Quality prepackaged with video games at launch: truly a novel sentimentality that makes one perk their head right up in intense curiosity

Investor exchanges between the bottom line money men and the head honchos of publishers are always a fun time, in coming to terms with the stark notion of how the people running the show can be some of the most clueless of us involved.

At least, often times, I’ll read or hear quotes that lead me to a moment of temporarily glitching out of this reality, as I grapple with the ideas involving the day late, dollar short mentality a lot of the people who run these dog and pony show companies tend to maintain.

In a presentation reported on by Gamesradar, involving Ubisoft big wigs, including Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot, addressing the notion of “gamer sensitives” in a highly competitive environment. Just some of the choice words shared at the presentation are as follows:

“Ubisoft is exposed to risks of damage to its reputation resulting from online bashing, understood as massive, sometimes virulent and organized campaigns of criticism against its products, teams or public statements….these campaigns may occur on social media, content distribution platforms or in certain specialized media, particularly following strategic decisions, technical issues affecting games or statements perceived as controversial by certain segments of the public.”

Yves also addressed the notion of how video games are perceived, something I’ve written about recently:

“The changing perception of the video game industry as a cultural and artistic medium is also leading to an increase in criticism based on ideological or societal considerations, sometimes to the detriment of technical or gameplay aspects. This trend increases the risk for publishers such as Ubisoft of being exposed to controversy relating to social, moral or identity standards associated with their productions.”

I’m always amazed at the tone deaf approach some of the higher ups possess, when discussing running these massive companies, in terms of what they finally come around to seeing as the viable option of how to run the business. Even if video games weren’t seen through the lens of artistic endeavor, you’re ultimately still trying to market a viable product, and gamers tend to be an extremely vocal, well connected bunch that aren’t just going to roll over and accept low grade garbage, especially with continuously increasing price tags and such a diverse market to choose from.

While there is plenty of criticism to be had in terms of the flaws of the power involving the free market, part of the appeal is the democratic sense of fairness that goes on within it, and the only way the process works is the back and forth between consumer and content creator, and all that follow suit. These moments give clear, concise pictures, especially when coupled with sales data, on what gamers want, and is one of the reasons you saw the Assassins Creed series eventually cease to be an annual experience, as the fast development turn around times was absolutely cratering the quality levels involved. With instances like The Division, Ubisoft just wasn’t playing ball in delivering the content value gamers were use to, which is why after a bunch of revisions and feedback from fans, the sequel fared much better in terms of player receptivity. Then you have other series like the Just Dance series, which seemingly can do no wrong, based on a solid formula as a music rhythm game, so there is definitely a mix in terms of how safely you can deliver these ideas to the market.

I think Ubisoft’s main issue is ironically their strength, in that they straddle the line of artistic endeavor and consumer product pretty hard, and its something you can see as indicative throughout the DNA that their multiple developers share in their approach to game design. There is a reason they became ubiquitous with the “open world” style of gameplay, as they hone the formula down to a fine distillation of what makes it tick. This is however both a blessing and a curse however, as they don’t stray far from the machinations that these design ethics are predicated upon, meaning that the wiggle room of quality is generally one that’s more or less baseline, which means you won’t ever be too disappointed by the level of quality that comes with the title, but you’ll never be blown out of the water by any kind of surprisingly well polished or totally novel gameplay elements involved with any of their titles.

Reliability in a medium that is constantly faced with financial costs, time restrictions, and the sad reality of layoffs and closures, can be a saving grace in terms of delivering to players what they want, but not much more. With brand recognition like Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, or Far Cry, you kind of want to toe the line in keeping to what works, and not straying too far away from formula. It’s only when you get caught in the same old groove with absolutely no innovation whatsoever, and more of a fixation on bottom line finance that things go wrong.

Of course, there are other times where to Ubisoft’s credit, they do release really awesome games like Scott Pilgrim or the most recent sleeper hit (and tragically so) Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown and absolutely no one plays it, which is why it’s hard to blame them for playing it safe sometimes.

~Pashford