I know that hatred is in now with this community, but I am enjoying the FarCry games. Same formula? Rinse/repeat? Yes, but if something is good, keep it that way or be very careful with what you add to it. Remember e.g. New/Classic Coke? Right. Assassin's Creed also has a following, although not every game is great. That is typical of franchises, though. Brothers in Arms was a great franchise, and so was Call of Juarez. I did not like the Prince of Persia and the Rayman series, but they got their fans, too. See? It's not always the evil empire, it's not a religious question "Are they of pure gamer's blood?" or something. The Settlers games, Tom Clancy games (some of them are good!)... Yes, absolutely no talent, let them burn in hell.
In the end it is all about a) does it sell (interesting for the company/shareholders) and b) is it entertaining/will I buy again (for the gamers). And I like the FarCry franchise and some Assassin's Creed games.

Some of the story is based on feedback from financial analysts Michael Pachter and Richard Maxime Beaudoux, who often hold views that diverge from those of the hardcore gaming audience reality.

Guillemot has been running Ubisoft, based in the Paris suburb of Montreuil, as a family business where creatives are given time, space and a little extra budget when they need it.

Hence the terrible state your games release in. It makes perfect sense now!

Vivendi risks turning Ubisoft into an “empty shell” unless it can keep its approach friendly and retain Guillemot as a top executive,

Everyone quit and form a new game company.

Beamer wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 16:07:
You're correct, previous CoDs were, to me, just MoH ripoffs.

With respect, do you understand what familiarity means? One dictionary defines it as "recognizability based on long or close association."

So with that in mind your statement above is precisely what I meant by familiarity. Borrowing your point about early CODs, people bought CoD because it WAS a MoH ripoff, or that it had "recognizability based on long or close association" with MoH. At the time Word War 2 FPS games were very popular. That's why studios were creating them. Eventually Call of Duty became popular enough that it was able to clone itself and breed familiarity within the franchise itself. The only thing CoD did that was innovative was Modern Warfare. After that FPS games became more modern.

The bulk of video games produced will always be based on familiarity. Games that innovate tend to change the industry, but innovative games don't happen often. That's why No Man's Sky is going to be an innovative game.

Edit: Back to the original point. I would like to add that Ubi has had some innovative games. For example Beyond Good & Evil is an innovative title.

This comment was edited on Mar 24, 2016, 18:08.

Suppa7 wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 15:22:

Kxmode wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 14:13:
People don't want innovation, they want familiarity. Familiarity is the reason why sports game, Call of Duty, etc sell well.

Sorry to tell you but it wasn't until Call of duty 4 that Call of duty was nothing but a me too FPS. People don't know what they want until someone stumbles upon a formula for success that everyone else tries to ape. Call of duty 4 finally figured out the "game as an action movie formula" that everyone else tries to ape. Note that The wolfenstein game that was released basically copied the cinematic formula pioneered by call of duty 4. Earlier games like half-life didn't have the budget or expertise to pull off the same kinds of experiences call of duty 4 single player gave.

Call of duty was never a juggernaut, before the 4th installment. So saying all the people want is more of the same is disingenuous. Rather people buy whatever companies release because they will buy whatever companies put out to cure their bordeom. The free market is a myth that needs to die, people are creatures of habit and weakness. Gaming is probably one of the greatest examples of market for lemons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

CoD4 wasn't particularly similar to anything prior.

You're correct, previous CoDs were, to me, just MoH ripoffs. If you go back far enough in my history (it was likely here, possibly VE3D), I spent some time mocking all the me-too X of X World War games that felt like a dumb string of stupid set pieces and hidden snipers.

Kxmode wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 14:13:
People don't want innovation, they want familiarity. Familiarity is the reason why sports game, Call of Duty, etc sell well.

Sorry to tell you but it wasn't until Call of duty 4 that Call of duty was nothing but a me too FPS. People don't know what they want until someone stumbles upon a formula for success that everyone else tries to ape. Call of duty 4 finally figured out the "game as an action movie formula" that everyone else tries to ape. Note that The wolfenstein game that was released basically copied the cinematic formula pioneered by call of duty 4. Earlier games like half-life didn't have the budget or expertise to pull off the same kinds of experiences call of duty 4 single player gave.

Call of duty was never a juggernaut, before the 4th installment. So saying all the people want is more of the same is disingenuous. Rather people buy whatever companies release because they will buy whatever companies put out to cure their bordeom. The free market is a myth that needs to die, people are creatures of habit and weakness. Gaming is probably one of the greatest examples of market for lemons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

The Half Elf wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 12:25:

Julio wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:10:
Ubisoft makes a lot of terrible games, they might need to rethink a legal stance that they're very creative.

