|
Getting
back to the talk about prototyping, I often hear that people really wish they
had more time up-front, but the big challenge there is funding up-front.
Obviously, it's not as much of a challenge for you guys, because you're a
publisher and developer, and you have such a large staff, but finding the time
and the correct staffing up-front still has to be pretty challenging.
YM: I can understand why. I would like to
mention that prototyping is sometimes not that expensive. The only downside is
always for the good -- meaning sometimes, you have to be ready to throw stuff
in the garbage.
That's okay, in a way. You keep the best. If you know why you
throw things away, it's good for helping the project be where it needs to be.
Obviously, as you mentioned, we are in a very luxury situation, working for a
publisher who's also the developer, so it helps a lot.
But
at the same time, there's got to be pressure to get things rolling, even for
you guys.
YM: Oh yeah. It's a business.
Exactly.
YM: But again, the best way to deal with
that pressure is to make sure that what you're about to produce is great,
unique, and tested in its fundamental mechanics, rather than trying to make
something work that is not fundamentally good. It's better, even economically
speaking.
Prior
versions of some of the casual games, like the Petz series, were either developed externally, or games that were
licensed and then came into the series, but now you're developing the Wii version
of Dogz internally at your studio,
and it's a high priority. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's unique in the
industry, but it represents a shift in thinking, I think.
YM: I don't know if it's a shift in a way.
What it shows is that it's an interesting project for us. Put it this way:
every new project for us will help us learn something new, and this huge
depository of knowledge is good for growing the studio.
The Petz brand is important for Ubisoft
business-wise, and I think it's also important for us in technology and AI and
how that can interact with gameplay. It's interesting for us.
Getting
back to the idea of creating games that have a casual target but have depth to
them, I think that one thing that doesn't happen maybe in the way it could is
the cross-pollination between different kinds of games, taking what works and
maybe recontextualizing it.
YM: You're so right. This is also why we
think the formula is good at Montreal
-- having people at the same studio being able to work on the Petz series or some casual games, but
also after that -- why not? -- going back to more traditional and more hardcore
games. Again, there is always something to learn from any new experience.
Just to expand a little on that, the casual
games for us have, depending on the project, have to bring something and be
meaningful for the target [audience].
Not to mention the Coach series, which has been created at Ubisoft Montreal. It's
definitely an attempt to make a new brand, a new IP within casual games, and
the main driving force has been to get us to learn something, and give
something to the player. The experience is really rich.
You
can take Assassin's Creed and
contrast that with Dogz, just as an
example. They're quite different. But do you see more middle ground and
cross-pollination, and not such extremes for games that could work really well
for players?
Right
now, the audiences are perceived in terms of casual, accessible, and young
kids, versus a hardcore gamer. Is there a middle ground? Is there an audience
that would respond to something that's...
YM: Not one and not the other?
Yeah,
kind of somewhere in between.
YM: Yeah, probably. I cannot think of a
project right now, but the main goal here really is to say, "You know
what? We are a content provider, and we are happy to provide any content that
suits any segment." I think we're pretty good at that.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
"hardcore gamers on that console, and casual gamers on this console. We'll make games for everyone, because that's our job."
you're totally ignoring the Wii userbase, who isn't small and has turned against Ubisoft previously, all this publicly taking those profits and investing elsewhere (making the platform more viable than some, since it's money aparently comes in handy) so why the crap treatment? more than that, the phrase he said at the end can only be taken as a big jab as in "you wain't getting anything from us"
Seriously, their games, aren't even showcasing any quality, that shawn white game looks like out of a mobile phone, do they thing "casuals" want cartoony stuff? nah, they relate easier with realism, but I guess they're just lazy to attempt that.
Bunch of third rate developers I say.
I mean, not even one question like "Do you have hardcore titles coming for it? Do you know people are growing insulted by your strategy?" etc. But no.
I mean... that's as irresponsible and insulting as developers like Ubisoft themselves, stupid elitisms I say.
