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

[Vausch]

So in other words, we're never going to get an Ubisoft game that can have its story resolved in the first game again? They're just going to keep remaking the same games with a different setting and some minor mechanic changes, gradually playing out the exact same story despite that it could probably easily be contained within one 30 or 40 hour session?

Yeah that just made me lose a lot of interest in Watch Dogs. Nice going, I was actually looking forward to that one.

 

[Nurb]

The bright side is they're going to make the next game collapse happen sooner so we can get it out of the way

 

[Rainforce]

Ah yes....the death of an industry, for all to watch and enjoy : D

 

[shirkbot]

"Ubisoft isn't shy about spending money to market those properties it believes have that potential, however."

They do realize that this is half their problem, right? Well that and the fact that they, and the rest of the major publishers, refuse to realize they work in a niche industry.

 

[BBboy20]

Do they want to lose money? Because I am THIS CLOSE to canceling my pre-order of Watch_Dogs.

Also, if GTAV does turn out to change the game and is a better game then Watch_Dogs but on current consoles, Ubisoft may as well pack their bags and go home permanently and shutting the hell up while they're at it.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Isn't spending uncapped millions on marketing and not enough on the game's actual development budget why THQ eventually went south? Specifically with Homefront?

You'd think Ubisoft would learn a thing or two, but no.

 

[grigjd3]

So Ubisoft is run by people who are so disconnected from what happens on the ground that they continually make incredibly stupid statements. Can't say I'm too surprised. I mean, these are the people who thought U-Play was a good idea.

 

[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.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I first read the headline and thought:
"ok maybe Andy's paraphrasing this a bit. He does that sometimes but he cites his sources."

And low and behold Andy actually made the guy sound nicer than the actual quote: "We won't even start if we don't think we can build a franchise out of it."

He might have as well said:

"We're not as bad as EA, but we're getting there."

If you want to justify a AAA budget, you need a plan for making that money back, which means you need to turn your game into a series.

Yes cause we definitely need AAA budgets, that always works well. (sarcasm)

Bioshock and Demon's Souls didn't become any worse just because they had sequels that iterated on the concept. Blood Dragon is a good example from the other end of a weird, unique small game that helped to justify the massive expense of making Far Cry 3.

If Namco had followed Ubisoft's rules, there would be no Demon's Souls.

If Dark Souls had been funded on a AAA budget, we never would have gotten Dark Souls II.

 

[Genocidicles]

Bioshock and Demon's Souls didn't become any worse just because they had sequels that iterated on the concept.

But that's because they weren't made with having a huge franchise in mind.

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.

 

[RicoADF]

Idiots. Complete idiots. You're completely devaluing all your IPs this way - Just because this is how the fast food industry quickly grew to what it is today doesn't mean it can work the same in the games industry. People want quality these days, not quantity.

Here's some advice: You wouldn't have to "franchise" your games if you would cut out the bloat in the company. And in most cases, you're going to find that it's often near the top, and very hard to get rid of.

Not to mention that bloated marketing campaign he was so proudly displaying, how about putting that into another game. Some marketing budgets could afford a few small games on their budget alone it's rediculas.

 

[Fox12]

Meh, I'm not worried. They'll say something stupid, there will be a commotion, and then they'll say they were misquoted. That or they'll devalue their IP's, realize they made a mistake, and then retract their statement. Either way, I never really cared for their company anyway. Luckily I have the self restraint not to buy sequels I know are bad. If a company makes bad sequels to good games, I do the research and proceed to not buy them. That way I can pretend there was no sequel. That's what I did with Final Fantasy 7. No idea what happened after the destruction of Midgar, and I can't say I really care.

 

[drummond13]

What I find interesting about this is that everyone I talk to is far more interested in Watch Dogs than Assassin's Creed. You don't need to make a franchise. You just need to make a good game.

 

[The_Echo]

God dammit, Ubisoft. How could you possibly think this mindset is anything less than scum prime?

I'm still very excited for Watch_Dogs, but extremely less excited for the sequel, knowing it's going to be forced.

I almost hope the game doesn't sell well, to dissuade milking the fuck out of it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

/images/library/deriv/499/499826.png' width='350' height='196']
Ubisoft's Vice President of Sales and Marketing says the triple-A game business these days is too expensive for "fire and forget" development.

And who's fault is that?? Yours. Your the ones who made game development so bloody expensive. It would probably help if you didn't spend so much on marketing esp. since you don't have to. In the age of social media you don't need to spend nearly as much money on marketing as you used to because work of mouth, or should I say, word of Internet will do most of the work for you. Yet you spend more money on marketing then you ever have before. Why is that? I sure as hell would love to know.

 

[Pyrian]

I almost hope the game doesn't sell well, to dissuade milking the fuck out of it.

That would be one lesson they'd take from it. The other lesson would be, "We should stick to established IP's."

 

[Nazulu]

Vice President of Sales and Marketing, doesn't that say it all. Or maybe not, but it sure seems like it.

"Watch Dogs needs to be a blockbuster because it deserves to be"

Oh fuck off. This is just fear to be different, and it's why I don't expect much from triple AAA gaming scene anymore.

 

[SushiJaguar]

Nothing Ubisoft said in that quote tells me that they have any fucking idea how to make games successfully anymore.

 

[Poetic Nova]

So they are going to beat the Watchdogs IP to death? Yay 0 interest in it due to it.

 

[frizzlebyte]

"Because now we're in (a) blockbuster world..."

Where one iceberg of a game can sink Titanic publishers.

Smart business strategy, guys. I'll just leave this here for y'all, then.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana