Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

GamesIndustry.biz recently had an interview with Ubisoft's Managing Director for Europe Alain Corre about the games industry in 2009 and what changes they're making to their casual and core game development strategy. Here are some of the highlights.

First he starts off by explaining what he felt caused the slump in sales during 2009. He does use some uh... slightly interesting wording though.

Q: It's clear that videogames have become so integral to society that there's no real chance people will desert the medium - but until last year there was continued growth for a number of years. Why was 2009 a "transition" year - was it just the economy?

Alain Corre: Well, that was part of it. People had less money to invest, especially in the US - people were more cautious about what they were spending. I'd say it was more, to a certain extent, in the casual segment of the market, especially on the handheld side, where people spent much less on cartridges.

But on the other side there was also the music game business, which went down quite a lot - and if you combine that with the DS decrease, it's been a big part of the decrease of the market last year.

However, if you look at what is important for the future, both the PS3 and 360 markets went up, which means that the gamers are still around, they're still enjoying playing and they're still playing more - which is essential for the dynamism of our industry, because these consumers are very vocal, they define trends, so that they're still getting to play great games is a very positive sign.

For example, Assassin's Creed II, which was the highlight of last year for Ubisoft - we had sold, by the end of December, 40 per cent more units than on the first Assassin's Creed two years before. So that shows that when you have a great property, a high quality game, then the volumes you can sell can increase.

That's very positive - but it's a more challenging industry in the sense that, on the gamer's side, only the triple-A-quality games will sell, but these games can sell many more units than they were selling before.

So if you can create a great property, with great quality, then it can become a golden nugget very quickly.

He then goes on to share how Ubisoft tends to sell more to both the core and casual audiences.

Q: So looking ahead to 2010 and that refocus on core franchises - will that affect the structure of the company at all, specifically jobs linked to the development of Ubisoft's casual titles?

Alain Corre: Well, first - on the hardcore games - because we want to increase the quality, we actually need more people behind each of them. We'll put more talent on each of the games to make sure they're the right quality required to be a massive hit.

On the casual side, actually we still believe that - providing you have a great, innovative idea in that segment - you can be very successful.

For example, in November we released a game called Just Dance on the Wii - it's very easy to play, aimed at everybody, and great for partying at home with the kids, with friends and family, and it's a lot of fun to play or watch.

It's become a phenomenon in a lot of countries, especially in the UK where it was number one for two weeks in January. I think the word of mouth was good, and people were having fun playing it - so just to illustrate, we still believe a lot in the casual part of the business, it's just a question of finding the right approach and the right gameplay or idea. When you get one, the market can be super-big.

So in terms of our teams - no - we need our teams to refocus on some of the casual games that are bigger than the ones we had before. It's just that we'll have maybe fewer SKUs, so we're more focused on the bigger ones.

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ubisofts-alain-corre-one-interview?page=1

There's a whole lot more through the link.










Edit:

I realized they now make you log in with a free account to read the articles, so here's a few more excerpts.

Here's a little bit more about their core strategy:

Q: And the good news for Ubisoft is that you'd say you already have several such franchises?

Alain Corre: Yes, the idea now is to concentrate more on key franchises - to put all of our talents and energy into the creation of those products. We did that on Assassin's Creed II, which was a new process for us - we had several of our studios work together to contribute to the creation of the game.

Our Montreal studio worked with our Singapore studio and the Annecy studio in France to make sure that the game would be a top quality game. And we've been able to make all the talented people - engineers and creatives - at the three studios work together.

I think in the future we'll see that as very much more the case - a bit like in the movie industry, where talent combines from different parts of the world. For example, our studio Hybride in Canada helped James Cameron to make the film Avatar.

The same way I think we'll see more and more people from different companies with different talent combine to create the best games on earth.

And a little it more on how the casual gaming market is evolving:

Q: You mention the decline of the casual and music game genres, and whether you put it down to piracy or high price points in a tricky economy, they've both suffered. But at the same time some of the social network games and free-to-play titles seem to have correspondingly shown solid growth. Is there a link there, or is it just a coincidence?

Alain Corre: I think to a certain extent there are some of the gamers on the social networks who are the same, because what we see today is that social or casual gamers aren't just playing on a single platform - they're playing on mobile phones, on the internet and maybe also a Wii or DS.

