Ubisoft Considers Beyond Good & Evil a Mistake

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

josemlopes:
We all know that it has nothing to do with what gender the main character is, BG&E was released at a time where adventure platformer games just werent all that profitable, thats it, there is also Psychonauts that had the exact same fate.

As usual, the suits only see statistics so for them it will seem reasonable to make a relation between the protagonist gender and the profit.

"All our other games stared a male protagonist and made profit, this one had a female protagonist and it didnt made profit, thats probably the reason why" - suits train of thought since suits are trained to only look at statistics. If these guys had also published Psychonauts they would have an example in their database that showed that the key for it to not make profit was the genre and not the gender.

Anyways, yeah. I agree with you. People have a tendency to use sales to justify any of their positions, not just suits, though. I've heard more than one person claim that any game under EA not selling well is a sign of EA screwing the game over, and any game under EA selling well is a sign that people are mindless sheep, buying stuff just because they were told to.

Andy Shandy:
Well fuck you too then, Ubisoft.

If you get mad at a company considering a financial failure a... well... failure, then you're going to be upset a lot.

snekadid:
I had to read the title twice after reading the article, because I could swear the article was about EA. Between their crappy steam rip offs and their franchise management, you'd think Ubisoft was trying to become EA.

I've generally begun to see Ubisoft as an EA in training. We'll see how they do.

Lightknight:

Andy Shandy:
Well fuck you too then, Ubisoft.

If you get mad at a company considering a financial failure a... well... failure, then you're going to be upset a lot.

snekadid:
I had to read the title twice after reading the article, because I could swear the article was about EA. Between their crappy steam rip offs and their franchise management, you'd think Ubisoft was trying to become EA.

I've generally begun to see Ubisoft as an EA in training. We'll see how they do.

But this is the problem with the games industry now. There are no more low to mid budget games being made. No games (outside of indie studios and kickstarters) who work on a medium sized budget and expect a medium sized return. No companies want that anymore, all they care about is huge inflated dev costs and (expected, not guaranteed) huge returns. After all, that casual holiday X-mas time market is a potential gold mine!

EvilRoy:

Allspice:

EvilRoy:
I don't know why people are finding this to be so tremendously awful, or even really all that surprising.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't find this surprising. I know it didn't sell very well and at the end of the day, they do need to make money. I understand that. And if that was all there was to it I wouldn't be upset, just a little sad.

But that's not all there is to this. They keep getting our hopes up that there might be a chance to see a sequel. They have brought it up multiple times over the years, saying it's in the planning stages, it's in development, showing a teaser trailer, showing screenshots...hell there was even a picture of one of the main characters, Pey'j, on their Facebook page for E3 this year. That's what I'm upset about. If it's not worth the money to invest in a sequel, fine. Just stop jerking us around pretending you might actually put one out, Ubisoft.

If that's what they've been doing, I can tell you its not meant to be jerking around. They've probably set it up as an overhead project.

That is, when a programmer or artist working on one project runs out of stuff to do, they get shunted into the overhead project pool where they can work on chargeable projects, rather than having their hours go to unchargeable overhead. Meaning that they totally intend to sell the product eventually. In fact, if they put enough hours to it they will have no choice but to release it regardless of profit potentials because if they don't all the time spent becomes retroactively unrecoverable/unchargeable and takes profit directly off the bottom line.

I know it seems weird, but many companies in many fields do this in order to help stock price and avoid profit loss due to poor scheduling (whether or not the poor scheduling was avoidable). In fact right now that's what I'm (supposed) to be working on. Just a backburner project that will likely break even eventually, in order to keep my unbillable time from going directly to the bottom line.

Unfortunately it simultaneously means that the project may take years longer than normal, and the level of polish of the project will be directly proportional to how interested the people working on it were.

