Ubisoft posts "New Plan" for SH and other series

[Sacrilege]

So I shorted the hell out of Ubisoft shares yesterday after I realized what was going on with the servers (worked well, made a nice round $624 this morning after I covered) but I came across something interesting (read: downright infuriating) in their shareholder report that I thought I would share with the community:

Note: read the italic bold part

Source: third quarter investor report: http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2184.pdf

Update on the strategic plan rollout

High-end games strategy

In line with the announcement January 13 announcement, Ubisoft continues to refocus its high-end games strategy by concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises. These refocusing measures also comprise a reduction in new creations investments, which will enable Ubisoft to rebalance its existing resources on a constant headcount basis. This strategy will provide heightened visibility and profitability with a lower level of risk, thereby accelerating the generation of cash flow.Seems their new goal is to pump out more games, faster, with less development and investment in the games themselves. As an investor, that makes great sense.....too bad I think you guys know, as a gamer, how I feel about this.

I've been a loyal SH fan for almost a decade now,and I've never seen a reason to get worked up enough to post on forums before this. It's downright sad to see a favorite series move in such a manner; let's hope something changes in Ubisoft before SH VI, VII, VIII. I have faith in them to do the right thing; they have done well by me with this series, in my opinion. I've just never seen good things from a game company that endorses "more names with less development".

Time will tell.

[OakGroove]

No news really, and I have a feeling they won't stop until the whole thing is up to its neck in quicksand, given their recent CRM issues.

[bigboywooly]

Ubisoft has a history of releasing unfinshed games anyway so wont be any difference there
What does it mean for SH
DLC is my guess
And lots of it
Before a quick SH6
And the merry go round continues


Welcome aboard too

[kylania]

We should at least be thankful that Silent Hunter is a good enough "major franchise" for UbiSoft to continue developing it. :DL

[SteamWake]

We should at least be thankful that Silent Hunter is a good enough "major franchise" for UbiSoft to continue developing it. :DL

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I read it to be quite the contrary.

[Gammelpreusse]

Interesting. Given that games today usually stay "longer" on a PC and the trends going into supporting a game for some time, this policy kinda sounds a bit counterproductive.

Especially the SH series requires lot of patches and mods, which at times takes years. SH3 only came to maturity years after it's release.

So I am not sure regular new parts of the game series will have such a positive effect, the more so given the publisher already lost all passion for games and is driven by mere shareholder value nowadays, which shows in the quality levels of newly released products.

We already lost GWX 4 due to that.

[thyro]

Interesting. Given that games today usually stay "longer" on a PC and the trends going into supporting a game for some time, this policy kinda sounds a bit counterproductive.

Especially the SH series requires lot of patches and mods, which at times takes years. SH3 only came to maturity years after it's release.

So I am not sure regular new parts of the game series will have such a positive effect, the more so given the publisher already lost all passion for games and is driven by mere shareholder value nowadays, which shows in the quality levels of newly released products.

We already lost GWX 4 due to that.

Just lets see if SH5 with this DRM retards remains active after SH6 is released... I reckon UBI will close the door and force all that bought SH5 to get SH6. Time will tell if UBI survives this DRM debacle

[abbysinthe]

The Bobby Kotick show (Activision) is taking the same strategy, and it already bit them in the bum with the GH series.

Over saturating the market with current IP's is going to end up in disaster all around. This has already been done and failed time and time again, not just with video games either.

I shutter to imagine a SH6 with only a year of dev time. *IF* SH is included in the grand scheme.

[Goatman455]

" As an investor, that makes great sense.....too bad I think you guys know, as a gamer, how I feel about this."


This shouldn't be good for an investor. The only reason it is good is because people will inevitably buy the games no matter how crappy they are. We as the customer need to start putting our collective foot down when early releases happen so we don't make a quantity over quality strategy effective for these guys.

[RSColonel_131st]

I think what they really want is subscription based gaming.

Every major gaming publisher is red with envy for Blizzards model "World of Warcraft". That game is paid with monthly subscription, which means a predictable monthly cash flow which pays for incremental upgrades.

If they can use the new DRM to finally start selling "Software as a Service" it will be their Beancounter's wet dream come true. We'll end up paying a monthly fee for access to X amount of games, with yearly or bi-yearly "expansion pack" type updates.

Of course, this doesn't really make any sense for single player gaming, but since when did that bother anyone if they can make money from it? That's what I personally believe is the core idea behind the new DRM.

[pythos]

Allow me to state my reaction to the OPs actions.

You sir, and people like you are what have driven the market to the crappy state it is at.

It is also people doing what you do that make companies like UBI take on stupid and idiotic business plans.

My brother is in the stock market and he, along with most others can't stand it when people do what you did.

I think the daily show did something about short sellers, and what little they do for the economy in general.

