Tony Key discusses why marketing budgets are expanding and how Watch_Dogs connects to the NSA scandal.
"Absolutely. That's what all our games are about; we won't even start if we don't think we can build a franchise out of it. There's no more fire and forget - it's too expensive." He says that is if it was something he should be proud of. I'm sorry but no. Games are not about releasing a new title every year to make money. I don't think it works that much to develop a game, while already thinking about its sequels. It means you're not focusing a hundred % on the game you're currently developing. Take Rockstar or ND. They're working on franchises, but they're taking time to polish every game. And it works. Look at the sales of GTA or The Last of Us. That being said, I understand developing a game costs money. But still, the way he said it made him sound greedy, in my opinion.
well its okay if the games arent dumbed down. The assassins creed games are pretty good(combat in ac3 kinda sucked but story continued to be pretty good)
Good yes, mindblowing no. AC was cool, AC 2 great, Revelations not so much and I completely disliked AC III (mostly due to the settings, though). I'm sure if they took more time to develop each games, they would've been much better. They're getting repetitive in my opinion. AC 4 looks good, but I'm still not 100% sure it'll turn out as good as it looks.
I feel the same way, I was just yelling at AC3 last night because that bastard wouldn't shoot the explosive barrels when I was on horseback hahaha. It was then I started to dislike the controls in AC3. Hopefully, the story continues to be good so I can finish up the game prior to AC4's release.
Did u miss the part about how expensive it is? By making sequels, they can at least re-use assets to push out another game which helps them gain funds. Of course it doesn't need to be a yearly release though...
I agree, 1.5-2 years between sequels is a good balance. Anything shorter than that is just a milking the franchise.... >.> CoD
No I didn't, as specified in my last sentence.
I agree that milking a franchise (AC) isn't a good thing, but I think they meant something like building a story that we like and want to play and follow. Although AC is been released every year and, IMO, getting worse and worse because of that, the story keep me into it. Ubisoft is awesome, they are just doing it wrong with AC series.
Agreed %100 Oh and (Ubisoft: "We won't even start" a game if it can't be a franchise) Tell that to PoP 08' :x
Wait, They just admitted that if the game can't be milked... They won't make it? Its things like this which killed the Gaming market a long time ago in creativity...
They said that before with Assassins creed.
The things that are killing creativity are lack of sales for those new ideas.
Right, thats why we literally have hundreds of unique and great IPs across every system. Thats why we have games like TLOU or GTAV or Skyrim. Or even the "indie" market with games like Braid or Limbo. The gaming market realizes there is no money in games without creativity. Hell people might hate on COD, but you would be ignoring relatively innovative changes that reinvented its multi player. If they shoveled literally the same thing at us without improvements from previous versions in the series, their sales will hurt. They aren't "milking" anything, rather they are ensuring their longevity as a company by producing a well known game that ALLOWS them to dabble in new IPs. Hell would you want them to say, hey we made a game that no one likes enough to have a second in the series?
Have you played GTAV? I'm just wondering if its good.
@Wraith the point is not whether or not the game is "good" but creative (as evidenced by the gameplay trailer) which is why i listed it with skyrim and TLOU. @Gentlemen The point is, are they not still releasing titles for popular franchises? That means they are "milking" it by how you defined creativity. Sure they might not release a grand theft auto every year, but they are working on multiple other series while another is being made. Just like Ubisoft. (It helps to have multiple studios around the world working on differnt series in the down time as well.) My point is you look at the quality of games being produced and the unique IPs that are shown every year, and still say "things used to be better" then you are missing out on the fun.
It just goes to show don't it... Indie devs care more about the customer/community then all these big AAA greedy idiots... EDIT: Don't bring GTA into this... Unlike all the other AAA devs... ROCKSTAR KNOWS HOW TO TAKE TIME IN MAKING A GAME THEN JUST PUMPING ONE OUT EVERY YEAR.
What a nonsensical thing to say. It only becomes milking a franchise when they expect it to sell JUST because of the name. If the sequels are good, it's NOT milking a franchise. By your reckoning only one of every game should be made. I guess you won't be buying GTA5 then?