It's multi-platform gaming - they're spending a certain amount of time playing, and that amount of time is growing, which is good in general for us.

I'd say that the DS declined because of piracy, as you said - but it doesn't mean that people didn't play it. It's still much, much used by a lot of people - they're just not buying as many games as they used to.

But in terms of gaming in general, it's now part of the overall entertainment time that people have - it's coming to people on all platforms, and they're spending time on each. It's very fragmented - more so than before.

 

[timetokill]

However, if you look at what is important for the future, both the PS3 and 360 markets went up, which means that the gamers are still around, they're still enjoying playing and they're still playing more - which is essential for the dynamism of our industry, because these consumers are very vocal, they define trends, so that they're still getting to play great games is a very positive sign.

Ah, so the PS3 and 360 is where the "gamers" are, huh? I guess the Wii and DS are all casual gamers?

I think to a certain extent there are some of the gamers on the social networks who are the same, because what we see today is that social or casual gamers aren't just playing on a single platform - they're playing on mobile phones, on the internet and maybe (emphasis mine) also a Wii or DS.

Oh, they're neither "gamers" nor social or casual gamers? The Wii and DS games are just selling into a vacuum!! :lol

 

[rollingstart]

Ah, so the PS3 and 360 is where the "gamers" are, huh? I guess the Wii and DS are all casual gamers?

Oh, they're neither "gamers" nor social or casual gamers? The Wii and DS games are just selling into a vacuum!! :lol

People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Not really an epiphany.

 

[MYE]

Thats official?
Reads like a gamefaqs post, right down to the retarded use of "hardcore" and "casual"
:lol

 

[onipex]

Ubisoft blames casual gamers for not buying their shovelware anymore. Great stufff.

 

[Lonely1]

People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Not really an epiphany.

So, Nintendo fanbase increased more than 200% for this gen. Um...

 

[FrankT]

Alain Corre: Well, first - on the hardcore games - because we want to increase the quality, we actually need more people behind each of them. We'll put more talent on each of the games to make sure they're the right quality required to be a massive hit.

They had 450 people working on AC II. I would love to know the investment versus return on that in the end.

 

[Rainier]

People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Not really an epiphany.

Ya, people that buy Wii games are notorious for making sure their favorite developer's name is on the box... that's the kind of massive brand loyalty Nintendo has carried over from the Gamecube days.

 

[Nirolak]

Ubisoft blames casual gamers for not buying their shovelware anymore. Great stufff.

I'm not getting that message from this.

They seem to be implying that they're switching to focusing on casual titles that have a better chance of catching on instead of flooding the market.

 

[MYE]

Ya, people that buy Wii games are notorious for making sure their favorite developer's name is on the box... that's the kind of massive brand loyalty Nintendo has carried over from the Gamecube days.

I hope this is sarcasm. Gamecube days?

 

[Rainier]

I thought putting 'massive' and 'Gamecube' together in the same sentence was a pretty big hint.

 

[The Faceless Master]

it's gotta be tough for all of these companies to make games. i mean, nintendo has somehow gotten people to buy nintendo games, and these poor non-nintendo guys just can't figure out how to make nintendo games.

 

[onipex]

I'm not getting that message from this.

They seem to be implying that they're switching to focusing on casual titles that have a better chance of catching on instead of flooding the market.

They also say that there was a drop in casual game sales last year ,because those gamers were not buying as many games. They use to this to blame for their crappy DS games not selling.

I'd say it was more, to a certain extent, in the casual segment of the market, especially on the handheld side, where people spent much less on cartridges.

But on the other side there was also the music game business, which went down quite a lot - and if you combine that with the DS decrease, it's been a big part of the decrease of the market last year.

The truth is that people will not continue to buy crap software. I also don't believe that causal and music games were the sole cause or even a major cause of the declines last year. Of course just about every industry head and analysts says that they are.

 

[justchris]

Well, first - on the hardcore games - because we want to increase the quality, we actually need more people behind each of them. We'll put more talent on each of the games to make sure they're the right quality required to be a massive hit.

So your plan here, let me get this straight, is to increase the number of people working on each game, spread over a larger area of physical space, thereby increasing the required operating budget for games that are already highly expensive?

So in terms of our teams - no - we need our teams to refocus on some of the casual games that are bigger than the ones we had before. It's just that we'll have maybe fewer SKUs, so we're more focused on the bigger ones.

