All you movie lovers who hold out hope of getting a decent game tie-in of your favourite flick, look away now.
Ubisoft have announced, on the back of poor sales of their Avatar game, that they are cutting funding for future film based games, focusing their efforts instead on original IP and their big franchises.
“Our plan is to take more care of our high end franchises, we will leave less place for licensed games,” said CEO Yves Guillemot in a recent call to investors. “So the goal is to reuse the investment and licenses and put more emphasis on the making of our brands bigger and make sure they can come more often with high quality. So it doesn’t mean we will stop but we’re going to spend less in licenses in the future.”
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this news. One the one hand it should mean we see less absolutely shocking games that only get out on the shelves because they share the same name as a blockbuster film. On the other hand, it more or less guarantees that any tie-ins produced are crap. There’s been a few films over the years that I’ve felt could be made into really good games, if they were just given the time, money and effort. The last truly great movie-to-game conversion I can think of is Goldeneye (not counting the various Star Wars titles on the ”˜cube/64 as they didn’t really follow the same script as the films ”“ though the above Endor level on Rogue Squadron II was so incredibly amazing I had to change my underwear). What was I on about before I opened those parenthesis? Oh yeah, films to games. So what say you Infendo nation? Do you agree with Ubisoft’s decision or would you prefer to see them spend a bit more money and effort to make sure that the games they produce do justice to the films?
[Source]
Avatar really wasn't a very good choice for a movie game, I don't think – and it had a wave of hype to live up to. Cameron promised us at E3 that movie games "wouldn't suck" anymore, and from what I heard the Avatar game wasn't TERRIBLE, but it was pretty lack-luster unless you are some kind of huge avatar fan.
That said, yeah, i'm mixed on this too.
Good for Ubisoft.
However, I think the Star Wars franchise might provide a better model for the game industry. Instead of slapping together something in a hurry to be released around the same time as the movie, the game makers could spend time developing original material set in the same universe as the movie.
I think this is why there are so many good Star Wars games. Very few of them are direct movie tie ins.
The Avatar movie was horrible in and of itself, and I can only imagine about the game. Glad to see Ubi finally pulling the plug on their crappy movie games.
WOW didn't see that coming. Thank you Ubisoft! Maybe others will follow you. The biggest shovelwares are often movie games.
I have to agree. 90% of movie tie in games aren't even worth looking at, and the other 10% is subpar at best. That said, Golden Eye is a fantastic game. The best first person shooter unil maybe Halo, and oen of the best multiplayer ever.
I think that it's a great decision! Licensed games are crap anyway, so why waste more resources on them? Even if they did make a good movie-based game nobody would buy it because they assume it's crap. Good job Ubisoft.
You know, I can't figure out who the hell pulled the trigger on a movie tie-in game (Avatar) whose core game mechanic is one of the more hardcore (stealth). What did they think was going to happen, that millions of kids and casual gamers — the only kind who play movie tie-in games — who couldn't be bothered with Beyond Good and Evil were going to suddenly develop a taste for it because of Cameron's blue-skinned uncanny valley residents?
GoldenEye was a tie-in game?! I never knew that! I always thought it was a series of it's own because it was so well done.
About time they realized this.
I'm all for it. They've had the last 10 years to release good tie-in games and they've fallen flat. I just hope that this money goes more towards things like Red Steel 2 and less to the Imagine! series.
Avatar would have made a really good Real-Time Strategy game on consoles and PC, and a very good Turn-Based Strategy game on handhelds… if you gave enough time to the publishers! But, yes, if the only option is to release movie tie-ins a week or two prior to the theater release, then Ubisoft is doing the right thing by stopping the madness!
As we should have know in the past, we now know for sure NOT to buy tie-ins that release specifically w/ the movie release.
Wait, wait, wait… we think because Ubisoft won't be making as many games the quality is going to go DOWN? When the last great title they actually made, not published so you can't count NMH.
Spiderman 2 was supposed to be a good movie game, as was X-Men: Wolverine.
Movie games = junk sans a few exceptions. Just do what most of us do and avoid them like the plague… or in most Wii owners case, ignore them like they do quality titles.
Its just down to game tie-ins are no longer big sellers. People are more savvy now that in general their always terrible and it now has an effect of people are warey of them and it harms sales!
For me in recent memory its only been Wolverine thats been anygood rest I wouldnt go near with a barge pole as they have poor budgets, limited film script and knowledge and a very strict timeline to get it out day one no matter if its been to QA or not.
They would be much better off doing what has happened with Batman and make a game around a character and make a so called new film out of it in the media it suits as a game. If they do that its limitless.
For example you could have a prequel to The Rock and have Sean Connery character back in 60s SAS style. Just buy the character and build a game around that!
Nobody is intrested in ingame movie shots of a film they just been to see or the exact same game script as the film its too linear and boring.
Ubisoft need to get their finger out anyway and start sending games out that arent bug ridden and do some QA and their games!
I think Ubisoft just has a penchant for making crummy movie games. They tried to ake the Avatar game easy and simple for casuals and with enough depth to attract hardcore gamers and ended up pleasing neither. Avatar the game was a poor effort in the end judging by reviews. But Ubisoft did try with this one. So I give them an A for effort. Their other problem seems to be story. The Splinter Cell games stories were poor, I'm not really enjoying Assassin's Creed II's story and the voice acting/cutscenes etc seems poor in comparison to other games so far in… And Avatar's story was a rehash of the film despite being a different story and that's just boring to see. Movie games nned to be more inventive. I believe Chronicles of Riddick worked for many people. Even Enter the Matrix despite the rushed development and bugs was very refreshing as a movie game with actual relevance to the movie's storyline making it a cool companion piece and a much needed reason to play it. Avatar doesn't seem to offer this unless you want the encyclopedia stuff and the majority of people don't care. As a collaboration between films and games though it is a step forward in the right direction.
games rehashing the movie's plot dont usually have a good outcome. it would be better if they used an expanded universe and diverge from the storyline of the movie like what they did with star wars. it definitely makes for more interesting games and expands on the universe of the movie. plus theres a bit more leeway with what the gamemakers can do with gameplay mechanics and how the game can be executed