[Pave Low]

another short article posted at CVG


Ubisoft: 'Retail market' kept Ghost Recon away from PC

We knew it was a platform we wanted to come back to. However, until recently, the retail market for PC made it difficult to invest in a big, dedicated product

The emergence of online business models has brought back the opportunity to produce something dedicated to PC fans, rather than just ported multiplatform content

[GRO] offers all the best qualities of the Ghost Recon franchise in a downloadable, dynamic, PC-based online game

Ghost Recon Online uses the recipes for fun that have always set Ghost Recon games apart from other shooters - which mostly tend to clump around the run and gun style.

[petsfed]

What?

UBI bails on the greatest renaissance of tactical gameplay on the PC ever, and they claim it was the market that kept them away? Or did they just use up their brownie points with their stockholders taking risks with Assassin's Creed and Rainbow Six: Vegas?

[ROCO*AFZ*]

We knew it was a platform we wanted to come back to

What he is really saying is

We are only returning to it if we can directly export it from Xbox

[101459]

Theo Implying No GR:FS PC?

It appears that this this Blues News article could easily be read to imply remarks by Theo Sanders to mean that Ghost Recon: Online will be the only PC game we're going to be getting in this generation of Ghost Recon:

"We knew it was a platform we wanted to come back to. However, until recently, the retail market for PC made it difficult to invest in a big, dedicated product... The emergence of online business models has brought back the opportunity to produce something dedicated to PC fans, rather than just ported multiplatform content."

Or at least that's the feeling I get from it knowing how PR Agencies and Departments carefully massage their messages to soften 'challenging' messages... Of course this could just be my paranoia hard at work, but what do you guys think?

Edited by Pave Low, 18 July 2011 - 06:08 PM.
Merged with the existing discussion thread where that was already posted

[Pave Low]

No that's not what he's implying.

It appears that this could easily be read to imply

You can read anything into anything if you try hard enough

of course this could just be my paranoia hard at work, but what do you guys think?

Yes, you are being paranoid jumping to that conclusion just from that

FS simply cant be a "Dedicated product" (the key point of what he said) because there will be console versions of it - so GR:O is separate and "dedicated to PC" in that respect (the Wii-u is a separate "unique" version build)

[petsfed]

Maybe he's saying "We were having difficulty justifying the expense of a physical release for a PC game when we only spent a tenth of our average development cost on making it. Anyway, its a downloadable game, nobody expects those to be deep, well made, or good!"

Seriously, as a statement on why previous PC games sucked, this is incredibly poorly thought out. Sure, the last time a PC-exclusive was made in house was Raven Shield, but that's hardly a damning indictment of their ability to make PC games.

[101459]

No that's not what he's implying.

And you know that, how?

You can read anything into anything if you try hard enough.

Sure... And Ubisoft marketing can do a lot of CYA through implicit statement, and has in the past...

Yes, you are being paranoid jumping to that conclusion just from that...

I have made no conclusion to 'jump to', only considered a possibility in the context of some of Ubisoft's GR:FS PC related activity, and statements -- I'm only paranoid if I'm wrong, and that's still TBD...

FS simply cant be a "Dedicated product" (the key point of what he said) because there will be console versions of it - so GR:O is separate and "dedicated to PC" in that respect (the Wii-u is a separate "unique" version build)

Sure it can, but Theo explicitly refers to ports, and GRAW by way of example was not a port but a dedicated engine and even developer for the same IP, though content was ported and he may also have been referring to that.

The pharase that caught my eye though was "...rather than just ported multiplatform content." which is language that sounds like it's right out of an Ubisoft focus group meeting about GR IP, suggests exclusivity, and the possible implication (...'rather than just ported multiplatform content'...) that the path to the PC via ports, even where it's just content, may now be regarded as less viable then more focused and conspicously lucertative dedicated product; ala GR:O...

Soon enough we'll know for a fact, but in the mean time, GR:FS PC isn't exactly getting much in the way of an open treatment, other then an explicit no comment policy...

Edited by 101459, 18 July 2011 - 10:47 PM.

