1. #1
    Axlerod1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    515

    Ubisoft to redtructure

    https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...editorial-team

    https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...ditorial-team/

    Will let's see what the future holds. I think we will get this next update but I believe ubi is moving on to the next game.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Steven527's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,396
    They don't fix BP and selling the next game will be even harder. In theory they are saying the right things. Practice however may be different. What if these different teams still chase the wrong ideas in the market? What they need to be doing is going back and looking at the IP and understand WHY DOES THE F"N IP EXIST? The differentiation comes from what the IP was intended to be. If they don't start there they will just f*ck it up again.

    BP has a lot of potential. Certain aspects of it work well, some aspects if they had followed through on them would have made for a very interesting gamer experience. It isn't and likely won't ever really be a GR game, but that doesn't mean they can't salvage something good from it. Consider it a loss leader. If they can learn from it in the process of fixing it great! They can salvage some of their name and show they actually are listening better.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    ArgimonEd's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,273
    They still insist that the game has to be much different from wildlands.
    Look all we wanted were all the features we requested for wildlands and are requesting here too.
    •New tactical gear.
    •New guns
    •Realistic gun handling, mobility and ballistic.
    •The animations in game needing a fine tune, but already are a evolution that we requested for wildlands.
    •Newer SOF vehicles.
    •Better AI.
    And these are just a few items.
    If they added all this to breakpoint and to the next title I'd surely buy it, because I want to use the good mechanics on a new map, with a new story.
    What should sell is the story, and the base game should already have all the good mechanics we want.
    I didn't bought MW2 and 3 because it had newer thing, was basically the same base game from the loved Call of duty 4 MW, but expanding the much loved story.
    That is what sell games for me and at least a ton of other gamers.
     7 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Kean_1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    So. CA
    Posts
    4,657
    I agree with @ArgimonEd for the most part.

    Ubi didn't need to reinvent the wheel here with GRB. They could have kept the formula of the core game from GRW and simply expanded on it, improved it, increase options, detail / complexity to customization and perhaps add a few new things. ......but new things people have been asking for that compliment the game rather than redefining it.

    GRW was already fairly unique from other franchises. At its core it is a decent military, tactical shooter that can be lethal for both the player and the AI in higher difficulties. Quite a few were even playing without the HUD, markers, tech, etc. to increase the immersiveness of the experience. They should have embraced that.

    GRW was close and GRB could capitalized on that. Instead, they opted to adopt gameplay mechanics from other games which ruined the essence of what was good in GRW.

    The GRW forum is full of great suggestions that they simply ignored for the most part. They really need to revisit that feedback, etc. if they want to change GRB for the better and/or create a new, successful GR title.
     6 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #5
    El_Cuervacho's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    The Black Lodge
    Posts
    1,213
    REDtructuring like in RED Storm?
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Axlerod1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    515
    Agreed with all the above.

    now ubi is moving everyone around in hopes they can turn things around. That is why I don't have high hopes. Things are just to messed up to turn around. I hope I am wrong.

    Bottom line is Ubi is rushing games out there are not complete to make fast money with hopes it wont hurt future sells. With hopes they can fix the game before they lose players.

    They should have waited 6 more months to release breakpoint.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    mezzatron's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Bivouac
    Posts
    2,601

    [News] Ubisoft revamps editorial team to make its games more unique

    Key creative group expands following 2019 delays;
    Splinter Cell creative rejoins from Epic

    For two decades the creative direction of Ubisoft’s games and IPs has been overseen by the editorial team, a Paris-based group of around 100 designers and producers who advise on everything from game design to script writing.

    While they don’t create games themselves, the team has a huge impact on development teams across the company. Historically, editorial’s influence has resulted in a cohesive vision across all Ubisoft titles, with learnings from one project feeding into the next.

    It was the editorial team that drove the company towards open-world and systemic games, pushed online elements and insisted that its narratives had a thematic basis in the real world, but avoided taking a political stance.

    However, following the disappointing sales performance of 2019 titles The Division 2 and Ghost Recon Breakpoint – which resulted in the delay of several games to ensure quality – Ubisoft announced it would implement “significant changes” to its production processes across the company.

