Support NeoGAF

Nirolak · Mar 9, 2016

Quick Summary:

Ubisoft's CEO notes that The Division represents Ubisoft's future, and that internally they now talk about the "before The Division" and "after The Division" eras of the company a la BC/AD for calendar years.
The Polygon article talks to the creative directors of a whole bunch of their primary franchises along with the CEO and Chief Creative Officer.
Ubisoft reaffirms that they're becoming a games-as-a-service company and strongly value online connectivity and especially the ability of players to play together going forward.
A manager who used to helm The Crew before getting promoted notes that for live service games they intend to have updates and/or expansionsfor a while before releasing sequels, so Ubisoft's service games will have a longer shelf life. Think more like the 3+ years we see among other publishers most likely, but at least 2 years instead of annual.
Ubisoft notes that how after Destiny gamers are far more accepting of having online-always games and it's a not really a problem for them anymore. Ubisoft has also worked hard on their server backend to make this more reliable.
Ubisoft's Chief Creative Officer goes on for a while about how great online connectivity and especially playing together and having achievements and status to show off to other players is.
Then there's a talk about the direction of each franchise. Feel free to spin off as many threads about that as you like.

Quotes:

Polygon said:
"Internally, I've heard people saying that for Ubisoft there will be a 'before The Division' and an 'after The Division,'" Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot told Polygon in a recent interview. "That signifies how incredible we think the game is and how much we think it has to offer to players.

"The Division is a reference point for our future, and we certainly hope it is a game players will love."

How do you see these sorts of games evolving?

Serge Hascoet, CCO: At Ubisoft, we expect open world games to continue to grow in popularity. Our objectives include making them more cooperative, so that more players enjoy playing them together. Also, when the game suits it, why not make it more competitive, so that players can challenge each other and make a sport of it. We continue to believe that open worlds are conducive for the expression of the players, and that over time they will only improve in allowing people to have a sense of accomplishment through their play. Open worlds let players spend the time they have at their disposal, be it a little while or a long time. With these games, players can come back for years if they want. So our job is to keep delivering more attractive and more believable worlds that are of the highest possible quality.

"Look at the biggest hits of the past few years," [Guillemot] said. "GTA, Fallout, Destiny, Watch Dogs; outside of Call of Duty and sports titles, the most successful and acclaimed games are open worlds. In 2008, open world games had less than 10 percent of the market. Now it's 33 percent. And almost all of the biggest and most popular titles have multiplayer or co-op options for players to enjoy if they want.

"We are in a good position to capitalize on these trends. We've got great franchises in place with Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Watch Dogs and Rainbow Six. We're launching The Division, and we have Ghost Recon, For Honor and another new IP on the horizon. Now we have to deliver on all of these great franchises and make sure they have the level of quality and innovation that gets players excited and coming back for more."

Source: http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/3/8/11179934/ubisoft-division-interview-future-watch-dogs-2

Gamezone · Mar 9, 2016

I won't be buying too much of these online only games, that's for sure.

Like Destiny, The Division is too repetitive and boring as hell. People are hating it on Steam because it didn't live up to their expectations, and because of bad servers and trolling in-game. Not a single review to be found, ans yet it's breaking Ubisoft's records.

AHA-Lambda · Mar 9, 2016

"Internally, I've heard people saying that for Ubisoft there will be a 'before The Division' and an 'after The Division,'" Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot told Polygon in a recent interview. "That signifies how incredible we think the game is and how much we think it has to offer to players.

"The Division is a reference point for our future, and we certainly hope it is a game players will love."

Well at least it'll be different from climbing towers? =/

skynidas · Mar 9, 2016

The Division is fantastic. And the structure they have in place for it is quite good. So i'm confident that they will be able to make good games going forward. The only one that i'm kind of skeptical about is For Honor.

Ghost Recon looks awesome too.

Ryaaan14 · Mar 9, 2016

Cool. People obviously love playing these.

Gutek · Mar 9, 2016

Semi-MMO or open world or multiplayer is where the AAA industry is heading. If you're AAA, this is where you make money.

