The abnormally long lifecycle of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 has "penalised" Assassin's Creed 3 publisher Ubisoft, its chief executive Yves Guillemot has said.
"What we missed was a new console every five years," he said. "We have been penalised by the lack of new consoles on the market. I understand the manufacturers don't want them too often because it's expensive, but it's important for the entire industry to have new consoles because it helps creativity."
Ubisoft has traditionally backed new console launches, with rich line-ups already present on the Nintendo 3DS and PS Vita, and of course the impressive Watch Dogs wowing attendees at E3.
"It's a lot less risky for us to create new IPs and new products when we're in the beginning of a new generation," Guillemot added. "Our customers are very open to new things. Our customers are reopening their minds -- and they are really going after what's best.
"At the end of a console generation, they want new stuff, but they don't buy new stuff as much. They know their friends will play Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed so they go for that. So the end of a cycle is very difficult."
The Ubisoft head argued that without these 'early risks' the pay offs that emerge later in a console cycle might not happen. For example, Guillemot noted, if it weren't for Rayman: Raving Rabbids, there would never have been a Just Dance.
"If you can't take risks because people don't buy, you don't innovate. And if you don't innovate, customers get bored."
Comments
20 comments so far...
me4pd on 23 Jul '12 said:
"New consoles disguise the crap we put out with flashy graffx so when the consoles get older and buyers get more discerning we need a new console to distract them."
Thanks.
ted1138 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Or, 'it's easier to sell games when you're not competing with thousands of other games for a customers attention, not to mention all that lovely £50+million advertising Sony/MS will provide with their next consoles'...
TheCrimsonFenix on 23 Jul '12 said:
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/stock-photo-2634771-hitting-a-nail-on-the-head.jpg
This gen hasn't come near to what I thought it would based on either personal hype or tech demo promise and neither will the next gen.
Ubisoft: "Everyday we're shovelin'"
budge on 23 Jul '12 said:
I've heard that both Sony and Microsoft pulled out of showing their next gen tech just before E3 which angered a few publishing/developing houses.
richomack360 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Oh, this must be the same Ubisoft who want to invest in free-to-play/pay-to-win/pay-to-progress
Don't need a new console there do you ?
First poster on this topic got it right - and I still find it funny that no dev/publisher actually comes out and says "our games were rubbish, therefore they didnt sell, no excuses, no blaming others"
Would be very refreshing
...and as for the poster suggesting current tech has not met its expectations - totally agree. Every time a new console is announced we get the usual fanfares, yearly photo realistic graphics promise, innovation promises etc etc.
What exactly has moved the industry forward ?
CurriedCat on 23 Jul '12 said:
You mean its easier to constantly hovel out sequel after sequel as it doesn't require any risk and we are just saying this to make our investors happy.
I'd be gob-smacked if Ubisoft don't release a single game on the next-gen consoles that's not based on an existing IP.
bamozzy on 23 Jul '12 said:
Personally I feel that the 'lack of new consoles' has not had any detrimental effect on the gaming industry or its community. Since the release of the current generation of consoles we have not yet reached the apex of what they are capable of and the fact that there hasn't been a replacement has enabled developers to push themselves to produce increasingly better games. If we had had new consoles I am sure that we would be getting the same games - just with a bit more polish, a few more on screen pixels and higher frame rate but the game play would be very similar to existing games.
The fact that we have had the current generation in place for a while has meant that developers cannot churn out the same games and have actually had to push themselves to come up with new ideas, story's, gameplay etc etc but they have also had a more consistent technology to work with and programme for. If we keep getting new technology every couple of years then the developers need to learn how to programme for it and in their 'learning' they are not getting creative with the games. Over the course of a consoles life, we spend more on games than the console and peripherals. It is also what determines the success and life of a console. When we consider the xbox (for example) we don't think of its design or functions but the games it gives us - Halo, Forza etc or the PS3 with Uncharted, Resistance etc as well as the multi-platform games of this generation.
