Ubisoft Wants A Shorter Console Lifespan Next Time Around
See Full ImageThe industry seems split on the argument concerning the length of a console generation.
Ubisoft is one of those publishers who believes the current generation has long since worn out its welcome, and it's past time to usher in new systems. Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot told Polygon that any success his company has enjoyed has come despite the extra-long console cycle, which is in its seventh year.
"I think that what has happened is the transition has been very long. You know, in the industry, we were used to changing machines every five years. This time we are in the seventh year of the 360. We need new consoles and at the end of the cycle generally the market goes down because there are less new IPs, new properties, so that damaged the industry a little bit. I hope next time they will come more often."
Plus, Guillemot says many game makers use a console transition to "reinvent" themselves; i.e., designers "take more risks and do different things." But when a system has been around for a while, you don't take risks on new IPs because they simply don't sell as well at the end of a console cycle. However, he did add that for hardcore gamers, the time for innovation is always now:
"Everybody who is taking risks and innovating is welcome because there are lots of hardcore gamers and those guys want new things, where the mass market will be more interested in having the same experience and doesn't want to take as much risks because it's not aware as much of what is going to change its experience."
Do you think this generation has dragged on too long? If so, do you believe that dragging has had a recent impact on innovation and originality in the industry? Or do you have a different view?
Tags: ubisoft, gaming industry, next gen, next generation, next gen consoles, gamers
11/25/2012 9:08:12 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (44 posts)
Highlander
Sunday, November 25, 2012 @ 11:01:29 PM
Reply
OK, there are things that faster systems and more memory will allow you to do in more depth, like ever more realistic physics models and better visual processing, but at the end of the day the games are just software. Current systems have 8 times as much memory as the previous generation (PS2 - PS3 comparison), the next generation will likely have 8-16 times the amount of memory as we have now, but the amount of memory is not the cornerstone to game innovation.
In answer to 'wiiplay' above, who clearly drank the Nintendo koolaid on new controlls, I would point out that the basic controller layout has not changed since before the original PlayStation. The DS3 would be as familiar to a gamer a decade ago as it is to one today, same buttons and sticks, same shape. The PS Eye is familiar to anyone of about 10 years ago, thanks to the eyetoy, and believe it or not there were other motion sensing controllers then too. There has been very little that was truly 'new' this generation - including the Wii. Wii's motion control was better implemented and integrated than the previous generation, and more obvious than Sixaxis on the PS3 was. Other than that, it's the same technology that was around before the current generation.
Honestly, Ubisoft really bug me, they seem like a software company that wants to put the blame for their inabilities on others. It's not up to the hardware to compensate for software. The software writer needs to find new ways of doing things. Innovation does not start with a fixed platform design, it starts with a creative mind. Maybe Ubisoft needs to hire some more of those?
If Ubisoft wants innovation, perhaps they ought to start innovating with their game designs and IPs. Console makers need to make money too, game makers don't have the same economics as console makers. Both Microsoft and Sony invested heavily in the current generation of console. Both systems are very capable. I refuse to believe that it's not possible to innovate on the current platforms, that's nothing more than an excuse from Ubisoft.
14 up, 2 down
Jawknee
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 2:36:52 AM
Lol, predictable.
1 up, 3 down
DarthNemesis
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:15:09 AM
You always seem to have a problem when someone tells the truth about Nintendo and their fans. Every thing stated above is on point as usual. A new generation has nothing to do with innovation as the Wii U has brought nothing new. Also innovation does not equal good games.
Last edited by DarthNemesis on 11/26/2012 3:15:35 AM
3 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:19:12 AM
Last edited by Jawknee on 11/26/2012 3:23:51 AM
3 up, 2 down
Underdog15
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 7:25:34 AM
Here's comes the Jawk-police! *WiiUWiiUWiiU* ;P
2 up, 0 down
xenris
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 9:57:44 AM
Steam indie games have done this too and most of them have average or low quality graphics.
Would those games be better with higher graphics? Perhaps, but I think its a load of crap what ubisoft is saying here.
As for the Wii U, meh I don't like the controller. I like my gamepad and mouse/keyboard. The only thing that will get me on board with "gimmicky" hardware will be the Oculas rift thing. All these little in between things feel unnecessary to me. And 3D....I hate it, and again will only adopt it in the form of something like the oculas rift.
3 up, 0 down
firesoul453
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 12:01:37 AM
Reply
Technology will be outdated a year after it is released. If you want to always be able to have the "most advanced" technology to work with, then just make PC games....
Current (and next gen) hardware offers so much raw power that developers are less limited than ever.
The only true valid point is that the next gen makes game companies more willing to make new IPs.
4 up, 0 down
ddsfan2
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 12:54:48 AM
Reply
There really isn't a need for new hardware to create compelling new franchises, unless it has grandiose cpu/ram demands, or relies on some new system feature that hasn't yet been implemented. Since I seriously doubt either of these factors are true for Ubisoft, I think they need to either work with what they have, or develop for one of the "next generation" systems, which I doubt will be substantially different from what we have now.
It's not to say that I won't eventually purchase one of the these next generation systems, but it will take a lot of games for me to be convinced of this, and just upgrading to another piece of hardware is not going to solve the problem, as far as I see it.
2 up, 0 down
Amnesiac
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 12:57:06 AM
Reply
I guess its time to start making better games that way your company wouldn't have much to whine about.
0 up, 2 down
Amnesiac
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 @ 12:58:21 AM
I confused Ubisoft with something related from Activision.
Rocksmith is cool and I am alive was really fun.
I still disagree with the original statement,
new consoles are flashy but once the hype wears down then its just some kinda gimmick.
Look at 120hz HDtv's or 3000000000000 to 1 contrast ratios- I get it everyone is excited for new technology it sells well, but you just can't capitalize on the next big thing when there is still so much potential towards what you have in front of you.
1 up, 0 down
Coffeya
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 1:14:07 AM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 1:52:42 AM
Reply
But while I'm probably one of the most eager ones for a new generation to kick in around here, I still gotta say this; Sometimes it is good to wait for something. It's healthy to not just get whatever you want whenever you want it.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 2:22:21 AM
2 up, 2 down
Beamboom
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 6:30:01 AM
I'm thinking that as a launch title Dishonoured would have been met by a much more hungry console crowd. Most of us right now got a huge pile of games in the backlog just waiting to be played, and the market is flooded with great, well established and renown franchises that's sold for only a few dollars. To be a new IP in this picture is - as proven - very tough.
Had this been a launch title we'd only have like 3-4 other games for the console and *dying* to get more. I believe that has the potential of making an enormous difference.
... And then, late in that console's life cycle we would all have looked forward to Dishonored 2 and 3, since we all enjoyed the first at launch. All while being lukewarm to new IPs that's trying to gain our attention. And so the circle is complete. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/26/2012 7:53:09 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 12:34:13 PM
" Not to knock that game's(Dishonored) quality, but the general rule is that a crap game is a crap game no matter what system it's on."
The point being that making a game a launch title should not alter it's sales unless you are saying that the game would only sell well if it were essentially 'the only game in town'. I'm not knocking Dishonored, I'm questioning the point you're making that says it would sell if it were a launch title because I think that if it's a good game it should sell regardless.
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:09:34 PM
However, what I do know is that I feel "stuffed" of this generation myself now. I haven't bought a game on day one in... Lord knows how long. I simply have too much I haven't played already. The hunger is not there. And if others feel the same, this can't be good for new IPs who need that extra push into the conciousness of gamers around.
At least, that's my reasoning. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/26/2012 3:14:59 PM
0 up, 0 down
Coffeya
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:55:04 PM
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 4:54:27 PM
How many PS4s is it reasonable to expect being sold during the first, say, six months after launch?
