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

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
Oh yeah, I love getting a new Assassin's Creed every year, and having it be substantially more broken and uninspired than the last (I still consider AC:R to be the worst game I have ever played, purely because it has no reason to exist beyond being a cash-grab).

This is one of the shittiest attitudes I've seen from a developer in a long time. It makes good business sense, to a point, but he doesn't seem to realise that it's not the endless sequels that keep people coming back to companies like Nintendo: it's the fact that their games are always well made and fun, even if they are often rehashes of old ideas.

Ubisoft, from my experience, in no way delivers quality games on the same consistent basis, and by the time this dipshit realises people aren't always going to buy something just because you slapped 'Assassin's Creed' across the front, it'll probably be too late for the company.
 

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
"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,"

What The Fuck?

Somebody seriously call Jim Sterling, this pretty much begs an emergency Jimquisition

Captcha: don't be late.....i think its referring to Jim :p
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of this article. Ubisoft is not saying that they want to make more sequels, they are saying that it's necessary to make sequels for the revenue stream to even cover the production costs.

Adjusted for inflation, games today should cost more like $100, not to mention the fact that video game production has a long turnaround time and is incredibly expensive.

The responsibility to make triple-AAA development lucrative is on us, the customer. And by AAA-titles, I mean The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, you know all those games you freaking love. If you want this video game tier to survive and not be replaced by fucking Angry Birds and endless free-to-play titles, it's time for gamers to stop pretending that this isn't a real problem.

The only franchises that would survive are Call of Duty and the likes; the juggernaut franchises that will outsell everything no matter what. The rest is just going to be an endless mess of microtransactions, DLC, free-to-play, mobile games (a market where games are actually very lucrative still) and other desperate corporate attempts of making back the money publishers lose every time they try to launch new IP.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Fuck you Ubisoft, fuck you up the bung hole. I was a genuine fan of the Assassin's Creed series until I started to realize you were just reselling me the same game every year with cliffhangers to bait me into buying the next installment. At least Nintendo waits a good 4 to 5 years between Zelda's and makes sure each one gets decent plot resolution.

Also, thanks for making me get a Uplay account to play those games, so that it could then get hacked. I've now uninstalled Uplay and never intend to install it on my computer again. If you want me to buy your games, release them either via Steam or as stand alone programs. I'm tired of having a separate program installed on my computer for every single developer I've ever bought a game from.

So ya, ignoring Ubisoft for now. I can do without Watchdogs.
 

Arnoxthe1

New member
Dec 25, 2010
3,374
0
0
Holy crap, people. These games aren't cheap to make FFS. You have two choices.

1. A few high quality triple-A releases.
2. A lot of low quality double/single-A releases.

Just because a games earns a couple million dollars does not mean the company will even break even from it. Not to mention the fact that costs for development will continue to skyrocket as graphics get better and better. Take all this into account and then tell me that these publishers are greedy.

Now, some people may say that they don't need those fancy graphics but I'm talking about the people who want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. The people who want just how it is right now without sacrificing anything.
 

gargantual

New member
Jul 15, 2013
417
0
0
Tsk tsk. All that iteration. A comedian can't kill a joke forever. Eventually he has to come up with new material. And Ubi should focus on promoting a slew of different ideas before hoping on franchises.
 

ThunderCavalier

New member
Nov 21, 2009
1,475
0
0
Companies are being stupid.

... I honestly give up. There is no point in being optimistic in the video game indsutry anymore, since the companies like trying to derive profits from the dumbest systems imaginable.
 

soulblade06

New member
Mar 27, 2011
56
0
0
What irritates me most isn't that there will be sequels. It irritates me that there will be ANNUAL sequels. Assassin's Creed after Assassin's Creed of samey, Call of Duty-style multiplayer-focused gaming with a watered down story. And this will eventually happen to everything that Ubisoft touches (which makes me especially horrified, considering their work on Deus Ex: HR, one of my favorite games).

Why do we need a new game each year? It was a viable model during the days of the GameCube, PS2, and Xbox, when internet connectivity was unheard of for consoles and the only way to update rosters for sports games was to release a new game each year. Not so much anymore. It doesn't really make sense for other genres to release annual sequels anyway, since there's no roster to update and a year isn't enough time to really improve the game enough to call it a sequel. I mean, Alvin and the Chipmonks movies come out less often, and do you really think a whole lot of creative inspiration is needed to make one of those?

tl;dr: Wrong approach, Ubisoft.
 

