Jump to content

Ubisoft's new direction


Machine
 Share

Recommended Posts

This article gave me a general idea of the Ubisoft's new direction, going awey from simulation titles to the larger console market. It also points out how sims generally are being developed by smaller companies.

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_054a.html

In this light any consideration towards the pc sim fans will be an act of generosity from Ubi.

Personally, I'm mad because a strikingly good brand for a simulation was misused. The very name "Ghost Recon" implies to crawl-in-the-shade think-before-act action.

It would of been better, if Ubi would of given the title away for a smaller company to develop, as they themselves have no interest in marketing for such target audience.

Ubi could of developed their own modern combat run n' gun game with a different name. For exaple: "Medal Of Shame: Runnin' N' Gunnin -Modern Style!"

This is just my opinion.

Grin has their orders and they know it. It's not their fault. Don't blame them at least. It's just the situation. The field of business. Money talks and whatever walks. How could we, a handful of pc fans resist masses of impatient console consumers (guerrilla style? :ph34r: ).

Sorry for my poor english.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that at least Ghost Recon gave me the transport media to get in touch with the great, mature group of people I'm around now. With that came the introduction to a "small" company that actually cares. Not to say that anything in that article surprises me in the least.

Stout Hearts

|RE|Warhawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this part of the artical does not sit will with nyself.

My biggest disappointment? It had to be Ubisoft's booth. Ubi has gotten a case of big britches and it is showing. When we asked about a potential add-on to Silent Hunter III or any word on Silent Hunter IV, we were met with blank stares at the media check-in booth. The people that represented Europe and the US apparently had NEVER HEARD OF THE GAME. They refused to even discuss a PC version of Ghost Recon 3 — something that makes me question Ubi's commitment to creating a computer version of the game. This kind of attitude toward simulations appeared to be prevalent over their entire booth.

from here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have posted in another thread, I am sure that things will go back to how they were 15 years ago, where small companies will start to produce PC games that are great.

It is obvious that UBI is now so big that they are profit driven only, and do not have the gamers "heart" left that stated the development of games in the first place. Their business model is to buy all the successful titles and then bury them, or convert them to Xbox only. Also I think he is not only "in bed " with Gates to push the Xbox and control the gaming market, but actually owns the bed shop too.!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

I remember when Cris Roberts started and produced the (then!) best space sim Winig Commander, no Ubisoft was he.

Sierra was a small company then and made the Great sim F117 and its brother F117a Stealth Fighter, not to mention all the others they made subsiquently, fantastic games for their time, and from (then) a small company.

Companies like Bohemia are producing new games for PC like the up and commiing (2006) [Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising], but I think we are in for a resurgance of small companies who are "gamers at heart" and can see a ready market for the games that UBI are in the process of, or have ruined already.

Take heart in the capitalistic system, where smart guys and gals will see a market need and jump in and fill it, and make a swag of cash in the bargain.

******* Note to game developers: If you could make a game that plays just like GR1 did, but with some slightly newer graphics etc, has replays and an AC and new maps,, and has NOTHING to do with UBI, I know where you can sell about a million of em!.

JF :wall:

Edited by JFSebastian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm mad because a strikingly good brand for a simulation was misused. The very name "Ghost Recon" implies to crawl-in-the-shade think-before-act action.

It would of been better, if Ubi would of given the title away for a smaller company to develop, as they themselves have no interest in marketing for such target audience.

Ubi could of developed their own modern combat run n' gun game with a different name. For exaple: "Medal Of Shame: Runnin' N' Gunnin -Modern Style!"

This is just my opinion.

No. Actually, it's not just your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to being bought by Ubisoft, RSE was a small company developing PC games.

I think part of the problem is or was at the time of the sale, Tom Clancy was going through a divorce from his first wife. She was wanting a big part of his estate. Clancy sold RSE to someone who was publishing the games his company was creating. I would say that the sale happened without out assurances that gameplay would stay true to what the games his company developed started as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UBI is quickly becoming a company I will refrain doing business with. They took a dump on Crytek, which EA bought. Now having worked w/Crytek on some issues, I will be buying their next title. I also bought Lock On's successor, Flaming Cliffs. The developer sold direct to the west and they sold more copies of the addon than they did originally when UBI had the title.

