 |
|
|
| |
Ubisoft CFO Talks Prince Of Persia, Far Cry 2, Suggests Ratings Overrated
by Chris Remo
|
|
| |
|
December 11, 2008
|
| |
Ubisoft Montreal's latest Prince of Persia title may have a significant impact on Ubisoft's financial performance, said company CFO Alain Martinez, particularly in an ever more competitive marketplace.
Speaking at the UBS Annual Global Media Conference, Martinez cautioned that it's "very early" to make definite projections on overall sales of the title, which launched this month, but the company "believes 2.5 to three million [sales] is clearly achievable."
"If it goes to four or five [million], then there is an upside factor for the company," he continued, adding, "If it goes to 1.5 million, then there is a downside factor." Martinez explained that a strong "driver" title would be welcome for Ubisoft, as the publisher has had few recent top five hits, unlike competitors Activision and Electronic Arts. He noted that in the current economic climate, hitting top sales positions has become more important.
"I would probably say competition is tougher, because there is more product," he said. Still, he remains confident in Ubisoft's prospects, pointing out, "Just as a reminder, we have raised our guidance three times this year."
The company is also hoping Ubisoft Montreal's Far Cry 2, which had an unusually mixed initial reaction, will end up being a steadier seller over the long term, rather than the explosive early seller the company had hoped for. Martinez said Ubisoft is "repromoting" the game, and now projects it to reach 2.5 to three million sales.
Part of the reception of the game may be regional -- while EA Redwood Shores' Dead Space, which targets a similar demographic, has significantly outsold Far Cry 2 in North America, the reverse has been true in Europe.
Martinez affirmed a commitment to game quality, including the widely-cited metric of average review scores, but also illustrated that Ubisoft products have frequently not seen as strong a correlation between sales and ratings as the company has predicted.
"To be honest, when Assassin's Creed launched and got 82 percent, we were desperate, and we thought we were going to die," Martinez recalled -- but the game ended up being a runaway hit, exceeding five million units by some reports.
He then noted an example to opposite effect. "If you look at our first Prince of Persia [Sands of Time], we thought it was going to do great," he said, "[but] it did two million, so we were kind of disappointed."
The CFO summed up the lesson learned: "It's not ratings that mean everything, but we think quality and innovation are the key."
Martinez also commented on Infogrames' acquisition of MMO specialist Cryptic Studios, revealing that Ubisoft had bid on the company itself.
"We lost one deal which we were a bit mad [about]," he said. "We lost Cryptic; it's a US company that was taken by Atari...we were a bit disappointed."
Ubisoft still plans to invest in acquisitions, and expects to close at least one deal soon: "We have about three deals within [the] five million euro range that we are negotiating," said Martinez. "Most probably, one or two of them will be closed in the next three or four months."
|
| |
|
|
It's really the only weakness I can see in any of their otherwise excellent lineup.
I agree about the tech demo assessment. They look better in video than they feel being played.
I think repetition is one of those complaints that people use selectively since all games are repetitious and some of the most venerated games of all time introduce the base play mechanics within the first moments of the game and never change it up. Sacred cows like Resident Evil 4 or Half Life 2 are repetitious as hell yet they are never taken to task for this.
As to Far Cry 2, it’s a wildly ambitious game and probably the most innovative First Person Shooter in years. The game is a bit bloated in terms of execution but the overall quality and game play dynamics are exceptional, including the use of fire as a strategic tool in combat.
The newest Prince of Persia is still sitting on my shelf unopened because of time restraints but overall, I think those of you asserting that Ubisoft’s games have no “heart” or the claim that they are glorified tech demos are pretty far off the mark. I think games like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry 2 illustrate a publisher willing to take some chances and create titles that are innovative and divergent and I’ve personally found nothing but favor with the vast majority of their games.
I've asked friends who've worked in Montreal about this (at Ubi) and the overall thought seems to be that while the teams are very competent, but also extraordinarily arrogant. Not that this is entirely unusual in the development world - but teams like those often require strong management that can keep them focused (on gameplay and other items that matter) and less on superfluous endeavors.
I think it will pay off long term. Hopefully so anyway.
But of course, making a highly linear game with limited technical challengers but strong use of scripted events that are used to break repetition (like Gears of War, God of War, etc.), is an alternative development process that IMO can be very safe, yet once that is sadly ignored if not outright misunderstood at Ubisoft.
