Apart from Far cry (god bless fra cry), Assassin's creed, Prince of Persia, some Tom Clancy stuff, and Rabbids maybe, what are the big IPs they own? Rayman?Also I'm not sure just how valuable IP and back catalog's by themselves are really worth.
Apart from Far cry (god bless fra cry), Assassin's creed, Prince of Persia, some Tom Clancy stuff, and Rabbids maybe, what are the big IPs they own? Rayman?Also I'm not sure just how valuable IP and back catalog's by themselves are really worth.
Judging by this common trend happening not just in games, but other products that fail and trigger outrage, the simultaneous projection of DEI through different media, and the push through social sciences with creative theories presented as "science" in politics, I m starting to believe that there are unseen agendas at play.The thing I don't get is, if they think that's what the public wants, it should reflect in better sales and commerce. If trying an ideology across your product range results in worse sales, it's not what the public wants, at which point you should likely abandon it. Unless the intention is to try to change society and being willing to sacrifice the company to do so?
Unfortunately, those making these decisions aren't the ones who get fired.The thing I don't get is, if they think that's what the public wants, it should reflect in better sales and commerce. If trying an ideology across your product range results in worse sales, it's not what the public wants, at which point you should likely abandon it. Unless the intention is to try to change society and being willing to sacrifice the company to do so?
This is not a politics thread. The presentation of a set of values influencing a company direction, and wider market motions, is fine, but the origins and purposes of that set of values is OT.Judging by this common trend happening not just in games, but other products that fail and trigger outrage, the simultaneous projection of DEI through different media, and the push through social sciences with creative theories presented as "science" in politics, I m starting to believe that there are unseen agendas at play.
I ve seen subjects even in Wikipedia altered to satisfy these ideologies. Even historical events and cultures.
For example eunuchs in certain cultures that had no concept of social gender, who served specific roles (such us guarding the harem hence the castration, or to remove sexual desire) are now presented as a third gender. WTF?
What the public wants is obviously bourne out in sales, but the blanket idea that there is some trend for DEI, or dare I use the undefinable term "woke" games failing wholesale is not being proven by those sales. Look at the Steam curator dedicated to exposing games that contain DEI/woke content. They don't recommend Starfield, Hogwart's Legacy, any of the Call of Duty games, or Balders Gate 3 - Some of the best selling games. Even Space Marine 2 is filled with "Overtly Pro-DEI content" according to them, but it's one of the fastest selling games so far this year.The thing I don't get is, if they think that's what the public wants, it should reflect in better sales and commerce. If trying an ideology across your product range results in worse sales, it's not what the public wants, at which point you should likely abandon it. Unless the intention is to try to change society and being willing to sacrifice the company to do so?
The argument is probably/possibly one of degrees. It may not be the message or existence of any particular ideology that makes a game unappealing, but if the game takes it to an extreme, or compromises the game (or other artistic endeavour) for non-gaming values.I don't think we can distill Ubisoft's problems to something as simple as the public rejecting some ideology, because sales of games featuring the same type of ideology that is purported to be ruining Ubisoft games are some of the best selling games so far this year.
Whatever it is, Ubi need to work it out and address it, if its not too late.It's a bit more that they make a bunch of same-y games that I think many people aren't interested in buying every year with budgets that have ballooned to near unsustainable levels.
I think that version is included with Ubisoft+ for $17.99 a month, or $179.99 a year.if you wanted all the content you had to pay 110€ (digital version) or so.
- More editions than actual games sold
They make vapid games. People get bored of them and when the next one feels like a reskin of the last one, people just move on.
Very good summary.While I like Ubisoft and have some games on their Ubisoft store -HoMM games mostly-, they've done many things wrong. Facts:
- They have lost practically 100% of their market value in the last three years. The shares have gone from being worth $108 to $9.
- They get the Star Wars license. They are going to make a Han Solo game, but they back out and put a girl as the main character and make the game Woke as hell, it seems like the dialogues were written by the human resources department.
- The game is a mess, nobody gives a shit about the release and it takes a huge hit in sales. Not to mention that the game had a thousand editions and if you wanted all the content you had to pay 110€ (digital version) or so.
- After years and years of the community asking for it, they decide to release an Assassins Creed in Japan (and they are late with Ghost of Tsushima).
- They put in a black samurai and a girl. People go crazy and Japan goes crazy, even historians on the subject of Yasuke, the black samurai.
- We were a month and a half away from the launch and practically no gameplay. They have delayed the game to February.
- A lot of the content they had shown was the black man destroying Japanese villages, and killing the Japanese.
- They released a Funko figure of the black samurai on a Tori arch destroyed in half. That is a symbol of the destruction of Nagasaki by the atomic bomb. To give you an idea, it is as if they released a collector's edition of Spiderman with Spiderman on the destroyed Twin Towers.
- Guillemot, the CEO, giving statements assuring that their objective is having fun and not to introduce a woke agenda.
