Out of all the big publishers Ubisoft is probably the least risk-averse.
Just look at their Ubiart stuff, you don't see EA or Activision do that. Yes, they pump out AC sequels every year, but come on if they still sell like crazy they would be stupid not to.
Wait what? Rainbow 6 was always about Multiplayer. Yes it had a singleplayer, but multiplayer was what made those old games for me.
I call dibs on a waypoint tower.
Not saying they aren't good games, but pumping out several murder sims and military shooters with an established fan base per year that share many design choices is not "risky." It is literally just taking a proven formula and applying it to as many popular game settings as they can. It's the safest business model you can have in this industry.
And Child of Light is not risky because it cost like $20 to make.and is a great game that everyone should own
Did you even read what I wrote? I am making an entirely different point there.
Farcry and Splinter Cell have following but they didn't get that automatically now did they?
Farcry 2 was Farcry in name, the game type that people associate Farcry began with FC2 not FC1. You have to be kidding yourself to believe that they did nothing new in that game compared to the previous on that was made by Crytek. The entire concept they had for that game was something special which didn't work out in the end. Infact that question I should be asking is how was AC1 (or FC2) not an innovation?
On topic of Splinter Cell, are we to forget how different of a game Conviction was? or how different Blacklist was? Sure they all belong to the same franchise but people talk as if they have been doing nothing but releasing Splinter Cell 1 with a new coat of paint.
I am saying these franchise and "formula" exist because they took risks for something new, and the fact that they capitalise on these franchise once the got successful does not changes the fact that these were risks and innovations.
Innovation and risks does not automatically mean new IP, nor does it automatically mean offbeat gameplay. It's a culmination of many different things and not having one of these things does not exclude it from the category.
And how do you think they got to the point where they have things to build upon?
Even AC started out as an innovation, since there was nothing quite like it. AC2 built upon it and innovated further with it's structure..which is why it's one of the best games from last generation and nothing can change that fact. Not even the reality that AC series now is an annualised series that does not innovate.
And let's not forget that they make more niche games than anyone else out there in the entire industry.
Ubisoft's output is not limited to the last 5 years. Even including the last 5 years the created a template for some of the biggest games in the industry.
ubi does quite well in the innovation front, tbh. It's just that most people dont bother with their output when they go that route.
ubi does quite well in the innovation front, tbh. It's just that most people dont bother with their output when they go that route.
Sure Ubisoft, making the same game every year is certainly a kind of risk. I don't know about original though.
Ubisoft puts out more smaller games than almost any other third-party publisher. Do you really see Activision making games like ZombiU, Splinter Cell, or Rayman?
Vivendi owned Activision (merger of Vivendi Games and Activision) up until selling it's majority shares in 2013. Wonder what's brought them back on board with gaming?
They sold ActiBliz and buys Ubi?!?!?!!??!!!!!!??
We're in the context of Ubi's current business model. 5 years is a long time in this industry. 5 years ago, the Xbox 360 was getting exclusive JRPGs and the DS was considered a more attractive gaming platform than mobile phones.
And a "template" is pretty much the exact opposite of innovation.
Far Cry 2 would have been completely innovative if Crysis hadn't already come out a year before it, also making a sequel to a game is always the less risk taking. It didn't matter if the games were completely different, the name for it is instantly more recognizable. Far Cry 2 got a lot of attention because of it's name. Making changes to the game for the sequel is something literally everyone does, it's not risk taking it's normal game design.
Risk means new, taking a chance on something that can be seriously bad for them if it fails. Right now I don't think anyone plays it more safe than Ubisoft and Activision.
De Blob was THQ.
a value which, for 30 years, has allowed us to innovate, take risks
Stalker came out before Crysis and Farcry 2, but that didn't make Crysis less of an innovative game now does it?
By putting out a turd then using customers to polish them year after year. That is not innovation. That is throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. I praise them for their smaller titles, they do good work there, but their main titles are derivitive, and have always been so. AC was not innovative, it was an extension of POP into an open world environment. As I said they build off what they have well. They make new stuff poorly.
Lol, I agree with the sentiment regarding small games, but those you listed not so much. One was a WiiU exclusive AAA that bombed, the other two are big franchises, and not small games at all.
Child of light, Valient Hearts, Trials, Lumines, these are small games. But to answer your question no, I don't see Activision doing this generally, though they do with licensed titles as a quick cash grab, and so deserve no acknowledgement of it really.
Crysis is not innovative either. It is a linear 5 hour first person shooter, with a super jump, invisible and strong man modes. ALL things done in other games many times before. It's status exists only as a game that taxed the most expensive rigs, because at the time it was stunning visually. It wasn't original or full of new ideas at all.
Crysis is not innovative either. It is a linear 5 hour first person shooter, with a super jump, invisible and strong man modes. ALL things done in other games many times before. It's status exists only as a game that taxed the most expensive rigs, because at the time it was stunning visually. It wasn't original or full of new ideas at all.
@nOoblet16
You are aware that AC1 was a POP game right? It's not reductionist, it is fact. They spun it off into it's own franchise, but it didn't begin that way.
Laugh all you want but they did take risks with whatever they did.
Every franchise they have was something of a new idea and as such a risk...it doesn't matter if they decided to capitalise on it later on by making sequels since it doesn't changes the fact that they were risks and innovations at the beginning.
Farcry 2, Blood Dragon, Assassin's Creed 1 (and 2), various Splinter Cells and Rainbow Six (since even within the franchise they have so much differences), Driver San Francisco, Child of Light. These were/are all risky games.
Even the upcoming games like Division and the next Ghost Recon are risky ideas. People like to pile up on Ubisoft because it's the cool thing to do these days but let's not ignore the facts now shall we?
No they weren't.
Doesn't Yves own 51%?
And DMC1 was RE4.
Does it really make any difference on where the idea started?
What. Have you actually played Crysis?
Yes, multiple times. On PC when it came out and on PS3 when it hit that. It's a fun game to play, but it is not original at all, and offers nothing new apart from punching crabs.
Sure Ubisoft, making the same game every year is certainly a kind of risk. I don't know about original though.
Yep, they basically said the same thing in their first PR: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=181774479&postcount=28
It could be a tough fight as the Guillemot Bros don't hold more than 10% and Vivendi/Bolloré is really aggressive (and successful) at these taking over. He always operate the same way...
No they weren't.
For those who don't know last week Vivendi purchased 6.6 per cent of Ubisoft's stock for €140.3 million.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Let it happen. My personal seething hate for Ubisoft that's grown over the past few years has me feeling OK about them being bought out. They have shit practices, hate their community seemingly, etc etc.
Jesus Christ, all this Ubisoft bashing on NeoGaf is getting so annoying and tedious.
So just to be clear people hat Ubisoft for their corporate bullsh*t but they want even bigger corporation to be in charge (corporation that doesn't have anything with gaming)?