Burt · Mar 9, 2016

So basically, every game for the next ten years will be some variation on The Division's formula, like how AC spread to every other one of their games in the last ten.

I'm not surprised to hear that they say they have confidence in R6S, but it'd be interesting to know what the real internal discussions are like given the rocky launch but seemingly extremely positive word of mouth it's been getting.

ThoughtsOfSpeaking · Mar 9, 2016

Gamezone said:
I won't be buying any of these online only games, that's for sure.

Fixed. Shame too, I was looking forward to watch_dogs 2.

Welfare · Mar 9, 2016

Really surreal that this is the game that changes Ubisoft basically.

No wonder they delayed this so much. They needed it to be perfect.

Tigress · Mar 9, 2016

It was already obvious they were moving in that direction (microtransactions, online requirement, and every game having to have a multiplayer aspect). Which means they don't make games I'm interested in (was already avoiding them anyways for that). None of that sounds like something I want. It's kinda why I already started boycotting them honestly. Oh well, they just confirmed that I will have no interest in any of their future games.

I just hope not all publishers start insisting on that kind of stuff (Bethesda stay good!).

Aters · Mar 9, 2016

Ubisoft is an interesting company for me. It has released many solid titles, even the worst game from Ubisoft is not that bad, but it seems they've never released anything GOTY worthy. Maybe The Division is the one to break this trend.

Faenix1 · Mar 9, 2016

So does this mean I won't be buying Ubisoft games from here on out?

No, this isn't a "Online only games are bad" thing - thought I do hate them - this is more of a "My WISP is trash and my internet is not stable" thing. What's funny is the first three months I had it was rock solid all the way, now suddenly it's trash.. HMMMM

Kathian · Mar 9, 2016

Burt said:
So basically, every game for the next ten years will be some variation on The Division's formula, like how AC spread to every other one of their games in the last ten.

I'm not surprised to hear that they say they have confidence in R6S, but it'd be interesting to know what the real internal discussions are like given the rocky launch but seemingly extremely positive word of mouth it's been getting.

R6S seems to have legs based on PAL charts.

Gutek · Mar 9, 2016

Welfare said:
Really surreal that this is the game that changes Ubisoft basically.

No wonder they delayed this game so much. They needed it to be perfect.

It's their Destiny. There is an industry pre and post Destiny.

Danny Dudekisser · Mar 9, 2016

Best of luck to them, but this is not an Ubisoft I have any interest in supporting.

T.O.P · Mar 9, 2016

Expecting a huge amount of support in the future of the game

TwistedSyn · Mar 9, 2016

Yeah...no thank you Ubisoft. I do not appreciate it when games that I like are taken offline when the servers get shut down.

Case in point: Darkspore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78jAdckz8Q

Mikey Jr. · Mar 9, 2016

What was that other game they showed at e3? The wild hunt or something?

I expect that to be another division type game.

2SeeKU · Mar 9, 2016

Why does Rayman need to be online? It's perfectly fine being an offline experience.

I'm fine with some games being always online, but don't try and shove it into everything!

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew · Mar 9, 2016

Do they talk about Vivendi and how the company's vision of future may not be theirs alone to share?

Ooccoo · Mar 9, 2016

Doesn't bode well for Fractured But Whole and Beyond Good & Evil II.

KooopaKid · Mar 9, 2016

Good for them but that's definitely not the future I'm heading.

Bedlam · Mar 9, 2016

"Always online", "games as a service", ... no thanks.

Sounds not much different that what they were trying to do before The Division actually. And I fully expect them to run this into the ground as they did with their other big franchises.

Not the kind of gaming future that I want to be any part of.

Visualante2 · Mar 9, 2016

I honestly thought Microsoft was betting on the wrong pony with this game. Glad that it is working out for them. I think Assassin's Creed was like an early showcase for the PS3 last generation so hopefully the timed DLC will give them a little wind in their sales.

wild wild rice · Mar 9, 2016

Ooccoo said:
Doesn't bode well for Fractured But Whole and Beyond Good & Evil II.

