Ubisoft:"We Made Big Investments To Make Sure All Our Brands Could Become Multiplayer

#1
It seems that Ubisoft revealed during their financial call that it invested heavily to make sure that all their brands could become multiplayer.

While he didn't state directly that this would be their policy indefinitely, they definitely made it sound that way. Apparently they're also focusing on trying to have both competitive and co-operative multiplayer in all their games, but mentioned that co-op isn't in all their titles.

They also implied having local multiplayer as well, which is good news for fans of splitscreen.

I transcribed the relevant section below, minus about 5000 "uhs".

Ubisoft said:
Now on the multiplayer side we made yet big investments to make sure all our brands could become multiplayer. So we will come with Driver, that will be mulitiplayer, with Splinter Cell, will be multiplayer, Assassin's Creed as well. Ghost Recon is also multiplayer. And in the multiplayer we don't only do one side of the multiplayer, but also co-op most of the time. So those games will take full advantage of the ability to play with friends either via the internet or at home, so we are putting lots of emphasis on that subject to make sure that our games can be played by more people together, and we also consider it a key factor for the relationship we will have with our customers on the more long term basis. That's why we also have UPlay on the other side to connect our players to us, and it will allow us to do more DLC on those franchises in the meantime they wait for the future release. And the more we go the more we think we will have a more permanent relationship with our customers thanks to a certain number of downloadable contents and relationship via UPlay we will have with our customers. So that will make us have a constant relationship with our customers.
Source: http://www.thomson-webcast.net/uk/d...ec&portal_id=5e6fffd049cbbed42bb5ad934f73a093 [It starts at 18 minutes in]
 
#3
You know, as much as I don't think every game should have multiplayer, some surprisingly good stuff has come out of games that "should never, ever have multiplayer." Spies vs. Mercs should never have existed, but I'm glad it did.
 
#6
Designing by checklist is never a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong and we'll see lots of great multiplayer experiences in games that normally wouldn't have them, but I remain doubtful.
 
#17
I love co-op, so this sounds pretty solid to me. Though I must admit that I prefer co-op that lets me scale down better to single player mode. I'd like more like Halo or Crackdown where co-op just adds a second (or third and fourth) viewpoint on the action and the single player stays untouched as opposed to the Resident Evil 5 version where single player means that I have to deal with a continual AI companion.
 
#23
Vinci said:
What would you prefer they do?
Maybe create some singleplayer only, well produced, story driven with no multiplayer games that push the meidum forward and goes in a direction that would make games seem less stupid, and become a general accepted form of adult entertainment, rather then teenage fun or five-minute break Wii fun.

Ubisoft has from time to time shown that they would like to do such a thing, and they need to cultivate that more then going in the multiplayer direction for everything.
 
#26
Vinterbird said:
Maybe create some singleplayer only, well produced, story driven with no multiplayer games that push the meidum forward and goes in a direction that would make games seem less stupid, and become a general accepted form of adult entertainment, rather then teenage fun or five-minute break Wii fun.

Ubisoft has from time to time shown that they would like to do such a thing, and they need to cultivate that more then going in the multiplayer direction for everything.
Well, okay then.

...

I disagree with you, but yeah... you answered the question.
 
#27
"Maybe create some singleplayer only, well produced, story driven with no multiplayer games that push the meidum forward and goes in a direction that would make games seem less stupid, and become a general accepted form of adult entertainment, rather then teenage fun or five-minute break Wii fun.

Ubisoft has from time to time shown that they would like to do such a thing, and they need to cultivate that more then going in the multiplayer direction for everything."

Thank you. Finally someone gets it.
 
#42
Vinci said:
That single-player story-driven titles are what is key to helping earn this industry respect as 'adult entertainment' in society in general.
I don't really get why people care so much. If video games are always seen as "kiddy" are you guys going to quit gaming? (Not directed at you)
 
#46
Coop will bring more sells to EA. I know my brother and I first see if it has coop for games we buy now. If it has 2 player coop we know we will usually buy it to play. He lives out of state and its nice to chat on the headset and play a game together. Also the more the better. I hope they start including 4+ coop in more games. GRAW would be cool. Hell I think my brother would have bought assassins creed if it had coop. I still think Gears of War Series has been the best coop fun I've had with my brother in ages.

I hope more developers realize that maybe it should be optional but it will give them that +1 sell. I don't even care if they don't give the second player a name or anything and leave the story only about that one main character.
 
#47
lordmrw said:
christ the industry is just losing me with such a heavy focus on multiplayer.
Games, in all their forms, are frequently social expressions of play and playing, so it is very normal for them to be played with other people in some capacity, especially if those games are competition based. (In some sense, most single player games based on competition are still "multiplayer" in that they demand an independently functioning opponent - even if that opponent is controlled by the computer... Pro Tip: Beat loneliness by accepting your favourite game's AI robots as your friends.)

Also, the history of the medium is tied to social play experiences: It's easy to forget that many of the earliest video games were multiplayer only (Tennis for Two, Space War, Pong).

The heavy focus on multiplayer turning you off might be part of the culture of games / game play.

jett said:
Kinda hard to think of gaming as an artform when I read crap like this.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...Of_Games_Games_As_Art_May_Be_A_Lost_Cause.php
 
#50
-COOLIO- said:
multiplayer definitely sells. without it a lot of people dont mind just renting/gameflying and beating the game in a week.
Ironically, they usually ignore the type of multiplayer that seems to sell the best.