UBIsoft in potential financial trouble

see colon said:
Yeah, because they were making the game everybody wanted them to make.
Click to expand...

Right, whatever focus group or internal strategy influenced their thinking was out of whack with their target consumer. I don’t know much about the gameplay or other issues but I just looked at the character lineup and just wow. Sony really went out on a limb there.
 
techuse said:
I just disagree with the idea that no one knows the formula to a good game. It implies that all developers are just playing darts blindfolded and the lucky ones hit.
Click to expand...
If there's a formula, why has no-one discovered it in 40+ years of video gaming? And why is it the same in every creative industry, with content being made that performs far better than expected and far worse?

Harry Potter is a good example. It's a mammoth franchise. When Rowling wrote it, she was rejected time and again because no-one in the industry thought there was scope for that sort of story. Chicken House gave it a go as something different and they were just gunning for diverse and original. It launched into the market with no particular interest. Consumers weren't going gaga over it. Then it released in the US where it got more attention, particularly because a movie mogul’s daughter liked it IIRC and he saw scope for movies, and with added marketing it blew up. Now consumers who had no interest in HP are besotted by it thanks to the creative work of the artist being supported by big marketing and PR dollars.

The children's literature market had no idea what would make a huge franchise. Neither did consumers until they were encouraged to adopt it.

But you can't just throw marketing money at a project and expect it succeed, as Concord shows, which was Sony/Firesprite's cynical conceit.

You will find any number of such examples in movies, books, art (works rejected in their time only for attitudes to completely change), and video games, both ways. That should be evidence enough that no-one knows the formula for creative success, and indeed, there isn't one because people are fickle and random. Hence bandwagoning because the moment someone has stumbled on something that works, there's a new market for that which you need to get on early enough to be a success and not a me-too also-ran.
 
Balatro is a recent example of a game I didn't want. A poker rouge-like? Yeah, no thanks.

It's a 10/10 for me now that I've played it.

It's funny, because I don't think I would have played it if The Game Awards hadn't allowed DLC to be nominated as GOTY. I was so against that, that I was rooting for the indie title I never heard of to win.
 
Absolutely. I could certainly make a game I'd know would fail, and bad decisions are made. However, sometimes indies have thrown together a joke title piece of trash, or even just been really bad, and done well, so you really do never, ever know what consumers will jump on for a moment! Pretty sure Eye Of Black Tiger was a commercial success for its creator.
 
Another example because it's a Ubisoft thread - Haven't gamers been complaining about the way AC and Avatar etc... open world has been designed for years? Are they ever going to listen to that feedback? Is it a wonder that Avatar underperformed when it is using the same tired old formula. I understand that they probably have the notion of "if it ain't broke ....", but at some point the formula doesn't work anymore. Recognizing that can be hard though.
 
Johnny Awesome said:
I'm pretty sure he would have said: "Almost non-existent bullshit black samurai for the long awaited AC game set in Japan that trashes Japanese culture? Really? I don't think so...." Yet, maybe we all had a 6th sense about that one...
Click to expand...

How does the new AC game thrash Japanese culture?
 
Johnny Awesome said:
Another example because it's a Ubisoft thread - Haven't gamers been complaining about the way AC and Avatar etc... open world has been designed for years? Are they ever going to listen to that feedback? Is it a wonder that Avatar underperformed when it is using the same tired old formula. I understand that they probably have the notion of "if it ain't broke ....", but at some point the formula doesn't work anymore. Recognizing that can be hard though.
Click to expand...

Those same complaints get thrown around for CoD and sports games as prominent examples yet they are considered very financially successful. Live service games that people choose to play for very long periods of time are effectively giving the same old experience over and over for players and they not only seem fine with but prefer it.

Not to mention there's also the opposite issue in that when franchises change things you get people complaining about said changes. Sometimes even with franchises rebounding by returning to their old formula.
 
Last edited:
I would argue consumers are open to differences. See the aforementioned Balatro. Likely, and succinctly, the problem the consumer has with current media is it's the same difference ad nauseum. Thus it's not different. The consumer seems amenable to something truly different. Again, see the aforementioned Balatro.
 
arandomguy said:
Those same complaints get thrown around for CoD and sports games as prominent examples yet they are considered very financially successful. Live service games that people choose to play for very long periods of time are effectively giving the same old experience over and over for players and they not only seem fine with but prefer it.
Click to expand...
They make money though. Some games/genres have legs and can keep being recycled, whereas other's don't. Trying to keep those outdated game designs going when your players are moving on is going to fail. See all the racing game developers that just fizzled out because the market lost interest in racing games.
 
arandomguy said:
Those same complaints get thrown around for CoD and sports games as prominent examples yet they are considered very financially successful. Live service games that people choose to play for very long periods of time are effectively giving the same old experience over and over for players and they not only seem fine with but prefer it.

Not to mention there's also the opposite issue in that when franchises change things you get people complaining about said changes. Sometimes even with franchises rebounding by returning to their old formula.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what makes it so tough. :)

The other thing that is lost in all of this is the details. CoD actually doesn't do the same thing over and over as much as AC does. They add modes like BR and Zombie and change with the times, or the new omni movement system. They evolve their game. They try a few new things and if they work they keep them and if they don't they move on.