(I may also have confused market things, so I may be critisising you where it is not deserved)

[RSColonel_131st]

Well, he bet on sinking stock for UBI. I can't see how that hurts anybody except UBI?

[Sailor Steve]

Who are you?

[Blood_splat]

Sometimes I think shareholders have a hand in destroying companies.

[blackdog_kt]

Funny thing is, the truly MMO games are still better in that regard than the DRM we see lately in mixed single/multi-player or mostly single-player titles. And the reason is that in MMO games the player competition, the subscription model and the constant expansion of these games creates many quantifiable means with which to reimburse a customer if your company infrastructure fails.

I used to play EvE online (a space combat/trading/sci-fi game, imagine the old elite or privateer games with modern graphics and 40000-50000 people online at the same time) a few years back and that game was harder, more competitive and more "punishing" to the player that lost battles than world of warcraft.

Failure to mass enough numbers for a certain operation could mean setbacks of months. Just getting your ship destroyed could put you out of combat for a week if it was an expensive ship and you didn't have any reserves.

In the 3 years that i was a subscriber to that game, i suffered maybe 5 instances of unscheduled long-term downtime (long term=missing a single gaming evening).
I also had to deal with the possibility of lagging out in big battles and dying as a result, or getting kicked due to lag and having to reconnect, but when i get back in the game my guys have moved and i'm surrounded by enemies, etc.
The regular scheduled downtimes was a daily one for maintenance that lasted an hour, plus the expansion deployments or server hardware upgrades that would not be scheduled, but they were announced well in advance (a week or two at minimum).

It might not sound like it but to tell you the truth, it was excellent service. For slightly less than 15 Euros per month i had a great game, frequent patches, even more rapid rollbacks/hotfixes if a patch managed to break something, developers, troubleshooters and what not to deal with my problems and every single expansion/add-on to the game. Yes, it was a flat-rate deal and you got endless content and endless support for the price of two drinks per month. Not to mention that if you lost ingame items due to technical problems you could petition the game masters for reimbursement, or the fact that any unscheduled long-term downtime was given back to you as free time (eg a 20 hour downtime would move your subscription renewal date forward by an equal amount of time).

Not all MMO games are that customer friendly and even WoW which is the most succesful has the ludicrous (as far as i'm concerned) method of charging you separately for expansions and they are expensive. The thing is however, there are so many things to do and want for a MMO player that there's also a dozen different ways to reimburse a customer for downtime that happens to be the company's responsibility.
You lost items? Here take this ingame money or this shining armor as reimbursement.
You couldn't connect for a whole 3 days and it's clear that it's our fault and not yours? Here, take 3 extra days before having to renew your subscription, no "half a bazillion people have loose cables" excuses.
Game doesn't run as well as it used to after the latest patch? Well, since you're paying us and all, send us the error logs and we'll have a guy in the basement running the game in a similar PC until we find out what's wrong and how to fix it.

Contrast this with paying 50 Euros (yes, exchange rates don't apply to software apparently, $50=50 euros even when the euro was $1.30) for bug-ridden, incomplete games that need a further host of patches as well as payware add-ons before they can be considered a complete experience, while at the same time you're left to your own devices if something goes wrong.

If the mainstream publishers do go for a subscription plan, i'm very curious to see what the price will be and how will they implement it. For example, a flat rate of up to 20$ giving you access to 4-6 games simultaneously would succed, IF it's paired with adequate game content, competent support, hassle free installation and no need to be constantly online once the game is authenticated on its first run. Think of it like a DVD rental flat rate plan, you pay $20 per month and can have up to 3 different movies of your choice for as long as you want, or you can return one and get another one while keeping the first two, etc, etc, at no extra cost and no extra burden to provide proof that you legally have them.

However, if they go for $30 and upwards with their current track record of poor support and network implementation, or even worse, with today's game prices, then i don't see it working. I don't see PC gaming getting extinct either if they botch it, as they will probably be bought by the MMO guys who at least know how to do this cheap and properly :haha:

[Irichanu]

Allow me to state my reaction to the OPs actions.

You sir, and people like you are what have driven the market to the crappy state it is at.

It is also people doing what you do that make companies like UBI take on stupid and idiotic business plans.

My brother is in the stock market and he, along with most others can't stand it when people do what you did.

I think the daily show did something about short sellers, and what little they do for the economy in general.

(I may also have confused market things, so I may be critisising you where it is not deserved)

Selling shares crashes the economy? :yeah:

[RSColonel_131st]

If the mainstream publishers do go for a subscription plan, i'm very curious to see what the price will be and how will they implement it. For example, a flat rate of up to 20$ giving you access to 4-6 games simultaneously would succed, IF it's paired with adequate game content, competent support, hassle free installation and no need to be constantly online once the game is authenticated on its first run.

