Ubisoft Scheming to Defeat EA and Activision
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Not many people seem to have noticed but Bioware has managed to repeat this over the weekend because apparently their servers have crashed or something. Dragon Age ultimate edition can't be played because it requires an internet connection, no dlc can be downloaded, saves cannot be loaded if they include dlc, logging out gets around this for some but not all people.lithium.jelly said:
I agree. While I liked Conviction, it didn't feel like a Splinter Cell game, gameplay-wise I mean.Woodsey said:
They could start by patching their buggy piece of shit games more often. I'm still waiting for them to fix the notorious looping sound bug in Rainbow Six Vegas. Hell, they couldn't even fix in the sequel. What a pathetic company. I won't miss them when they inevitably fold.Tom Goldman said:
Still, you must have mentioned it for a reason. Which game did they mess up like that?Assassin Xaero said:
Reason was because I was annoyed at Homefront, mostly. And if Ubisoft is going to try and take down EA and Activision, chances are, they are going to make a generic war shooter at some point. But, hmm... if you want something that Ubisoft has messed up: Ghost Recon 2: Summit Strike, which is another example of how not to make a game. I could play all the missions in quick play (or whatever it was called) when I first opened the game, what the hell was the point of the campaign?GeneticallyModifiedDucks said:
Nikolaz72 said:
Read what I said. This isn't about them making products that do 'okay' or just 'sell well' this is about industry dominance and remaining in one of the top two slots. What it needs are blockbusters.
What's more, companies that want to keep a franchise alive, will rarely sit there and say when something tanked, or underperormed. If you ask companies, or look at the media, just about every product that cost a signifigant amount of development is going to be defined as successful, or the "best thing since sliced bread".
"Dragon Age Rage" has been a noteworthy internet phenomena, and while a lot of fanboys will defend it and say the game was successful, did it perform up to expectations? I'd say "no" simply because Bioware and EA apparently think the sequel can't compete on it's own, they are already tying it to promotional deals like giving away a game that is only a year old (Mass Effect 2) just for buying it. Things like that never bode well for a product, especially not one that has been this heavily promoted, and is almost still brandy new on the market
"Mass Effect 3" is a game that is also expected to be a blockbuster, however while it didn't tick people off as much as what happened with "Dragon Age 2" you also have to understand that it still upset a good portion of it's fan base. One of the first things Bioware has done has talked about how they plan to try and increase the depth of the game for the new one coming out.
The thing about video game marketing is that a good portion of the sales come from pre-orders or people picking up games right as they come out. That "window" is very important which is why companies try and control negative reviews until a game has already been on the market for a week or so. The people complaining about "Mass Effect 2" and "Dragon Age 2" were not people whining from "outside" but people who already purchused the product and were defined as part of it's success. It's hard to really anticipate the damage done by a bad game, or it's actual reception, due to the way the business works, until they try and promote the sequel. "Dragon Age 2" being something of an exception because whether it makes sense or not a lot of people tie it to "Mass Effect" in their minds as they are both Bioware RPGs with some stylistic elements in common. I think the reception to "Mass Effect 2" caused a lot of people to take a "wait and see" approach with "Dragon Age 2" especially after the whole thing where they asked the community's opinion about one, assigned, pre-determined character (Hawke) if he was fully voice, got a negative reaction, and then did it anyway claiming it was a positive reaction, combined with of course their statements that they were going to dumb it down (albiet not in those words) which they did, leading to a nightmare of recycled enviroments and sloppy game design. The "rage" is noteworthy because while presumably paid-for profeessional reviews are strong, the game is being blasted by users (even in the ratings), leading to shilling scandals at meta critic... and I mean crud, the quality of the game has become *THE* joke for internet gaming humorists for a while now.
The point here being that I think "Dragon Age 2" sold below expectations, it made money, but was not a blockbuster. If you look at what's going on right now, it's touchy. I think "Mass Effect 3" is getting attention and there is some concern about it, even if it's a ways off. "Old Republic" doesn't even have a release date yet, I suspect that WILL be a block buster, but there is no guarantee. "The Sims" which is one of EA's biggest franchise seemed to kind of fizzle a bit with "Medieval" I don't think it was what people wanted. "Darkspore" is another game put out by Maxis, and is a game expected to do pretty well, but it seems to be out there on the fringes.
EA is number 2 because of it's abillity to churn out blockbuster after blockbuster. Companies that simply turn out decent or merely "successful" games occupy lower tiers in the rankings and don't individually make billions like EA.
I am NOT saying that EA is going to fall, or that it's franchises or going to collapse, or that "Dragon Age" and "Mass Effect" or "The Sims" are headed for a wastepaper basket. Simply that I think that the games they have released so far haven't been successes on the expected level, and while all of those franchises will continue, when we next see all the biggest companies tally their money EA might wind up in the #3 slot. If EA is producing merely successful games, and Ubisoft churns out three or four Blockbusters (whatever they may be), then that's going to influance those rankings. All of my explanations for thinking that way aside, I'm not really saying anything more than that. What's more I suspect Ubisoft's confidence is because their analysts are probably looking at things the same way I am. EA won't slide majorly in the ratings, but it might drop to #3.
