Ubisoft hopes to "beat EA" starting with Wii
by Blake Snow 
{ Oct 6th 2006 at 12:00PM }
Reuters interviewed Ubisoft chief exec, Laurent Detoc, yesterday discussing the company's desire to overtake EA as the world's No. 1 game publisher. Their strategy? Take an early risk along with Nintendo on unproven motion-controls. Ubisoft has eight (confirmed) titles ready for Wii launch on November 19 in comparison to EA's two games. "Our goal is not to sell to EA but to beat EA," said Detoc. He continues by saying that consumers get the hang of Nintendo's Wiimote "right away," and that the console is "unlikely not to succeed" because of the curiosity factor and the console's much lower price point of $250 which is more of an impulse buy for some.
Ubisoft is currently the fourth largest game publisher and is small in comparison to EA ($700M as compared to EA's $3B in most recent fiscal earnings). Assuming Wii takes the console industry by storm, who's to say EA won't sweep in later to exploit the opportunity?
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Enycma @ Oct 6th 2006 12:06PM
Well... I always believe in Quality over Quantity, and UBI knows Quality... compared to EA at least.
Erik Novak @ Oct 6th 2006 12:08PM
"unlikely not to succeed." Why didn't he just say "likely too succeed?" Double negatives is are bad grammar! :-P
Xavier Gill @ Oct 6th 2006 12:16PM
Someone needs to shake up EA, they've really been churning out shit games recently. (More than their usual rate anyway)
David @ Oct 11th 2006 12:20AM
Yes because $250 plus a few games and a few $60 controlers really makes a Wii an impulse buy.
metalliska @ Oct 6th 2006 12:10PM
Tip Count +1
EMPIRE @ Oct 6th 2006 12:13PM
Quality wise, Ubisoft is much much better than EA for several years now. I hope they get it right, they've been doing a good job.
Pretty Obvious @ Oct 6th 2006 12:20PM
They just need to concentrate on their next generation franchises. I hope theyre not betting the farm on the Wii. $250 for a last generation console is not a deal in my book.
Paul P. @ Oct 6th 2006 12:18PM
I would love for Ubisoft to overtake EA. I've always thought of them like a good version of EA.
EA still has some great games from the likes of comapnies they now own, like Will Wright, but Ubisoft is probably my favorite western developer.
ethan's gif > gay @ Oct 6th 2006 12:19PM
Well if they really want to beat EA they should be focusing on the PS3. Once they hit 100 million consoles again, and they will, that's where the money is at.
Franky Digital @ Oct 6th 2006 12:19PM
Am I the only one who doesn't want Ubi to beat EA? The only thing keeping them good is their lack of total domination. Why do you think EA went to shit? Doesn't anyone remember the days when EA sports games were unrivaled? This, if anything, is a bad omen for Ubisoft's future.
logikil @ Oct 6th 2006 12:20PM
I'm definitely rooting for UbiSoft here. What with the PoP series, anything Tom Clancy, and now the new Assassin's Creed, they just seem to get what fun games are about.
EA is pretty souless. The are worth 3B because of yearly rehashes of every sports game from football to badminton. And the games that are not Sports rehashes are generally crappy movie tie-ins.
Army of Two seems like it might be a step in the right direction for them however so here's hoping. Keep it up Ubi, and i'll be right there with the dollars.
jaybleezy @ Oct 6th 2006 12:23PM
Ubisoft is the shit and EA can eat shit
Eric Von Shpeel @ Oct 6th 2006 12:21PM
right now Ubi and EA are probably right on par with each other in terms of crappy ports and half arsed unoriginal games.
Martin @ Oct 6th 2006 12:26PM
As long as EA has Madden, they will never be over taken. That is all there is to this whole thing. EA has a game that they have to spend no money on and is top seller every year. What better way to make a profit!
Clarity @ Oct 6th 2006 12:31PM
As gamers, we should want whoever's on top to switch every now and again. Competition forces the companies to work harder to impress the consumer, and we the gamers benefit.
Heck, the Wii is a particularly good example of this.
Enycma @ Oct 6th 2006 12:30PM
@8
I concur with you, but if Ubisoft stays the way they are now, they will still be trying to be taken over by EA. (The hostile take over thing?)
So I guess there's no difference there... on one side Ubisoft can surpass EA and become a crappy company like EA themselves OR Ubisoft gets taken over by EA and we lose Ubisoft to a crappy company.