Eh, I'm sure certain games will escape the vortex of banality.

Dmax3901 · Mar 9, 2016

Only played the beta for the Division, but one thing that I noticed was how smooth the transition was between playing solo, having a friend join me, then starting a mission. Halfway through the mission another friend joined who I didn't even know was online.

The other online game I've been playing lately is GTA V (PC) and while fun when it works, I've spent so much time on loading screens or getting kicked out of parties or failing a mission then getting kicked back to a free roam then having to load the mission again, it's ridiculous.

So... The division definitely has a good online/multiplayer structure underlying everything else.

Afrodium · Mar 9, 2016

I'm all for games as a service being the future, but I'm afraid we're going to see a wave of big publishers trying to make a GaaS as quickly and cheaply as possible by making grind fests with rotating daily XP bonus missions and small DLC packs with cookie cutter missions every few months. All that matters is sucking in a good chunk of people who like to see numbers go up and you've got a reliable revenue stream.

Luckily people tend to only have enough time to devote to one or two of these games, so chances are that publishers who try to cash in on this won't get a good ROI. In the meantime, prepare for a glut of these games over the next few years before anyone learns their lesson.

Hellshadow · Mar 9, 2016

No mention of Splinter Cell

RoboPlato · Mar 9, 2016

Not exactly the lesson I was hoping they would learn from the game. These types of games are expensive to make and maintain. I was hoping they would just throw more support behind Division and start working on more new IP concepts. This sort of game is really fun, but people won't want to devote their time to many at once. It'll be like the MMO bubble a few years ago.

Zukkoyaki · Mar 9, 2016

I'm not terribly keen on multiplayer-centric games, as long as Ubisoft continues to release games like Far Cry and South Park, and ensures that their games are enjoyable solo (like The Division) I will continue to play their stuff.

Yudoken · Mar 9, 2016

Maintenance · Mar 9, 2016

Ubisoft notes that how after Destiny gamers are far more accepting of having online-always games and it's a not really a problem for them anymore

As if I needed one more reason to avoid Ubisoft games. Shame, since some games had my interest for a few moments (The Crew, for an example). But uPlay + always online = nope.

Raven117 · Mar 9, 2016

Nirolak said:
Quick Summary:

Ubisoft notes that how after Destiny gamers are far more accepting of having online-always games and it's a not really a problem for them anymore. Ubisoft has also worked hard on their server backend to make this more reliable.

Quotes:

Source: http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/3/8/11179934/ubisoft-division-interview-future-watch-dogs-2

I mean, do they realize gamers didn't have a problem with "always online" when there are games that are designed to actually benefit from being "always online." Games like Destiny and The Division (this new, pseudo-MMO-Shooter genere), yeah, always online is fine because it makes sense that way. You throw out Skyrim or even an Assassins Creed game as always online, then you will see gamers get equally as pissed.

Regardless, between Rainbow 6 and now The Division (and to a lesser extent AC: syndicate), Ubi has come along way from the disaster of 2013/14.

Ethelwulf · Mar 9, 2016

I'm in. I like it. Sounds refreshing. Traditional single player games, RPGs and other shooters are not going away anyway.

digoutyoursoul · Mar 9, 2016

Interested to know what their other unannounced new IP is. Maybe we will find out at E3?

InsaneZero · Mar 9, 2016

RoboPlato said:
Not exactly the lesson I was hoping they would learn from the game.

What exactly did you expect them to learn from a game that was fundamentally built as a service?

13randO · Mar 9, 2016

If R6 and The Division are signs of what's to come, bring them on ( but y'know, just don't completely forget about BG&E2, Rayman and The UbiArt games). I'm glad that Watch_Dogs is given a good amount of light in the article.

"Watch Dogs didn't just deliver an open world; it also allowed players to sort of float in and out of each other's experiences, helping and hacking each other in bits of gameplay that weaved the online and offline together, making it hard to pull the two apart."

This was the best part of W_D, easily. The open world stuff was meh at best IMO, but all the multiplayer components were really under appreciated.

silva1991 · Mar 9, 2016

Yup, this company keeps pushing me away further and further

good fir them I guess, but obviously the likes of me aren't the target.

KooopaKid · Mar 9, 2016

Afrodium said:
I'm all for games as a service being the future, but I'm afraid we're going to see a wave of big publishers trying to make a GaaS as quickly and cheaply as possible by making grind fests with rotating daily XP bonus missions and small DLC packs with cookie cutter missions every few months. All that matters is sucking in a good chunk of people who like to see numbers go up and you've got a reliable revenue stream.

Luckily people tend to only have enough time to devote to one or two of these games, so chances are that publishers who try to cash in on this won't get a good ROI. In the meantime, prepare for a glut of these games over the next few years before anyone learns their lesson.

Good prediction. But they are going to make lots of money in the meantime. On the other hand, it's quite risky, with the increased competition in that field in the years to come, I can see a huge project not finding its public between two other successful games and putting some studios at risk.

conman · Mar 9, 2016

This would bother me if it had been said 5 years ago. But now, there are so many fantastic alternatives to big-budget games from major publishers that I say more power to Ubisoft. I wish them and their new customers luck. I will not be one of them.

Nuke Soda · Mar 9, 2016

Yudoken said:

Sure hope that dude in front filled out the right paperwork otherwise he has a big ass line to get back in only to have one of the people in front refuse to move.

Edit: Also holy shit, I thought we played games to get away from lines and jobs and annoying people.

Gamezone · Mar 9, 2016

Ethelwulf said:
I'm in. I like it. Sounds refreshing. Traditional single player games, RPGs and other shooters are not going away anyway.

I wouldn't call it traditional single player. It seems like every time someone tries to MMO the single player portion of a game, it get's way worse than regular offline RPG open world games.

RedSwirl · Mar 9, 2016

Hellshadow said:
No mention of Splinter Cell

If Ubisoft can give me a standalone Spies vs Mercs and not fuck it up I might be satisfied.

Hari Seldon · Mar 9, 2016

That is fine and all, but I wish they would get more creative. I don't care about yet another shooter, but I would check out a AAA pirate game.

ironcreed · Mar 9, 2016

Well, I enjoy online games that allow you to run around and play solo or with people. And The Division is one of the better new IP's to come around in quite awhile. I don't have a problem with this.

L Thammy · Mar 9, 2016

Ubisoft's CEO notes that The Division represents Ubisoft's future, and that internally they now talk about the "before The Division" and "after The Division" eras of the company a la BC/AD for calendar years.

I kind of wish this was part of some nineties smacktalk campaign. Where Ubisoft explictly compared The Division's release to the birth of Jesus.

EL CUCO · Mar 9, 2016

Yudoken said:

Lol I'm kinda sad I couldn't experienced this in my activation.

Leyasu · Mar 9, 2016

And if ubi can release games of the divisions scope and quality regularly, then they will be seeing alot more of my money.

The division is straight up awesome.

Nirolak · Mar 9, 2016

RoboPlato said:
Not exactly the lesson I was hoping they would learn from the game. These types of games are expensive to make and maintain. I was hoping they would just throw more support behind Division and start working on more new IP concepts. This sort of game is really fun, but people won't want to devote their time to many at once. It'll be like the MMO bubble a few years ago.

They did note that not every game would be implementing this kind of idea in the same way.

Hamster Plugin · Mar 9, 2016

Yudoken said:

Is this some kind of MMO-like quest where you have to interact with an object... but there's other players around and only one player can do it at a time?

I laughed really hard thinking that's what is going on.

Support NeoGAF

Ubisoft's CEO: The Division represents Ubisoft's future, talks future company plans

Mrgrgr

Gold Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

I paid good money for this Dynex!

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

I'd be in the dick

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Gold Member

Junior Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Mrgrgr

Member

Similar threads