Game Changers: Gauntlet
RAD Episode 297 – Superman Returns
Seeing the Love: My Time at Video Game Fan Fest
Ubisoft at E3 is AWESOME!
GView Mini : Strength of the Sword 3 Review
Posted By Robert G. about 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Getting long in the tooth there, Assassins Creed…
About a week ago I penned an editorial regarding the current trends of video game sequels, and why they tend to get a bad reputation. But one aspect that was not discussed in the said editorial is the idea of a longer console shelf-life. It is no secret that the current console generation is already about two years longer than the average of five years, but this revelation seems to be taking publishers by surprise in some respects.
One example would be Ubisoft’s CEO Yves Guillemont. Guillemont, in an exclusive interview with Gamasutra, discussed this very problem, once again echoing the sentiments of the likes of Square Enix and Electronic Arts.
“What we missed was a new console every five years,” he says. “We have been penalized by the lack of new consoles on the market. I understand the manufacturers don’t want them too often because it’s expensive, but it’s important for the entire industry to have new consoles because it helps creativity.”
Ubisoft is typically one of the most prolific publishers when new systems hit. That can result in a few flops, but it also can open the doors for a new franchise. (Hopes are already high for Watch Dogs, which hasn’t officially been announced as a next generation title, but the company’s no comments tend to come with a wink.)
“It’s a lot less risky for us to create new IPs and new products when we’re in the beginning of a new generation,” he says. “Our customers are very open to new things. Our customers are reopening their minds — and they are really going after what’s best. … At the end of a console generation, they want new stuff, but they don’t buy new stuff as much. They know their friends will play Call of Duty or Assassin’s Creed so they go for that. So the end of a cycle is very difficult.”
Of course, it should be noted that there is no concrete evidence for or against the idea that a console life cycle is to blame for an IP drought. The only real trend that points to this is the fact that several publishers are now on the same page regarding new IPs. But even then it would be unfair to say that no new IPs are being made. Not including the Wii U, there is at least a dozen new IPs that are still to be released in by December, including Dishonored, The Last Story, and Sleeping Dogs.
To be fair to Guillemont, he is quick to point out how important new IP is in the gaming market. “If you can’t take risks because people don’t buy, you don’t innovate, and if you don’t innovate, customers get bored.” This may be the guiding philosophy that Ubisoft tries to incorporate. Watch Dogs can serve as the poster boy at the moment for innovation by the company, while their current Wii U repertoire, from the zombie-centric Zombi U to the more casual-styled Your Shape serve as new IPs intermixed with established franchises, from Ghost Recon to Rayman.
It may just be an issue of adjustment on the publishers part then, as their expectations for a console shelf life have changed in the past ten years. Mobile gaming has become more prevalent, multiplayer and co-op games have also become a huge selling point for many consumers.So perhaps publishers should begin to look into long-term solutions regarding long console cycles, because it is likely that such a practice will not go away any time soon.
Source: Gamasutra
“We have been penalized by the lack of new consoles on the market. I understand the manufacturers don’t want them too often because it’s expensive, but it’s important for the entire industry to have new consoles because it helps creativity.”
You know, I can’t help but believe the exact opposite of everything he says, especially the part about creativity. This guy is just a marketing jerk here, as far as I’m concerned.
New IPs are more often than not hindered by a risks vs. rewards path of logic implemented by big-name publishers like Activision, EA, and Ubisoft (though I admit Ubisoft takes more risks IMO than the other two). The fact of the matter is that as a business, companies need to make money. Even indie game devs need to make money to stay in business, but indie devs seem to have less trouble mostly because they are smaller teams and thus have a smaller sales quota to break or exceed even on the costs. Most ‘new IPs’ that make it to print are the safe bets where it’s a mix of proven genres. The first BioShock proved successful because it was an FPS with light RPG elements, and with the recent success of Halo, Call of Duty, and TES IV: Oblivion at the time, it was safe to say combining gameplay elements of those would succeed at least moderately (even if System Shock 2 and Deus Ex pulled it off earlier on PCs, a console implementation of that kind of formula was a novel concept).
