Watch Dogs 'too expensive' to be a one-off

Watch Dogs has not even been released yet and already publisher Ubisoft is thinking about the future of the game without seeing how successful it is financially. Apparently, the company won't condier developing a game unless it has franchise possibilities.

5

Of course Watch Dogs is going to be a franchise. It is from the company that has successfully annualized the Assassin's Creed franchise, after all.

"That's what all our games are about; we won't even start if we don't think we can build a franchise out of it. There's no more fire and forget--it's too expensive," Ubisoft director of marketing Tony Key said. "We feel like we're in a really good place with Watch Dogs, but until we're the biggest game of the year we're not going to be satisfied."

"For us, we have ambitions beyond any new brand that we've ever introduced as far as sales. We want it to be the biggest new brand ever introduced in the video game space," Key told [a]listdaily (via IGN).

Watch Dogs also benefited because of the recent NSA PRISM scandal, something his department was able to quickly capitalize on. "At one point in Watch Dogs, Aidan taps into the surveillance system of an apartment building and he's looking at what everyone is doing. We had a screen shot of this guy sitting in his apartment with a department store female mannequin sitting with him and he's talking to it," he said. "When the PRISM story broke, we had that screen shot out on Friday on social media and said 'You never know who's watching.' We were able to react very quickly, and that's what social media brings."

Contributing Editor
From The Chatty
  • reply
    July 15, 2013 11:40 AM

    John Keefer posted a new article, Watch Dogs 'too expensive' to be a one-off.

    Watch Dogs has not even been released yet and already publisher Ubisoft is thinking about the future of the game without seeing how successful it is financially. Apparently, the company won't condier developing a game unless it has franchise possibilities.

    • reply
      July 15, 2013 1:46 PM

      Great! Can't wait for the Prince Of Persia (2008) sequel! Oh wait...

    • reply
      July 15, 2013 1:48 PM

      Let's bleed it dry like Assassin's Creed

    • reply
      July 15, 2013 1:57 PM

      Caption that quote as "The Reason I Only Buy Indie Games Now".

    • reply
      July 15, 2013 1:59 PM

      to be fair, creating assets is time consuming and costly, so if you don't think you can make a profit on sales of the first game to use those assets you'll have to come up with ways to keep using the assets

      • reply
        July 15, 2013 2:07 PM

        So then why not make a game with far lower asset generation cost, and mitigate that risk? It's better than dragging franchises into creatively bankrupt running industry jokes. Big publishers are supposed to know how to do this, as it's their job. This kind of whining is half of why there are predictions of a downturn of the dedicated game console industry.

        • reply
          July 15, 2013 2:09 PM

          The only whining I see here is how people expect a large production of a huge game to "lower asset generation cost" as it's some sort of magical fix. Companies already outsource to help with that, but at the end of the day creating quality content costs time and money.

        • reply
          July 15, 2013 3:14 PM

          What franchise is an industry joke?

          Uncharted
          Mass Effect
          BioShock(1-2 used same assets)
          Killzone
          Metal Gear
          Madden+sports franchises
          Assassins Creed(if you mean this one, I don't see where it became a joke, it's sold millions of units of each game)
          I'd imagine Lora Croft is going to have multiple releases using the same assets and was planned from Day 1.

          I could keep going...

          • reply
            July 15, 2013 5:58 PM

            I'm thinking more of the Mass Effect 3 writing controversy (story writing isn't about assets; it's about talent), as well as Dead Space 3 being primarily designed as a co-op game. Maybe that speaks more to EA from 2010-2012 not handling the third game in a franchise well, and they were rightfully criticized for it. Also, compressing the production timeline due to asset generation savings can mean less time for writing, playtesting, etc.

            That fear of "Are they going to make this franchise jump the shark?" is something I'd rather not think about, in addition to the split between pre-release hype and post-release reviews already making video game purchasing a dice roll.

            Not every megapublisher-owned-developer's pipeline is the same; some can pull it off well. Still, look at what happened to devs like BioWare, Danger Close, and Visceral.

        • reply
          July 15, 2013 3:21 PM

          It's not just assets. Creating the technology for these gameplay systems that gamers find cool is very difficult and time-consuming. Once you create these systems, you want to use them again and again.

        • reply
          July 15, 2013 3:27 PM

          do you really think none of these companies have taken a serious look at realistic ways to reduce costs? They've gotten into the markets where costs are lower for top tier products (ie mobile and XBLA/PSN) and opted to continue with AAA in its current form as a significant part of their portfolio. It's not like they could just cut costs 50% for their next console exclusive and sell just as many units as always.

        • reply
          July 15, 2013 3:38 PM

          Because people expect every new game released to have the best graphics they've ever seen, and they expect 20+ hours of game play. On top of that, people scrutinize every screen shot to point out a single blurry texture or jagged edge.

      • reply
        July 15, 2013 2:11 PM

        really the only other way is to do a whole first effort on the cheap, and that just doesn't resonate with consumers that well with intricate concepts like Watch Dogs. Case in Point: Remember Me, which while not cheap, obviously had some budget limitations and rush it out the door aspects.

        i am not against the way Ubi develops and supports their new IP. At least they're pretty good about bringing out more new IP on a regular basis, while they sequalize the previous batch.

    • reply
      July 15, 2013 3:26 PM

      You know, I don't really have a problem with this; I think they just need to be more respectful about it.

      Avoid cliffhanger endings and give me a complete game and if it's good I will very likely pick up a refined sequel a year later as long as it's not just treated like full priced DLC rather than a sequel.

Hello, Meet Lola