If anything the lack of new consoles has generally improved the quality of the industry - If developers haven't pushed themselves or the quality of their games then they have fallen but that has nothing to do with the lack of new consoles but a lack of innovation and of course a poor financial climate. You are not going to buy a sub-standard or average game and have had to be more selective in our gaming purchases. Also I think bringing out a new console may not have been good for the industry either considering the worlds economic state at the moment. Some can't afford to buy as many games as they would like so the certainly may not be able to upgrade to the latest console either!
Cogglesz on 23 Jul '12 said:
I Agree in ways about the EA boss's statement with pc's comming up due to the lack of a new generation but i don't agree at all with this, some of the best creative games have been released with low graphics in mind this gen, take minecraft for example, that game should have just ended up a free flash game like the thousands of other java games on the net but it devistated everything and gave majong millions to play with, there really isn't a high graphical game i can think of that is really creative at the same time, little big was rather good along with viva pinata but when it comes to big budget games usually shooters or atleast killing things in style are the way to go and when the next gen does come around, big budget games are all your really going to get on a new console, apart from the crappy ports ubisoft bring out for it of course, this guys head is really somewhere where it doesn't shine.
I really want a new generation myself but not because of that, look what they did with the 3ds, it was pathetic, some 4 year old port of rayman 2 is what we got if i remember correctly, i'm wanting a new generation so the good devs can make there great games even bigger and better, this guy just seems to want a new generation so he can cover his horrible s**t in fresh ice-cream graphics to trick us for money.
richomack360 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Same bloke in a different article...couldnt make it up
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/35 ... -in-wii-u/
"Out of seven games we are planning to launch five games are ports"
But still Ubisoft think its the consoles, not endless ports, causing the industry decay.
To55ers
billysastard on 23 Jul '12 said:
even worse is the 2 remaining titles (zombie u and rayman) are both sequels so 5 ports and 2 sequels, so much for new, original ip's eh?
toaplan on 23 Jul '12 said:
I agree with the Ubisoft boss. The lack of new consoles has really allowed new platforms like mobile and social to shine and take over at least the casual market. The mainstream media have been praising the new ipad, because it offers almost console-quality graphics and that's possible because the X360 is 7 years old. Even the PC has been making a comeback and has been gaining new players, as some have been migrating away from the consoles.
markyR on 23 Jul '12 said:
I think they are just all butt hurt because they didn't come up with COD MW and BLOPS, by far the best selling on goin game series that works fine on the current gen platforms. Then again BF3 is great and runs fine too, and I imagine BF4 is being designed with the current gen in mind also.
If they gave Ghost Recon a decent ending then it would be different, the last section of the game where it slow mos etc I thought was crap, but it does have some start moments I'll agree.
Still, this is a far different tone from whiny wingy Unisoft compared to when they took the stage and introduced Assassins to the world for the first time. Pity.
I also thought Watch Dogs was being developed for current gen tech? it looked next gen but I'm sure I read somewhere it will be on PS4 and 360?
gmcb007 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Same s**t, different day eh?
richomack360 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Not entirely correct. If the new gen was here would it still stop Mr Officeman playing Angry Birds on the train home, or bored Mrs Housewife playing Farmville ? No. Because they wouldnt be picking up a new console anyway. Trying to justify it on graphics alone is a bit daft IMHO. Mobile gaming has got better and more widespread as the technology for them has come upto a decent standard...a far cry from the days of playing "snake" on a N 3310 !
If anything longer spans for consoles is a good thing - as how many devs have come out and said "we produce the best stuff towards the end of the cycle" and having new cycle after new cycle is bad for the devs adapting to the tech and to our wallets.