And I rather have option #1... only that I hope that Ubisoft stays true to itself... not like EA.
xrays @ Oct 6th 2006 12:34PM
It's got to be said, half the stuff Ubi is putting out on Wii is ported EA-level crap. Monster 4x4, Open Season, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Blazing Angels is supposed to be pretty weak too. I don't think they're going for quality.
xx/eyes @ Oct 6th 2006 12:40PM
I don't know about that. Some games, like Red Steel and Rayman look great, but others look sub par, and even terrible...like that cell shaded car game. I'd much rather they focus on making fewer games that much better than releasing as many games as possible for the Wii launch. I'd take one more game designed for the Wii ground up than the other seven -- or whatever -- last gen games they are updating with new controls. There will be some amazing games in the launch period -- enough that nobody will need to buy the lower end stuff they are pushing out.
computer games @ Oct 6th 2006 12:43PM
Ubi have been pumping out quality games for a few years now, with far more diversity than EA. I wouldn't want them to end up LIKE EA but it's preferable to being bought by them.
At least another company is planning to stand up for what they believe in and actually take some risks to suceed.
Nodnetni @ Oct 6th 2006 12:46PM
competition bring inovation, inovation brings both positives and negatives. Idealy they both Ubi and EA would be in a close tie for first and they will keep going back and forth. So go Ubi, catch up to EA, so EA will start making some changes.
J.Goodwin @ Oct 6th 2006 12:48PM
Double negatives are perfectly allowable (and often required) in French though.
That is a pretty tepid vote of confidence though. "My daughter is unlikely to not graduate from high school."
J.Goodwin @ Oct 6th 2006 12:51PM
Martin, EA's been talking about getting rid of the Madden name.
What do you think would happen if next year, EA had "ESPN NFL Football" and 2k Sports had John Madden Football?
Would be interesting, wouldn't it?
flymolo @ Oct 6th 2006 12:54PM
@Pretty Obvious
I hope nobody bets the farm on the PS3. $600 for a last generation console is not a deal in my book.
=[`] @ Oct 6th 2006 12:56PM
this a pointless conversation.
Of course Ubisoft are going to come out and say 'we want to beat EA'.
That's what shareholders demand.
If they'd said 'we want to stay in 4th position in the gaming industry' they'd get laughed at.
Ubisoft haven't done anything lately for them to be warranted anything above EA. The games companies are talking from a financial & market-share point of view, not a game quality point of view.
That's secondary.
32_Footsteps @ Oct 6th 2006 12:57PM
I dunno... if Ubi can be somehow convinced to make a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil, I'll support their plan for video game marketplace domination. Also, they did rerelease Earthworm Jim 1 & 2 for the Game Boy Advance - maybe they can acquire the license off of Atari and redeem that franchise, too.
Hey, a guy can dream.
glitched @ Oct 6th 2006 2:47PM
so if EA is #1 and UBI #4 who is 2 and 3?
"who does number 2 work for..."
JuanC @ Oct 6th 2006 1:04PM
Ubisoft Is my new favorite company. But that said, im gonna get Madden for Wii.
Brandon @ Oct 6th 2006 1:18PM
From worrying about a hostile takeover by EA to a hostile ass kicking of EA. I don't foresee it, but I wish them luck.
The1 @ Oct 6th 2006 1:19PM
EA owns 20 percent of Ubisoft; as Ubisoft grows EA will take that money to the bank. Furthermore, Ubisoft wants to grow bigger to make EA's attempt to merge cost prohibitive.
Lixie @ Oct 6th 2006 1:26PM
I don't know if we're talking about the same Ubisoft here.
Are we talking about the same Ubisoft that rush released PoP: The Two Thrones with fatal game-ending bugs? The publisher that released a buggy Tomb Raider: Legends? and so on...and so on.
Neither Ubisoft nor EA are beakons of integrity. Ubisoft just announced they want to be the biggest (aka most profitable) publisher. Which means they will take the path of most profitability. Therefore, when I hear Ubisoft say they want to overtake EA, what I hear is Ubisoft saying, "We're going to buy exclusive liscences, limit consumer choices, buy up developers, rush incomplete games out in time for Christmas, and overprice yearly installments on games with minimal upgrades."
I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself.