Let's see how far they can sink.
The argument is probably/possibly one of degrees. It may not be the message or existence of any particular ideology that makes a game unappealing, but if the game takes it to an extreme, or compromises the game (or other artistic endeavour) for non-gaming values.
That can't be an issue as there are plenty of female protagonists in well-selling games, such as Mirror's Edge, Returnal, and Control.I think there’s also an element of “luck” in which games the anti-woke crowd happen to target. Ubisoft must have known though that Assassins Creed Shadows would be a lightning rod for controversy. It commits at least two sins of promoting a female...
I doubt it speaks for the majority of gamers who's buying habits are evading Ubi games. There'll be a percentage of gamers who'll shun a game for choice of protagonist, but I think the majority care about other things like actual game quality, who may be somewhat influenced by 'wokeness' as an additional reason to avoid a game already in the balance. I dare say it's when there's just too emphasis on attempted cultural influence, rather than any presence at all, that it starts to become objectionable to the mainstream.That Steam list is pretty telling.
That can't be an issue as there are plenty of female protagonists in well-selling games, such as Mirror's Edge, Returnal, and Control.
I doubt it speaks for the majority of gamers who's buying habits are evading Ubi games. There'll be a percentage of gamers who'll shun a game for choice of protagonist, but I think the majority care about other things like actual game quality, who may be somewhat influenced by 'wokeness' as an additional reason to avoid a game already in the balance.
I dare say it's when there's just too emphasis on attempted cultural influence, rather than any presence at all, that it starts to become objectionable to the mainstream.
While I don't disagree that it's a limiting factor, I do think there is some merit in limiting a single store's influence on the industry. It might not be sustainable to avoid Steam completely, especially if you are financially compromised like Ubi is right now.Not launching on Steam is also a ridiculous own goal.
Indeed. That, and there is definitely some bias in the scale. Total War: Rome II is "not recommended" because women perform "historically inaccurate" roles. Age of Empires 3 is "informational" because of the same thing. AOE3 Definitive Edition is "not recommended" because a developer's note says they removed some "problematic content" (which were somewhat racist caricatures of some societies, IIRC) and because the game is anti-colonial. I think the original game was anti-colonial at the same scale, and I don't know how you can classify a game based on content that isn't in it. "Games not racist, must be woke".I think there’s also an element of “luck” in which games the anti-woke crowd happen to target.
None of those games have been curated by this group.That can't be an issue as there are plenty of female protagonists in well-selling games, such as Mirror's Edge, Returnal, and Control.
The AC games have often been diverse. And they are science fiction games. I think people are being overly sensitive about this stuff because games are supposed to be fun, and they should be able tot ell the story they want to tell. The insistence on a game to be 100% historically accurate is silly to me. Just let the game speak for itself, and be fun, or not.Yeah and it’s hard to say whether the attempted cultural influence is intentional on the part of the developers or artificially amplified by the crowd that jumps at any opportunity to vilify diversity. I have no idea what Ubisoft was thinking of course but the inclusion of underrepresented groups in Shadows seems like more of a conscious decision than in Outlaws given the setting (historical vs fantasy).
I think most people aren't influenced by the vocal minority and won't refuse a game because some groups vilify it. If there's a general consensus that a game is 'too woke', I think that would be a general attitude regardless how people are talking about it. It's hard not to make this too political about whether any percentage of 'woke' is wrong and societal responses to certain values, but I think some trends are natural and not the product of influence. The number of people of every age and status I see rejecting too much diversity suggests to me there's potentially a natural degree of tolerance for diversity beyond which it becomes too much. Like spices in a dish - the right amount is great but too much ruins the dish.Yeah and it’s hard to say whether the attempted cultural influence is intentional on the part of the developers or artificially amplified by the crowd that jumps at any opportunity to vilify diversity.
I think is very much a personal preference thing, and not an issue of prejudice. Some people don't care about connections in entertainment, but for some the entertainment has to fit their mental models or they seem to get a degree of cognitive dissonance. This definitely happens with me when you get a historical drama that greatly over-represents the proportion of alternative-colour folk. We only have massive diversity now due tot the invention of mass transport. Back when it took people years to travel, there just wasn't that much mixing of populations. Show me a modern New York full of every type of person and it's fine, but show me a 14th Century London with the same diversity and it just doesn't sit right. Now of course that then impacts the opportunities for coloured actors, say, if so much of the Western story-telling is based in Western history, at which point you may feel the need to make creative liberties. And over time and exposure to more diversity in unrealistic contexts, people like me might become desensitised - maybe our sensitivity is born entirely from what we saw growing up; it's not like we experienced 14th Century London ourselves! Or, people form natural tribal groups and will always be resistance to too much mixing groups. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯The insistence on a game to be 100% historically accurate is silly to me. Just let the game speak for itself, and be fun, or not.