Ubisoft Unveils "Companion Gaming" Initiative

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Ubisoft Unveils "Companion Gaming" Initiative

Ubisoft wants to talk about "Companion Gaming" but all I can think is, "Now I am a Facebook Assassin."

Read Full Article
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,595
0
0
It sounds a bit meh...

I suppose I'd use it because I always have my PC and 360 on at the same time. But it seems like they're hopping on the Zynga band wagon...

Follow Capcom! Prequel/DLC/Demo all rolled into one.
 

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
Steve Butts said:
Ubisoft Unveils "Companion Gaming" Initiative

Ubisoft wants to talk about "Companion Gaming" but all I can think is, "Now I am a Facebook Assassin."
Ubisoft wants more people to play Ubisoft games and to play Ubisoft games longer by creating other Ubisoft games to complement your other Ubisoft game that your playing.

UbisoftUbisoftUbisoft

Hey, I have an idea. What if people could mod your games? Then the community would do the work for you...
 
Sep 30, 2010
14
0
0
Well that's going to suck for those of us who hate facebook. I don't even have an account there anymore, so I'm just going to hope that none of the things you can earn are too enticing. Kinda kills a bit of the enthusiasm to know that there's some stuff I won't have access to unless I go to a site I don't like to play the type of game I don't like.

Only other option I have is to get my mother hooked onto the facebook game so I can reap the single player benefits (All of my friends who like facebook also like gaming, so they're no use for me to exploit). Actually, that might be a good idea. It'll have the double benefit of having her earn me stuff and giving me a brief respite from the "You should stop playing all those games and get a boyfriend" phone calls.
 

TerribleAssassin

New member
Apr 11, 2010
2,053
0
0
Blue-State said:
It stead of getting poked, You get stabbed! They'll notice you for sure! :p
As you lie dead in the middle of Italy..


OT: Hmm, Ubisoft are definately a creative buch, can't wait till Legacy gets going.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I have enough non-facebook games to play. Not to mention non-Ubisoft games to play ;)
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
hansari said:
Hey, I have an idea. What if people could mod your games? Then the community would do the work for you...
That sets different legal precedence when it comes to copyrights; specifically, end-user's rights and how much freedom they have.
The reason why the vast majority of new titles (ignoring the console bases) come with "YOU CANNOT MODIFY THIS GAME IN ANY WAY" is because the company wants to sell the DLC to you. They want to control your experience so that their sequels will have a better appeal later on.

Many people will probably start banging their drums about Bethesda titles, (Fallout 3 etc), but that is one exception compared to a very established business philosophy.
Even the Starcraft 2 editor flat-out says "Anything you make with this is the property of Blizzard. We can and will sell content you made with it, and we legally don't need your consent though we will offer it out of courtesy first."

While I believe it is legally possible (even plausible) for publishers to give their customers some more say in modding their game, I do believe they are terrified of losing potential DLC sales more.

To use an example, imagine how many DLC sales would be lost if Bioware/EA permitted users to modify/add in weapons in Mass Effect 2? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
God dammit, I don't do social networking, and I don't want the equivalent of expensive web-based games or cell phone apps.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
hansari said:
Hey, I have an idea. What if people could mod your games? Then the community would do the work for you...
That sets different legal precedence when it comes to copyrights; specifically, end-user's rights and how much freedom they have.
The reason why the vast majority of new titles (ignoring the console bases) come with "YOU CANNOT MODIFY THIS GAME IN ANY WAY" is because the company wants to sell the DLC to you. They want to control your experience so that their sequels will have a better appeal later on.

Many people will probably start banging their drums about Bethesda titles, (Fallout 3 etc), but that is one exception compared to a very established business philosophy.
Even the Starcraft 2 editor flat-out says "Anything you make with this is the property of Blizzard. We can and will sell content you made with it, and we legally don't need your consent though we will offer it out of courtesy first."

While I believe it is legally possible (even plausible) for publishers to give their customers some more say in modding their game, I do believe they are terrified of losing potential DLC sales more.

To use an example, imagine how many DLC sales would be lost if Bioware/EA permitted users to modify/add in weapons in Mass Effect 2? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about here.
yea, except they fail to realize that their original games were made popular because the gaming community kept them alive through modding and private servers depending on the game. Then they go to milk the francise with bland, empty sequels and DLC which takes control away from gamers and they end up killing their IP and piss off the loyal fanbase.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Nurb said:
yea, except they fail to realize that their original games were made popular because the gaming community kept them alive through modding and private servers depending on the game. Then they go to milk the francise with bland, empty sequels and DLC which takes control away from gamers and they end up killing their IP and piss off the loyal fanbase.
I think the prevailing train of thought on the Publisher's side is that they want to force the customers to adapt to their needs, rather than the other way around. At least, that's what I can deduce from how these publishers have been acting for the last 6 years or so.