There's a difference btw between "general complaints" of sameness and actual concrete specific complaints about fetch icons in AC open world, for example. I think when you start seeing the same SPECIFIC complaints over and over again in reviews, as a dev/pub you need to at least take notice.
 
Last edited:
see colon said:
I guess I don't understand how developers are supposed to give people what they want, then. They must have either thought people would like the characters or not. So they must have either decided they were going to do something they knew people wouldn't like, or they believed they were giving people what they wanted. I really find it hard to believe that they intentionally self sabotaged the game.

Do you see how muddy the "give us what we want" argument gets? How are the developers supposed to know? If they fail to give us what we want, did they do it on purpose? Was the vocal minority too loud, changing the developers perspective? And how do we process developer intent? Are we supposed to assume they are intentionally not giving us what we want when they fail? And are developers not supposed to make the game they want to make? What if they wanted to make a game that was offensive so some portion of the gaming public, perhaps just because it's a story they want to tell. Are we only supposed to get safe games that give us what we want?
Click to expand...

No, I dont think they intentionally sabotaged their game. I dont know why they ended up with those character designs. If it was the culture of toxic positivity, bad leadership, echo chamber, or if the people in caling the shots just lacked a basic understanding of their customers. It is quite baffling imo.

Anyway, I dont think the fact that some people dont know what their customers want is an argument against giving people what they want. I mean, most of the time it isnt rocking science. Its hardly a mystery why people prefer marvel legends character design to concords or why people like the new top gun movie. If you want to make money you cant you can ignore what people want. At the same time I see where you´re coming from. If everything is designed by committe we end up with soulless crap, and not every game has to be muscular dude killing space monsters or whatever. My guess is if you have a bunch of talented, passionate people doing games you those games people really love, and with the designed by committe approach you end up with the game equivalent of Poochie.
 
Johnny Awesome said:
Another example because it's a Ubisoft thread - Haven't gamers been complaining about the way AC and Avatar etc... open world has been designed for years? Are they ever going to listen to that feedback? Is it a wonder that Avatar underperformed when it is using the same tired old formula. I understand that they probably have the notion of "if it ain't broke ....", but at some point the formula doesn't work anymore. Recognizing that can be hard though.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself of course, but I like their games done after that formula when they are done right. They game design of both Far Cry has been going downhill for some time now.

I also wonder if the Avatar ip was a problem. Does anyone care about Avatar anymore?

I like running around a sci fi jungle destroying military bases, but I dont want to do it as a giant smurf who talks about gaia.
 
Johnny Awesome said:
Giving gamers what they want is exactly what devs/pubs should do, but knowing what that is is the tricky part oftentimes.

Also, since games take 5+ years to make, by the time Concord came out the 2019 idea of what design would fly didn't pan out 5 years later.

Naughty Dog has the reputation to be able to tell Sony that something isn't working and Sony will flush $millions already spent down the toilet and tell them to start over. Concord devs didn't have said luxury.

On a side note I have this friend, who doesn't look particularly cool or seem outwardly in tune with the Zeitgeist, but somehow whatever this guy likes turns out to be cool and popular. It's like he has a 6th sense for it.

When Halo was cool he had an Xbox. He had a PSX when Sony was just starting out. He got an iPhone when people barely knew what smartphones were. He got a Wii before anyone cared etc.... he just knows. :)

Ubisoft needs a guy like that on staff.

I'm pretty sure he would have said: "Almost non-existent bullshit black samurai for the long awaited AC game set in Japan that trashes Japanese culture? Really? I don't think so...." Yet, maybe we all had a 6th sense about that one...
Click to expand...

Yeah, not like you need a crystal ball to realize that choice might be a bit risky :)
 
Even if CoD did the same thing over and over, the fact that it's a competitive multiplayer game gives it legs. Go, chess, poker, bridge, etc don't change and yet people continue to play. Counter-Strike hasn't appreciably changed since ~2000 (where the 5v5 bomb defusal mode became the standard). Many of the maps in CSGO are the same popular maps played when CS was in beta. Good multiplayer games will probably always be good multiplayer games.

AC and other single player AAA titles are a different animal. I don't think it's enough to stick to the same formula, make minor tweaks, upgrade the graphics, and stick it in a new setting -- at least not with AC's release schedule anyways. If Rockstar had somehow churned out a new GTA at the same pace that Ubisoft did AC I think we'd see similar fatigue with Rockstar's formula.
 
Competitive multiplayer has the benefit if dynamic human behavior bringing variety to the experience.

I think it’s fine for game developers to explore new avenues. If you’re an artist that’s a pretty common thing to do. The problem is that they’re making these massive expensive games which then need massive mainstream sales in order to break even. How about making smaller more focused games first to try out your artistic vision? You might capture enough sales from a niche audience to make it worthwhile. And it won’t attract the mass market criticism (and sometimes blind hate) that accompanies big releases. These big publishers aren’t configured for making low budget niche titles though. Leave it up to the indies and smaller devs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top