Ubisoft CEO calls for shorter console cycles
Ubisoft has already jumped on to the launch of the Wii U with six titles slated for its release window.
Talking to Polygon, Guillemot suggested that the seven year cycle starting with the launch of the Xbox 360 in 2005 has stifled creativity and led to developers taking less risks.
'We need new consoles and at the end of the cycle generally the market goes down because there are less new IPs,' he said. He added that the launch of new hardware is an ideal time for companies to "reinvent" themselves.
The current console generation is drawing to a close with Nintendo launching its Wii U in the US earlier this month. The console has sold approximately 400,000 units in retailers. Despite this new device on the market however, the original Wii still managed to shift 300,000 units during the same period.
Ubisoft has jumped on to the new console's release with a total of six titles for the new console either already launched or scheduled for before the end of Q1 2013. Its Wii U catalogue includes ZombiU, an entry to the Rabbids series and Assassin's Creed 3.
Away from the console market, earlier this year Ubisoft decided to drop its DRM tactics for its PC titles that required players to maintain a constant internet connection. Guillemot had previously stated that the company sees a 93%-95% piracy rate on the platform.
Previous Article
29 Comments
Discuss in the forums Replyagreed but for clarification does you PC bracket also include OSX and Linux?
That would be awesome, but it's unfortunatly unlikely to happen ... unless devs make a huge move to openGL and crossplateform I/O, sound, network libs ... instead of Dx.
Yes but when the ps3 came out, games companies moaned about the big differences in architecture between ps2 and ps3 and consequently between xbox 360 and ps3, leading to most studios using the xbox360 as benchmark and not using the full power of the gpu and cell processor in the ps3 for a couple years because of PC/xbox specs.
For this guy to have what he wants he would have to also request consoles to use similar architecture so games engines and studios can catch up easily.
Per example think on how long it took gran tourism 5 to be released because they wanted to explore the limits of the ps3.
Its easier for pc games to overtake consoles in time, since the architecture and legacy is not a big issue, games companies just need to assume what is the average PC, allow some sub specs to run and attempt to show whats possible with good machines, to sell as many copies as possible, and usually it is easier to extend the games engines used by the companies. If the architecture changes (even if it uses the an opengl specification) changes have to be made in compilers and game engines to adapt, all this takes time and costs a lot of money.
Seems weird to me. Contrasting with a new console launch, even launch window games with very little competition could only expect to see a million (potential) customers in the early stages as the install base grows. Meaning your attachment ratio would have to be extremely high compared with consoles which have 50 odd million units sold. Hell, make it multiplatform and that could be 100 million!
I have none of the facts and don't work in the industry so I'm not saying he's wrong. I just find it very weird.
Ubisoft chief executive Yves Guillemot says: "I always use the word 'less' when I should use the word 'fewer', it makes me feel alive."
-_-
which may happen. Apple sales are on the up, Valve is pushing linux and Windows 8 is forcing users to rethink.
Indie's tend to prove that it is viable. Some big title were cross-platform (Unreal, Quake, Doom, etc.) ... but the game industry is driven by profits. I don't see the big studio investing time and money to rewrite their engines for "a niche market". I'm a Linux user, but have windows installed only for games, that's the sad reality.
Oh heck, that's quite a lot of things I "can't" run on Linux :/ Browsers are just about the only thing I would have no learning curve if I wanted to run Linux as my main OS. It's still got a LOOOOOONG way to go as a desktop OS in my opinion.
All that said, I think it's great that Some big players like Valve are starting to make a push into gaming on Linux, as that might encourage the hardware manufacturers to do decent drivers for Linux, at which point one of the major stumbling blocks for Linux as a Desktop OS becomes much improved. Also, it never hurts for MS to feel pressured if they start making better software because of this, we all end up winning.
Maya (just to mention one professionnal software) is available for Linux, and works better than on windows ... the issue doesn't come from Linux itself, but from sofware makers.
Now it's a matter of what you use. Many software were only available on Macintosh (Quark express, Finale, etc.) .... when it got ported on Windows, almost everyone users moved to PCs, because the platform is cheaper.
The only professionnal software I use is Maya, and it is available on Linux ... so windows is only their for games now.
The only viable COTS solution is an x86 one, seeing as modifying an expensive and low volume COTS platform (PowerPC) has locked them into a long cycle.
256MB RAM + 256MB VRAM,GeForce 7800 GTX-like performance in PS3, 512MB shared RAM and Radeon X1800-like performance in XBOX360... Cell was good only for limited types of F@H tasks (same as the GPU client) etc etc.
Sorry, but when developers have to scale back to 480p/30FPS for their games to actually run, then it is clear that these consoles have anything but enough computing power. They are already underpowered for last 2-3 years.
You only have to look at the difference between the XBox 360 version and the PC version of Far Cry 3.
The console version is very pretty. Until you see the PC version, then the XBox version looks crap.
This is a nice OS .... with bad support from software makers and hardware builder (driver). An OS success is mainly driven by the softwares running on it. It's like consoles, they cannot be a success without lots of good games.
Some studios made the effort to port their soft on Linux (Maya, XSI, etc.) ... but many didn't.
my bad for bringing it up in this article!
At the moment they sell one copy of one game for the life of the console (5 years?) if that console was renewed every two years then that's another game sold.
Yes its delayed a few things but wether anyone would buy a new high end console is open to debate, Wii u has sold 400k units in first week thats not really the greatest numbers in the world.
Ubi should be more concerned with releasing some quality titles instead of the same old rehashed crap that they have spewed out these last few years.
Within the realm of discussion where customers have a couple hundred to spend it makes plenty of sense for a developer to want new consoles. New hardware allows for technological advancements, most noticably better graphics processing ability but also general technology such as the improved networking capabilities of current consoles compared to their predecessors. New consoles also mean new games. As PerpetualOmega puts it, consoles need games to play. Once you've bought your shiny new bit of kit it's useless unless you start buying plenty of games for it aswell. Having to learn to work with new architectures is a problem, but with the big names it's not such a problem, they just use the time they didn't spend creating a new IP and put it towards optimization for Rehash Sequel Simulator 5: Rise of the Casual and start counting their money.
+1
Rayman Origins puts the New super Mario Bros games to shame. It was an outstanding Platformer.
Xbox 360 on release £329
wii u on release for complete pack is £349
Uk gets ripped off for tech.
Who the *&#!'s fault is that?