningless.

Of course new franchises are going spring up eventually, by necessity if nothing else, but the important thing to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME IS THE KIND OF FRANCHISE-MATERIAL HE'S LOOKING FOR. Just as not every shooter lives up to Call of Duty's sales standards. There are a finite number of game types and concepts that have the sort of mass-market appeal he and his company are looking for.

Even taken in this sense, he's still basically admitting that AAA is so burdened with overbloated "development" budgets that they're tending towards an inevitable creative bankruptcy. This is a clear sign that they need to die off and let new firms fill the void.

The market will eventually adapt to their loss, and ultimately be better for it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here