I won't be buying GTA5 but only because I really don't care for the franchise not because I think it is milked because that just isn't the case Rockstar at least puts effort into the games. I also see no reason why Ubisoft cant do what they are doing. I personally don't like the 1 and done games. When you get invested into a character you want to see them again. At the end of the day Dev's need to make money. I generally enjoy all the Assassin's Creed games they all pretty much have their own special charm.
Well that's funny because Prince of Persia is a franchise and you still haven't made a sequel to the 2008 reboot....you know the one where the DLC ended on a cliff hanger
What's funny? 'We won't start a game if it can't be a franchise'. What does your response have to do with this? Prince of Persia is a franchise...
Because they have a franchise they started....yet they won't continue it.
there is a sequel in development. it leaked and its legit
Franchise that sell millions. OT, I would love a new PoP for next gen.
actually, if you look at how the main chars move, AC is kind of a step child of PoP. Just take the PoP mechanics and sub in AC's 3D assets and you can see that there is a close resemblance. Then when you look at Watchdogs, you can see the AC roots running deep. And now that I look at The Division, it's got a lot of Watchdogs in it. Well at least Ubisoft is bringing great games to the table while wisely reusing their assets. They just need to scale back on AC sequels before they kill the franchise.
THe Devs that used to work on and created PoP back on ps2 and the 2008 reboot created and work on AC games. Hence the fact the last PoP game was released in a year when there was a break in the AC release schedule.Thing is milking a franchise is when you're creating each entry as cheaply and as fast as possible and it's only selling due to the name. Ubisoft isn't doing that at all. People may have not liked AC3 due to it's story,settings etc. But it was a good game, it had new mechanics over the previous entries it took on board Revelations critisisms and tried to fix them. It tried a new direction for the series in many ways-the Irony is most of the complaints and how people would have prefferd it result in a game that would have been more alike previous entries than AC3 was.
@extermin8or I agree, but at the same time it would be nice if they waited 1.5-2 years between ACs. Or at least have one handheld version this year, Console/PC version the next year. That way it alternates and expands the audience while at the same time not over saturating the market with the game. It would also give them time to sell their DLC over an extended period to allow gamers to truly enjoy all the hard work they are putting into these games.
Maybe you can't read but they're saying the wont make a game if it can't become a franchise. Not 'if we have a franchise, we will continue to make games of it until the end of eternity'. That's what you seem to be taking from it. You have a problem with comprehension
Well I'm not the one getting disagreed am I so your the one in the wrong.
Newsflash. Someone agreeing with you doesn't make you correct. That's why your answer ignores any points of relevance and just says 'people disagree'. Answer in an actual response: when Ubisoft say 'we won't make a game unless we can turn it into a franchise' has to do with your comment 'prince of Persia is a franchise and you haven't made a sequel' Good luck And it's spelt 'you're'
Yes ok then princess...whatever You said something, your in the wrong and no instead of admitting it your going to try and argue your way out of it. You've already done the first thing people do in these types of situations...point peoples spelling/grammer out because you have nothing else to counter the argument with. So yeah good luck yourself.
Lol you failed to answer. Knew u needed that luck. I'm only pointing that out to help u. If I was wrong, you could tell me how. but you cower away each time. I'll help u as you're troubled by the basics. Ubisoft say 'we won't make a game unless we can make it into a franchise'. So back in the ps2 days when they made their first PoP game, they wouldn't have done so unless they thought they could make more games. Which they clearly did. Your comment relating to some 8 years later, when they've stopped making them for a while...that's not relevant. They didn't say 'if we make a franchise, we will just milk it forever'. I do wish the educational system hadn't failed you but I'm afraid that's how it is
Example: Assassins Creed 14
Watch Dogs 8 The Division 5 The Crew 4 FarCry 7
AC and watch dogs 50 in sight!They will never end a franchise especially Ubisoft,EA,Activision and M$ IS JUST MILKING, AT THE END OF the third game theres nothing more to add and the history dont make sense anymore.Thats the reason i espect ND make TLOU unique i dont need sequells i need its need ips with the same kind of experience,and that spice things on by adding new mecanics to gameplay and new solid stories.