Ben-DutkaUnfortunately, t's just "too expensive" otherwise.
In a recent [a]list daily interview with Ubisoft senior vice president of sales and marketing Tony Key, we learn that Ubisoft "won't even start" if they can't build a franchise out of it. So, sequels are essential.
After discussing a planned increase in marketing, which will target the publisher's biggest franchises ( Assassin's Creed and the upcoming Watch Dogs ), Key addressed the question concerning the anticipated Watch Dogs – "You want this to be the foundation of a big franchise, then?"
"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 added that Ubisoft is in a good position with Watch Dogs , especially because they debuted it so early. It was first revealed at last year's E3, which made it one of the very first next-gen titles anyone had ever seen. But despite their positioning, Ubisoft won't be satisfied until it becomes "the biggest game of the year." Well, next to Call of Duty , Assassin's Creed became the biggest release each year, so…
Related Game(s): Watch Dogs
This is how I see things: If you "force to make a franchise" it could be a mistake (FFXIII I´m looking at you). If you make an original and fresh game, the public will want the second one. And even sometimes they don't make a second one, and that game becomes an instant legend (Heavy Rain, etc.)
Ubisoft will probably want to make watchdogs a franchise like assassin´s creed, and that will be a huge mistake. I mean, not for wanting it, but for forcing certain things.
Last edited by godsdream on 7/15/2013 12:08:03 PM
Making it into a franchise is one thing. Making it annual is another. The first I can live with, the latter I can not.
Yep, neither do I.
Last edited by godsdream on 7/15/2013 12:51:52 PM
Amen sir.
Hallelujah!!!!
That's pretty much how you kill a good thing, or at the very least move something original into generic territory.
Uh-oh.
Every good idea they get, they're going to annualize it, and boom. Good idea dead.
Annual release is fine though as long as the game keeps improving.
Assassin's Creed is doing it right with each title getting better and better.
And not to mention ACIII using a new game engine.
Look at CoD, going into the next gen they're still using the same engine.
CoD is a powerful brand but the difference in graphic with other next gen shooters will be too obvious……….
With how they are going with AC,I'm not worried about any new IP from Ubi becoming a franchise.
Last edited by Snaaaake on 7/15/2013 7:00:23 PM
Well, let's hope they don't repeat Revelations any time soon.
Ubisoft needs to slow down and make people want more, not just say "Hohum, another AC game is on the way …"
Look how WB is handling the Arkham franchise, let each game gestate with players and fully flesh out then come along and announce the next title …
They've been going with a two year cycle which I think is much better without over saturating the market …
EA is the king of ruining games, even ones that have been in development hell.
It seems Ubisoft want to become the kings of ruining great games via annualization.
Just silly – you can always start a franchise with a smaller, cheaper game, then get bigger (see The Witcher for a great example of this).
That's the best way to do it in my opinion, look at Killzone
Every market wants a franchise. Sequels are almost guaranteed money when the first one was successful. Book publishers want series; TV studios want multiple seasons (in NA); video game publishers want franchises; movie studios want trilogies.
TV franchises is stupid though. I have lost count how many times a franchise has been killed off because the TV station in the US changed the airtime to a time where it wouldn't be popular. Which then affects the entire world of fans who love the show!
Stargate Universe was really starting to build up steam and audience till they put it on a bad time slot which had it competing against proven ratings winners. A few months later the show was canned.
At least games are more simple, make the game, bring it out on a good date, then reap the rewards.
Last edited by Akuma_ on 7/15/2013 10:58:42 PM
That's just some stupid and scornful argument from a billion dollar company. If they regulated the CEOs and top paid executives they'd have enough money to not fear bankrupt for taking a mild risk, just pay them half less and you can spend on new IPs.