Cody @ Oct 6th 2006 1:27PM
I want to see a sequel for Beyond Good and Evil.
CakeOrDeath @ Oct 6th 2006 1:35PM
@Enycma
Your aware Ubisoft published 2 of the worst games last gen. Charlies Angels and Sum of all fears. Both were originally scheduled to be released on GC and PS2 but were so bad that they failed Sony's quality conntrolls and were canned so only appeared on the GC.
Prof-KOS @ Oct 6th 2006 1:35PM
Well, it's been a while since I've posted here. I've been checking in, but my job is interfering. That said it's refreshing to see that Pretty Obvious is still posting in every console related topic about how great the PS3 will be (and wow, what a deal).
As for Ubi taking a run at EA, as stated by =[`](#23) it is pretty much to be expected. THey can't say anything else. What's more interesting about this story is the method that they are using to make that run at EA. By developing for the Wii (and porting as stated above) they accomplish a few things:
- keep their development costs down
- put out a ton of titles while competition is still low.
- align themselves with a console that is gathering significant steam going towards launch
Also, it's important to remember that cheap crappy games get value-priced quickly and that helps sales for certain titles. I may not want to pay $59.99 for Monster 4x4, Open Season or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, however I may pick up 1 or 2 of them at $29.99 (or wherever the value-priced titles end up priced at). There is a pretty significant number of people, particularly casual gamers (a market that is seriously targetted with Wii), that buy mostly those cheaper titles with characters they recognize from movies or TV.
jarod @ Oct 6th 2006 1:35PM
EA has nothing that appeals to me, AT ALL. im tired of WW2 games, i dont like realistic racing games (i need stuff like (f-zero, wipeout and XG3), and sports games are boring, uninventive, and useless imo. in the past 5 years i have bought only one EA game, a $7 used copy of NFSU for xbox.
i have recently taken notice in all these awesome games coming out, suprisingly made by ubisoft. 4 out of 6 games im getting at wii launch are made by ubisoft, mainly for their creativity.
my best wishes to ubisoft, one of the few developers that actually give a damn about us gamers.
Enycma @ Oct 6th 2006 1:53PM
@ CakeOrDeath
I'm not saying they're perfect. There a times
were quality wagers. Like que first Ipod Nanos that scratched easily, that didn't make the Apple products less good than they are still considered today.
I'm just saying that Ubisoft games have been good lately compared to the rehash games that are coming out of EA.
I remember when I used to enjoy EA games because they tried something new (in the 16bit days), just like Ubisoft is doing now or at least trying to do. I just don't want Ubisoft to go that way too.
Uchendu Nwachukwu @ Oct 6th 2006 2:31PM
I think as long as Ubi continues to make some quality games, it will do well. It has phoned it in a few times recently (the GRAW ports on Xbox , GC and PS2 come to mind) and it has pandered to the masses a few times (PoP: WW comes to mind) but by and large, it still kicks out some quality product.
I see no reason why Ubi can't grow to be at least as big as EA.
At the very least, it will be good for consumers. Having two megalithic publisher/developers will be much better than having one.
J.Goodwin @ Oct 6th 2006 2:37PM
Ubisoft refuses to be controlled by EA. Every time that EA reaches the 20% voting rights threshold that would permit them to appoint someone to the board, Ubisoft issues more voting rights to dilute EA's share.
They're going to continue to make it VERY VERY expensive for EA to attempt to buy them out, and if they continue to grow their market share while doing it, they may well aquire EA instead.
J.Goodwin @ Oct 6th 2006 2:39PM
I'm still interested in WW2 games. Fortunately, Activision makes one. You may have heard of it.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 6th 2006 2:53PM
Problem is, once Ubi gets into the position EA is, they'll do the exact same thing EA is doing now. Ubi'll start cutting back on quality, and start focusing on how to pump out the same game year to year to maximize profits. EA will then be forced to start creating good games again. The positions will just be swapped. EA by any other name still stinks.
foobob @ Oct 6th 2006 3:22PM
"EA has a game that they have to spend no money on and is top seller every year"
EA lives on big names: Madden, NBA, FIFA etc.
what's in a name? profit!
they are tied to the names and the names to EA. sad...
FSK405K @ Oct 6th 2006 3:26PM
Until they have the rights to NFL teams and players, Ubi needs to STFU.