However, I can also see the line of reasoning to console lifespans hindering development of SOME new IPs. In this case though, it’s the bigger, beefier, more radical new IP concepts. I mean, I know I’ve come up with design docs for game ideas of mine which I’m pretty sure would never work on modern consoles because of turning what is normally an occasional gimmick of a game into a more dynamic, fleshed-out feature with more variations and making it less like scripted instances, but something brought about by the player’s actions. You’d need a bulky CPU for ideas like that, and seeing as the consoles haven’t change for a while, neither have theirs specs, and there’s only so many workarounds you can do for highly dynamic, CPU-intensive gameplay.
I’m personally glad that they’re taking their time with next generation. There are benefits to delaying a new console. 1)Better more reliable hardware that won’t die after a year or two. Because hopefully they’ve been testing it and uses higher quality parts than trying to get it out as fast and cheaply as they can. 2)Better launch tittles, one of the problems with new consoles is they seem to lack new tittles to satisfy early adopters. With a delayed next gen, Microsoft and Sony can play their cards right and get their studios to start making some sweet ass games. 3) It delays Ubisoft from making crappy ports that no one really cares about.
All I hear is an unruly tot that wants its new dev kits now and not later.
I’m going to call bull. Maybe some of them won’t see quite as good profits and the end of a console’s life can decrease some sales but I’ve never allowed the fact that something was new convince me to get it. I buy games based on how reportedly good they are and I buy consoles based on if enough games I’ll like are out for that console. In fact at the end of the PS2 life I still bought several games for it (not sure what I’m going to do when my SMT Nocturne breaks, I’ve already lost my Raidou Kuzunoha game despite being just ONE YEAR OLD!).
LOL I can’t believe this assholes nerve, trying to pin 2 spin-offs for Assassin’s Creed 2 on the fact that there’s not a next gen yet. This is ridiculous.
How does consoles affect CREATIVITY?? OH..wait, when he means “creativity” he means “profit” because when that time comes around for new consoles, making a new IP for an old console is “bad” because everyone will be dry humping the new console and thus “stifling their creativity”.
Go eat a dick Ubisoft…the only thing stifling creativity is corporate greed and -maybe- the fact no Developer takes risks, outside of the indie sector of gaming.
I don’t necessarily believe that the “new console/new IP” idea is really holds much water on that. As far as I can see, as long as there’s an idea, a story and a company that can attempt it, there’s always a new IP that can appear.
BUT, on the same token, if there’s certain limitations that’s being held up (certain technologies not able to put out certain effects), then that’s understandable. It all boils down to what a company wishes to do for their releases.
“It is no secret that the current console generation is already about two years longer than the average of five years”
No it’s not. The Wii was released in November of 2006, so the WiiU is naturally being released in November of 2012 (in other words 6 years) and Sony commonly releases a new system every 6 years. There is no concrete evidence for when their next system is set to be released, but most rumors claim next year or early 2014, meaning 7 1/2 years at the most. Hardly the radical expansion of console lifespans Ubisoft makes it out to be.
“Ubisoft is typically one of the most prolific publishers when new systems hit. That can result in a few flops,”
A ‘few’ huh?
I’m bewildered that Ubisoft thinks long console life-spans impede creativity. If anything the longer something is on the market the more developers learn how to properly use its hardware, which is why many of the most unique and well polished new IPs for consoles/handhelds were released at the tail end of their respective console’s lifespans.
Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective, Monster Tale, God Hand, Comix Zone, Devil Summoner Raidou Kuzunoha VS. The Soulless Army (OK that one technically isn’t a new IP, but still), Shantae, a hell of a lot of late to the party SNES titles, or heck the 3 brand new IPs Project Rainfall supporters begged Nintendo of America to localize for what will likely be the Wii’s last significant year.
How are these current gen console lifespans significantly greater than their predecessors and how are long console lifespans bad? Sounds to me like Ubisoft is just complaining that they don’t have any new consoles to jam shovel ware into on their launch dates.
The VG industry is a lot like Hollywood. They see a good idea, and milk it until it dies, and even then, it’s usually not the end. Too many people in there who think they can write, but in reality, cannot. Combine that with lazy producers who just want easy paydays… and you have the situation today.
Isn’t that really just a generalization though? Obviously one studio will have higher quality over another in various fields, but does that really make them lazy?
I think the issue is more about fear of going under vs overall laziness. But that’s me.