I guess bottom line is that I myself feel that new IPs this late in the cycle doesn't hold as much punch as it would at an earlier stage. And when people in the business are saying the same, I can't help but thinking there might be something to what they say. Why else say it?
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/26/2012 5:03:08 PM
0 up, 0 down
Gamer46
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 2:16:36 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
kraygen
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 2:47:38 AM
Reply
I know that's not really a legitimate argument, but I would say if Ubisoft wants a shorter console generation, maybe they should develop their own consoles and find out how expensive that can be.
0 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:04:52 AM
1 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 6:47:43 AM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 2:54:14 PM
I'm not sure how the time period of AC3 can be of more interest than renaissance Italy... Very few periods in history are as richly recorded and thick of culture than that. And I have absolutely no Italian in my bones.
Kraygen, as a fellow Canadian, you may find much of the Native American culture to be very interesting. Personally, I found the parts of American Revolution history to be very loosely used.
MINOR SPOILER
osdgjosgjisodjg
Paul Revere's ride, for example, seemed very insignificant in the game. Some simple grand sweeping cutscenes of the desparate ride in between destinations with full and anxious music would have easily done the scene justice. But it's very ho-hum. The game literally showed his ride as a 1 kilometer event... A couple 300m rides in what is essentially a circle.
END SPOILER
I don't know... it just didn't stick with me. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood made me want to travel to Rome someday. I like AC3, for sure, but it's really not that breath taking. Too many short cuts in the story, in my opinion. If you're going to show a huge piece of history like the Boston Masacre or Paul Reveres ride... do it some justice... (Remember that battle at the end of Brotherhood? SO chaotic and epic....)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/26/2012 2:56:04 PM
0 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 4:21:15 PM
I agree with you about AC3. I think the renaissance era from AC II to Revelations was more interesting than the Revolutionary period of the US. I felt that they kinda of jumped scenes..maybe not exactly what I mean but I can't really explain it. The game is totally worth playing and I loved every moment of it. The setting just didn't give me that historic feeling as the previous titles did..
0 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 @ 1:16:41 AM
0 up, 0 down
Killa Tequilla
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:02:34 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:07:31 AM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
daus26
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:50:51 AM
Reply
0 up, 1 down
___________
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 4:54:55 AM
Reply
i mean developers and publishers are reluctant on doing new IPs simply because they always sell poorly.
so logic would tell you to do them on well established systems with a large user base.
the EXACT opposite on what new systems have.
irony.
hes right we do need new systems, people are becoming bored of what current systems offer.
not only on a technical basis but also on a feature basis.
theres so many more things next gen consoles could offer us besides better games.
but the logic of new consoles = new IPs, which is sadly true we always see a influx of new IPs with new consoles, just makes no sense.
publishers dont do new IPs because of the fear of lack of sales, so they do them in a time where that is almost guaranteed.
makes perfect sense!
0 up, 2 down
Highlander
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 12:36:39 PM
"i mean developers and publishers are reluctant on doing new IPs simply because they always sell poorly.
so logic would tell you to do them on well established systems with a large user base.
the EXACT opposite on what new systems have."
Seriously, if you think back 5 years, third party devs (and the folks behind Heavenly Sword come to mind on this one...) whined about that exact thing with the PS3. Ubisoft apparently doesn't know what the hell it wants, I guess it's just looking for a scapegoat for it's own lack of innovation, and a way of justifying not bringing any more new IPs.
1 up, 0 down
slugga_status
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 9:57:28 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 10:08:27 AM
Reply
I got excited for PS3 because of FFXIII video. Which turned out to take 5 more years to release from when I first saw the video... and the game was a huge let down...
But still... point is, there's no way I'll even begin to be excited until there's a game to get me excited.