Duscrom @ Oct 8th 2006 5:57AM
To #37 :AFIK, THQ is 2 and I think Take 2 is 3rd.
You all keep forgetting why there won't be a Beyond Good And Evil sequal, The game was a flop. Noone bought it. And if there is one thing that Nintendo has taught me, is that high sales=quality. So... if High-Sales=Quality, and Beyond Good And Evil didn't sell, then it must have sucked.
And honestly, beside anything Ubi Montreal does (Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, PoP, assasians creed) Nothing ubi does has me impressed. Ubi is keeping the risk factor to a low. 1 mature game for the Wii, all of the rest are aimed directly at Nintendo's target audience. And things like Rayman and Barnyard are devoid of any real design talent. In a year, Mini-game collections won't count as games.
32_Footsteps @ Oct 6th 2006 4:54PM
Hmm... good question, Glitched. What are the rankings for third-party developers? I'd personally guess that Capcom, Konami, and THQ round out the top 5 in the US in terms of sales (2, 3, and 5, respectively), but I don't have any concrete facts on that; that's just a guess based on what I know of the industry.
flymolo @ Oct 6th 2006 5:21PM
don't forget sega!
h2dk @ Oct 6th 2006 5:34PM
they are #4 publisher, not developer. One could probably presume 2k Games is either 2 or 3.
Tao68 @ Oct 6th 2006 5:53PM
Spore will be my first (and maybe last) EA game for years...
And it's nice to see Nintendo and Ubisoft hand in hand with mutual respect, as they both are in my top 5 favorite dev's (the others are Capcom, Squarenix and Sega)
But i have to say i don't like it when big companies do hostile takeovers... especially when the big company is american: everytime some europeans are creative and make money, some americans want the benefits for themselves... like with all these f****ing hedge funds stealing our economic juice...
But the french and canadian governments do support Ubisoft quite nicely, and it's also a very healthy company on its own, so i wish them good luck!
I'll buy Red Steel, and maybe Rayman, to give them some support, and show them the Wii "strategic" choice is an excellent one...
:)
J.Goodwin @ Oct 6th 2006 7:48PM
Hedge funds stealing your economic juice?
The guys who run hedge funds couldn't find their way out of a paper bag, for the most part. I know some of them. Idiots. Anyone who would hand them money is asking to have it lost.
Ouch. @ Oct 6th 2006 10:29PM
Talk about a great dev selling out.
Their Wii-tastic games? More like craptastic. That's why you shouldn't count 6 of the launch titles they had for a "strong" launch- heck, just King Kong for the Ps2/Xbox can outshine most of the rehashes.
Judd @ Oct 6th 2006 11:28PM
@glitched From Wikipedia:
Selected video game publishers
Below are the top 20 video game publishers, ranked by Game Developer Magazine in September 2005, in order of overall score in six factors: annual turnover, number of releases, average review score, quality of producers, reliability of milestone payments and the quality of staff pay and perks. Note that this is not a ranking by revenue, but of the quality of experience of working with the publishers according to staff, and some video game development companies.
1. Electronic Arts
2. Activision
3. Nintendo
4. Microsoft Game Studios
5. Sony Computer Entertainment
6. Ubisoft
7. Konami
8. THQ
9. Sega Sammy Holdings
10. Take-Two Interactive
11. Namco
12. Vivendi Universal Games (now Vivendi SA)
13. Atari
14. SCi Games
15. Capcom
16. Square Enix
17. Bandai Games
18. Codemasters
19. Midway
20. LucasArts
This list confuses me for a few reasons. 1. Since it's a year old I don't know how reliable it is. 2. Is Ubisoft considering first party publishers (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony) when they say they are Number #4. Because if they are considering 1st party companies, they are #6 is they aren't they're #3.
Finally, by the way this list was compiled it doesn't neccessarily mean the biggest selling publisher. But considering the class action lawsuit that was filed by workers of EA, it's hard for me to believe they are #1 in "annual turnover...quality of staff pay and perks."
Jonn @ Oct 7th 2006 9:35AM
@46. "Talk about a great dev selling out.
Their Wii-tastic games? More like craptastic. That's why you shouldn't count 6 of the launch titles they had for a "strong" launch- heck, just King Kong for the Ps2/Xbox can outshine most of the rehashes."
So I should discount the likely quality of unreleased games based on a set of unsupported claims from some random commenter on a blog. Got it.