Support NeoGAF

[shuraiya]

If they really value their independence, then the Guillemot family should have held on to 51% of the company.

 

[mrklaw]

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.

If I have my full cynic hat on, I'd suggest that UbiArt titles are a low cost, low risk opportunity for Ubisoft to get some good press and the air that they don't only churn out milked franchises year after year.

 

[Shivvy_NTL]

I call dibs on a waypoint tower.

Ahh beat me to it, i call dibs to the second waypoint tower.

 

[IvorB]

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

Spoiler

and is a great game that everyone should own

.

Weren't they big supporters of WiiU initially and released that Zombie game for it? That seems pretty risky to me.

 

[RipperGrim]

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.

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.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

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.

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.

 

[CaviarMeths]

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.

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.

 

[Rlan]

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.

De Blob was THQ.

 

[Calabi]

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.

And there's Rocksmith, a really obscure game/edutainment that probably never sold many and never could sell many, being it requires a real Guitar.

No one else would have likely done it, I believe Yves said he let them do it because he liked the idea.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

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?

Assassin's Creed is boring, but they put the money that makes towards smaller games that don't fit the "Ubisoft Game" stereotype. You're not going to see those games under Vivendi.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

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?

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.

 

[diamount]

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?

Probablty them kicking themself with all the moolah Activison is making.

 

[darkinstinct]

They sold ActiBliz and buys Ubi?!?!?!!??!!!!!!??

Sell high, buy low, that's how you make money.

 

[Moobabe]

ITT people ignore Grow Home, Child of Light and Valiant Hearts.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

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.

No we are not. Read Guillemot's statement. "Past 30 years".

If they innovated the "template" it's an innovation. Just because they keep using it doesn't mean you can disregard it.

 

[nOoblet16]

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.

Risk doesn't necessarily means new and making changes to sequel does not exclude it from being a risk just because it is a sequel. That's an awfully narrow view to have. Also if you remember FC2 more or less failed. Risk is anything that is new or goes against what is expected, be it from a new IP or an existing IP.

It does not matter if Crysis came out before it because the games had enough differences and FC2 did enough things that Crysis didn't, I am not going to go into details but you look at a game by what it achieves and what it is trying to achieve rather than individual elements. Stalker came out before Crysis and Farcry 2, but that didn't make Crysis less of an innovative game now does it?

 

[bengraven]

Forgot Blizz left a couple years ago.

I was going to make a joke about World of Warcraft now featuring really boring side activities in each city and respawnable checkpoints.

 

[Coriolanus]

De Blob was THQ.

Huh. Thanks. Weird. Even weirder because i played deblob2 about a month ago. Oh thq, you poor thing.

 

[RexNovis]

a value which, for 30 years, has allowed us to innovate, take risks

Bahahahaha!!!!!!
Seriously? Yes well I suppose you've pioneered ways to copy yourselves ad naseum across multiple series and genres by recycling the exact same tired open world gameplay mechanics while still miraculously making profits. So innovate I could see maybe but take risks?!?!? Hell nah. One of the most risk averse game publishers of our time. Second maybe to Zenimax. Maybe.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Stalker came out before Crysis and Farcry 2, but that didn't make Crysis less of an innovative game now does it?

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.

 

[nOoblet16]

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.

Yea this is a reductionist argument here.
Just because PoP featured parkor does not make it more or less the same thing. Was Gears of War not an innovative game simply because Kill Switch used a cover system before it ? If I use your logic then it's not since it's just an extension of what we saw in games released before that and yet you and I both know that's incorrect since there was enough in the game to warrant it as an innovation.

You are ignoring the fact that when AC1 came out it was the first time ever that we had a game where you could literally scale every building you can see in an open world with very detailed animations to boot too, and organising all of that to make a game is indeed something. You give credit where it's due.

The bit about turd is where the experimentation comes in, you cannot ask for risk and innovation and at the same time expect that it works 100%. It's part of the deal that risk means something might go wrong as it's a new territory and untested waters so they don't know what kind of problems and complaints the games might have from the game until they actually release it and see their responses....and that they did. And then they built upon it with the direct sequel that followed i.e. AC2 and we all know how great that turned out to be. The same goes for FC3, a direct sequel to the "turd" that FC2 was where they built upon things. Or even take Blacklist for example, a direct sequel to the turd Conviction that built upon the previous game and made changes according to the gamer interest.