That should tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UBI is quickly becoming a company I will refrain doing business with.  They took a dump on Crytek, which EA bought.  Now having worked w/Crytek on some issues, I will be buying their next title.  I also bought Lock On's successor, Flaming Cliffs.  The developer sold direct to the west and they sold more copies of the addon than they did originally when UBI had the title.

That should tell you something.

I can understand avoiding UBI. But buying from EA afterwards?

UBI's by far the lesser of two evils. And that's not saying a great deal to their credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the REAL issue is the fact that developing Games these days isn't the key to anything. The profit margin is the issue.

1) Console games seem to be leading the way. Hell, if they make the game, they don't have to worry about patching console games. PC games always have to be patched, UBI took a big fat turd on all of us who bought into RvS. 8 patches I last counted. and probably more since I quit playing it.

2) PC games or PC's seem to be old news. Gaming seems to be dying to a greater or lesser degree due to development requirements. new hardware and shader crap leading to more intensive shader coding, and always needing to upgrade system hardware to play the latest games.

3) Ghost Recon has lost touch with it's former self. GRAW seems to be trying to out do GR with bells n' whistles attitude. GIVE US GAMEPLAY and replayability. The real problem is that the original Game devs of Ghost recon(original) are no longer around, so the feel and touch and inspiration are not there. Gamers and the gamer generation have advanced. Some people might not game on PC's anymore. These new Devs (Grin) are trying to play GR and say...this is what everyone wants...I guess the only ones that can make GRAW a REAL sequel are us, the gamers. We should've been used for development, and help in making GRAW be what we want it to be. a successful sequel to GR.

closing thought: UBI didn't have success in it's mind when making GRAW. They saw it's popularity from GR and want to throw out a bone(GRAW) to dragnet a bunch more capital for it's success profolio. What UBI should've done is select random people from here or other forums and bring them into the fold to inspire the devs to what we are looking for in a sequel. Face it, they are NOT customer service friendly, I always learned what my customers wanted and tailored to their needs. What better source of inspiration then the ppl who play GR! :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would of been better, if Ubi would of given the title away for a smaller company to develop, as they themselves have no interest in marketing for such target audience.

Time for sonedecker to call ubi. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separate to gaming ... business as a rule mirrors this completely.

Large corperates buy up independants and dominate the market. Once you have a monopoly your free to dumb down or introduce what the corperation wants not the general public.

There is a plan involved to all of this and people may poo-poo it but this happens in medicine/Media/Even Schools ... now I wonder why you would want to dumb down the next generations? Hmmmm ..... :hmm::shifty:

Generaly we need more & more independants to keep the reality a reality, before your very eyes you are seeing generations slowly forget what we took for granted.

Using this UBI example is just the tip of the iceberg.

If anyone flames me, then start - "reading" and find out more, and wake up a bit.

Edited by calius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generaly we need more & more independants to keep the reality a reality, before your very eyes you are seeing generations slowly forget what we took for granted.

Unless you are talking the next Tetris or "Bubble Bobble" type game then even independants need cash to make it. That cash may be for development or in the form of a job outside of the project, just to support a family........either way, it takes money to do these things. ;)

Also, I am definetely not going to jump into the whole corporate thing here, but I wouldn't put too much stock or thought into the notion that Clancy as a person has much to do with this stuff anymore. Sure the Clancy corporate machine does, but I have a feeling he, as a person, is pretty much chilling with his Marlboros and counting his $$$$. :thumbsup:

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large corperates buy up independants and dominate the market. Once you have a monopoly your free to dumb down or introduce what the corperation wants not the general public.

