Ubisoft Creative Officer Serge Hascoet- games industry needs to find its soul - Sensationalist Headlines

This is from the first of this month, but the irony grew too thick to ignore. https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/10/01/ubisofts-creative-head-talks-the-future-of-assassins-creed-and-splinter-cell You know what is missing in this industry? A soul. Video games are about gaming, and gaming is not about entertainment, it's about learning. When you learn, you have fun. But when we are just entertainment we are losing something. I question the team about what real benefits the player will take away from the game for their real life. Right now, we don’t do enough in this area. This is what excites me, how to make something that lets you have the most fun while also having something beneficial for your life. Or in other words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MlNWYyVdh0

I don't get the irony here, I mean say what you will about microtransactions and shit but ubi has been very good about making each of their franchises distinct and well crafted lately. Farcry isn't really my kinda game anymore but 5 is an absolute victory lap for ubis open world funhouse approach, seige is arguably the only valid CSGO competitor and wildlands is getting support long after I'd have figured that game would have died. They're very attentive to the needs of their player base and that shows, honestly one of my more liked game factories rn

Most high-profile creatives have their own ideology on how games, as interactive entertainment, can push the boundaries. Solely "fun" isn't the be all and end all, imo. Also, the soul isn't missing, it is the money that is missing. It all went into safe bet products for profits. Why take unnecessary risk when it comes to business?

tbh, if all you're aspiring to when making games is a paycheck, you kinda have no soul anymore. Without the investment in the craft, the "professional moneymakers" will squeeze any and all subversive creativity out of the artform and leave it as a pure, distilled product like a soft drink or sport. Indie games have shown just how good games can still be when people are allowed to be creative even in the era of endless Madden and FIFA sequels, lootboxes and manufactured e-sports. I'm actually not surprised it's Ubisoft saying this because for all their faults, they actually have designers who truly care and aren't just an assembly line of fans brought in by the publisher to be wrung out like wet towels after they scorned the people who made their brands strong in the first place.

You don't say. Boy, I could have a field day extrapolating on that. I'd be here for weeks just going over the past five years alone.

I completely agree and I don't get the Funny ratings. Unless it's just because "Jewbisoft lol" or some dumb shit.

You can buy the soul for 500 funbucks, but you can only buy funbucks in 600 packages, which cost $4.99 in our store.

Bit of a sensationalist title considering the context in the interview. You know what is missing in this industry? A soul. Video games are about gaming, and gaming is not about entertainment, it's about learning. When you learn, you have fun. But when we are just entertainment we are losing something. I question the team about what real benefits the player will take away from the game for their real life. Right now, we don’t do enough in this area. This is what excites me, how to make something that lets you have the most fun while also having something beneficial for your life. Although I really wish the interviewer brought up some mention to the insane levels of microtransactions in the AAA side of the industry, seeing as forms of monetization can affect creative aspects of games.

It's the same thing in music, contemporary art, movies, any creative media at all. There are always two camps: here to make money, and here to make art. The people here to make money always get the most attention because that is their business model. I'd say the industry isn't lacking in soul at all, who knows how many games out there I'd be blown away by but will never see because the devs can't foot the bills.

Watch Dogs 2 is one of my favorite games in recent years. Surprisingly bug-free as well, one of the least buggy open world games I've played. On the other hand, Wildlands is one of the most buggy I've played.

WD2's intro was amazing with the OST and the feeling of breaking into a server farm. Game was flowing with culture/themes that weren't afraid to tackle issues with modern technology and things like silicon valley politics as a whole. All you have to do is block out wrench and its immediately 100x better. https://youtu.be/TkZmwoRy__c What even hit harder is that it fucking predicted things like Cambridge analytica 2 years before the actual event.

there were a few years there were they were doing really poorly, around the time watch dogs, far cry primal, and assassin's creed syndicate were coming out. The huge backlash to them consistently lying about the quality of their games, and also people getting sick of the repetitive "TOWERS TO EXPAND MAP + ENEMY STRONGHOLDS + OPEN WORLD + HUNDREDS OF MEANINGLESS COLLECTIBLES" cycle almost all their games had for a brief period of time, but since that they have definitely put their focus on making more varied, interesting, and less overstuffed with meaningless side content. I was on the edge of fully boycotting them after watch dogs came out but they brought themselves back from the brink, just before everyone completely lost trust in them. I think that is why their reputation has gotten so much better.