That's 240 bucks a year, or the equivalent of buying about 5 games. But those bought games would still be yours years later, whereas the "subscriped" service would terminate your games as soon as you stop paying 20$ monthly.

And you can't resell either if a game is short and has no replay value.

I'm sure UBI would love your proposal, but customers would end up paying more money for less content.

[Irichanu]

If that would mean playable and bug-free games, and a few more games than 5-6, then I would actually have nothing against it. As long as there would be possibility to play offline.

[Fmilk]

In line with the announcement January 13 announcement, Ubisoft continues to refocus its high-end games strategy by concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises. These refocusing measures also comprise a reduction in new creations investments, which will enable Ubisoft to rebalance its existing resources on a constant headcount basis. This strategy will provide heightened visibility and profitability with a lower level of risk, thereby accelerating the generation of cash flow.

Sounds like EA story. Fortunately, after almost a decade of "concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises", EA seem to understand what they've done to themselves, to the market, to the games, and to the players, and are now returning to production of higher quality products.
Too bad Ubisoft didn't learn anything from them.

[pythos]

Selling shares does not crash the economy. Short selling does. Look it up. It is a fairly new thing, and has been wreaking havok on the market.

[floundericiousWA]

Sounds like EA story. Fortunately, after almost a decade of "concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises", EA seem to understand what they've done to themselves, to the market, to the games, and to the players, and are now returning to production of higher quality products.
Too bad Ubisoft didn't learn anything from them.

That was actually my first thought when I read that passage ("Oh! It's the mid/late 90's all over again!")

[floundericiousWA]

Selling shares does not crash the economy. Short selling does. Look it up. It is a fairly new thing, and has been wreaking havok on the market.

Short selling is NOT new

The degree to which investors can leverage their short sales may be new and is likely what causes a single bad short sale to gash the marketplace since the investor's ineptitude/bad luck is now multiplied by a factor of several million times.

[Iron Budokan]

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I read it to be quite the contrary.

Same here.

[pythos]

http://www.nyse.com/press/1224497730781.html

Sent to me from my brother.

He also says there may be action taken to severely limit short selling.

Here is another one, I found

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100224/business/us_sec_short_selling

And The Daily show (I know hardly a news source...even though it is) has a terrific piece concerning this.

To The OP, you doing that alone won't do to much damage. Think of you doing that like a popped weld on a pressure hull. But if enough people do that, it can mean doom for UBI, or other companies that face this practice. It is tantamount, to a bunch of welds giving away all at once. IF enough companies face this then one will fail after the other, in a worst case scenerio. Remember the purpose of a corporation is to make proffit. Selling stocks does not make profit for the company, so what do the execs do? They cut production, cheapen production costs....lay people off. The more people laid off, the less people can buy, the less is produced, and we enter a vicious spiral.

It is also a practice of sheer unadulterated greed. People making huge stacks of money (perhaps you don't but many do), and as a whole produce not one thing.

The way it is implemented is indeed new, due to the advent of technology that allows on the minute tracking of stocks. It is also one of the major issues in the economic atmosphere.

[floundericiousWA]

http://www.nyse.com/press/1224497730781.html

Sent to me from my brother.

He also says there may be action taken to severely limit short selling.

Good read! Thanks for linking!

[kylania]

Same here.

SH5 exists and is one of the few PC games currently produced by UbiSoft.

Is there a new Tom Clancy game coming out? Ghost Recon 3? Hero's of Might and Magic VI? IL3?

I mean, sure there's http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=7900 but a lot of good other games aren't coming out anymore, but we did get SH5.

[Galanti]

So I shorted the hell out of Ubisoft shares yesterday after I realized what was going on with the servers (worked well, made a nice round $624 this morning after I covered)

This is even funnier, when you read the impassioned plea for compassion and empathy for Ubi's shareholders in this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=164109

[abbysinthe]

Ghost Recon 3?


Ghost Recon (1 & 2) as we know it is dead, but there is another GR coming out.

Same with R6 (1, 2 & 3) , dead and gone, but there is another R6 Vegas coming.

But then What is SH5 compared to Silent Service, Silent Hunter and Aces of the Deep (et all) - dumbed down, more accessible, what ever, but we do have Silent Hunter still.

they are all better than a kick in the butt.

on a side note, loved Wheelman.

[Spartan]

Looks like Ubi is trying to take a page out of the Atari (infograms) and Cryptic page book. It is a good think I have not purchased any Ubi products in some time. Otherwise it may be feeling my sense of injustice just as Atari is with STO and all my community activism generating several threadnoughts (especially the stupid "experiment" of offering 90 days free plus a huge discount and free shipping sale two weekends ago) and negative publicity to its great displeasure.