Interesting, I've never heard of something like that. Does what various people at Ubisoft have said about it (mostly Michel Ancel, I'll put a * next to what he's said) sound consistent with that kind of project to you?:

"it's in pre-production and has been for a year" (2008)*
"it's been put on hold" (2009)
"it has not been put on hold, development is still ongoing" (2009)
"we want to keep the team as small as possible to preserve it's artistic spirit" (2010)*
"we need more power than current gen provides" (2011)*
"the entire team took a break to work on Rayman Origins" (2011)*
"it's in an active creation stage" (2012)*

The years next to them are the years those statements were made to the public, just to be clear.

That's pretty much all they've said. I was also slightly wrong on what I said has been shown. There are actually two teaser/concept trailers that were released/leaked years ago that are probably largely irrelevant now, and one screenshot that was released last year when it was announced to be in an "active creation stage", whatever that vague statement means.

To be honest, I really don't think we're going to get it at this point. I think it will keep being pushed back until Ubisoft just pulls the plug on it.

Someone needs to slap them over the face with a shovel for saying such heresy as "Beyond Good and Evil was a mistake".

The only way to repent these heinous words is to invest money and force Michel Ancell to make BG&E2, please? q.q

Allspice:

EvilRoy:
Snip

Interesting, I've never heard of something like that. Does what various people at Ubisoft have said about it (mostly Michel Ancel, I'll put a * next to what he's said) sound consistent with that kind of project to you?:

"it's in pre-production and has been for a year" (2008)*
"it's been put on hold" (2009)
"it has not been put on hold, development is still ongoing" (2009)
"we want to keep the team as small as possible to preserve it's artistic spirit" (2010)*
"we need more power than current gen provides" (2011)*
"the entire team took a break to work on Rayman Origins" (2011)*
"it's in an active creation stage" (2012)*

The years next to them are the years those statements were made to the public, just to be clear.

That's pretty much all they've said. I was also slightly wrong on what I said has been shown. There are actually two teaser/concept trailers that were released/leaked years ago that are probably largely irrelevant now, and one screenshot that was released last year when it was announced to be in an "active creation stage", whatever that vague statement means.

To be honest, I really don't think we're going to get it at this point. I think it will keep being pushed back until Ubisoft just pulls the plug on it.

Those announcements look pretty close to what we would say... Keeping in mind I work for an engineering firm so we rarely do public announcements of course.

Basically if it was us and a potential/interested client asked about how one of our OH projects was rolling the official response would come out as "Currently we're devoting a small team to the project while we complete a few higher value projects." This is a nice way of saying "if you write a check now we'll have it done ASAP, if you don't wanna nut up it will be done when its done." The 'small team' is made up of whoever ran out of billable work.

But you can basically see what the guy is doing now that the quotes are all lined up. Not a lot of people, and they get pulled to work on higher priority projects screams overhead pool to me. The rest just seems like 'poking stick' announcements, which is kind of a meh practice but I guess it makes sense for an entertainment to continually recheck interest in slow burn projects. If people lose interest totally, that OH project gets burnt and replaced with something else. If we talked up a potential OH project and absolutely nobody cared it would stop then and there and we would find something else.

Ishal:

Lightknight:

Andy Shandy:
Well fuck you too then, Ubisoft.

If you get mad at a company considering a financial failure a... well... failure, then you're going to be upset a lot.

snekadid:
I had to read the title twice after reading the article, because I could swear the article was about EA. Between their crappy steam rip offs and their franchise management, you'd think Ubisoft was trying to become EA.

I've generally begun to see Ubisoft as an EA in training. We'll see how they do.

But this is the problem with the games industry now. There are no more low to mid budget games being made. No games (outside of indie studios and kickstarters) who work on a medium sized budget and expect a medium sized return. No companies want that anymore, all they care about is huge inflated dev costs and (expected, not guaranteed) huge returns. After all, that casual holiday X-mas time market is a potential gold mine!

I agree that that's a problem and would love to see these big companies having a small-games budget. But I'm not sure how that applies to a company that took a risk on a smaller game and took a hit commercially considering it to be bad.