This, on the other hand, very nearly approaches brilliance, in that it's a sort of common sense that no one else seems to be capable of. Pumping out crap serves no long term financial goals. Creating and fostering a product, whether casual or hardcore, is obviously the way to go.

I don't think you really need bigger and bigger teams with each iteration though. That just seems like making an excuse for not having enough ideas to go around.

 

[AlternativeUlster]

So your plan here, let me get this straight, is to increase the number of people working on each game, spread over a larger area of physical space, thereby increasing the required operating budget for games that are already highly expensive?

Which game is more expensive to make? A game that takes a year of development time with 60 people or a game that takes 6 months but has 120 people on staff?

 

[nincompoop]

People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Not really an epiphany.

obligatory

AND
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19500560&postcount=2370

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

However, if you look at what is important for the future, both the PS3 and 360 markets went up, which means that the gamers are still around

Fucking kidding me? Not buying a Ubisoft game ever again... EVER!

 

[Mayor Haggar]

PUT OUT MARKETING FOR NO MORE HEROES 2 YOU SONS OF COCKS!


Fuck.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

People buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games. Not really an epiphany.

pretty much.

 

[Discotheque]

Euugh. Don't like these guys at all. Where's Beyond Good and Evil 2?

 

[justchris]

Which game is more expensive to make? A game that takes a year of development time with 60 people or a game that takes 6 months but has 120 people on staff?

Well, simple math will tell you that they both cost the same, but if you dig a little deeper, there are several variables.

Assume that salaries are the same, or at least, average out to the same amount per person regardless of team size.

A larger team requires more space, so that's increased office costs.
Each note or sheet or memo that goes out in hardcopy form has to have more copies for the greater number of people working on each part of the project, so that's increased materials cost.
A greater number of people, especially spread over a larger geographical area, requires more coordination, and time taken away from design and development to ensure everyone is on the same page and work isn't being duplicated, which means higher communication costs, and time lost on meetings and updates.
A larger team needs more equipment to work with, so that's increased infrastructure costs.

On the other side of the equation, a longer dev cycle makes release and marketing planning more difficult, leading to increased opportunity costs.
Salaries fluctuate over time, and what you're paying your people at the start of the dev cycle may not be what you're paying them at the end, leading to increased payroll costs.
And, of course, leases have to be renewed and rates change, and the economy fluctuates, all leading to increased office costs.

So I'd say it's still probably a wash either way. However, probably more important, is the fact that doubling a team size doesn't actually reduce development time by half. At best you're probably looking at a 33% reduction in dev time for doubling your staff, dependent on scale. For a small, indie game, going from one person to two people will probably give you as much as a 90% reduction in dev time, but the larger the scope of the product, the less benefit you get from a similar percentage increase in staff.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

pretty much.

Your avatar makes me think ignore this person, and your posts does nothing to curb that initial impression.

 

[Mayor Haggar]

Your avatar makes me think ignore this person, and your posts does nothing to curb that initial impression.

A sentiment shared by most, I'm sure.

 

[Flachmatuch]

Euugh. Don't like these guys at all. Where's Beyond Good and Evil 2?

I think this means increasing development costs and thus less risktaking (and fewer games in total). So not much chance afaics.

It's a rational strategy for large companies but overall, since everyone's doing this, it's not very good for the market :-/

 

[liuelson]

Which game is more expensive to make? A game that takes a year of development time with 60 people or a game that takes 6 months but has 120 people on staff?

All things being equal, larger staff usually means larger overhead costs; health benefits, space, equipment, etc.

 

[JJConrad]

Ubisoft has a new strategy every year... and every year it ends up being the same as before.

 

[Discotheque]

I think this means increasing development costs and thus less risktaking (and fewer games in total). So not much chance afaics.

It's a rational strategy for large companies but overall, since everyone's doing this, it's not very good for the market :-/

Yes, I know it's good business sense to publish Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and now a Medal of Honor reboot.

BUT this is also why I think gaming can tend to be quite stale sometimes. You can let your imagination run rampant when you create games. Where are our city invasion b-movie style games? With disaster everywhere and chimps and dinosaurs running around etc.

Instead we get some boring war-shooter rinse and repeat. Man this some bull.

