Yeah I sure as hell can't wait to play maybe a 6th of a story... Shame since it looked interesting...fix-the-spade said:
Ubisoft: No New Games Unless They Can Be Made Into Franchises
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
That is why you fail.
Shame, I thought they'd been building up a little bit of goodwill lately. There's always a silver lining though. The fewer games that get released that I'm interested in, the more likely I'll one day be able to catch up on my backlog.
Hey Ubisoft I found the problem for you - see? Right there, I underlined it; the bit about budgets being too big. He also mentioned part of a possible solution, later on.Robyrt said:
Shame, I thought they'd been building up a little bit of goodwill lately. There's always a silver lining though. The fewer games that get released that I'm interested in, the more likely I'll one day be able to catch up on my backlog.
While I like Ubisoft's ability to make games I enjoy initially, I really hate they're going down the route of milking them to death. It got me off of Assassins Creed and it will put me off of most of their future products. Samey products with little change puts me off eventually. Hell, I prefer Dynasty Warriors for it's changes over Ass Creed's, that's saying something.
You don't just "plan" a franchise out. A lot of things that seem to have franchise potential, don't. They just need to "click" with enough gamers, and provide a lasting and memorable experience that will have people clambering for more.
Yes, people in general like sequels, but there's usually only so much you can expand upon in one canon universe before it starts to get stale or run out of ideas. People also like brave new things that take risks, you just have to pitch it to them well enough and hope that it strikes a chord.
Honestly, all the people saying that they won't buy Ubisoft games because of this? I think that's rather unfair considering their competition in the AAA gaming industry.
Let's judge Watch Dogs on its own merits, not the blithe assumption that because it's planned as a franchise, it's going to feel incomplete. We simply won't know that until its release.
Yes, people in general like sequels, but there's usually only so much you can expand upon in one canon universe before it starts to get stale or run out of ideas. People also like brave new things that take risks, you just have to pitch it to them well enough and hope that it strikes a chord.
Honestly, all the people saying that they won't buy Ubisoft games because of this? I think that's rather unfair considering their competition in the AAA gaming industry.
Let's judge Watch Dogs on its own merits, not the blithe assumption that because it's planned as a franchise, it's going to feel incomplete. We simply won't know that until its release.
that's not necessarily bad, but it also begs the question of what the criteria is for franchising
I'm sure that if Ubisoft could figure out a way to crowbar forced co-op gameplay and tacked on multiplayer into Beyond Good and Evil 2 the game would have been made by now. I'd honestly rather have one slightly imperfect game than one slightly imperfect game and one or more disastrous cash grab follow ups.FargoDog said:
There is a very simple solution to this problem. SPEND LESS ON THE BLOODY GAMES.
The point has been made before by Shamus and Jim, but publishers need to realise that making only the videogame equivalent of $200 million summer blockbusters and nothing else is an absolutely disastrous business strategy. If something is so expensive to make that it needs to be a franchise to justify that expense, then you're probably spending too much money on it.
The point has been made before by Shamus and Jim, but publishers need to realise that making only the videogame equivalent of $200 million summer blockbusters and nothing else is an absolutely disastrous business strategy. If something is so expensive to make that it needs to be a franchise to justify that expense, then you're probably spending too much money on it.
Yup. The game looked really good, but the moment I read their intent to make a franchise out of it any interest was gone. I don't normally react this harshly, but this trend of sequel after sequel after sequel has to stop! Sometimes it's okay for things to be one-and-done. Others benefit from sequels, whether they were intended or not. But saying everything needs to become a franchise is utterly ridiculous, and only shows how little they understand what they're doing. Yes, you're making more money by releasing safer bets, but at the same time you are alienating so many customers by doing this. I liked AC1. I liked AC2. Then you guys royally messed up by releasing Brotherhood, Revelations, AC3, and including multiplayer, Uplay shit, and it's just become so bogged down now that I have no interest in AC as a series anymore. If this is how you plan on doing games from now on, Ubisoft, good luck to ya, but I won't partake in your products.fix-the-spade said:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when you put the marketing team in charge of development.
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.
Honestly, my reaction to this starts at 0:48.kajinking said:
Honestly, I'm interested in Watch Dogs but I'm so tired of Assassin's Creed I'm just going to wait for the bargain bin for Assassin's Creed 4. They're obviously doing it by the numbers rather than presenting something genuinely interesting and I'm just done. Especially with the financial shit storm and what with GTA 5 and Dark Souls 2 around the corner. I don't need Assassin's Creed's printing money approach, nor even want it.
this story is CRYING OUT for that Bender 'laugh harder' vid, but I just can not do it, it to easy when they say something this stupid and mean it.
Rather than "no more one-shot titles", I think this just shows that Ubisoft are out of original ideas and/or paying the execs too much money