Ubisoft has admitted that Watch Dogs 2 didn't get off to the best start in life, but proving yet again that a (watch) dog is for life and not just for Christmas, the title's fortunes have improved of late thanks to positive word of mouth. The hack happy outing is now trending better than Assassin's Creed Syndicate, though 2015's London outing didn't exactly set the sales charts alight either.
All of this means that the French firm intends to release fewer big AAA releases in its coming fiscal year -- just four, according to boss Yves Guillemot -- as it continues to support its growing roster of "live" titles. These are games such as Rainbow Six: Siege and The Division, titles which are regularly updated over a protracted period of time. Are you a fan of this strategy, though?
Nah, us neither.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 41
Sounds like they got no creativity anymore. Their current line-up of games is not good enough to have this kind of strategy. This is not blizzard.
Live titles sound nice in theory but the reality is with so many quality games coming out these days I've more than likely moved on before these updates come out.
I'd rather they just rip up their open world template and create something from scratch that felt more natural than what they and many others have been doing for what feels like forever.
Poor cash cows are milked dry, give them a rest. Learn from Rayman.
What's better for business...spending time, money, and resources on creating something new and exciting or fleecing customers with paid DLC that should have already been included in games?
@Hordak To be fair, the strategy is a bit different to that. They're treating these games as services: there's no way they could include everything at launch, because they're continuing to work on them long, long after that.
It's the same strategy Overwatch, Destiny, and many MMOs use. It also appears to be the future... Sigh!
@get2sammyb I don't like the sound of that future. I realize game budgets are immense now, but dang. I miss the days of getting a game and actually having the game! All of these patches and extra DLC, pre-order bonuses, etc. are just bogging me down. I swear a company couldn't even release solitaire, mine sweeper or even the original PC version of Tetris without 10 patches and a wall of paid DLC.
Watch Dogs 2 trial actually put the series on my radar - it seems like a really fun game and it even has a perk like behind-the-wheel view while driving, like GTA V (too bad Saints Row IV doesn't). Of course, first games first. Same for Assassin's Creed which I recently decided to include in my archive binging plans (much thanks to the movie, and yes, I did like it - a good introduction to the lore and key concepts of the franchise) but which has that first game remaining annoyingly inaccessible in my case. So... I don't see the slower pace in Ubisoft releases impacting me anytime soon. XD
@Hordak I agree.
@nhSnork You should just skip the first Watch Dogs. The second game is vastly superior and there are only the most tenuous narrative links between the two.
@get2sammyb Yup, live games or "games as a platform" are definitely the future. Considering Activision Blizzard just made $3.6 billion on DLC/season passes/microtransactions last year, it's totally understandable as to why this is happening, at least for multiplayer games.
Or they could just make games that don't all look the same? Just a suggestion. They should try making another non-open world game for a change of pace.
I wonder what this means for Far Cry and Assassin's Creed? I mean, unless they really shake things up with the next games in those series I could honestly care less. Watch Dogs 2 is great, can't really say the same of The Division... I may get back into that if they finally decide to add ALL of New York in like they promised when they first started the hype train.
This is good news for For Honor.
I'm gonna assume this means no more Rayman for a long, long time. Sigh.....
I'd actually like to see a new Rayman title, and for some reason (okay, I love playing them on Wii and want it on PS4) a Rabbids title that's not the Rabbids Invasion version...plus, they own the Hasbro games, make a decent collection like the ones of the past! Other than that, it's good that they'll give some of their franchises a rest, but make some new IP, instead of sequel after sequel...there's too many Assassin's Creed titles and Watch Dogs 2 could have waiting another year before released...seemed too early for it. Other than that, I'm sure Just Dance 2018 will be one of those 4 that are coming out...wahoo (sarcasm there, can't stand the games).
@DerMeister That's what I was thinking too, and I was hoping for a new one.
@JesWood13 I think they already stated that Assassin's Creed won't have a new title in the series this year...kind of good news, because they have more time to work on one for the following year and make it great! Plus, gives them more time to work on a new Far Cry too and hopefully...Rayman.
@Hordak Have you played Solitaire on Windows 10? It has microtransactions. The future is now.
@Kidfried seriously?!?! Just shoot me now 😔
It would be nice to see them push for 60fps in future,and ditch the standardized open world Ubiness.i hope they Resurrect Crysis,and not in third person as was mooted by Crytek.
Id rather have them update their multiplayer games regularly than making a yearly game. It saves you lots of money in the long run as these dlcs don't take much to pay for from a consumers perspective. Its also why we don't have a league of legends 2 by now. Put one team per franchise on these multiplater games, and the a seperate team for the big single player games. That is how i see this going on.
That depend on the game I guess, make sense for multiplayer focused titles like for honor, but it doesn't work for single player game like final fantasy 15 or the witcher 3, at some point the game is done and it's time to make a sequel.