 

[Indyana]

Ubisoft has been moving the goal posts all along the generation.

2007 - casual (shovelware) Wii and DS games -> pay the HD games.
2008 - casual Wii games don't sell -> Nintendo like Wii games.
(Not sure about this one. 2008 - Wii casual market oversaturated.)
2009 - casual Wii and DS games affected by piracy -> we know how to fix that.
2010 January - forget casual Wii and DS games -> hardcore HD games.
2010 February - casual games like Just Dance and hardcore HD games.

So, I'm going to be a bit skeptical. This seems BS to explain their bad sales and to focus in the bright side.

 

[scitek]

As long as publishers segregate their consumers with labels like "hardcore" and "casual" they will fail to understand why Nintendo is able to "click" with the new gamers and they aren't.

 

[Prine]

Fucking kidding me? Not buying a Ubisoft game ever again... EVER!

Your just proving his point.

Good on them for going the HD focused route. They're clearly making lots of money off Xboxen and Ps3

 

[justchris]

I think this means increasing development costs and thus less risktaking (and fewer games in total). So not much chance afaics.

It's a rational strategy for large companies but overall, since everyone's doing this, it's not very good for the market :-/

I disagree. Fewer game releases overall, with higher quality means several things:

Room for more players in the market. With the big guys sticking to fewer releases, which will, perforce, be pushed into the highest profile release spots (Christmas, Easter, March for some reason I'm not too clear on, Thanksgiving and so on) that will leave more room for niche players and smaller developers to fill in the gaps.

Less player fatigue. Ubisoft's Petz games are, fundamentally, a good idea. However, no game, no matter how magnificent (and these games are barely sufficient, not magnificent by any stretch) will begin to pale after the 7th release in the span of nine months. One, higher quality release, every six months will be easier to market, save on marketing costs, and draw players back more often to purchase sequels. There's a reason every new Pokemon game sells millions. Its because they wait long enough between iterations for players to exhaust the content and want something new.

Ability to rotate teams. Right now Ubisoft has something like 8 small teams pumping out nothing but shovelware. If they focus on fewer games, they can have one team working on their shovelware for that half, and the other shovelware teams can be providing programming, art and sound assistance on their bigger titles, allowing them to pad their resume, and get more experience, so that they can then work on a new IP and produce better quality. Someone who never gets a chance to make anything but shovelware suddenly thrust onto a major product will likely fail spectacularly. Someone who's done grunt work on a major product, but been able to attend all the creative and design meetings, has a much better chance of producing a solid product when left to their own devices.

Ultimately, the good outweighs any potential negatives.

 

[rollingstart]

obligatory

AND
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19500560&postcount=2370

ok? The joke was supposed to be about the vacuum comment from the previous post. If there were more than two smilies I could help point it out. I'm only explaining the poor joke I made because I want to point out why the guy I quoting after you is a funny.

Your avatar makes me think ignore this person, and your posts does nothing to curb that initial impression.

I don't know that guy or if he takes it seriously, but that image is from those stupid russian ads people clowned on a few weeks back. the key is that most funcitonal humans think of it as a joke because the group who made the ad were trying to be insightful. You're shutting this poor guy down because two jokes went over your head.

 

[Flachmatuch]

Yes, I know it's good business sense to publish Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and now a Medal of Honor reboot.

BUT this is also why I think gaming can tend to be quite stale sometimes. You can let your imagination run rampant when you create games. Where are our city invasion b-movie style games? With disaster everywhere and chimps and dinosaurs running around etc.

Instead we get some boring war-shooter rinse and repeat. Man this some bull.

I think it's a structural issue and it's mainly because companies can too easily rely on buying up other companies and expertise and aren't forced to grow organically (even though the most successful and best developers like Blizzard or Nintendo actually do that). This means that if you start on this path, you will eventually have to rely too much on money (and increased production value) because you'll lose your real competitive edge, your deep understanding of the market (or particular market segment). It's a bit crap imo.

 

[∀ Narayan]

Ubisoft is pretty much dead to me at this point.

Euugh. Don't like these guys at all. Where's Beyond Good and Evil 2?

This is why. Also, Rayman 4.

 

[Flachmatuch]

I disagree. Fewer game releases overall, with higher quality means several things:

Room for more players in the market. With the big guys sticking to fewer releases, which will, perforce, be pushed into the highest profile release spots (Christmas, Easter, March for some reason I'm not too clear on, Thanksgiving and so on) that will leave more room for niche players and smaller developers to fill in the gaps.