Let's see how well the sequels will do:)
But exploration and flexibility within a system gives it depth. The duels in Prince of Persia are a good example. The various boss characters have subtle differences (being immune to certain attacks or not taking damage during the 'cornered' sequences, being able to disable Elika with certain attacks) which play on the duel system. This prevents the longest combination attack becoming a dominant strategy for the player. The way defeat was handled in particular in boss battles was very well done, pushing the player to adapt themselves to the winning strategy for that opponent and apply it consistently without heavily punishing the player while they adapt.
It is surprising, then, to find that although there was quite a variety across each boss, a very formulaic approach was taken to facing them, often seeing very similar scenarios each time you faced them within their respective realms.
Differences such as the Warrior King 'pillar' fight (As opposed to the more common 'just knock him off the edge to win' battles) could have been implemented more often to keep each battle different by larger degrees and serve to further challenge the player to adapt their strategy for each fight.
I do very much enjoy Ubisoft Montreal games and I look forward to the sequels.
With all due respect, asserting that Assassin's Creed lacks a soul is cryptic and frankly a meaningless rubric when evaluating the quality of a videogame. If a narrative that includes a present day protagonist taking a journey backwards into time via his ancestor's DNA and in doing so embarks upon a quest set during the Crusades can be labeled "soulless" then I'd love to know what you consider to be the antithesis of such a game. Of course, what you might consider a more soulful experience I could just as easily label pretentious nonsense and cite the overindulgence of the developers, so again, my own counter-argument to your “soul” comment is that such critiques are incredibly subjective and inherently worthless. It’s the equivalent of arguing the merits of a musician solely upon emotional response while ignoring any and all aspects of craft, talent and technique.
Basically, calling Assassin’s Creed “soulless” is another way of saying “I didn’t personally like this game, therefore it must be lacking something, even if that something is indefinable.”
I’m also unmoved by your talk of the developer’s arrogance, as if there is a correlation between arrogance and a dearth of quality. In actuality, some of the greatest minds are incredibly arrogant, often because they are so far ahead of the mainstream that they don’t possess the patience to indulge in archaic thinking or foster the notion of preserving stale paradigms. Personally, what I find irksome is how true innovation is, more often than not, shunned because for a game to truly innovate, it usually requires growing pains and a few rough edges. Unfortunately, the anal retentive, pedantic armchair critics that now plague the Internet can take small flaws and magnify them into game-breaking exaggerations, either at the behest of their own egos or merely because they lack the requisite understanding to effectively critique a videogame.
I’ve been gaming for three decades and how anybody cannot be impressed with a game like Assassin’s Creed on at least some level is simply mystifying, at least from my perspective. The adage “everybody’s a critic” has been grotesquely amplified as the online communities have swelled and I fear we are collectively losing the ability to simply bask in the awe of sublime experiences even when they are generously placed into our hands. There is a cheap, mean-spirited cynicism that permeates our society both on and offline and I think people are robbing themselves of true bliss for the sake of pseudo-intellectualism.
That of course isn’t to accuse you of any of this; I’m merely commenting on your vernacular, which echoes closely with what I read and hear too often when indulging in this hobby. I think if we are going to evaluate gaming in an intelligent construct then we need to approach the medium with the same academic methods and conventions also present in the analysis of art, music, literature and film.
I know your post wasn't directed at me, but when I said that Assassin's Creed lacks heart, I mean that it's beautiful, but not deep. Playing around with the engine is a lot of fun. The graphics are pretty, the climbing is incredible and the controls are tight.
Then you actually start playing the game.
Every single mission in the game boils down to climbing a bunch of towers, saving some peasants, pickpocketing a couple guys and sitting on a bench listening to some conversations. Then you can go and stab some other guy, and run out of the town. The first time, this is fun, but every mission is exactly the same. As the game progresses, you get more and more powerful, so the game throws more guys at you - the fights don't get any more difficult, they just take longer. You're running the same mission over and over again, with the only substantial difference being that instead of fighting five guards, you fight seven guards.
I am awed by Assassin's Creed on some level, but not by the gameplay, but rather the technical side of it - the amount of control that one has over the environment is remarkable. Ultimately though it felt like an engine with a game tacked on, rather than a game.