3 up, 0 down
ChaseHammer
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 11:35:19 AM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:40:04 PM
I love what my PS3 is capable of, and will probably wait until the first price drop on the new consoles before I consider one. Even if they stop making games today for the PS3, I've got so many games I have yet to open in my backlog, that I'll have a good 2-3 more years to go before I have to worry about running out of something to do...
In my mind, the developers should worry more about innovation as opposed to hardware, and I could probably wait another 5 years without seeing another console, unless there is a huge leap in technology that makes them a must have system, I'm happy with what I have...
Last edited by CH1N00K on 11/26/2012 3:40:48 PM
0 up, 0 down
Cesar_ser_4
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 3:43:23 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 5:37:19 PM
1 up, 0 down
Cesar_ser_4
Monday, November 26, 2012 @ 10:15:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 @ 1:30:33 AM
Reply
Plus I have 204 PS3 games, and I still have well over a 100+ of those games queued up in my huge backlog's "to do" list.
Hell, I've only just recently finished the 2007 steam-punk game "Damnation", and I've just started playing the PS3's 2007 "The Godfather:Dons Edition" last week. And right after that, I'll be jumping over to it's 2009 sequel, "GF2".
So at least for myself, I foresee plenty of future good-time PS3 gaming still a-coming.
0 up, 0 down
Rogueagent01
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 @ 5:25:08 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Caanimal
Thursday, November 29, 2012 @ 7:12:03 PM
Reply
The whole "we need a new console for a new IP" is a load of bull, many of the current top end franchises come from prior gens, going all the way back to Nintendo and Genesis(Mario and various fighting games)... The fact that new IPs don't sell well has nothing to do with if it's on an old or new consule, but entirely on the fact many CONSUMERS are fearful to take a chance. Let me cite an example I personally experienced; I bought Assassin's Creed when it came out, I was EXCITED for the game when it was announced, I still enjoy the original over ALL others in the franchise, BUT soooooooooo many people, including friends, co-workers, and even GameStop employees said it was going to be a HUGE flop and suck bad. Now here we are 5 years later and 5 games on consoles and several on hand-helds and it's considered one of the great franchises of this gen. I think most of the time consumers are scared to try new things (why else does Mario and other ancent games sell so well when they are more or less rehashes of the same thing) thus making designers and publishers leery of making new IPs.
I'm in no hurry for the next gen to come around, I do not believe there will be any great jump in quality or anything else, console games are quite close to their desktop counter parts, yes a high end gaming PC will blow a console out of the water for graphics and such but that's about it, stupid NPC AI is stupid NPC AI, PC only games have just as many stupid AIs as multi-platform games do.
0 up, 1 down
thegovernator
Friday, November 30, 2012 @ 2:08:19 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
thegovernator
Friday, November 30, 2012 @ 2:11:37 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
wiiplay
Reply
Sunday, November 25, 2012 @ 10:07:22 PM
They're at their comfort zone, though. We know what to expect when it comes to video games, and that can be perceived as both a good and a bad thing.
If innovation were an important aspect in the industry, Call Of Duty wouldn't be the number one franchise. Creating new consoles would certainly keep the developers on their toes, which can be a good thing, as it promotes creativity, learning how to design for new hardware with more power and interactive capabilities. While, on the other hand, it means developers will have to throw away all of their past knowledge, and coding tricks, and learn an entirely new more advanced architecture. Based on the PS2 to PS3 generational leap, and the low quality launch titles for the PS3, due to the non-traditional hardware Sony used, we could be looking at future generations of poorly coded or rushed titles, which is never a good thing.
So, to conclude, having new generations of video game consoles launching earlier than they currently are can be good, as new consoles tend to use different controller mechanisms. It can also be exceptionally bad, as developers will never truly have the time to fully learn the consoles capabilities, resulting in poor titles, and possibly even a weaker selection of multiplayer titles.
So, although I see the point Ubisoft is trying to make, there would be too many negatives to overpower the few positives.
Last edited by wiiplay on 11/25/2012 10:07:52 PM