[WhiteKnight77]

I posed a question to UbiRazz over in the Ubi Conviction forums and this is his response and mine after taking in what he had to say.

Quote

Originally posted by UbiRazz:

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:

Quote

Originally posted by UbiRazz:
Sam007Fisher, many points there and I'll try to cover what I can. The version of Conviction that was shown was pre-alpha and this was said in the Ubidays presentation, I think, by Mathieu Ferland. Thing is that Splinter Cell is an important franchise for Ubisoft so we're taking our time to make sure it's something worthy of the Splinter Cell name. If you look at something like Team Fortress 2 then you can see something similar going on - there was an initial showing, then nothing for years then TF2 came out and it was a great game. Admittedly you'll all pick up on the graphical overhaul as the reason for the delay and assume this is happening to Conviction but my point is actually that in production many things are tried and tested, some things work, some don’t, and at the end you have a great game. Delaying a game is always a good thing and this has helped Conviction turn into something great.

Razz, if what you say is true, then why did Ubi rush to release the R6 games so fast? The R6 and GR franchises are important to Ubi too, but they are no longer on a gamer's radar, months after after their release. What makes SC so different that Ubi is willing to spend extra time on Conviction that they weren't for Vegas/Vegas2 or GRAW2? I don't know about everyone else, but from what I am seeing, Ubi games are drawing more and more complaints of unplayability due to bugs (no matter what platform it is played on) to no MP support or few MP game modes. How is Conviction so different that you believe it to be worth extra development time? From my seat, it looks like Ubi is after quick cash the way other games are handled and was afraid that they would not be able to sell Conviction the way it was being shown earlier (they did this before with GR2 remember?). You can't fool everyone with what you say, especially us old salts around here.

Whatever the status of other Clancy titles, Conviction is getting some time because we want to make sure it's where it needs to be which is similar to what will be done for our future products.

So you are saying those games were actually designed to be throw away games from the get go and Ubi didn't get those games where they need to be? Astonishing as I didn't think that Ubi just threw money away.

[NoQuarter]

Unfortunately, the planned obsolescence mind set of releasing place-keeping products is not limited to just the publishing side of things. Wille (then GRIN_Wille) let the cat out of the bag when he posted that he thought a 6 month attention span (for GR:AW) was a good long run... before trying to walk away from his statement as he started taking flak.
Publishers, as well as the developers, must be fed- that is a given. We (consumers) should not to expect too much from them and should finally come to the stark realization that they are not in it for us. Once those diminished expectations are in place, who knows, we just might find ourselves pleasantly surprised in the future. Afterall, it has happened before.
____
Judging from UbiRazzs' statement there just might be a silver lining on the horizon...a more polished Rayman.
Woot.

[kleaneasy]

WK if you want people to be involved and aware of conversation on other threads/ forums why dont you just link to the threads so people can at least read the entire thread in context and not based purely on your personal views?

At no point in that discussion did Razz say any other titles were throwaway, he simply said SC:C would be getting the time it needed.

EDIT: Original thread link for those interested

This post has been edited by kleaneasy: 19 November 2008 - 10:30 AM

[WhiteKnight77]

Notice that he didn't say all of Ubi's products, he said future. Conviction was first shown last year and it is now scheduled for a 1st quater 09 release. That is at least 3 years of development time compared to a 2 year or less development time for GRAW/GRAW2 or Vegas/Vegas2. Both the GR and R6 franchises are important to Ubi right? Why not give games in those franchises the same consideration? Fans have been asking for that for years now and yet Ubi decides to give future titles more development time or consideration? Why the sudden change?

[Sup]

WK, GRAW had a full dev cycle. Vegas had a full dev cycle. GRAW2/Vegas2 both reused assets and gameplay, and had halved development cycles.

All four games made massive profits.


Just to clarify on some facts. SC:C is getting time because they think it needs it. GRAW/Vegas did not get time becuase ubisoft apparently though they would print ENOUGH money as is. Personally i think the amount of money they made, that being approximately 'ridiculous sums', was plenty? Maybe with some more time they couldve made even more, i dont know, but it seems laughable to question business practices that lead to massive financial growth.


Every game is an individual project.

Ever project must be approached as such. GRAW was not the SC:C team, not the SC:C code, not the SC:C art, and not the SC:C situation.