UsefulPlayer 1

New member
Feb 22, 2008
1,776
0
0
Let's be real. The Assassin's Creed sequels suck pretty bad.

Assassin's Creed could have been something badass, but all those mediocre sequels have made the franchise stale and boring. All you are doing is running a promising franchise into the ground.

Although, maybe that's the winning strategy: find a promising franchise, pump out a ton of shitty and cheap sequels, sequels sell because of franchise alone, run franchise into the ground, and then move onto the next franchise.

Honestly, all this shit would be fixed so long as people buy good games. A ton of people were disappointed with all sorts of shitty sequels. Eventually, even the casual audience will learn to do their research.......I think....
 

0p3rati0n

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,885
0
0
All of these are acceptable responses in my book.

 

Atrocious Joystick

New member
May 5, 2011
293
0
0
This is what it costs if you want risky and ambitious new projects. They cost a ton to make and a company need to be able to ensure itself that it was all worth it. The other options would be to charge much more for a game or an endless tirade of medium budget safe bets.

You can't expect a company to churn out big games with new mechanics, unique stories and the shiniest new graphic all the time. They have to make safe bets through established franchises.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
cikame said:
Hasn't this been the way of things for the last... 13 years?
No. Dev costs are higher than ever, as are the consumers' demands, not to mention that today, adjusted for inflation, games should cost about $100 dollars rather than $60.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0

[h4]Globalization, Baby[/h4]

A recent CNN contributor talked about the Ice Age sequels: while each sequel's ticket sales continually declined in America, this franchise exploded on the world market, and particularly China.

[h4]Ubisoft Wants Global Numbers = Franchise[/h4]

The Head Execs at that company demanded one Assassin's Creed after another because they saw the trend of expanding markets. But the world is becoming more connected, and they need their titles to be apart of the trend. Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs sequels will most likely head straight into the Playstation 5 and Xbox II.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Then close up shop now, how the hell are going to build your Uplay digital distribution monstrosity without churning out games for it? I guess that's a good thing and they will close and a less stupid studio will get their IPs.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
TomWiley said:
cikame said:
Hasn't this been the way of things for the last... 13 years?
No. Dev costs are higher than ever, as are the consumers' demands, not to mention that today, adjusted for inflation, games should cost about $100 dollars rather than $60.
And yet I refuse to pay more than 20$ for my disposable media.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
And right there, that mentality, that is the cancer killing the AAA gaming industry.
The simple fact is that even those popular franchises had to start somewhere, and are *not* infinitely sustainable.

Gaming is a creative medium. You can not, -CAN NOT- go on forever without taking some risks on new IP.
The audience will inevitably tire of the same old shit; a lesson Hollywood is learning right now as they desperately try to remake everything looking for that one golden franchise to milk. Some succeed (Marvel's Avengers run), but most are failing dismally to catch on (like the recent Lone Ranger, or 2011's Green Lantern).

"But he said something about turning things into franchises! That can include original IP, so you're wrong!"

Logically, if interpreted that way, his argument becomes utterly meaningless.

Of course new franchises are going spring up eventually, by necessity if nothing else, but the important thing to remember is that NOT EVERY GAME IS THE KIND OF FRANCHISE-MATERIAL HE'S LOOKING FOR. Just as not every shooter lives up to Call of Duty's sales standards. There are a finite number of game types and concepts that have the sort of mass-market appeal he and his company are looking for.

Even taken in this sense, he's still basically admitting that AAA is so burdened with overbloated "development" budgets that they're tending towards an inevitable creative bankruptcy. This is a clear sign that they need to die off and let new firms fill the void.

The market will eventually adapt to their loss, and ultimately be better for it.
 

Pinkscare

Wearin' Steam Badges
Jul 19, 2013
87
0
0
In all honesty, I really could care less. Besides the Rayman and Far Cry series, I have haven't payed much attention to their games. I'm officially tired of both, too. However, as a PC gamer, I have a plethora of indie games I can choose from on Steam; games that are actually innovative and fun. I hope they [Ubi] don't shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to WD. That is the only AAA game I'm actually interested in and have been anticipating for ages, but now I'm heading back to shore; I'm not diving in deep, yet. This throws up a huge red flag for me.