You know what - this proves that "art" and corporate interests often don't mix. As an artist, I know that mistakes can push people forward if you're smart enough. I just don't understand how they could be thinking that this game is a risk when so many talk about it. It's actually a good game.

You're calling this a mistake?

I call BS.

It's always sad to hear these things about such a gem of a game. Beyond Good & Evil was and still is a brilliant game.

I'm already getting that itch to play it once again now that I'm reminded of it. I can recall the music and sounds, the atmosphere, the characters, the story, the gameplay, all of it working together so perfectly... Yup, time to install it once more and play to my heart's content.

For anyone who doesn't know this game, try to get your hands on it, its totally worth it, its a absolute must-own game!

gamernerdtg2:
You know what - this proves that "art" and corporate interests often don't mix. As an artist, I know that mistakes can push people forward if you're smart enough. I just don't understand how they could be thinking that this game is a risk when so many talk about it. It's actually a good game.

You're calling this a mistake?

I call BS.

Wow, is that video real? I never seen that before. Only The first CGI video they did. This is hurting now so much more than ever! :( :(

gamernerdtg2:
You're calling this a mistake?

I call BS.

What else would you have a company call a financial failure? A success?

Personally, I think they established an IP and a sequel would be easier to develop and make more money thanks to the brand awareness it now has. That would be good but that still wouldn't make the first game a success. There's no BS. It's basic math.

That Video is great. Is that what the HD remaster on the 360 looked like? I find that hard to believe considering it was a 2003 game but I'm off to look around.

I'll point out to everyone, that Ubisoft is supposedly working on the sequel and is planning on a next gen release (if they are to be trusted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_%26_Evil_2

If that video is of a basic tech demo of the sequel. Then that's not what they're calling a failure. They're calling the first game a financial mistake and are now trying to leverage the IP to make it better. If they do a good job and it works out, then who knows how Ubisoft's practices may change.

They're not necessarily being unreasonable.

Ubisoft is a company. Their goal is to make money. This means that they want to make good games, yes, but not every good game will sell well.

It sucks, but it's true.

Kumagawa Misogi:

And you have to remember AAA games like with summer blockbusters cost more to make than any single painting/sculpture/book or piece of music ever has. Hell a single game takes all the older arts and puts them together several hundred times over if you think about it.

but film studios don't put out nothing but summer blockbusters - they use the profits from them to fund riskier or small scale project not likely to draw in the megabucks. Game publishers are not prepared to do this though - they want everything to bring in the megabucks or its trash.

Windknight:

Kumagawa Misogi:

And you have to remember AAA games like with summer blockbusters cost more to make than any single painting/sculpture/book or piece of music ever has. Hell a single game takes all the older arts and puts them together several hundred times over if you think about it.

but film studios don't put out nothing but summer blockbusters - they use the profits from them to fund riskier or small scale project not likely to draw in the megabucks. Game publishers are not prepared to do this though - they want everything to bring in the megabucks or its trash.

Watch movie Bob's big picture 4 parter about the movie business. When the big movie studio's were independent rather than being merely small parts of big multinational's they were more like how the big game publisher's are in there fear of risk.

Lightknight:

gamernerdtg2:
You're calling this a mistake?

I call BS.

What else would you have a company call a financial failure? A success?

Personally, I think they established an IP and a sequel would be easier to develop and make more money thanks to the brand awareness it now has. That would be good but that still wouldn't make the first game a success. There's no BS. It's basic math.

That Video is great. Is that what the HD remaster on the 360 looked like? I find that hard to believe considering it was a 2003 game but I'm off to look around.

I'll point out to everyone, that Ubisoft is supposedly working on the sequel and is planning on a next gen release (if they are to be trusted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_%26_Evil_2

If that video is of a basic tech demo of the sequel. Then that's not what they're calling a failure. They're calling the first game a financial mistake and are now trying to leverage the IP to make it better. If they do a good job and it works out, then who knows how Ubisoft's practices may change.