I'm not really sure. Saying that increasing development costs and production quality by big publishers will somehow make it easier to sell lower cost/quality products for smaller ones doesn't really seem right. And of course if there's money to be made between these release spots, there's no reason for big companies to not try to do it. Increased production costs mean increased barriers of entry afaics, so I'm pretty sure this doesn't really mean room for more players in the market, just the opposite.

Less player fatigue. Ubisoft's Petz games are, fundamentally, a good idea. However, no game, no matter how magnificent (and these games are barely sufficient, not magnificent by any stretch) will begin to pale after the 7th release in the span of nine months. One, higher quality release, every six months will be easier to market, save on marketing costs, and draw players back more often to purchase sequels. There's a reason every new Pokemon game sells millions. Its because they wait long enough between iterations for players to exhaust the content and want something new.

It's also because every single Pokemon game is pretty fucking awesome. I agree that you can saturate markets pretty easily (hey, EA and Activision managed it with music games in like 3 or so years), but you have to be able to produce quality software, and that's not as easy as following a couple of rules that can be found in any management handbook :-/

Ability to rotate teams. Right now Ubisoft has something like 8 small teams pumping out nothing but shovelware. If they focus on fewer games, they can have one team working on their shovelware for that half, and the other shovelware teams can be providing programming, art and sound assistance on their bigger titles, allowing them to pad their resume, and get more experience, so that they can then work on a new IP and produce better quality. Someone who never gets a chance to make anything but shovelware suddenly thrust onto a major product will likely fail spectacularly. Someone who's done grunt work on a major product, but been able to attend all the creative and design meetings, has a much better chance of producing a solid product when left to their own devices.

Again, this is an important organisational issue, but I don't think it helps as much as people think. It's very important once what you're doing is routine and predictable and doesn't require much depth in innovation, but gaming's not at that point yet afaics.

Ultimately, the good outweighs any potential negatives.

The good things you listed are not really relevant to what I said though, except for your first point, which I really think is wrong. Focusing money on fewer titles means increasing development costs, doesn't it? I don't really see how that's not a bad thing for the industry in general (even though it's a rational business decision.)

 

[justchris]

I'm not really sure. Saying that increasing development costs and production quality by big publishers will somehow make it easier to sell lower cost/quality products for smaller ones doesn't really seem right. And of course if there's money to be made between these release spots, there's no reason for big companies to not try to do it. Increased production costs mean increased barriers of entry afaics, so I'm pretty sure this doesn't really mean room for more players in the market, just the opposite.

The good things you listed are not really relevant to what I said though, except for your first point, which I really think is wrong. Focusing money on fewer titles means increasing development costs, doesn't it? I don't really see how that's not a bad thing for the industry in general (even though it's a rational business decision.)

Focusing on fewer titles, even with increased development costs, will mean fewer titles released total by those companies. A decrease in total tiles released will mean space in release schedules for other companies to release something.

I was specifically speaking about what Ubisoft was saying, not about the stagnation that's been going on with publishers for a while now. I was just saying that what they say isn't really as bad as it seems. Now, as to how closely what they say is related to what they actually do, that's a different judgment entirely.

Anyway, focusing on fewer, higher quality titles doesn't have to mean a large jump in development costs. But it will, because most developers in this industry use technology as a crutch, instead of focusing on the fact that this is an entertainment industry. They use technology to make their games flashier, rather than actually using technology to make the games better. This leads to stagnation and consumer disinterest. If they really are going to put more focus on fewer titles though, its entirely possible they might use that extra time and money and manpower to make the games better, rather than just touting bullet point features so they don't look like they're falling behind the competition.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I don't know that guy or if he takes it seriously, but that image is from those stupid russian ads people clowned on a few weeks back. the key is that most funcitonal humans think of it as a joke because the group who made the ad were trying to be insightful. You're shutting this poor guy down because two jokes went over your head.

Jokes are getting too abstract for my little brain then. That looks like the avy of any random Republican nutjob

There are more then a few here in America that actually believe that crap. That our president is a turrorist waiting to get the nuke and bomb us all. I apologize that my first thought was "Oh yay! Another idiot."