Why am I stressing on the word direct? Because you said they take years to refine it when that was clearly not the case with these games. What they did was they capitalised on the success of these games for years but it did not take them many years and many games to get to that point like you are claiming.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

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.

Those are small games. ZombiU and Rayman are in largely irrelevant genres and are most certainly did not have AAA budgets. Splinter Cell is a pretty small franchise.

Regardless, you don't see those from almost any other third-party publishers (besides Sega, I guess, but Ubisoft definitely has more consistent quality). The fact that they happen to have a cashcow franchise doesn't change the fact that they're one of the last major drivers of mid- and low-budget games. Them getting bought out would be a huge loss.

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.

What. Have you actually played Crysis?

 

[ginger ninja]

In the last two days, I have seen more defense of ubisoft on Gaf than I have seen actual ubisoft games that interest me.

 

[nOoblet16]

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.

And DMC1 used to be RE4 until they decided to spin it into it's own franchise and gameplay.
Does it really make any difference on where the idea started?


Also to the people who mentioned Crysis and it's existence being the reason why FC2 isn't innovative. Do you guys remember this game?

 

[Yoshi]

People question Ubisoft taking risks?
- Rayman Legends
- ZombiU
- Rayman Raving Rabbids (not a risk I'm happy with, but throwing away a 3d platformer sequel to a sucessful series in order to make a motion controlled mini game collection mainly geared at the sucessor platform of the GameCube? Quite risky)
- Assassin's Creed (structurally quite unique, huge investment in a new IP)
- Beyond Good & Evil

These are just the big ones off the top of my head, but even smaller titles like Valiant Hearts or Child of Eden seem unique and risky. Just because a company has a line of safe sequels does not mean you should just disregard their more risky efforts. Compared with the other two big ones, EA and Activision, Ubisoft's line up is way more diverse and risky as I see it.

 

[CHC]

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?

You're absolutely right. It's easy to shit on when they capitalize heavily on what DOES work, but they still do things that try one else does. I mean, Assassin's Creed, as mediocre as it can be, is like the only historical fiction series of its type. AC games are all like each other, but there really isn't anything else like them outside of the series. And the next Far Cry is about cavemen, for God's sake. Plus, there are lots of small titles, Grow Home, Rayman, Valiant Hearts, etc.

Ubi isn't perfect, but out of the large studios they are arguably the best. They're certainly better than Activision or EA, by a long shot.

No they weren't.

Great, great argument. Really like how you used all that solid, convincing evidence to back up your point.

 

[Chev]

Doesn't Yves own 51%?

he owns 9,4%, enough to control it but not enough to own it, basically.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

And DMC1 was RE4.
Does it really make any difference on where the idea started?

When you are talking about innovation, about new ideas, then I think so yes. It was not a new idea, but an expansion of what they had which is what Ubi does.

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.

 

[Yopis]

So this is how it ends for Ubi, sad.

 

[quackamole]

Not a big fan of Ubisoft currebtly, but I like Vivendi even less, for the way they treated Blizzard in the past even while sucking a huge amount of money from the golden days of WoW.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

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.

Lol. It's the best Predator simulator ever made. You've got a set of tools, multiple objectives, and its up to you to figure out how to do them. A real sandbox that doesn't hold the players hands. Destructible environments where you can pick up and throw every object. It got right what open-world games failed and still fail with in their mission design.

It pushed the genre forward to say the least.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Sure Ubisoft, making the same game every year is certainly a kind of risk. I don't know about original though.

Y'all at like making Assassin's Creed in the first place wasn't risky at all, like reviving Far Cry wasn't risky (or that turning it into Turok after two successful sequels wasn't risky), like making Driver SF or The Crew wasn't risky, like making Red Steel wasn't risky, like drastically altering the Splinter Cell formula want risky, like dumping money into new IP like The Division and Watch Dogs wasn't risky. Even what they've attempted (and largely failed) with Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six is risky.

They also have one of the better and more diverse digital libraries out there. It's chic to shit on Ubi as the lol AssCreed company but they are legitimately trying to diversify at all times.

