bit-gamer.net

Ubisoft CEO calls for shorter console cycles

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.

Ubisoft chief executive Yves Guillemot has expressed a desire for the next console cycle to be much shorter than our current one.

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.

29 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
GFC 27th November 2012, 08:38 Quote
It might be the opposite really. It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.
r3loaded 27th November 2012, 09:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.
Quite the opposite actually - PC gaming is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment because developers are building ever more expansive and complex games that must be severely scaled-back to run acceptably on the old hardware of consoles. Even close-to-metal optimisations aren't enough to make up the gap in performance. The next generation cannot come soon enough.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 09:14 Quote
It's time to return to the old gaming scheme ... games for console ... and games for PCs. They should really stop all those cheap port and start to think the games for console only or PC only. This would be better for both platform.
blacko 27th November 2012, 09:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
It's time to return to the old gaming scheme ... games for console ... and games for PCs. They should really stop all those cheap port and start to think the games for console only or PC only. This would be better for both platform.

agreed but for clarification does you PC bracket also include OSX and Linux?
[-Stash-] 27th November 2012, 09:41 Quote
I think that would be nice :)
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 10:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
agreed 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.
derviansoul 27th November 2012, 10:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.
Quite the opposite actually - PC gaming is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment because developers are building ever more expansive and complex games that must be severely scaled-back to run acceptably on the old hardware of consoles. Even close-to-metal optimisations aren't enough to make up the gap in performance. The next generation cannot come soon enough.

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.
runadumb 27th November 2012, 10:12 Quote
How is it that it's harder for new IP's and generating revenue the longer a console cycle lasts? I would have thought the larger install base, familiarity with the tools/technology and wide range of people with skills on the systems would make it easier over time.

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.
XXAOSICXX 27th November 2012, 10:19 Quote
In other news....

Ubisoft chief executive Yves Guillemot says: "I always use the word 'less' when I should use the word 'fewer', it makes me feel alive."

-_-
blacko 27th November 2012, 10:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
agreed 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.

which may happen. Apple sales are on the up, Valve is pushing linux and Windows 8 is forcing users to rethink.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 10:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
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.
[-Stash-] 27th November 2012, 11:29 Quote
I have Windows installed for Games too. And Photoshop. And Wavelab. And Première. And Illustrator. And Lightroom.

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.
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 12:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [-Stash-]
I have Windows installed for Games too. And Photoshop. And Wavelab. And Première. And Illustrator. And Lightroom.

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

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.
Adnoctum 27th November 2012, 12:45 Quote
The only way that the cycles could be shorter is if the consoles adopt a COTS approach instead of creating a custom solution. It is the custom solution that is the reason the development costs were so high and needed to be recovered through licencing fees on top of the console costs, and why the manufacturers have left the next generation for so long.

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.
faugusztin 27th November 2012, 12:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
It might be the opposite really. It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.

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.
Adnoctum 27th November 2012, 12:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFC
It's getting to a point where you can do so much with the computing power of those things, that there's not that much incentive to upgrade.
Quite the opposite actually - PC gaming is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment because developers are building ever more expansive and complex games that must be severely scaled-back to run acceptably on the old hardware of consoles. Even close-to-metal optimisations aren't enough to make up the gap in performance. The next generation cannot come soon enough.

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.
runadumb 27th November 2012, 13:47 Quote
Some people really can make any story about Linux here...
GuilleAcoustic 27th November 2012, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Some people really can make any story about Linux here...

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.
blacko 27th November 2012, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Some people really can make any story about Linux here...

my bad for bringing it up in this article!
PerpetualOmega 27th November 2012, 16:48 Quote
More like they are talking on the back of the Sony news that PS3 games cannot be played on PS4 so we all need to buy a new version of that game, if this happened every time AND there was less of a gap in between releases of consoles the likes of Ubisoft a laughing all the way to the bank.

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.
rollo 27th November 2012, 19:35 Quote
We live in a recession at the minute, Ubitsoft CEO can go screw himself if he really thinks famillys can afford another £400 console or two at the present minute.

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.
Roskoken 27th November 2012, 22:59 Quote
**** Ubisoft
Sloth 27th November 2012, 23:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
We live in a recession at the minute, Ubitsoft CEO can go screw himself if he really thinks famillys can afford another £400 console or two at the present minute.

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.
Tad sensationalist? A new high-end console is barely $400, let alone £400. Even during a recession many console buyers are people fortunate enough to live in a wealthy first world country where hard economic times mean having to choose between a Wii U or and iPad rather than get both.

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.
dark_avenger 28th November 2012, 02:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
**** Ubisoft

+1
runadumb 28th November 2012, 07:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo

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.

Rayman Origins puts the New super Mario Bros games to shame. It was an outstanding Platformer.
Gunsmith 28th November 2012, 08:49 Quote
i thought we already ascertained that the ubi ceo was "a bit of a dick"
sub routine 28th November 2012, 09:42 Quote
New consoles YAY, I'm in the shoulda released Them 2-3 years ago. I'm borred waiting
rollo 28th November 2012, 12:42 Quote
PS3 on release in the Uk was £399 i dont live in america.
Xbox 360 on release £329
wii u on release for complete pack is £349

Uk gets ripped off for tech.
Phil Rhodes 28th November 2012, 23:46 Quote
Quote:
the market goes down because there are less new IPs

Who the *&#!'s fault is that?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums