Ubisoft posts "New Plan" for SH and other series

Sacrilege · 03-09-10, 10:49 AM

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_.../1042/2184.pdf

Quote:

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 · 03-09-10, 11:01 AM

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 · 03-09-10, 11:12 AM

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 · 03-09-10, 11:14 AM

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

SteamWake · 03-09-10, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylania

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

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

I read it to be quite the contrary.

Gammelpreusse · 03-09-10, 11:22 AM

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 · 03-09-10, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 03-09-10, 11:38 AM

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 · 03-09-10, 11:51 AM

" 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 · 03-09-10, 11:52 AM

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 · 03-09-10, 12:04 PM

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 · 03-09-10, 12:15 PM

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

Sailor Steve · 03-09-10, 12:27 PM

Who are you?

Blood_splat · 03-09-10, 12:34 PM

Sometimes I think shareholders have a hand in destroying companies.

blackdog_kt · 03-09-10, 12:43 PM

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

03-09-10, 11:01 AM	#2
OakGroove 中国水兵 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Germany Posts: 275 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ The idea that a company with more negotiating power over its customers will cut them a better deal is just bizarre. Mad Science spawns Evil Fiend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkTZTzsYoZs

03-09-10, 11:12 AM	#3
bigboywooly Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Swindon, England Posts: 10,151 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	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 __________________ My mediafire page http://www.mediafire.com/?11eoq19bq9r41

03-09-10, 11:14 AM	#4
kylania Silent Hunter Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,528 Downloads: 118 Uploads: 0	We should at least be thankful that Silent Hunter is a good enough "major franchise" for UbiSoft to continue developing it. __________________

03-09-10, 12:27 PM	#13
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Who are you? __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

03-09-10, 11:22 AM	#6
Gammelpreusse Planesman Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 191 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	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.

03-09-10, 11:38 AM	#8
abbysinthe Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 11 Downloads: 56 Uploads: 0	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.

03-09-10, 11:51 AM	#9
Goatman455 Mate Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 56 Downloads: 58 Uploads: 0	" 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.

03-09-10, 11:52 AM	#10
RSColonel_131st Medic Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 164 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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.

03-09-10, 12:04 PM	#11
pythos Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere over there Posts: 834 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	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)

03-09-10, 12:15 PM	#12
RSColonel_131st Medic Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 164 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Well, he bet on sinking stock for UBI. I can't see how that hurts anybody except UBI?

03-09-10, 12:34 PM	#14
Blood_splat Samurai Navy Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Beneath the waves Posts: 568 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	Sometimes I think shareholders have a hand in destroying companies.

03-09-10, 12:43 PM	#15
blackdog_kt Sailor man Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 46 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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