Edit: I'd like you to list 5 games that played like Crysis before Crysis.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

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...

I'm just curious why they'd sell Activision Blizzard and then a few years later attempt to buy Ubi.

 

[Roronoa95]

No they weren't.

Launching a bunch of new IP is a risky business :

- Child of Light
- For Honor
- Watch Dogs
- The Crew
- Valiant Hearts
- Blood Dragon & Primal
- The Division
- Grow Home

 

[Windom Earle]

For those who don't know last week Vivendi purchased 6.6 per cent of Ubisoft's stock for €140.3 million.

Damn, you could build a lot of towers for that kinda dosh.

 

[icecold1983]

like it matters WRT ubi. they already employ every possible type of corporate ownership style business anyway

 

[El-Suave]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Usually Ubisoft supports most new platforms with new games AT LAUNCH, something the other 3rd parties won't do. They were there with new games on Wii, Wii U, 3DS and Vita. But sure - just keep blindly hating on their open world formula.
Edit: forgot the Kinect games - for every failed platform, Ubisoft was the best and sometimes only shot at third party exclusive support.

 

[jelly]

I think Ubisoft haven't really came through in recent years, Conviction was totally different than what we got which took a step back to safe, Blacklist even further back. Rainbow Six was going somewhere interesting story wise but they basically crushed that and did something very basic and different to salvage the cost. Far Cry, Assassins Creed stuck in the Ubisoft template which seems to have taken over Ubisoft, Watch Dogs suffered as well. Who knows what the Division will end up like, Destiny Ubi Template, ugh. Ghost Recon Far Creed or something fresh, hopefully the latter. I think they are stuck in a rut. Sure, some other creative smaller games and purchases like Trials but there isn't that big game leap yet, bigger scale perhaps, but a risk, not so sure.

 

[boredandlazy]

They do take risks. They just happen to be the exact same risks every year.

Spoiler

J/K

 

[theSlacker]

After what they did to Patrice Désilets I find that statement funny.

Haven't bought an Ubisoft game since AC3, and will continue not to.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I think that in the last ten years alone, there are actually few games riskier than the first Assassin's Creed. New IP, experimental gameplay and ultra-high budget.

 

[privitsan02]

Some of the posts in here make me wonder when people started playing Ubisoft games... Or games in general...

Sure they were known for some awful shovelware in the mid-2000s but Ubisoft Montreal used to be a studio full of experimentation. Every generation they released something new and fresh. Lately things have slowed down with the Ubisoft open world game factory but they still have UbiArt and new IPs like The Division that are still different. I know it sounds like Liverpool fan talking about their overall history but the way I see the responses in here, I just see PSG and Man City bandwagoners. A stretch of a comparison, but yeah..

They are one of the riskier publishers out there. The hate for Ubisoft on GAF is getting absolutely ridiculous and I don't even like their games that much lately. I'm not interested in anything they are producing within the next year or possibly 2 either. Every Assassin's Creed thread is full of shit-posting so I'm not really surprised.

Best wishes.

 

[legacyzero]

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.

 

[Psoelberg]

Jesus Christ, all this Ubisoft bashing on NeoGaf is getting so annoying and tedious.

It doesnt matter if you like their games or not, of all the big game developers (EA, Rockstar, Activision, etc) Ubisoft are definitely one of those who take the most risks.

They keep some of their old franchise alive, yes, but at the same time creating new IP's and are encouraging their different divisions to make smaller games.

Just name any other big game developer with this many new IP's in development for the current generation.

 

[Warxard]

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.

Gamers, man.

 

[down 2 orth]

Fire Yves when you get the chance Vivendi, he's just a stinking steamer of a CEO.

 

[Windom Earle]

Jesus Christ, all this Ubisoft bashing on NeoGaf is getting so annoying and tedious.

Yeah, it's almost like people didn't forget about their bait and switch bullshot trailers and broken game release last year. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Ubisoft tried very hard to earn this reputation.

 

[dex3108]

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)?

 

[Windom Earle]

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)?

I think Ubisoft is the one company where most people just wouldn't care or don't expect it would make any difference.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Vivendi bought a percentage in Ubisoft?!!!