The fact that the original game didn't sell well has nothing to do with how good the game actually was. Why would this video exist if they were not interested in a sequel, based on 'plain math' (as you say).
I totally hear you, but if a sequel debues and people buy it, then the original game is no longer a financial failure. People would be buying BG&E2 because of the lore and gameplay that had already been established.

I really hope that you're right about the business practices changing though!

gamernerdtg2:
The fact that the original game didn't sell well has nothing to do with how good the game actually was. Why would this video exist if they were not interested in a sequel, based on 'plain math' (as you say).

What does it being a good game have anything to do with it being a financial failure? Ubisoft isn't saying the game sucked. They are saying that it failed finanicially. Please understand, a publisher has only one job. To invest money into developing IPs that turn that money into more money. If an IP does not do that, if is a mistake.

Let's look at Shawshank Redemption. One of my favorite movies of all time. It's budget was $25 million. It made just over $28 million at the box office. This would be considered a commercial failure. Despite being one of the most loved movies of all time, sometimes beating Forest Gump, it was indeed a failure.

So please understand, quality and financial success can be far separated.

I totally hear you, but if a sequel debues and people buy it, then the original game is no longer a financial failure. People would be buying BG&E2 because of the lore and gameplay that had already been established.

I really hope that you're right about the business practices changing though!

Yeah, it'd be really great to see them have a decent small-games budget. Imagine having the budget of one game generate 10 games or more? Just one of them being a hugely popular one could more than compensate.

Or, you know.....they could've tried promoting it. And not making it compete with the most anticipated game of the year, Prince of Persia. (which, oh yeah, was also a Ubisoft game. They made BG&E compete against their own game.)

If this is how they're talking about this game behind closed doors, I'm not feeling good about the sequel that is supposedly in the works.

It's sad that games are judged not by merits but by how well they do at making the ignorant masses pay money for them. If literature was like that, 90% of books today would be Harry Potter or Twilight types.

It's something we can't control. Corporations will seek profit, and depth is not a sign of popularity. It just proves that we can't look at big-budget blockbusters for the games we experienced gamers want anymore.

Whats that a game loved by people on the internet didn't sell well so people are fucking pissed that Ubisoft said the game didn't sell well and are worried? Color me surprised then that a company who has to make money is only investing in projects that MAKE THEM MONEY. Why is this hard for people to grasp...oh yeah that's because if people don't get what they want they fucking rage. That's not to say that Ubisoft is not in fault, they didn't advertise the game enough so it didn't sell. Nintendo learned that mistake with Fire Emblem a niche game that was going to be axed pretty much because of shat sells and they went all out in it. The funny thing is Ubisoft knows there is a dedicated fan base out there and used it to boost sales of other games. And I understand where Ubisoft is coming from with this, I don't hate them for there stance because from a top down perspective it makes sense.

And honestly the inverse is kinda true, look at Wayfoward and what there latest game is. They are pretty much making licensed games that will make them money to make games they want to make(and they stick their own flare to these games so it's not soulless honestly). They can't just make original games they want and love and know their loves because they know they won't make a lot of money on it, and this is by no means a AAA company. Shoot didn't Fez have issues with money and couldn't patch problems on the xbox version because of lack of funds....who knew money was needed to make good games :/.

I do like AC, but Ubisoft has been on my shitlist above EA ever since they acquired the rights to the Anno games.

Glad to see Ubisoft doesn't want my money.

Ubisoft this year said they would only support games that they could turn into franchises. People will now see what this means.

BoredRolePlayer:
Whats that a game loved by people on the internet didn't sell well so people are fucking pissed that Ubisoft said the game didn't sell well and are worried? Color me surprised then that a company who has to make money is only investing in projects that MAKE THEM MONEY. Why is this hard for people to grasp...oh yeah that's because if people don't get what they want they fucking rage.

When you lose sight of what consumers want, you're no longer in the business of making money and entertainment. You're in the business of making money and making more money.

