UNCLASSIFIED

FROM: Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net

TO: Undisclosed Recipients

MEMORANDUM

SUBJ: The “Ubisoft Money Making Agenda” argument (Part 3)

While there have only been a handful of takers actively participating in the “old vs. new” debate, I think the discussions have been engaging and (surprisingly) peaceful. The thread is getting a lot of views and, if nothing more, at least it gives us all something to think about and discuss while we wait for more intel from Ubisoft to come down the wire.

Just to summarize, the first part in the series discussed the “Tom Clancy” argument – which essentially addressed the issue of whether Tom Clancy would like or dislike the direction the series has taken. The second part in the series discussed the “Ghost Recon” argument – which essentially addressed whether Future Soldier was in line with the rest of the titles in the series; and then it compared and contrasted the mechanics of game play and the game setting between the different episodes.

Next up in the series, the “Ubisoft Money Making Agenda” argument.

For the sake of this discussion, I am only going to discuss Ubisoft and their relationship to Ghost Recon – Future Soldier.

Whether it’s justified or not, Ubisoft has received some fairly strong feedback over the years from fans of the Ghost Recon series. I’ve heard of overtly critical posts being deleted from the official forums and I’ve seen some pretty harsh comments posted here at www.ghostrecon.net about Ubisoft and towards Ubisoft representatives.

Let me be the first say that I think every one is entitled to their opinion and should be able to express that opinion, as long as they do so in a positive and productive way. Saying “Ubisoft sucks” is not positive or productive, but saying “Ubisoft sucks because they cancelled GR2 for the PC” or “Ubisoft sucks because I don’t like what they’re doing to Ghost Recon with all the high tech kit” at least quantifies your position and gives it some merit or at the very least lets everyone know why you are dissatisfied with Ubisoft.

Some of the common arguments or accusations I’ve read in the forums or seen in response to the press releases and various other media outlets always seem to revolve around money (either by capitalizing off of the success of the [Ghost Recon] or the success of other popular games) and include the following:

“Ubisoft is using a recognizable name (Ghost Recon) on Future Soldier to make money.”

“Ubisoft doesn’t care about the PC platform.”

“Ubisoft wasted x number of millions of dollars making the live action video and should have invested this money in making GRFS better.”

“Ubisoft has dumbed down Ghost Recon.”

“Ubisoft is making a Gears of War game and calling it a Ghost Recon game.”

“Ubisoft has ruined Ghost Recon.”

I am going to make some general observations about Ubisoft’s business model. I don’t work for Ubisoft and don’t have any connections with Ubisoft, so these are my own personal observations.

There is an expression in some businesses that states, “If you want to make money you have to spend money; and if you want to make a lot of money you have to spend a lot of money”.

Making video games is an expensive business. It can be every bit as expensive as making a movie or TV show. Producing a video game literally costs in the millions and even in the hundred million range. From the design team, sound team, artists, programmers, human resources, public relations, marketing, quality assurance and everyone in between, it’s truly an expensive endeavor. It’s surprising how expensive it is.

A colleague of mine who published a blog recently on a similar subject posted this interesting bit of information regarding an older game called “Daikatana” that some may remember.

On April 21, 2000, Daikatana finally reached gold status. It sold 200,000 copies, which John Romero claimed (key word claimed) made up its production costs. The production cost of Daikatana was well over 40 million dollars, meaning each copy would have had to have sold for $200 each, before taxes, to cover the production costs. And if you’re wondering, 200,000 copies at $39.99 each (a fair average for a game back then) equates to $7,998,000. Significantly below what it cost to produce the game.

If the publisher doesn’t make a profit off of their efforts and this continues for a period of time, they will eventually go out of business. That’s basic Economics 101. The dollars in has to be greater than the dollars out.

Is Ubisoft trying to capitalize off of Ghost Recon? Absolutely. No doubt about it. Isn’t that what businesses do? Isn’t that what every video game publisher is trying to do? Look at it this way. I love my job (well, not the “work” part of it), but honestly, if I didn’t make enough doing what I do, then I would have to quit and go do something else. Most video game developers love making video games. Many of the people that work for video game companies are gamers themselves. But they can’t do it unless they make money at it.

The rewards of producing and publishing a video game are lucrative though, as noted with Modern Warfare 2’s huge success that resulted in over a billion dollars in sales. But the reality is, most games will not make that much money or share in that kind of success.

Ubisoft is a business. They have a job to do and in order to do that job, they need money. And in order to make money they have to sell product. And in order to sell product they have to know who is going to buy that product. And then they have to market that product the best they can so they can beat out their competition. Future Soldier is going up against some pretty heavy hitters this year and if it wants to compete, then it is going to need the visibility and the attention of the gaming community.

Is that dumbing the game down? Not if you’re one of the many that like the changes.

There is a reason why the GR series has transitioned from the original flavor to where we are today and where we are going in the future – because that’s what most gamers want. And in order to tap into that market, then Ubisoft has to produce a product that gamers want. (Does anyone really think that Ubisoft doesn’t do a little marketing research on the demographics of who is playing what?)

Gamers who prefer a first person tactical shooter with a heavy dose of realistic game play are a minority…a very small minority. Compounding the problem is most people in this category are PC gamers. That’s two strikes against us. The differences between the below statistics are astounding.

Rough numbers from 2008 posted by the Entertainment Software Association (parent organization of the ESRB) suggests the following:

Computer and video game companies posted records sales in 2008. The industry sold 297.6 million units, leading to an astounding $11.7 billion in revenue. Of these sales:

Game console software sales totaled $8.9 billion with 189.0 million units sold;

Computer games sales were $701.4 million with 29.1 million units sold.

In my humble opinion, and I count myself as a tactical shooter fan and PC gamer, for Ubisoft to make a quality Ghost Recon game with all the features we desire, they would do so at a major loss.

If you’re mad at Ubisoft and the direction they have taken the series, perhaps this could be your argument. – “they don’t cater to the minority gamer demographic”.

Most gamers don’t like real. I don’t know why that is, I just know it is. Hop on any random server for any random first person shooter (practically any of the Call of Duty or Battlefield series) and you’ll find this – an overwhelming majority have Friendly Fire off. Your teammates can’t hurt you. I don’t remember if this was even an option in Ghost Recon, but I know I never played Ghost Recon with Friendly Fire off. That was part of the thrill of playing Ghost Recon (for me). I don’t know how many times I would hold my fire to verify contact and usually end up dying because of my hesitancy. Most games now, I can lob a grenade or call in an artillery strike and not think twice about it. It's not going to hurt my guys...so why worry?

Ubisoft might be a lot of things and do a lot of things that you don’t agree with, but they are doing it in the best interest of the game that appeals to the majority of the people. They aren’t doing anything any differently than any of the other developers/producers. Just because some of us might not like the direction doesn’t mean we speak for the whole community. Apparently there are are quite a few folks out there that like the direction the series is headed. The feedback proves it. How is Ubisoft doing anything wrong if they’re giving the majority of the gaming community what they want?

Feel free to join in on the ongoing discussion here.

Cheers.

//SIGNED//

Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net