    For the editorial team, these changes will see the group expanded and reorganised, Ubisoft told VGC in a statement on Friday.

    “We are reinforcing our editorial team to be more agile and better accompany our development teams around the world as they create the best gaming experiences for players,” it said.

    A key goal of the editorial team’s restructuring is to make Ubisoft’s software line-up more varied, sources told VGC. In the past Ubisoft has been accused of including similar features in too many of its games and CEO Yves Guillemot said in October it would make more of an effort to differentiate them.

    Ubisoft’s chief creative officer Serge Hascoet will continue to lead editorial, VGC understands. However, sources indicate that the number of vice presidents who report into him will be expanded and given more autonomy, allowing Hascoet to take a broader overview of projects instead of directly following them.

    The seven vice presidents will each be assigned their own franchises to lead, with the authority to make their own independent decisions on future directions. Hascoet will check in on projects’ progress at key milestones, similar to CEO Yves Guillemot, VGC understands.

    It’s believed that by spreading editorial’s responsibilities across a group of leaders, the team can help bring a more distinct identity to their respective games. VGC was also told that simply expanding the group’s resources and giving it some presence outside of Paris could have just as much of a positive impact.

    Previously, every game would be assigned to at least one line designer and line producer, who would oversee the project from Paris and provide editorial guidelines. However, they wouldn’t have autonomy to offer their own guidelines and ultimately followed CCO Hascoet’s direction.

    One anonymous source told VGC: “In the previous system that editorial had, there were often the ideas of just one or two people getting put into every game. That’s why you tended to see such similarity, because it’s the same taste and opinion being replicated.”

    The vice presidents will be made up of existing personnel such as editorial VP Tommy Francois, while creative directors from Canada will also be integrated such as Child of Light’s Patrick Plourde and Splinter Cell’s Maxime Béland, who has returned following a year at Epic Games especially for the role.

    In October Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot acknowledged three key learnings the company would take from the underperformance of The Division 2 and Ghost Recon Breakpoint.

    First, he said the company needed to make sure there was more time between each iteration of “live” games in order to generate interest.

    Secondly, Guillemot acknowledged that the company needed to allow more development time for games introducing unique gameplay innovations, in order to guarantee an optimal experience.

    Finally, the CEO said that Ubisoft needed to ensure that each of its titles were strongly differentiated.

    Generally, there’s been a change in the types of games Ubisoft wants to make in the last few months, VGC was told.

    At least one Montreal game – said to have been “very far” in development – has been canned due to the reevaluation of the company’s production processes, while some in-development games as service titles are said to have been “reworked” with the intention of making them more distinct.

    Source
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Flanker1Six's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,524
    Thanks for the post! Only time will tell if these actions and "new" management strategy will actually result in distinct identities for Ubi's various franchises; reduce the impetus/mandate for "online only" and omnipresent MTX, AND result in BETTER GAMES.

    Or if it's just window dressing and talkin' ****.

    Fingers crossed!
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #9
    If they're gonna work on a new Splinter Cell game, please let Clint Hocking direct it instead of Maxime Béland!
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #10
    ArgimonEd's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    1,273
    Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
    I agree with @ArgimonEd for the most part.

    Ubi didn't need to reinvent the wheel here with GRB. They could have kept the formula of the core game from GRW and simply expanded on it, improved it, increase options, detail / complexity to customization and perhaps add a few new things. ......but new things people have been asking for that compliment the game rather than redefining it.

    GRW was already fairly unique from other franchises. At its core it is a decent military, tactical shooter that can be lethal for both the player and the AI in higher difficulties. Quite a few were even playing without the HUD, markers, tech, etc. to increase the immersiveness of the experience. They should have embraced that.

    GRW was close and GRB could capitalized on that. Instead, they opted to adopt gameplay mechanics from other games which ruined the essence of what was good in GRW.

    The GRW forum is full of great suggestions that they simply ignored for the most part. They really need to revisit that feedback, etc. if they want to change GRB for the better and/or create a new, successful GR title.
    By what you just said we agree 100%
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

Page 1 of 7 123 ... Last ►►