The lines between Ubisoft Live Games and Sequels are blurry

Ubisoft often gives the example. The publisher Assbadin's Creed voluntarily takes risks, many of which lead to commercial success. Some of the more daring moves have seen them double on live service games. In doing so, Ubisoft begins to implement live gaming practices in solo properties. Assbadin's Creed Odyssey serves as an example. According to Ubisoft Canada executive vice president, Lionel Raynaud, the publisher will continue to blur the boundaries between live experiences and solo games

Raynaud explores the subject on a post-d. Ubiblog. Discussing the company's growth over the last three decades, Raynaud questions: "Creative, how does Ubisoft decide how long to create new content for a live game after its launch? , rather than moving to a sequel? Where does this line come from? "

He answers his own question by the following statement:

" This line becomes blurred each year. We have bigger post-launch periods, longer lives for each of our games. Even those who were previously solo games, like action adventures, now have a very good post-launch, and people stay long in our worlds. So this line is absolutely blurry and blurry. We all see a future where a game will remain [post-launch] and new experiences will come into play. But we will have a technology that will break the [current] limits of memory, for example, because of the new technologies that are coming. We could – in the same world – have several historical periods, for example in Assbadin's Creed and use the Animus to travel from one to the other. Or have different parts of the world linked by travel systems, so that a game Far Cry or Watch Dogs could occur in different countries in the same experience, from transparent way. "[19659006] The executive's proposal indicates that Ubisoft intends to publish a day Assbadin's Creed where the experiences of ancient Egypt and Renaissance Italy are divided by a simple push of a button and a loading screen.This removes the need for sequelae, and could potentially do away with what we now know as annual versions of $ 60.

Raynaud develops this idea when asked if Ubisoft abandons "Finite Experiences."

"What motivated that, is the willingness not to give finite experiences. The idea was that you have this conflict, and the resolution, and then it's over – you killed the villain, for example. We are building a powerful nemesis, and the goal of the game is to kill it or to liberate the country, we have done it a few times in our games. But when you succeed, you have to leave the game because there is nothing else to do. So the goal was to break that and say that you will be the hero of a region or a population many times, not just once. And if you get rid of a dictator or an oppressor, there will happen something else in the world, and you will have a new purpose.

"That's why I'm talking about several fantasies, not only being the hero who will release a region, but perhaps also the fantasy of having an economic impact, to be the best in business in this country liberated, or even having a say in how it should be governed, now that you've got rid of the dictator.And I think we can have many different experiences with different game systems in the same world, if the world is rich enough and the systems quite robust. "

Ubisoft games can then give up the formula of a finite beginning, middle, and end. Therefore, once a Watch Dogs conspiracy is settled and the bad guys are out of the picture, the player continues to live in this world. New threats appear, the city in which the story unfolds prosperous or suffers because of the actions in the story of the game. Thus, the game Watch Dogs in this scenario is a world of living breathing , an endless experience.

Basically, it looks like an MMO with only one player running the story and the game world. Could Ubisoft perform such a daunting task, especially in one of its largest franchises? We are required to find out sooner rather than later.

[Source via GamesIndustry.biz]