Can we please stop making excuses, folks? Really, when will a company come out and hold itself accountable for the products it puts forth? Ubisoft did that with Red Steel, admitting that it wasn’t the product it could’ve been if the company had taken the Wii’s launch lineup seriously. But Ubisoft’s admirable admission makes the company’s recent announcement all the more ironic, with Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot confirming that the company will expand into film production and book publishing because “if we don’t, we will not be able to take advantage of the next generation.”
Excuse me? Now it’s required for a game publisher to make movies and books in order to generate money? We’ve had some interesting discussions recently about whether publishers’ intellectual properties can be truly leveraged without a movie counterpart, but for Guillemot to flat-out say movies are required for survival is, quite frankly, asinine.
EA and Nintendo, among others, have 
done just fine by diversifying their companies within the industry. The Madden series has spawned fantasy leagues and sponsorships, for instance, while Nintendo’s Kirbby games have created an entire mainstream phenomenon. Correct me if I’m wrong, but those money factories started as videogames and will end that way, too. Diversifying outside the game industry isn’t a requirement for success. In fact, in my opinion, it’s a sign that Ubisoft is grabbing at financial straws. Money in the videogame industry is today where it always has been: strong brands. And Ubisoft’s problem, as I see it, is that their brands are all starting to mingle.
Back in the day — and by that, I mean four years ago — Rainbow Six was a team-based strategic game, Ghost Recon was a tactical squad-based shooter, and Splinter Cell was a methodical, in-the-shadows experience. Then Ubisoft tried to appeal to the mass market, changing the core of each game in the process. Rainbow Six is now much less strategic, although Vegas took steps to rectify the gameplay. Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is now “just another” first-person shooter, albeit a good one. And Splinter Cell is a game in which shadows are included for “old-school” fans of the franchise while the majority of the game involves much more light (the second-to-last level of Double Agent, in fact, took place in broad daylight with an automatic weapon).
Now it feels as though any of these Ubisoft games could be interchanged with the next and gamers would nary know the difference. Is it a coincidence that the most successful Splinter Cell game remains the first? No; that’s the one that had a distinct personality and offered something new. Yet Ubisoft doesn’t seem to care, and in fact, the company is further diluting its brands by introducing “social stealth” elements to both the next Splinter Cell and Assassin’s Creed. I shudder to think of playing the same basic game, just with the protagonists and enemies having different skins. But sadly, that’s where Ubisoft appears to be heading. And they’re potentially losing profits in the process.
The answer to Ubisoft’s profits doesn’t lie in Hollywood, it lies in the company’s own IP. By trying to inject “mass market appeal” into their games, Ubisoft is losing the “niche market” elements that made its games unique in the first place. Ubisoft’s strategy during the past three years is akin to Disney creating a topless heroine in its next animated film. Although the move might generate a few more ticket sales from a certain audience, it would alienate the very consumers that made Disney successful in the first place. So, Ubisoft, if you want to make more money, I suggest you look not at the silver screen, but at your own portfolio. You have strong, distinct brands, but you’ve lost sight of their distinction for the past few years. If you can rediscover that uniqueness and resurrect the diverse gameplay that made those franchises popular in the first place, you might just find yourself with a few more sales. And you certainly wouldn’t find yourself clamoring for the superficiality of Tinseltown.
— Jonas Allen
