Ubisoft not interested in games that aren't franchises.

I think the big studios i.e. Activision, EA, Ubi underestimate us gamers. AC was one of my favorite franchises... then came Revalations and at that point I knew they were going to fall into what I like to call CoD syndrome. I think you do more harm to a franchise when you don't know when to say it's time to take a break. Unfortunately we get that first taste of a game that's shiny and new and the studio see's how much we love it and they run with it until it is milked and abused to death. A good story can make a rehash more enjoyable but they can't continue to rely on their past accomplishments and I think they are getting lazy. HALO, CoD, BF, AC, Gears and so on all have a crowd base that will always support a new interation regardless of how bad it may be. As long as the money keeps coming in they will keep dumping it on us. I hope going in to this new gen of gaming will open the way to some new experiences.

Although I don't think the free market is the answer to all things I think it works fine in this industry. If a studio is making money with a franchise or franchises they will milk it until they cannot. I don't see anything wrong with that because if they are making money that means there is an audience that wants that game. Eventually people will grow tired, the audience will shrink, and the studio has to come out with something new and/or innovate. I really don't know what they mean by franchises because the Division seems like something new although it is a Clancy game. So it is possible to innovate and do something new within those confines.

I know they already said Watch Dogs is going to be a franchise... pretty bold considering it hasn't released yet. We should hear some news about FarCry 4 soon too.

If company A makes a game that you like, you buy the game everyone's happy.

If company A makes a crappy game but people still buy it so company A continues to make half-ass games knowing they will make money cause people keep buying them what's the problem? Certainly no fault of the company.

I think this can be taken many ways. It doesn't have to mean "we are going to milk every game we create dry with annual releases". I don't think they have the resources to do that beyond 1 or 2 games a year. He was talking to clueless investors too, investors that are looking to make money on thier stock investments. They don't care about the quality of the games so much, the investors that is, just that games are making money.

Tell me there hasn't been a few great/ good games out there that you wish came back with another version. Crimson Skies High Road to Revenge. I'm hoping it means new IPs will be designed so they can have sequels. He's right, AAA titles are expensive. It would be foolish to create assests for a game and then tosss them aside to create something "new" again every time. I get it. If the game is good and there's a sequel, I'll likely get the sequel too.

But as Azure mentioned ACIII was a mess. The glitches and controls. Who thought all those evesdropping missions were fun? Revelations was just ok, not to metion not very revealing for a game calling itself Revelations. If a game is great and still comes out every year, I don't have a problem with that. It just gets harder and harder to make a game great. I loved the ship battles in ACIII so I will likely get ACIV. I'm part of the problem then I guess for annualized games. I bought really cheap on sale, I'm a sucker for cheap games.

I love new IP's and that's what getting me excited about XboxOne and PS4. I bought FUSE day one because I want new IPs in addition to the yearly games. I think the yearly games can help fund the new ideas.

Larger Franchises, especially CoD, BF, Halo, and others (mostly FPS's) know they can phone a single player game in simply because 90% of people are going straight to the MP. So what's the point of putting time into something you know is not going to get any attention?

Business wise I can understand Ubi's point. Gamer wise it does worry me that unless someone comes to them with a game that "they" (the dev or producer) think will only be a franchise we could be losing out on some great games.

Basically what I think Azures and others are saying is that, do I/we want 5 guys in a room deciding if we will like something or not to buy it 2 (probably 3) or more times and only make it if we will buy it 2/3 more times.

For the most part most devs (due to the perception needing huge budgets for games) do not want to take the financial risk, without the payout for the next 3-5 years, but I wonder how many times (over the past 2-4) years we have missed out on possible great games that may have not been deemed "franchise" worthy.

I am not going to put this all on the devs/producer, if some indy dev or smaller dev wants to get a game out, they have the opportunity to do so now with crowdsourcing ( i.e. KickStarter) being so popular and viable. I guess it is a matter of how bad they want it. Not every game should be made just because someone can code it.

McDonald's is the biggest game of all.

I don't think Ubisoft is terrible for saying they only want bigger projects/game franchises.  I think those kinds of games mean sales, with regards to DLC and actual title sales, so if you can ensure a base level of that, you'd be silly not to, right?  Then again, the only ones they answer to are their shareholders.

It makes sense from a risk standpoint.  Games cost so much to make that making a one-off is a huge risk, with little chance of return down the road.  Part of the lure of fraschise properties is the lower development cost down the road.

Franchises in and of themselves aren't an issue: gamers continuing to buy crap games once the last game in the franchise was crap is the issue.

Also, I think the move toward mobile gaming and lower-development cost indie games that have a wide distribution network, such as Steam, are the solution in the longer term.  People want to pitch a game to a studio and the studio turns them down? Make a lower cost game with the core mechanics intact and release via mass distribution channel.  It's very similar to what Vevo and Youtube have done for music lately.  Many new artists and bands simply release stuff for free on Youtube: if it's good, it gets views and goes "viral".  If it's shit ... well, if it's bad enough, it becomes a meme, but mediocre shit sinks to the bottom.

Less risk for studios when choosing to invest large dollars, better for the consumers as the tradional "gatekeeper" role of producers is diminished.  Meritocracy indeed.

By definition, wouldn't mediocre shit not float to the bottom?  It'd be in the middle somewhere.  I'm not a shitologist, though.  You should probably check in with Sarcasmo Jones, Shit Connoisseur.

All I can hope for is for Ubi to publish Beyond Good & Evil 2.

Where's my next RB6 title then?  Come on Ubi, next release of that franchise please!

this is the end result of the culture of "games have to be bigger and bigger blockbusters and make more and more money every game"

Development has exploded to a crazy level.