I don't know that I completely subscribe to this concept. It may only appear that this is the case in your eyes. Any for-profit organization is beholden to what the market wants. The only difference with market dominance, is the leeway in pricing. Your own view that Ubi is producing something the general public does not want only suggests that what you want is not what the "greater good" wants. That is the hard truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large corperates buy up independants and dominate the market. Once you have a monopoly your free to dumb down or introduce what the corperation wants not the general public.

The economics behind that statement isn't true, while a monopoly or dominate market player can have problems of inefficiency and inferior products the rule wont hold in a gaming environment, purely because if the game is really poor or "dumbed down", its not an essential product (well least not for most ppl :D) and so if it is that poor people will simply not buy it.

Slight price extortion is possible too, but generally gamers don't stand for it, cos they see other games at other price levels (within usually a £5 range) and demand the product to be competitively priced, or save their money for another game......

I don't know that I completely subscribe to this concept.  It may only appear that this is the case in your eyes.  Any for-profit organization is beholden to what the market wants.  The only difference with market dominance, is the leeway in pricing.  Your own view that Ubi is producing something the general public does not want only suggests that what you want is not what the "greater good" wants.  That is the hard truth.

this is basically the reason we're seeing GR swing the way it is......

the people you have on these forums and forums around the world about GR:AW, will not even come close to numbering 8.5 million, but that is the customer base Ubi is looking at........and probably looking to expand on that

therefore while we care enough to post up and voice how we want the game to play, the million's of 14y/o's (no offence to any 14y/o's on this board - and yes its a harsh generalisation, i cant be arsed to do it any other way) don't voice their opinions, but Ubi needs to sell them the game they want, not the couple of thousand ppl on gr.net........hence why the game is losing its tactical edge, purely cos it wont sell well enough

like ronin said, thats the hard truth

christ i'll shut up now......sorry for the essay, damn my free time at uni

Edited by Snowy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the people you have on these forums and forums around the world about GR:AW, will not even come close to numbering 8.5 million, but that is the customer base Ubi is looking at........and probably looking to expand on that

Agreed completely, Snowy. Out of curiosity, where did you get that number 8.5 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was from a link JFSebastian put up in the negative feedback thread.....

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/AboutUbisoft/D...t.aspx?cpid=804

obviously it counts both console and PC releases, but despite the "seperate" development, there will be similiar themes throughout both releases, and so the number is a fair guess at the market size they are dealing with.......

*edit* just realised it includes JS and IT, so the number 8.5 million is probably an over estimate......but still its a sizeable market, of which as a forum we only make up a small proportion, even if it is an important and in some cases influential proportion

Edited by Snowy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What my post actually said.................

If UBI had brought out ANY expansion packs after IT, like some maps or missions I would have gladly PAID for them, but they NEVER have.

It makes me wonder why considering how they crank on in the UBI Corporate Invester section of their Corporate site about how successful the game was, 8.5 million (total - and I dont know the PC/Xbox split) copies sold and no point in releasing some small extra mission packs etc from time to tme???????.

Why not, even if there was only 1.5 million pc versions sold, its should be a game developers dream to have a captured market that big!to sell addons to.

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/AboutUbisoft/D...t.aspx?cpid=804

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't think they could charge $50 US for an expansion. Probably not worth it to them then. Look at BF2...one single gametype...and still the $50 price tag. In case you haven't noticed...we're getting less for our money.

It wouldn't bother me if they raised the price...if the quality improved as well.

Edited by Soroc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What my post actually said.................

If UBI had brought out ANY expansion packs after IT, like some maps or missions I would have gladly PAID for them, but they NEVER have.

It makes me wonder why considering how they crank on in the UBI Corporate Invester section of their Corporate site about how successful the game was, 8.5 million (total - and I dont know the PC/Xbox split) copies sold and no point in releasing some small extra mission packs etc from time to tme???????.

Why not, even if there was only 1.5 million pc versions sold, its should be a game developers dream to have a captured market that big!to sell addons to.

