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

[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.

 

[BrownGaijin]

Its annoying because Ubisoft found success with the random, small title Blood Dragon. Maybe the answer is to release smaller and cheaper games in order to gather interest in a series and make money rather than spend a shit ton hiring 5 different developers to pump out mediocre yearly sequels and spending a few hundred million more to market said game

At this point, I just hope Ubisoft is the next THQ

You read my mind. I actually found myself having fun playing Blood Dragon, and Call of Juarez, and also thought that maybe they had something going with the fifteen dollar games.

OT: Well, here's hoping that Rocksmith will turn out enough cash that Ubisoft will keep it around.

 

[frizzlebyte]

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.

The problem is that by exclusively focusing on games that can be franchised, they will be contributing to homogenization of the games market, and by refusing to take risks they will prevent fun little one-off games from being made by their developers, i.e. Beyond Good and Evil, that contribute to the growth of the art form.

Not to mention that if even one of these over-budgeted "AAA" games fails, they risk being thrown into dire financial straits, which benefits no one.

I have the right to disagree, vehemently, with a company's business decision if I think it is moronic and short-sighted, which this most definitely is.

 

[terrangray]

At least this now opens the way for some other publisher to throw the hat in the ring and encourage smaller titles to come to them for development.
Yes, there might be a few games that tank but hopefully it will generate some surprise blockbusters or successes like Dark Souls or Minecraft and Journey
Let Ubisoft make excuses for not being super profitable and blame it all on us gamers for not supporting there games with billions and billions of sales and then spending more on micro transactions and DLC and preordering everything with the Ultra Super Collector Edition
The last article I read about the next Assasins Creed was they had spents tons of money on the wind and water effects for when you are on the ship.
If they spent as much time on the story and gameplay mechanics maybe the games could be produced for cheaper and still be stand alone.

 

[Strazdas]

i will still buy watchdogs, but not watchdogs 2. in fact its going to be my first game from ubisoft in years.

"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,"

You know, it'd be nice for industry to NOT prove Jim Sterling right, but... damn. That's pretty much verbatim what Jim was saying the mentality of Publishers is.

"This game is going to be a Blockbuster, because we want it, and we need it to be."

you should have learn a long time ago, Jim is Always right, even when hes wrong.

 

[Soviet Steve]

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.

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. =(

 

[Quellist]

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

 

[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.

 

[Metalrocks]

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.

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

 

[Riobux]

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.

 

[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.

 

[bug_of_war]

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

 

[freedash22]

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!

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

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.

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

 

[JarinArenos]

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...

 

[Britishfan]

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?

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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?

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.

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.