GavinUK86
Member
Even though this has nothing to do with Ubisoft, I'll bite. Crysis came out in 2007... name a game that came out before then that allowed you to do what that did?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft: "We're going to fight to preserve our independence" (regarding Vivendi)
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
Even though this has nothing to do with Ubisoft, I'll bite. Crysis came out in 2007... name a game that came out before then that allowed you to do what that did?
Dreamwriter
Member
They even take risks with Assassin's Creed - don't forget Ubisoft recently released the first in a trilogy of side scrolling 2D AC games.CHC said:
Coriolanus
Banned
Ubi's share prices have nearly quintupled since 2012. That ain't ever happening.
Far Cry, Stalker, Boiling Point.
All crysis did was add the power suit, really. Which is no great step, since crytek had already done far cry.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
It was definitely the end of Sierra but adventure games in general were already on their way out and I don't think Ken really cared about the company anymore anyway.
I only care if this affects the South Park game.
BibiMaghoo
Member
FarCry
Half Life 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Halo 2
Red Faction
Alien Vs Predator
And many, many more. No word of a lie, replay it now. It is linear, shallow and really short as a game. The only thing of note it had was graphics, and they don't hold as great today. The game is average, but is held way above it's place because it was a hyped poster child for PC enthusiasts. The only thing it innovated was needing a new graphics card.
This ubihate is really tiresome. And they still take risks, even within their big games: have people not heard the amazing Syndicate soundtrack? Only ubi would go for that.
down 2 orth
Member
Yeah but a quarter of that rise is from this month alone when Vivendi was getting ready to jump in.
Now just imagine how well they would be doing if their games were well received, unbroken, and their signature series' were not in the midst of commercial stagnation or decline (Far Cry aside).
nice smackdown
InfiniteUnrest
Member
Did everyone forget that the campaign was co-op? I never played it single player. Always co-op campaign or multiplayer.
They took risks in the late 00s. They haven't really taken many since.
"Games that played like Crysis" and "games in a first-person perspective" are two different things. You just listed the latter.
Windom Earle
Member
I give you Far Cry (same dev) and Stalker. The rest? Nah.
Crysis is a pretty flawed and unpolished game though.
The the stock has been an amazing performer for the last 3 years and I understand why Vivendi wants to exploit what Ubi has built up.
wut?
What game was broken, roken as in Arkham Knight on PC or Halo MCC?
What game has not been well received, or are you talking only about reviewers here (the 20-40 Y.O. white males who play 50+ games per year)?
And isn't stagnation what mass market demands from its entertainment? I look at the top grossing movies, games, and youtubers and I see no innovation.
Ubisoft turning into EA or MS studios would be a loss.
legacyzero
Banned
It isn't just that. If you've been a long time Ubi fan, and love their IP, but you're CONSTANTLY disappointed year over year because of their actions, wouldn't you be angry too?
Case-in-point. (What finally did me in)
It's a love/hate relationship that I finally had to quit.
I fucking hate ubisoft and think most of their games are shit, but I cant say they dont take risks. Even if you look at the last 5 years and disregard anything earlier when they were more willing to take risks, you still have ZombieU which is a game on a system no one else was willing to bother with.
Coriolanus
Banned
75% of terrific still is pretty dang terrific.Either way, no reason whatsoever to sack the CEO.
I know personification of corporations is a thing, but you need to realize that they are just collections of people. I highly doubt there was some meeting where people were informed: "you have to lie to the map modding community so we can get that extra 5 or 10 thousand pre-orders." It is more likely a case of confusion and feature cuts due to limited dev time. It's a shame that the community couldn't be served though.
If you don't want other people to buy your company, don't go public. It's that easy
Or have dual class shares, that way you get to have cake while eating it.
Goldenroad
Member
How would owning 6.6% of the shares in Ubisoft give anyone anywhere near a controlling interest?
DannyDanger
Member
As long as it doesn't affect for honor
SentryDown
Member
People trying to deny their statement regarding innovation should really open their eyes. They have their reccuring franchises of course but they still create more new IPs than any other major publisher ("Ubi formula same shit lol" --> For Honor). They take risks even in their own franchises, pirates in AC4, new Splinter Cell Conviction formula, Far Cry Primal, ... They're also the most supportive regarding new consoles (ZombiU, they also did the first next-gen only major AAA) and smaller projects such as Grow Home.