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/AboutUbisoft/D...t.aspx?cpid=804

i wasn't quoting your post mate....i was quoting your link in response to ronin's request about where i found that number from.....

i'm well aware of ur estimate of the PC market, and it cud be true, wat i was illustrating, was despite the separate development, there are bound to be underlying principals that both games will adhere to.......

hence Ubi is attempting to please 8 million minus the JS & IT units, not just the couple of thousand who bother to post about the game.....hence in my humble opinion why we are seeing a shift in the gameplay

Edited by Snowy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a myth that GR did not sell as well on the PC. Very basic breakdown(from thier finantial reports,the most telling report is one I cant find anymore as it was some quarterly report), 1/3 of units sold were from PC, 1/3 from X-box,1/3 from Playstation. This was several years ago, dont know how much the consol market has changed since then, but I'm not convinced that is is a great buisness decision to ignore the PC market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a myth that GR did not sell as well on the PC. Very basic breakdown(from thier finantial reports,the most telling report is one I cant find anymore as it was some quarterly report), 1/3 of units sold were from PC, 1/3 from X-box,1/3 from Playstation. This was several years ago, dont know how much the consol market has changed since then, but I'm not convinced that is is a great buisness decision to ignore the PC market.

True.

But the problem is, corporations like Ubi in particular, only care about the immediate bottom line. They don't necessarily use good business sense.

Lately, Ubi has given me the impression that they only care about the initial bottom line, not what will happen 2 or more years down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. 

But the problem is, corporations like Ubi in particular, only care about the immediate bottom line.  They don't necessarily use good business sense. 

Lately, Ubi has given me the impression that they only care about the initial bottom line, not what will happen 2 or more years down the road.

I am not exactly sure what context you are trying to frame that in, I am Assuming in the sense of a franchise and not a single title.

But, in the case of a single title, this is a general response and not directed at Ubi, there is no "2 years down the road" for revenue from a modern game title. Any revenue, MMO's and thier variations aside, from a title is generaly made in the first 3-4 months and the bulk of that in the first few weeks. Anything brought in after 6 months or so is gravy and not even forcasted by the "bean counters".

Again, not trying to sway the thread one way or the other, just trying to give some insight into the industry. :rocky:

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. 

But the problem is, corporations like Ubi in particular, only care about the immediate bottom line.  They don't necessarily use good business sense. 

Lately, Ubi has given me the impression that they only care about the initial bottom line, not what will happen 2 or more years down the road.

I am not exactly sure what context you are trying to frame that in, I am Assuming in the sense of a franchise and not a single title.

Again, not trying to sway the thread one way or the other, just trying to give some insight into the industry. :rocky:

-John

You assumed right, sir.

Thanks for catching that. I should have clarified better. sorry guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys. Good discussion.

I think that there are a whole host of issues here. I play mostly console games now, because my PC is old and feeble. The younger generation of console gamers really doesn't understand the "roots" of the games that they are playing. Some X-box and PS2 gamers think that Rainbow Six 3 started it all. For their purposes it did. Many of these kids love the GR series starting with GR2 and will take anything that Ubi sells.

In this sense, we are a unique group. We have a whole different standard for games that has spanned years, and most of us are pretty detail oriented.

I believe that we are at a crossroad, and possibly on the verge of a drastic change in console gaming. For the first time, the technology for console gamers will equal that of PC gamers, or possibly surpass it. I believe that it will only take two or three PC type tactical shooters for the 360 or PS3 to really change this genre. I'm talking about good, high quality FPS that has all of the online and offline things that we have been asking for. But they have to sell well. That's the bottom line. Ubi realizes that they can crank out buggy, dumbed down versions of formerly great franchises, and still make money. I'm sure that other studios probably see the same things. Two things need to happen. Someone needs to build a game that the community will wholeheartedly embrace, and secondly, we need to help ensure that it sells well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem is, corporations like Ubi in particular, only care about the immediate bottom line.  They don't necessarily use good business sense. 

Lately, Ubi has given me the impression that they only care about the initial bottom line, not what will happen 2 or more years down the road.

You have to remember that Ubi is a publicly traded company subject to quarterly earnings hurdles. So, yes, they do think in short term "bottom line" ... or earnings per share - but that hardly implies bad business sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...