They want Supply to lead Demand, unlike the other way around (how it should be).

They withhold mod support and deliberately discourage others to do the same. Why? So that the future gamers will accept this as the new standard. Fan-based support doesn't support the process of mass-producing sequels because mod-work tends to root players to one engine, one product.

Every time the consumer-base accepts one of these changes, the Publishers have more freedom to take more. They can hike prices, implement code that gathers info on you (which several titles apparently do now; including Mass Effect 2) etc, or even treat their legitimate, paying customers like criminals (DRM).

They don't just want the ball on their side of the court, they want to own the court. All of it.

Since people keep paying for their games and the DLC, it's obviously working.

Just as a sign of the time, not long ago I had discussions here on the Escapist about the prospect of Subscription-Based Single-Player titles. It astonishes me to think that there are people who genuinely think that will somehow provide a better experience for both parties involved (in reality, it only benefits the Publisher).

On the topic of "loyal fanbases"...

These publishers do not give two shits about a fanbase's loyalty. Loyalty doesn't pay the bills anymore; market exploitation does. If you can sucker in an existing fanbase, but make the title in such a way to try to appeal everyone (usually destroying the nuances that made the original popular at all) you can make more money than by exploiting either market alone.
That mentality is why I've had the "pleasure" of watching several beloved titles get remade or spun off into absolute dog shit these last 6 years.
 

teknoarcanist

New member
Jun 9, 2008
916
0
0
My first thought after reading: "Oh great, now I'm going to have to take back all that stuff I've ever said about facebook games."

My first thought after playing: "Nevermind, I take that back."

It's pretty terrible, guys.
 

IceStar100

New member
Jan 5, 2009
1,172
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Nurb said:
yea, except they fail to realize that their original games were made popular because the gaming community kept them alive through modding and private servers depending on the game. Then they go to milk the francise with bland, empty sequels and DLC which takes control away from gamers and they end up killing their IP and piss off the loyal fanbase.
I think the prevailing train of thought on the Publisher's side is that they want to force the customers to adapt to their needs, rather than the other way around. At least, that's what I can deduce from how these publishers have been acting for the last 6 years or so.

They want Supply to lead Demand, unlike the other way around (how it should be).

They withhold mod support and deliberately discourage others to do the same. Why? So that the future gamers will accept this as the new standard. Fan-based support doesn't support the process of mass-producing sequels because mod-work tends to root players to one engine, one product.

Every time the consumer-base accepts one of these changes, the Publishers have more freedom to take more. They can hike prices, implement code that gathers info on you (which several titles apparently do now; including Mass Effect 2) etc, or even treat their legitimate, paying customers like criminals (DRM).

They don't just want the ball on their side of the court, they want to own the court. All of it.

Since people keep paying for their games and the DLC, it's obviously working.

Just as a sign of the time, not long ago I had discussions here on the Escapist about the prospect of Subscription-Based Single-Player titles. It astonishes me to think that there are people who genuinely think that will somehow provide a better experience for both parties involved (in reality, it only benefits the Publisher).

On the topic of "loyal fanbases"...

These publishers do not give two shits about a fanbase's loyalty. Loyalty doesn't pay the bills anymore; market exploitation does. If you can sucker in an existing fanbase, but make the title in such a way to try to appeal everyone (usually destroying the nuances that made the original popular at all) you can make more money than by exploiting either market alone.
That mentality is why I've had the "pleasure" of watching several beloved titles get remade or spun off into absolute dog shit these last 6 years.
As long as people bend over at take it then this will keep happening. I talk about having a drawer full of games at one time. Now I have like 6 and anything more I put on my gamefly Q. Heck fallout New Vegas seems like the only games I will be getting any time soon. Thing I miss the most is replay ability. Most games feel like a one time play through and then your done. Oh heres some DLC that a copy paste room of the same thing you already seen 100 times and we will add a few lines of new text.
 

Danzaivar

New member
Jul 13, 2004
1,967
0
0
Would be nice if they actually got the damned thing working. Forcing us to play facebook games and pester our friends with notifications just to get the full 360 experience is bad enough, without the frustration of having to reload it to see if it's working yet. ._.
 

JPH330

Blogger Person
Jan 31, 2010
397
0
0
I just played it some. It's mildly entertaining. So far it doesn't seem to delineate much from the Mafia Wars template for Facebook games, but I'm pretty sure I haven't unlocked anywhere near all the features yet. I'm only level 3 at the moment.
 

latenightapplepie

New member
Nov 9, 2008
3,086
0
0
But I don't want to broadcast to all my 'friends' on Facebook that I'm play videogames quite a lot. I'm sure there are people like me in this same situation.

How do publishers with "companion games" factor in these 'insecure players'?