You can say a lot of bad things about Ubisoft, but the innovation is here, find something else.
You can say a lot of bad things about Ubisoft, but the innovation is here, find something else.
yanipheonu
Member
Anyone else think about a world without Ubisoft and be remarkably okay with that?
Say what you want about Ea and Activison, I'd miss the games they publish.
Say what you want about Ea and Activison, I'd miss the games they publish.
you dont actually need 51% in order to control a company. think of it like a minority gov in a parliament with 1000 different parties. Moreover, at least where I'm from, stockholders dont actually own anything beyond a claim on profits and (sometimes) voting rights.
Chû Totoro
Member
Low price of Ubi stocks.
down 2 orth
Member
Well if we're free to compare with a date of our choosing, you could just as easily say that until Vivendi started to buy in, share prices didn't go anywhere close to returning to their peak era between 2007-2008. That argument can go both ways.
What I would be worried about as a shareholder are missed opportunities: WB Interactive has become everything that Ubi has aspired but failed to be, and part of their success comes from releasing great games. It wasn''t so long ago that Yves was talking about playing on the same level as Activision and EA. Now I'll be surprised if the next AC or Watchdogs can come within a million sales of its previous release.
I don't like that either.
But that doesn't change the thing we were talking about: risks. Yes, I agree with you that their strategy for bullshot trailers is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that Ubisoft still takes some risks.... it's almost like you didn't read my entire post before you started writing.
Windom Earle
Member
I agree! I tried to explain why people dislike Ubi, but I think you are correct in saying they still take risks.
In a perfect world...
Coriolanus
Banned
Cave Johnson
Member
Did you conveniently leave out the production values? Here's a significant difference between funding a game like Journey and building titles like Grow Home. Last time I checked, games like Grow Hime can be built without informing the CEO as long as it's within a certain budget threshold. I'm not saying Ubi doesn't innovate, they just don't back it up with a higher budget compared to AC/Far Cry.
Sony:
Horizon
RIME
TLG
Let It Die (Suda51 title)
The tomorrow children
What remains of Edith finch
Wild
No man's sky
And that's just the ones announced. What happens next week on Paris Game show would be another. Notice none of these games are "small" by any means compared to Ubi's "innovative" lineup. They clearly are delivering experiences that has variety, innovation AND a budget behind it which means HIGHER risks. Other than For Honor, I don't see anything significant in their upcoming lineup.
PrivateRyan
Member
Erm
What
It's clearly a spin-off series. It's like saying EA take risks with Dead Space because they released Dead Space Extraction.
I could only find data from up to 5 years ago
Link plx
try google's stock tracker.
Chû Totoro
Member
I agree with people saying that Ubi may be the one taking the most risks between the big 3rd party publishers.
Clearly they took risks and since they manage to build big franchises they use them as a cash machine (not smart for the long term imo but I'm not the CEO)... yet they are still trying some things here and there, it's just that despite saying that they want new things people are just buying the same things year after years.
If you want innovation or more interesting games you'll have to look a little harder than the big hyped things. Just look at NPD... cars, sports and guns. Yay !
But you don't have to buy the things everyone buys, just make up your mind and play the games you like (even some Ubisoft games). Just pray that the games are selling enough so you can still see some editors take these risks or even better, that it become a new beloved franchise (that you can later let go when it's annualized and used as a cash machine).
Clearly they took risks and since they manage to build big franchises they use them as a cash machine (not smart for the long term imo but I'm not the CEO)... yet they are still trying some things here and there, it's just that despite saying that they want new things people are just buying the same things year after years.
If you want innovation or more interesting games you'll have to look a little harder than the big hyped things. Just look at NPD... cars, sports and guns. Yay !
But you don't have to buy the things everyone buys, just make up your mind and play the games you like (even some Ubisoft games). Just pray that the games are selling enough so you can still see some editors take these risks or even better, that it become a new beloved franchise (that you can later let go when it's annualized and used as a cash machine).
down 2 orth
Member
Mass_Pincup
Banned
And how is that? WB doesn't have a franchise that pull the type of number AC, Far Cry or Watch Dogs do. Batman and MK are on the level of The Crew sale wise.