[Parabellum]

The retail market kept Ghost Recon off the PC? Sorry, Theo, that's complete crap, and you know it. While the geniuses at UbiSoft have (as always) had their heads in the sand, CoD and Medal of Honor have been selling millions of copies on the PC. Ubi could have had a piece of that pie, had the company simply tried to compete. It isn't as if UbiSoft had to come up with a new product line to attain and maintain a sizable market share; Ghost Recon had already obliterated its competition, and it could have continued to do so, if UbiSoft had simply continued to follow the formula that Red Storm created. Instead, UbiSoft elected to butcher and castrate the series, and ignore the very market which gave them their beloved Ghost Recon franchise in the first place: PC gamers.

[101459]

What he said! This may not even what Theo personally thinks, but an official Ubisoft PR line. And it's this flaky, creepy market speak, vague port talk, disappearing platform branding, and just generally wishy-washy apporach to anything concrete -- where yes/no questions get aswered with bizarre platitudes like 'we aren't discussing GR:FS PC' as if Ubisoft was running it's IP for political office...

C'mon... Really?

[Zeealex]

We knew it was a platform we wanted to come back to. However, until recently, the retail market for PC made it difficult to invest in a big, dedicated product

that sentence above makes absolutely no sense from what we have all seen, it's not a PC dedicated product at all, they have a wii U version for crying out loud! sometimes ubi puts me on the floor laughing with the sense they (dont) make

i am in agreement with parabellum and 101459.
however, i have always seen a F2P game as risky on the financial side, Ubisoft wont be getting nearly as much money back for it as if it was a PC version of GRFS so GRonline will either flop or fly or utterly fail miserably with no money coming back for the Singapore studio to break even. and i think that's what Theo is TRYING to say, but perhaps it's being implied wrong? i don't know i guess it's really a matter of opinion and perception until Theo speaks out on here.

[TrueGiga]

Just thought i drop in and let you know this is not a port of any kind! =) its Created for PC.


We can Only guess what is trying to be said!
i have my own ideas.

UBISOFT. Could not provide the Bread for the Ham! just because they purchased the Ham did not meen the Bread came with it! and if i remember the Bread they thought they bought got Roten fast?

We all miss the True RedStorm team. but it is what it is!

Edited by TrueGiga, 31 July 2011 - 02:30 AM.

[Tinker]

The retail market kept Ghost Recon off the PC? Sorry, Theo, that's complete crap, and you know it. While the geniuses at UbiSoft have (as always) had their heads in the sand, CoD and Medal of Honor have been selling millions of copies on the PC.

COD & MOH are pretty much the same game as the first installment, not surprising they keep doing so well, by sticking to the roots of success.

Just thought i drop in and let you know this is not a port of any kind! =) its Created for PC.

We all miss the True RedStorm team. but it is what it is!

It is supposed to be ghost recon. Us PC players have been playing it in first person mode for 10 years.

[Parabellum]

COD & MOH are pretty much the same game as the first installment, not surprising they keep doing so well, by sticking to the roots of success.

You're undeniably correct, in my opinion. CoD and MoH have done well because they've stuck to the roots of their success. Ghost Recon hasn't done as well, because UbiSoft hasn't stuck to the roots of Ghost Recon's success. If and when the suits at Ubi figure that out, then Ghost Recon may once again dominate the field.

[101459]

It is disheartening that Ubisoft has gone so far off the Tactical Realism chart, especially so when there's so much they could be doing to advance what not only defined Ghost Recon as a seminal game, but I feel was instrumental in defining the TR genre. There's also plenty of new ground to cover in allowing Designers, Developers and Artists freedom to build beautiful portfolios of impressive original work (and marketing Weenies to pummel and 'brand') -- yet still remain true to what defined the 'franchise' and its core competence.

While I think Ubisoft's Clancy games will probably always be interesting, I get a sense that Ghost Recon was a defining moment in game design for the genera and the Publisher that they will probably never recoup. There's just too much disdain for the U.S. and its Military (yet they feel compelled to use it as a vehicle for games that really don't technically require it), too much disregard for a mature gaming audience, and too far too little in the way of business acumen. Then there's the fact that Ghost Recon is still playable, has scaled to the present day with amazing aplomb, and stands as a sort of 'gold standard'.