What's wrong with Wrench? Wrench is awesome.

Wrench is fucking terrible till the last hand full of acts, basically i didn't care for him till he got captured and you saw him without the mask or being a complete cocky dickhead. He also scared a metric fuckton of people, me included, from getting an inch near the game in fear that everyone was going to act like him.

I can see Ubisoft trying to fit this statement. Other major publishers: "The Game is profit. If it's not profit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0TQbRNmYus

a sand box where you shoot and a sandbox where you stab and a sandbox where explore and all of them look and play mechanically the same are not distinct or a kind of distinct. "I like Ubisoft games" is not a objective qualifier, and it doesn't have to be. You like them or not. You don't have to justify your purchase to anyone. Pretentious as fuck. Show don't tell works for ANY venue, not just an interactive one. It's not your business to preach, just to teach, and that lesson doesn't have to the greatest life lesson of all time. Hilariously ott puff piece, and obviousdly a direct media counter to their marketing koolaid videos getting leaked.

Can someone younger (like below 20) tell me whether or not the games industry really has gone to ass or if I'm just becoming bitter now that I have a job lol

Tbh while Ubisoft can be a real dumpster fire sometimes, theyve gone above and beyond with Siege. They didnt give up on the game despite its lackluster start and have really supported it to make it a competitive E sports game. The buy in model is sensical and reasonable and the in game economy doesnt require players to spend billions of dollars to compete, or even spend money to buy skins. The only buy in a player might need to be competitive is the season oasses which immediately unlock new characters before they release, and its only $30 a year. To me at least, $30 a year for a continually updated game with fresh content every few months is worth it and no dofferent than buying expansion packs in days of old. Furthermore, theyre actively working to counteract toxicity issues in the game, as opposed to other devs who just let the problem exist because its tough to deal with. I think its completely fair to say that Ubisoft is not a soul-less company. They work hard on diverse games and provide quality products.

The video game industry just got a lot bigger, and the best titles aren't hitting mainstream news anymore but spread instead via word of mouth. The best releases tend to be independent titles who stay relatively under the radar, with the occasional AAA knockout game making the news but being lost amongst all the fake buzz advertising nearly every AAA title gets. Essentially, it isn't as easy as going 'oh just buy Halo' anymore, most of the old franchises have fallen pretty hard to the wayside and the newer kids on the block (Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite, DOTA) have immense mass appeal yet are leagues more specialized into niches where, if you don't like them, you're SOL.

"A book where the main character shoots and a book where a main character stabs and a book where the main character explores are not creatively distinct" Your argument sucks and you should feel bad. Youre grossly oversimplifying videogames as a whole. Your hateboner for ubi is not an objective qualifier, dont act like youre an authority on quality because of it.

honestly glad to see other people jump on this moron in this thread, i saw the email notification about his post at work and honestly couldn't believe that was his argument

Keep in mind that Ubisoft has been one of the biggest poster-children for "Games as a Service" and "Streaming Only", in addition to having the same love affair with microtransactions and manipulative, fucked up,. irresponsible use of Skinnerian conditioning in their game design, so I would argue against trying to act like they're actually a good publisher simply because they are comparatively slightly less anti-consumer in a few areas.