And really? Quality games? When the PC version of Arkham Knight was so bad they literally had to stop selling it for months?
First of all of course Sony will have innovative games, they're 1st party, they have to differentiate themselves from the competition to sell consoles whereas Ubisoft is their to make money on the games only.
And Let it Die and No man Sky's are not Sony's.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I dislike a lot of stuff about how Ubi does business, but when it comes to making distinct games and launching new IPs they are one of the very best publishers in the business.
down 2 orth
Member
Probably because they have a lot of franchises that perform well. Or at least well enough for them to be the best performing and fastest growing publisher this year. Batman is just a part of that. And I'm guessing that being broken on one system isn't as damaging as being broken on all systems.
Not all of them are Sony games, and For Honor, Division and Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands all seems like (financial) risks + possible Ubiart games we don't know about.
But you're right. Sony does an amazing job and has created some of my favorite IP's.
Ah, didn't understand that from your post - my apologies!
Ubisoft takes the most risk of the big three third party publishers (ActiBlizz, EA, Ubi) in the last few years.
And I'm sick to death of open world radio tower collectathon stuff, but the others are even worse because they didn't even innovate that which they exploit.
And I'm sick to death of open world radio tower collectathon stuff, but the others are even worse because they didn't even innovate that which they exploit.
So now Ubi doesn't take risks? You guys have really short memories, heh.
Anyway, hoping for the best.
I don't think comparing Ubi to a first party is fair. Now, looking at others (EA, Activision, etc) Ubi definitely is the most innovative one.
Also, Let it Die and No Man's Sky aren't first party titles. Sony isn't funding them. Let It Die doesn't even look innovative (or good, tbh). Also, i'm pretty sure that Child of Light has a budget that nears pretty much all of that list with the exception of the AAA's.
Anyway, hoping for the best.
I don't think comparing Ubi to a first party is fair. Now, looking at others (EA, Activision, etc) Ubi definitely is the most innovative one.
Also, Let it Die and No Man's Sky aren't first party titles. Sony isn't funding them. Let It Die doesn't even look innovative (or good, tbh). Also, i'm pretty sure that Child of Light has a budget that nears pretty much all of that list with the exception of the AAA's.
Yeah...that's why they release so much crap because hey the game is incomplete but lets risk it and just release it!!!
Not entirely accurate, but honestly it's good enough for this discussion. But just to clarify with a 51% ownership (technically 50% + 1 share) you can pass any general resolutions you want. However in order to pass any special resolutions you would need to control 75% + 1 share of the votes. However with a company the size of Ubisoft it's very unlikely any one entity will come close to 50% ownership (no way 75% is happening).
What's more important here is if vivendi can get to 10% ownership because at that point they can't be forced to sell their shares and they can control how some votes happen. But even if they sit at ~7% ownership if they want to be hostile then they would have to get the other big share holders to believe that their plan can generate more money than the current leadership and so they should install vivendi leadership in Ubisoft. However I don't think this is very likely to happen since it's clear that the Guillemot brothers are against this action from vivendi and they have a long relationship with their shareholders and have a history of providing solid long term growth. So it looks like if vivendi really wants to get more power they're going to have to buy it.
Also remember that EA bought 20% of Ubisoft in a similarly hostile move and the Guillemot brothers were able to still keep control of the company.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
That's for one year, the year in which they released their to biggest IPs. You can be sure that it's not going to happen anytime soon. And which game was "broken" on all system?
yep
im tired of their yearly games but everything you said is true
ubisoft is the new david cage lol
Sony is a publisher that owns studios which are developing some of the games you mentioned...and then some of them are not even Sony games there.
Ubisoft is a bit different in that they are a publisher and a developer both.
It might seem as semantics as first but there is a bit of difference here. It mainly comes from the fact that when a publisher owns a studio like Activision owning, Bungie, EA owning DICE, Sony owning GG...it's the studio that gets the recognition (or infamy) for the game and not the publisher. In case of Ubisoft it's the publisher who is wholly responsible for everything in the eyes of the people.
For instance you don't see people blaming Sony for the shit/terrible games their first party studios might create, but you will most certainly see people blaming Ubisoft for the bad games that comes out of their company.
Straight up one of the dumbest things written.
Similar threads
- Locked