Wow did they turn you down when you applied for a job or what?

I have no interest in working at Ubisoft. But I've bought some of their games and they've been pretty mediocre for the most part. So for them to pretend they are 'special' is a joke.

They'll stay with whoever is paying them the most and treating them the best. And there's plenty of other people who want work in the industry so none of this is a factor. Vivedni wants the properties, not the staff.

For me, this centers around the Silent Hunter series. Under Ubisoft, the last entry in to the series was positively crippled and broken by their DRM crap. Silent Hunter IV is still the best of the series, in my opinion.

Under the current regime, we'll probably never see another Silent Hunter again due to the publisher's fuckups. If Vivendi buys them out, is there a better chance of seeing a new, actually functioning version of Silent Hunter? I don't know...but I would hazard to guess that it's a better chance.

For 30 years, Guillemot has been running Ubisoft, based in the Paris suburb of Montreuil, as a family business where creatives are given time, space and a little extra budget when they need it.

They're no indie dev, but this is probably more true than for ActiBlizz and EA.

nin wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 13:05:

The Half Elf wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 12:25:

Julio wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:10:
Ubisoft makes a lot of terrible games, they might need to rethink a legal stance that they're very creative.

Wow did they turn you down when you applied for a job or what?

I sent them a list of his posts from here and he was escorted out.

I sent them a list of his posts from here and he was escorted out.

Tells alot about you as a person

Linksil wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 13:19:
I don't see ubisoft as not having talent... I see it as them limiting and keeping the talent to games which are considered safe. Haven't seen anything really great/new out of them in a long time. I mean I have a good time playing a lot of the games(would be better without uplay) but there's a LOT of potential that's squashed. Never go into a ubi game with much hope for innovation.

People don't want innovation, they want familiarity. Familiarity is the reason why sports game, Call of Duty, etc sell well. It's the reason why Batman, Mad Max etc have very similar combat. It's the reason why we have dozens of very similar MOBAs. It's the reason why most MMOs follow WOW's model despite the fact that people hope the next MMO will dethrone WOW. You say you want innovation, but do you truly want it? If you do, look at No Man's Sky. That's truly innovative.

Linksil wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 13:19:
I don't see ubisoft as not having talent... I see it as them limiting and keeping the talent to games which are considered safe. Haven't seen anything really great/new out of them in a long time. I mean I have a good time playing a lot of the games(would be better without uplay) but there's a LOT of potential that's squashed. Never go into a ubi game with much hope for innovation.

I'm sure, as budgets get larger and larger, and franchises bloom, it's very tempting to play it safe. And that's what they do. No team wants to be the one that derails the franchise...there's too much money on the line. So they slowly starve it to death, with little innovation.

I don't see ubisoft as not having talent... I see it as them limiting and keeping the talent to games which are considered safe. Haven't seen anything really great/new out of them in a long time. I mean I have a good time playing a lot of the games(would be better without uplay) but there's a LOT of potential that's squashed. Never go into a ubi game with much hope for innovation.

Reading this and thinking about what I know of the company from other press it seems like they're talking about two different things.

The Half Elf wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 12:25:

Julio wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:10:
Ubisoft makes a lot of terrible games, they might need to rethink a legal stance that they're very creative.

Wow did they turn you down when you applied for a job or what?

I sent them a list of his posts from here and he was escorted out.

The Division and Rainbow Six Siege as well as AC Unity are the very antitheses of "creativity" and "talent". You don't have to get turned down or be "cunty" to see that. You just need open eyes and a modicum of good gaming taste.

Julio wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:10:
Ubisoft makes a lot of terrible games, they might need to rethink a legal stance that they're very creative.

Wow did they turn you down when you applied for a job or what?

yonder wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 12:03:
I'm curious if "independent" in this case means something similar to "indie"... which would be laughable.

Indie is short for independent but context is key. That being said I'm not exactly sure what you're implying given that the word "indie" appears no where here or in the PCGamesN's article. Where did you get indie from?

I'm curious if "independent" in this case means something similar to "indie"... which would be laughable.

CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:33:
Wouldn't a "talent exodus" require... yeah you can fill in the rest

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2016, 08:49.

CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 24, 2016, 10:33:
Wouldn't a "talent exodus" require... yeah you can fill in the rest

Can we stop with this nonsense already? You may not like Ubisoft's business practices or their games but you cannot deny that the men and women behind Ubi's games are talented on an individual level.