During the Wii launch, they knew very few high profile games would be available, especially for hardcore gamers, and decided to put everything into Red Steel (€10m according to some rumours). The game was not perfect, but had both things you expected games to have after watching the Wii trailer: gun aiming and sword fighting. They correctly measured the market opportunity, and profited from it.
Anonymous at 18 Aug 2008 at 12:44 pm PST, a "Do you know people are growing insulted by your strategy?" question is not polite, and has no basis. Mr. Mallat could have easily sidestepped with "How can you assume that?" If you point to gaming forums, he would say sales say otherwise, or he may say that hardcore titles like No More Heroes did not achieve as much success as some Imagine or Petz title, for example. Internet has a hardcore minority that is very vocal, but does not reflect the business world (the one where Electronic Arts posts losses and Ubisoft profits, for example).
The market is very clear: Wii is a friendly console, and no gaming community will change that. No developer will exclusively focus on hardcore gamers on the Wii just like they will not focus on casual gamers on the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Right now, the Wii install base is bigger than the Xbox 360 one, but if you remove the casual base for each console, you notice the Xbox 360 has a higher hardcore base. Until the amount of hardcore gamers in the Wii gets bigger, this will continue to happen. Even if Wii sells twice as many Xbox 360 consoles, it is likely the later will have the advantage. Also, have you watched Nintendo E3 presentation? Did it satisfy you? Not a single hardcore game, you still like it? I am betting no. Nintendo speech is pretty simple: if we develop a casual title, it will sell. So why can't other developers do the same? If there is someone to fault here, it is Nintendo for not competing in the hardware race. But then again, they are here for the money, and this strategy was the best for them (as proven for almost two years now).
I remember reading a note where they stated the casual branch was funding hardcore titles. That would mean developing some quick simple titles give enough money through time to develop a 3-year long title. How long do you think they will continue to do that before they go "Wait... why don't we just develop casual titles?" They are here for money, not Metacritic or GameRanking averages.
Inteligent? they think they are, but all they're doing is salvaging the name they took years to build.
They're also making profits out of the Wii, and you say, bigger than elsewhere, so why not reinvesting those into high profile Wii games? That's the way the market should work actually, if you're taking money from a more profitable market and digging it into a smaller more specific one, you're contradicting the whole argument of going for the most profitable console and giving it preference, instead... they're flooding it with crap; not casual games, but crap.
This whole separation thing is just stupid. Wii is as casual as PS2 was, and yet, PS2 and PSone didn't get ignored by Ubi, they couldn't ignore it. Hell and DS? DS is getting a flood of RPG's, wgere is it casual now? but Ubisoft, is still bringing a kid prince of persia game that looks like a hoax made by a amateur in order to joke.
Best strategy for them? it isn't making them loss money, yes, but I don't think they're making the most they could, or even giving worthy support for the platform, quite the contrary. And you should never ever enrage a userbase, which they did.
Mallat could run yes, but how do they know? how about that 50 page thread with people registering on their forums and making headlines in under 24 hours about how crappy their support was and making an ultimatum?
And... No More Heroes wasn't even publicized!!! Certainly not what they do with their own titles on other platforms, NMH still sold pretty well though, it is Suda51's best selling game ever... Certainly not thanks to Ubisoft though.
Wii is a friendly console yes, just like PSone and PS2 where, who leaded and thus had more variety, that includes pony's, dogz, crapz and whatever... power ranger games, eye toy and buzz, and a market for them... but also a place for developers to grow and appeal to more people.
Square-Enix jumped ship with Nintendo at the right time, if they weren't in the leading console in 1997 with FF7... FF7 would have been a fraction of what it was... why? because PSone was a new public, it was considered casual next to Sega Saturn who, in japan despite having a smaller userbase it would sell more multiplatform titles, for instance.
All that changed with FF7. was it that the platform was mainstream? hell yes! and that opened doors for a bigger public. It's not with dumbed down games and crap coming out, and announcing they're spending the profits doing real games elsewhere that is the right strategy, not at all. it's being self concieved. If Wii is profitable it should be getting all the support developers can give it. Including hardcore titles, of course.