Go back a few years and I'd have thought this very possible. They seemed to be investing heavily in new IPs at that time - Splinter Cell, Beyond Good and Evil and Far Cry are 3 that spring to mind.
They don't seem as innovative now tbh
They don't seem as innovative now tbh
Ubisoft cant beat Valve (They are not even a Publisher and earns 4 times as much as Ubisoft a year). Let alone EA. Also, you forgot how Dragonage fans who say Dragonage 2 suck. . . Still buy Dragonage 2. A bit like the Morrowind fans who still buy Oblivion.Therumancer said:
And as long as the sales are up they make money. And as long as they make more money than Ubisoft (Something a lot of companies do. Not just publishers) Ubisoft will not ever be able to reach second. Heck, Valve would have more luck as a publisher than they would.
So I guess this means that they will stop doing risky games, start treating their customers like cattle, and hire arrogant pricks to run the joint.
Nikolaz72 said:
Read what I said carefully. I don't mean that rudely, but I explained the bit about Dragon Age 2. The thing to understand is that the people who are complaining are doing so because they bought the game, and didn't like it. Fanboys like to think with anything they like the neigh sayers are people who never bought the product and are ignorant, that's hardly the case when it comes to video games. It's important to understand that the lion's share of a game's sales take place as a result of pre-orders and initial sales, which is why (as I pointed out) there is so much effort taken to control initial, negative, review scores (which has been an industry wide contreversy). With franchises you aren't likely to actually see an effect on sales until the next game in the series. See, people generally buy video games blind, with only very specific, positive information released by the company to go by. This is part of the business model. A lot of people pre-ordered or ran right out to buy "Dragon Age II" because of the first game, but found it lacking, hence the "Dragon Age Rage". Your dealing with upset customers, not a bunch of trolls who are assaulting the game for no reason, and that's the important thing to understand here.
While I don't think the reaction was as bad with "Dragon Age II" (though I suspect it effected it) I think we also saw this to some extent with "Mass Effect 2". The people complaining about the way how it became so shooter-centric were not outside observers, whining for the troll factor, but people who bought the game and did not like the way the product turned out. Bioware already had their money, so while the game was a success financially due to the way video games are marketed, it was not well received by all those people who paid for it, and that is probably going to influance the desician on whether they pre-order Mass Effect 3, or run right out to buy it. Assuming of course Bioware does not backpedal to a massive degree to address customer complaints and get the series back on track with the first game. Right now I think Bioware is getting hammered by simplifying BOTH of their major RPG franchises, and while that might be eclipsed somewhat if "Old Republic" is a massive success, I suspect Bioware, and thus EA, is going to be feeling some damage here. Heck, given the promotional deals for "Dragon Age II" right now, I think they are already feeling it because they expected "Dragon Age II" to be a blockbuster on a level that just never manifested. "Dragon Age II" merely being a "fairly successful" release in terms of sales, with a lot of the people who spent the money being disappointed with their purchuse. One thing about the video game business, especially when it comes to those moving a lot of "product" digitally, is they don't have to worry about returns.
Most definitely. I really enjoyed conviction, and I still play it, but I do miss the hardcore stealth of the old Splinter Cell games. If Chaos theory and Conviction had a baby I'd shit myself with joy.Woodsey said:
They just need to get rid of the shooter sections, like the bit in Iraq and the fucking helicopter thing (I couldn't actually believe they'd done that). And do away with the spontaneous enemy spawning, which became an especially large issue in the White House mission. How can I plan anything if there's 20 guys running at me from nowhere?JUMBO PALACE said:
I don't think it would be pretty...ace_of_something said:
Class 1: Tall Assassin
Pros: They look scarier, they can pass as a tree much easier, and always get picked first for Assassin's Basketball.
Cons: "Excuse me citizen, a criminal is on the loose who happens to look like Andre the Giant."
Class 2: Short Assassin
Pros: Stabbing people in the ankle, crotch-shots, and they can hide under a box and sprint at the same time without being noticed
Cons: They're short.
Class 3: Um.... Medium Height Assassin?
Pros: Um.... What are medium height people good at? Hey Bob! What are you good at?
"Skiing."
Anything else?
"Tennis."
Ahem - Pros: Snow world and... can deflect soft, round projectiles?
Cons: Remarkably average at everything else, then.
Class 4: Ranged Assassin! [sub]Yeah, that's a new one![/sub]
Pros: Cross. Bow. Zing!
Cons: EVERYBODY HATES THIS GUY!!!
Gameplay:
"You know on Call of Duty when there are those matches where everyone ends up picking the sniper rifle and just camps?"
"Yeah."
"Okay, now imagine that, but everyone just has the knife!"
Between all of the people signing up for WoW and/or KOTOR 3, how many are going to be left and willing to have another monthly fee for whatever Ubi launches? They should walk, then run, and then maybe leap into that whole MMO thing, first. Right now their DRM carries notoriety and, personally, I can't think of anything beyond Assassin's Creed that is all that noteworthy from them.
Games are expensive, so considering that people are presently occupied with cutting expendable costs, an MMO better be worth that monthly fee for consumers to not only buy the game, but continue paying long enough for the project to pay off. Ubisoft should take the fact that there are so few MMOs that really stand out *WoW* and focus more on giving people bang for their buck.