Critics and consumers alike have clamored for a sequel for Beyond Good & Evil for the last 9 years. Ubisoft SAID they were developing a sequel in 2008.

BoredRolePlayer:

I don't hate them for there stance because from a top down perspective it makes sense.

Alright, well enjoy your rehashes of Watch_Dogs and Assassin's Creed for the next decade.

And honestly the inverse is kinda true, look at Wayfoward and what there latest game is. They are pretty much making licensed games that will make them money to make games they want to make(and they stick their own flare to these games so it's not soulless honestly). They can't just make original games they want and love and know their loves because they know they won't make a lot of money on it, and this is by no means a AAA company.

You have not been following Wayforward at all recently have you?

Did you see what From Software and Namco did with Dark Souls?

Let me spell this out for you:

Games do not need insane amounts of money to make to make insane amounts of money.

They only need: a reasonable budget, wise-spending, and a distinct target audience.

Shoot didn't Fez have issues with money and couldn't patch problems on the xbox version because of lack of funds....who knew money was needed to make good games :/.

That only happened because of Microsoft's bullshit policy, in which studios had to pay THEM in order to update games.
The patch wasn't expensive to make, Microsoft just made it expensive to implement.

Lovely Mixture:
Glad to see Ubisoft doesn't want my money.

When you lose sight of what consumers want, you're no longer in the business of making money and entertainment. You're in the business of making money and making more money.

Critics and consumers alike have clamored for a sequel for Beyond Good & Evil for the last 9 years. Ubisoft SAID they were developing a sequel in 2008.

Yeah I also remember fans whining and moaning for Earthbound and when Nintendo released it people were mad that it was 10 dollars. I also remember people whining and whining about Left Dead 2 and people weren't going to buy it then BAM people bought it. So sorry if I think fans don't know what they want at all.

Alright, well enjoy your rehashes of Watch_Dogs and Assassin's Creed for the next decade.

Thanks, I don't really play big name games that have yearly rehashes that often ;P.

You have not been following Wayforward at all recently have you?

Did you see what From Software and Namco did with Dark Souls?

Let me spell this out for you:

Games do not need insane amounts of money to make to make insane amounts of money.

They only need: a reasonable budget, wise-spending, and a distinct target audience.

I know they are working on a few licensed games, they have Shantae for the 3DS and a "reboot" of the series that was on kick stater. Also I like how you ask me what they have been up to recently yet don't bother to explain, instead banging on about From Software and Namco. Also seeing how I'm a fan of Atlus (who publishes From games as well) I know this already. Different companies with different practices, if you don't like it don't buy it.

That only happened because of Microsoft's bullshit policy, in which studios had to pay THEM in order to update games.
The patch wasn't expensive to make, Microsoft just made it expensive to implement.

To quote what you said

They only need: a reasonable budget, wise-spending, and a distinct target audience.

. If the patch needed money to be approved why wasn't that in the budget? I'm pretty sure that is in the "Here is our policy" documents they make them sign.

BoredRolePlayer:

Yeah I also remember fans whining and moaning for Earthbound and when Nintendo released it people were mad that it was 10 dollars. I also remember people whining and whining about Left Dead 2 and people weren't going to buy it then BAM people bought it. So sorry if I think fans don't know what they want at all.

You're using a few previous cases against another existing case? Not sure what you're trying to say.

BoredRolePlayer:

Thanks, I don't really play big name games that have yearly rehashes that often ;P.

Neither do I. But we're gonna get them anyway cause Ubisoft only wants what sells.

BoredRolePlayer:

Different companies with different practices, if you don't like it don't buy it.

Then you admit your previous statement was flawed. Fine.

BoredRolePlayer:
If the patch needed money to be approved why wasn't that in the budget? I'm pretty sure that is in the "Here is our policy" documents they make them sign.