Indeed, there is playing it safe and then there is Ubisoft.
tiresome isn't it ? Another dev / publisher whinging instead of trying...zzz
bamozzy on 23 Jul '12 said:
They just want a new console to hide their lack of creativity - it would mean that they can just rehash the old games with a bit more polish instead of trying to come up with new ideas...
toaplan on 23 Jul '12 said:
A section of the casual market probably is like that - not at all interested in consoles in any case. But my general impression is that a large section of the casual market is a bit more into games and graphics. They may play ios games at home, may have owned a Playstation at some point in time and appreciate visually impressive movies like the Avengers, Spider-man and TDKR. Those films are so massively popular that the film-goers can't all be fanboys. The current console market may seem stale to them and Apple products take care of the gaming needs they have, for the time being. But if there was a new generation of consoles that could offer the kind of visually exciting entertainment and stories that movies can, they might give the new consoles a try. The current consoles have been getting there, but new consoles will take another significant graphical leap forward, towards more cinematic visuals. All of the above is just my speculation though
richomack360 on 23 Jul '12 said:
Silly me aye ! anyone would think they have been hawking the same FPS's for years using old graphic engines and new layers of paint !
Well, I travel home on the train everyday and see perhaps 80% of people fiddling with their iPhones etc playing games or watching films etc and well over half of them are women, who probably have never owned a games console before except for a misguided foray into calorie burning with a wii fit.
The films you have listed are very popular as there, like in the gaming industry, isn’t a wealth of competition, even Eddie Murphy voicing a donkey has had its day.
People on a train returning home from London at 7 in the evening are not likely to go home with the anticipation of what consoles will be bought out next, these kind of people tend to crave pick up and drop gaming, with minimal investment in hours in return for fun to break up a journey home or mundane period at home – granted, I will agree, that you will prob see home console quality stuff on future mobile platforms – but remember, its hard to recreate a cinematic experience on a 7inch LCD screen – and that’s why the cinema will remain popular for decades.
Each format of media has its own draws and each can easily co-exist, providing their areas remain fresh.
Lady Gagagged on 23 Jul '12 said:
All hardware has a limited life span, though how close we are to the end of this one is difficult to say. What is probably true is if the next gen had arrived then this thread would be Ubisoft complaining about escalating development costs hindering creativity.
Imaduck on 25 Jul '12 said:
Not really Ubi, nowhere near as much as your f**king DRM has.
Personally I think it's nice to see some of the new console games, it's fascinating to see how they keep managing to squeeze so much more out of them (in a good way). It's value for money, it's efficent use, it's not wasteful. They're using up every scrap of potential in those little bricks. The big publishers like Ubi need a wave to keep them afloat. When the water goes calm and it's time to search for the gold on the bottom, the likes of Ubi don't even know what gold looks like
bamozzy on 25 Jul '12 said:
I do agree that all technology has a limited lifespan and I also think that we are reaching the end of the current generations. However I still think there is the potential for a few more years yet - and yes I do mean years!
The reason I say years is because if you look at the next wave of game releases (currently about 6 months worth) they are currently looking better than a lot of the previous 6 months worth of games. That is showing me that they are still pushing the current generation further - they haven't yet reached a plateau where games are not improving. Graphics however is only one part of a game and not necessarily the most important - games like Minecraft show that even with very poor graphics you can make a great game!. The next generation may well have better graphics and maybe the potential for higher frame rates too but that doesn't mean we will get bigger and better games.
In fact it may mean we get smaller games because of the storage and delivery method may not be able to cope with the increased data of having all this increased graphic capability. Even if we go down the digital only format -- downloading these games will be a nightmare - just think our big the file size would be for a game that has ultra high resolution and 60fps+ capability - even if it is the same game we already have.
Now I am not 'anti' the next generation but I still believe that the current generation has more to offer us yet. I think a console can Plateau for a year before really reaching its endso I do think we have a few years yet - however you also need a 'cross-over period where by both this and next generation are still available and games are available for each too.Ass it stands at the moment where by this current generation is still delivering and improving - it gives the manufacturers time to develop and test the next gen - we don't want them rushed out and we end up with RROD/YLOD or equivalent or any other manufacturing/design flaws either.
Ubisoft want the next gen now so they can rehash the majority of their old games with a new HD polish - I doubt they would complain about the escalating development costs as they will not be 'developing an idea from concept to final game! Whats the betting that their first games will be basically old games with a bit more polish. Even if they call it something else - it will have exactly the same game-play and basic concept underneath!