@Tasuki If For Honor is supported anywhere near 'half' as much as Siege then I would be incredibly happy.
Sounds like the big publishers like Ubisoft are all going to go down this road! Less games, more repetitive maps and dlc for the masses keep paying for!! I'll likely be playing more and more indie games in the future tbh
Makes business sense I guess but, to be honest, I am a play and move on kinda player and I don't tend to go back to games that often, especially as I am not a huge MP person. That said, I am not their demographic clearly - the last Ubisoft game I played was Far Cry 4 and, as much as I liked it, was enough to put me off the franchise and similar for some time.
I hope it means they may take more 'smaller' risks as a sideline while they milk larger releases.
@get2sammyb thanks, but the same could be said about FFI and FFVII - and I still decided to start at the beginning years ago despite an opportunity to play the latter. And this perspective of evolution was perhaps one of the reasons I would become a Final Fantasy fan in general. So while it doesn't happen all the time, I do attempt to stick to release order when I can, and a current total of two games is much easier in that regard than the massive backlog in Tales or Zelda games.
This approach is why I buy games later. Why should I pay full price for a game, when in a year's time I can play the finished "complete" version? At a cheaper price usually. It's why I haven't bought ffxv.
That said I think it's good publishers are thinking more long term for sales strategies, rather than "this didn't sell 5m in a month so it's a failure. Cancel the sequel plans". Think longer term for sales, and use trophy info to see how many people actually finish your game instead!
I dont own a single Ubisoft game. Not one.
Thats really telling how low the games have sunk. Less marketing more game please.
LOL! Good residence. Best game they ever did was Scott Pilgrim vs the World anyway.
While this approach may sound good to some on paper, we all know that they are doing it so they can milk the highest profits out of each game for relatively little cost. Putting in some new weapons and maybe a new map to a game that is already built to easily allow those who aren't programmers to do so costs a very small fraction of what it costs to develop a new game and it is pretty much risk free.
I expect to see those microtransaction they said wouldn't be in The Division to be more aggressively marketed and be in all their games from now on. I miss the days where you could buy a game safe in the knowledge you had a complete and playable experience in your hands, I'm just waiting for the proverbial straw that will end up putting some of the big names out of business.
The Division is far too dull a setting for me and Rainbow Six Siege seems a little too elite for my attention. I have WD2, its okay... Ghost Recon I thought the Beta was Okay... And I just didn't like the mechanics of For Honor. Good luck I guess.
you mean they are actually going to take their time and not release unfinished buggy messes?
i'm all for that
@Hordak I think to fair you need to compare apples to apples.
When you buy a single player game, you do get the full game. Not only does the game look better than those games back in the day, but it has way more content. Seriously, play any old NES game and you'll see what I am talking about. They had only a few moves, the gameplay was basic as hell and even the enemies were pretty much the same.
No one is forcing you to buy DLC. I hardly ever buy DLC and when I buy, for example, God of War 3, I know that I have all the content I need. I ignore everything else. Same with Infamous: Second Son. I played the expansion/DLC because it was a new game.
Quality over quantity. It's a no brainer.
Give us a new Rayman Ubi, go back through your huge list of IP's and bring back some old franchises.
This is disappointing, IMO. I have RS Siege and The Division, and honestly I get burned out rather quickly on titles like these. In most cases, adding additional maps, weapons, and skins is not enough to get me reenergized about a game; not to mention it's the price of another AAA game for these things.
I think it kind of depends on the title too. There are many games I have traded and then wished I had held on to for the DLC, some games I have ended up buying again, that's why I only buy digital now. Rainbow Six is very repetitive IMO, new operators and maps will never change that, and The Division isnt far behind it. I stopped playing the AC games after AC 3 as I got bored with more of exactly the same. While this model looks good on some games, I don't think Ubisoft has the titles or content to keep me interested like other Devs.
@JoeBlogs that's a good point and don't really care about those 2 games either but did play both. Many of these games take a long time to beat too so take your time so many things to play forever.
I hate this I mean i get it. This approach works great for broke ppl that only buy 1 or 2 games a year out of the 100s that come out, but...you know what im gonna stop there bc im just gonna start ranting. Everyone have a great day.
Language -Tasuki-
@JLPick I think they said they were skipping 2016 with a new AC game and the next would be releasing this year.
Hmmm, I'm putting The Witcher 3 and Bloodborne in this mindset. Would I rather keep paying for really good DLCs once or twice a year or play a new game? Maybe a little of both for me. Granted neither one of those have the online multiplayer base Ubisoft seems to be focusing on, but I know I would love another Witcher DLC story to fall into.
@themcnoisy Beyond Child of Light, Trials, Valient Hearts and Rayman Ubisoft have done nothing of interest to me for maybe a decade. Rainbow 6 seems pretty good, if I was in school I think me and my friends would had been into that, but not now.
Tap here to load 41 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...