1. Not everyone develops for the Xbox Live Marketplace
2. You can aim for audiences outside the Xbox Live Marketplace.
3. Microsoft was very weird about their policies because they allowed free patches for other things. They finally got rid of the policy this year.
4. Their budget was probably focused on developing the fucking game.
5. They could have adhered to Microsoft's policies by asking fans to pay for the patch, but like Valve they decided not to do that (this is also the reason the 360 version of TF2 has never been updated).

Lovely Mixture:

BoredRolePlayer:

Yeah I also remember fans whining and moaning for Earthbound and when Nintendo released it people were mad that it was 10 dollars. I also remember people whining and whining about Left Dead 2 and people weren't going to buy it then BAM people bought it. So sorry if I think fans don't know what they want at all.

You're using a few previous cases against another existing case? Not sure what you're trying to say.

BoredRolePlayer:

Thanks, I don't really play big name games that have yearly rehashes that often ;P.

Neither do I. But we're gonna get them anyway cause Ubisoft only wants what sells.

BoredRolePlayer:

Different companies with different practices, if you don't like it don't buy it.

Then you admit your previous statement was flawed. Fine.

BoredRolePlayer:
If the patch needed money to be approved why wasn't that in the budget? I'm pretty sure that is in the "Here is our policy" documents they make them sign.

1. Not everyone develops for the Xbox Live Marketplace
2. You can aim for audiences outside the Xbox Live Marketplace.
3. Microsoft was very weird about their policies because they allowed free patches for other things. They finally got rid of the policy this year.
4. Their budget was probably focused on developing the fucking game.
5. They could have adhered to Microsoft's policies by asking fans to pay for the patch, but like Valve they decided not to do that (this is also the reason the 360 version of TF2 has never been updated).

Trying to say fans do nothing but whine and moan when they beg for stuff or go against stuff but show they don't "truly" mean it.

Yep because good companies who makes games never tries to franchise them or make a "new" game that is the just a older game they made with a different coat of point. Also for the "only what sells comment" lets look at Earthbound, NOA did not want to publish Mother 3 or redo Earthbound because they knew it wouldn't sell going by the sales numbers from 1995. Why don't you hang Nintendo then because they took so long even though those fans did more work then fans of other series. Hell they were going to ax Fire Emblem and more or less axed the Advance Wars sereis because of sales. Why not yell at EA because a studio's game didn't sell well they had to close it down. Hell when Disney closed Lucas Arts everyone was freaking out, but pretty much no one mentioned how they made garbage for so long.

Flawed how? Just gonna go "BLARG YOUR STATEMENT IS FLAWED LOLOL" and not explain why. Yeah don't try to prove your point just point to mine and go it's flawed.

1.Nope they just develop where they can hit the most potential customers, kinda why 3rd parties don't want to develop for the WiiU right now. Again to make money...
2.If we are talking about Fez then they sure as hell didn't want to, I remember the creator whining about the 3DS and why he didn't want to touch it. Which is funny because his issue was kinda moot when some games barely touched the 3D aspect of the system, and from my understanding isn't required to even use now.
3.If it was a policy they were enforcing then developers and publishers should have known about it.
4.This is how I know your not a programmer (and if you are your statement is kinda sad). No one outputs perfect code, ever. There will be some odd glitch that pops up that you never saw coming at all. If you know patching requires money, then you need to set aside that money for patching.
5.The TF2 patch was also too big, that was the key thing about that one. Valve had the money, Microsoft's infrastructure couldn't support a patch that big.
5.

BoredRolePlayer:

Trying to say fans do nothing but whine and moan when they beg for stuff or go against stuff but show they don't "truly" mean it.

An yet you're saying that's reason to ignore what the customer wants?

BoredRolePlayer:

Yep because good companies who makes games never tries to franchise them or make a "new" game that is the just a older game they made with a different coat of point. Also for the "only what sells comment" lets look at Earthbound, NOA did not want to publish Mother 3 or redo Earthbound because they knew it wouldn't sell going by the sales numbers from 1995. Why don't you hang Nintendo then because they took so long even though those fans did more work then fans of other series. Hell they were going to ax Fire Emblem and more or less axed the Advance Wars sereis because of sales. Why not yell at EA because a studio's game didn't sell well they had to close it down. Hell when Disney closed Lucas Arts everyone was freaking out, but pretty much no one mentioned how they made garbage for so long.