Nintendo? Nintendo is still delivering good titles, hardcore ones, even if they do stuff like Wii Fit. Wii Fit though is a good casual game, something no Ubisoft game can claim, they're just retarded and look like they were done by a bunch of trainees, look at dogz for instance, the animation is like... you can count the animation frames, it's just staggering.
All this said... Nintendo is still doing hardcore titles, and selling them at a faster pace than before, Mario Galaxy sold faster and more than Mario Sunshine did, Smash Bros Brawl in mere months surpassed GC's melee all-time sales, Resident Evil 4 already sold more than the original on the GC (and with no publicity), and we could go on and on and on. No market for hardcores? that's a joke, and being lazy. They just want to make crap here to invest elsewhere, that's being pretty incompetent in my book and if anything... pretty irresponsible and partial on their part.
Seriously... The whole separation thing... is bullocks. there were always casual games, and if anything that's just an excuse for the Wii, or in this case, to not support it, and do crap instead.
The Wii is a very strange marketing piece because it was not supposed to work like that. Books like "Crossing the chasm" by Geoffrey Moore state one should first attract the early adopters, those willing to experiment and accept new ideas (in gaming conventions, the "hardcore"), and once they have accepted it, spread the idea to the mass market (or "casual"). However, this time the hardcore and the casual base grew from the beginning, which is easily demonstrated by the amount of sales Wii Play gets. Publishers and developers don't really know how to target items, and go the safe route (which is why I say it makes sense in a business point of view).
When Capcom closed Clover Studio they stated something like it "has met the goal of developing unique and creative original home video game software" but since the games did not sell, it made no sense to keep it open. Okami, Viewtiful Joe, were all good innovative games, but did not sell. You may say Capcom is supporting Wii, but everything must be put into perspective: Zak & Wiki is not a high budget game, Umbrella Chronicles is on rails, and they decided to port Dead Rising after both Resident Evil games in Wii sold a million units each. It could almost be said that those two games selling a million copies funded the Wii version of Dead Rising. And they are releasing Street Fighter 4 for the high end consoles, with a few hints of a Wii port in the future. Their movements are just as conservative as Ubisoft ones, only they are able to port from the high end consoles.
Again, consider how many companies have invested over €10m in a single game like Ubisoft for the Wii, and you will understand they are just playing it safe. Money moves the world. Money was one of the reasons about why Dragon Quest IX ended in Nintendo DS, and why Capcom's definition of "exclusivity" has a footnote attached to it.
And I still feel that the term casual is wholly inappropriate and scares core gamers out of trying something that apparently isn't hardcore.
I also disagree the risk is that big when 10 million is nothing next to a next gen investment (flops like Stranglehold costed 30 million) and certainly poorly used, seeing the final result Red Steel is. I mean, the risk is a lot higher on those other platforms and on the Wii you can have a really conservative budget for something big nonetheless, so that's why "being risky" while taking that money and investing elsewhere is not a valid option for me, it's cashing in and spitting on it. that's certainly where I put Ubisoft.
I also disagree Capcom is doing the same as Ubisoft, for one they're doing ports, yes, but quality ports, or at least attempting to be quality ports, and have one of their big guns coming over, Monster Hunter 3. Ubisoft? nothing of the sort, cashed in with rushed hardcore products at launch, and have only done crap since. Capcom's support could be better yes, but it's not nearly as bad as Ubisoft, Ubisoft's is just downright bad.
Wii play sales... it comes with a Wiimote, shows nothing to me, it's like Wii Sports, everyone has it, casual or not.
Money dictates the market, yes, but developers are going against that same notion on the Wii, otherwise we'd have a market shift already. I understand those who were and still are stunned and trying to figure it out, but it's time to get out of it and go all out. Ubisoft though, has decided to give Wii nothing but one type of thing, that is not even good enough for it's own purpose.