Have you actually played a ubi game with skins? In Siege, you can buy skins with money or in game currency, or get them in loot boxes (loot boxes can not be bought with real money). In game currency is gained by just playing the game. Hardcore sucking at it will earn you enough to buy a new skin every 3 or 4 matches depending on the skin. It is not at all predatory or sleezy. My only complaint with Siege skins is theyre all hot garbage and completely obliterate the game's overall theme. Other than that, theres nothing controversial about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with games as a service, as long as its properly maintained and consistently updated. In Ubi's model, theres absolutely nothing stopping you from buying the game on sale and never spending another penny on it. Season passes, skins, and paid advancements do not give you a competitive edge whatsoever and arent necessary to enjoy the games. Games as a service works in Ubis case and its completely reasonable. I notice a lot of the ubi hate is coming from people who havent played a ubisoft game in years.

You're either old or not paying attention, I have never played so many amazing titles in my life, but the majority of these titles are either AA releases or indie. AAA has always been a mixed bag, the big change is that now they have yet more tools to fuck you over than they ever have. There were always titles like Superman 64 and mediocre sequels. ATARI was absolutely destroyed and nearly killed videogames due to releasing absolute garbage, etc.

That's because most of us have been boycotting Ubisoft for years. I notice a lot of the Ubi defense is coming from people who are either ignorant of Ubi's past or are too easy to forgive and forget. I don't understand how anyone could defend Ubisoft unless they never had to deal with the awful DRM, the unoptimized half-assed ports, the disdain and contempt they've felt and displayed towards PC gamers for years, the lies and deceptive marketing, the lazy homogenization of all their franchises, the butchering of the Tom Clancy games (they literally turned all the games into generic action shooters at one point). This shit isn't ancient history, 2014 in particular was a bad year to work PR for Ubisoft. It really wasn't that long ago when Ubisoft was on everyone's shit list. People legitimately hated Ubisoft more than EA and Activision. Obviously times change and I feel Ubisoft have changed for the better, which is why I only just recently ended my boycott of four years. But the amount of people I've seen in the past few Ubisoft related threads defending them has been very confusing as I've always felt this forum was more PC focused and generally old enough to have experienced the shit Ubisoft have done in the past. I can understand if you're truly ignorant to what they've done seeing as lots of people don't really pay attention to game industry drama. But a lot of us have been burned pretty badly by Ubisoft in the past and were just absolutely done with their bullshit.

This is the mindset of someone who does not even slightly understand things change. Ubisofts library at the moment may not be my cup of joe but a vast majority of your complaints are wholly irrelevant in 2018. R6 is a tactical competitive shooter, while Ghost Recon is a team based strategic shooter offering multiple angles of attack on your objectives. What exactly is the problem here?

I never stated or even implied it was objective, but by all means when you've been is design for over decade you can learn me some new tricks about interactivity levels and engagement, but until then yeah, I'm gonna take my authority over yours any day.

Except I do understand things change, which is why I ended my boycott? And that comment directed at the Tom Clancy games was referring to R6 Vegas, SC Conviction and GR Future Soldier. Although Wildlands being yet another open world busy-work game was disappointing, but not surprising. The "problem" is that people that too easily forgive past mistakes might be making Ubisoft too comfortable. That they might exploit their regained trust. It's important that we don't forget their history no matter how good you think they are now.

Anti-Ubisoft posts always read as overtly Jim Sterlingesque, with phrases like "lazy homogenization" and "deceptive marketing". Truthfully, I think the major flaw in that way of thinking is that it puts way too much emphasis on the business side and perpetuating an endless corporate vs gamer narrative that only really benefits the reactionaries that make their living off this stuff. I'm not saying we should allow companies to be shitty, but is making bad games an unforgivable crime? If I bought into this corporate tri-pul-ay side picking game, then I never would've played Watch_Dogs 2, or Siege, or For Honor. And for what? I'm all for being anti-corporate, but why deprive yourself of interesting and unique experiences over pointless sidepicking and obsessing over the history of a business?

On the pretense that one is steadfast on the war for the future of ethical business. Very noble.