I do bang on them. For all those reasons you described. Don't assume things.

BoredRolePlayer:

Flawed how? Just gonna go "BLARG YOUR STATEMENT IS FLAWED LOLOL" and not explain why. Yeah don't try to prove your point just point to mine and go it's flawed.

You claimed games needed to make lots of money with a big budget. I said otherwise, you agreed with my statement by admitting such different developers exist.

BoredRolePlayer:

1.Nope they just develop where they can hit the most potential customers, kinda why 3rd parties don't want to develop for the WiiU right now. Again to make money...

Yeah....That's what I said.

BoredRolePlayer:

2.If we are talking about Fez then they sure as hell didn't want to, I remember the creator whining about the 3DS and why he didn't want to touch it. Which is funny because his issue was kinda moot when some games barely touched the 3D aspect of the system, and from my understanding isn't required to even use now.

Ignoring one audience =/= Ignoring all other audiences.

BoredRolePlayer:

3.If it was a policy they were enforcing then developers and publishers should have known about it.

They probably did, whether they had the option of dealing with it is another thig.

BoredRolePlayer:

4.This is how I know your not a programmer (and if you are your statement is kinda sad).

Never said I was.

BoredRolePlayer:

No one outputs perfect code, ever.

Never said that.

BoredRolePlayer:

There will be some odd glitch that pops up that you never saw coming at all. If you know patching requires money, then you need to set aside that money for patching.

My point is that they only had enough budget to to actually FINISH the game. Because as you said, they are an indie company.

Making the patch was in their budget.

Implementing the patch cost a lot of money because of Microsoft, it was not in their budget because they had to finish the game. Immediately after Microsoft's policy went down, they patched the game without issue.

This entire line of thought is a misnomer because ONE case of a developer screwing up does not discredit my argument.

BoredRolePlayer:

5.The TF2 patch was also too big, that was the key thing about that one. Valve had the money, Microsoft's infrastructure couldn't support a patch that big.

They had the money to work around the infrastructure, that money on-top of Microsoft's fees would have been too much. Hence why they were able release patches for the PS3 version.

Well, Ubisoft, if you're worried about BG & E, you could still make a "spiritual" successor at least. Just take the basic concept of the original and rebrand it as the next Assassins Creed game. Assassins Creed V : Single Lens Reflex. Or some other bit of photography themed terminology, I don't know. I'm sure you can have the game finished in time for October 2014 if you start now. Which I'm guessing you already have.

Product Placement:
But... I liked that game.

Seriously, why didn't people buy it?

It never seemed to be promoted very well, nor were many copies of it ever produced. It's one of those games that went over well with the people that DID find out about it and buy it, but the game was pretty much sabotaged by it's own handling. It's fan base more or less increased slowly over the years after it's release, where word of mouth lead more and more people to try it. It's one of those games where you can find tons of people singing it's praises in almost any gaming forum, but it's considered a failure because Ubisoft didn't make much money off of it, and honestly most of the people who played it doubtlessly pirated it as their only way of getting it.

To be honest it seems like this is a game Ubisoft greenlit, regretted approving, and then tried to cut their losses by doing minimal promotion and production, in hopes of not losing even more money on a projected failure by producing tons of product they would wind up having to warehouse somewhere (or maybe dump in the desert somewhere). The game however succeeded at a trickle, and that makes it awkward since Ubisoft already lost money on the original one due to it's own management. Not to mention that the very fact that people played this game in numbers far beyond the sales Ubisoft received probably makes them angry as it reinforces the threat of piracy and used game sales.... to a corporate mentality the fact that they never produced many copies for sale comparatively speaking is more or less irrelevant to the irritation that comes from thinking someone stole from them.

It's one of those games that has come up a lot in discussions about gamers and the gaming industry in a number of contexts over the years.

Ubisoft is also a corporate Godzilla if there ever was one, easily as bad as it's competitors, and probably worse than either EA or Activision on a lot of levels. Ubisoft has done a lot to promote the whole "go big or go home" attitude towards game development. I think they said flat out not too long ago, if they can't spin a game into a franchise they can do yearly or bi-yearly installments of, they aren't interested. I'm not especially interested in "Watchdogs" as a result, because as cool as the game sounds, I have little interest in playing a game that is going to wind up being nothing but an advertisement for the next game (so to speak). When you look at something like "Beyond Good And Evil" and Ubisoft's lack of interest in it nowadays, even if they could tap the fan base and rack up a worthy amount of sales, it's not a franchise that will stand more than a couple of sequels, it's the kind of thing that is going to require a resolution at some point or else it will become gradually weaker and kill itself with sequelitis a lot quicker than things like "Assasin's Creed".

-

As far as the initial article goes, I just wanted to say that I almost laughed when it was mentioned about taking good game ideas that big business balks at and going indie. To me that kind of dismissive attitude is what's destroying the industry, and has generally created an environment where it seems increasingly you can either have a good game with depth, innovation, or even both, or you can have a game that looks good and is shallow and does little that is new. There are exceptions, but that's the general rule. While it has little to do with Beyond Good and Evil, I'm an RPG gamer, and honestly it seems like when RPGs come out I can either get a pretty one that is shallow, or something deep, that looks like refried arse.... deep RPGs with all of the modern technological bells and whistles more or less do not exist anymore. Some companies like InXile are working on rectifying this, but honestly it's a mixed bag because while their games are looking quite good for crowdfunded productions, they lack the oomph of an actual AAA release. Imagine what could happen for RPG gamers if you had Inxile's game design expertise and sensibilities and the budget and technology of an "Assasin's Creed" title? Sadly I doubt we'll know the answer for a long time to come.

Sixcess:

Andy Shandy:
Wonder what this means for BG&E2 if they consider the first a mistake. D:

Perhaps they'll 're-imagine' it as a first-person-shooter. That always works well...

DONT SAY IT! THEY MIGHT READ IT!

Seriously. If they did, my tears would fill a black hole to the rim.

Product Placement:
But... I liked that game.

Seriously, why didn't people buy it?

Because it was in the age of the death of the disc, the age of warez, and before the birth of digital distribution. Damned if I didn't pick it up on Steam when it came out on it though.

Andy Shandy:
Well fuck you too then, Ubisoft.

Wonder what this means for BG&E2 if they consider the first a mistake. D:

I'd be particularly intrigued to know because they held BGE2 hostage over Rayman Origins' sales. That sold well enough to have at least one sequel already, so I'd really like to know when Ubisoft will live up to their end of the bargain. I know Ancell's working on it, when the hell are they going to just give him a team and say "Make us proud"?

Good for you Ubisoft! I also agree that Nietzsche's post modernistic philosophies are fundamentally upsurd. I wish more game developers would come out and vocalize their opinions on Friedrick Nietzsche's classic works of philosophy. I understand yo consider Beyond Good and Evil a mistake, but I'm curious, what's your opinion on Thus Spoke Zarathustra?

I remember the launch of Beyond Good & Evil very clearly. Right in the midst of the holiday season, and against their own, higher-profile release, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Couple that with almost no advertising, and is there any wonder that it was a "failure"?

The real "mistake" was releasing the game in 2003, with a load of other overhyped titles and little advertising.
A rather similar mistake was repeated this year as Rayman Legends was released just before GTAV, almost completely overshadowing RL. These people never learn.

Oh well, its been 10 years now. Any hope they will make BG&E2 AND it will be good is gone for me. Its like Duke Nukem Forever now.

What a shame really, even Yahtzee's popped BG&E out in a few videos as an actually good game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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