In a recent interview with Gamepro, Ubisoft game designer Phil Therien announced that Ubi's focus on hardcore FPS titles would soon soften, saying that the genre no longer makes enough money to be a "viable business practice." I feel like every time I turn around, ten of my friends are enjoying a game of Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, so what gives?
Therien went on the comment that the market for shooters had become "too narrow", and that compromises had to be made in order to appeal to all consumers in the gaming market. His bottom line, as stated in the interview:
"Keep in mind however that we want our games to be accessible to as many people as possible, otherwise we just couldn't keep making games."
The funny thing here is, I feel as if FPS is the genre that most non-gamers would be open to (at least, as far as young men are concerned.) While the meat of Ubi's concern is obviously financial, I can't help but think the FPS genre has suffered since the superstar ascent of Halo has saturated the market with other titles trying to seek out similar claims to fame. What's your take: good move on Ubi's part, or glaring error?
[Via Aussie-Nintendo -- thanks, Jonathan]
RSS 
More from this author: 
In my mind I don't really associate Ubisoft with FPS titles, so I wasn't even aware it had become a major genre for them recently. O_o;
Actually, in all honestly, the primary thing I associate Ubisoft with is horrible PC ports, so I may be a bit biased to comment on this.
Whilst I love FPS games, a bit of variety never hurt anyone.
However it does seem like they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
As long as I get my Vegas 2, I couldn't give a flying monkey's anus what they do next
I like FPS's but they have become very formulaic. Most don't try to tell a good story so what you are really left with is multiplayer, and generally you only have time for one or two good online games.
I play a lot of TF2, which makes me not want Halo 3 or COD4. I want UT3 mostly for Nostalgia purposes because I used to play the first couple at LAN parties in HS way back in the day (I'm old). So I can see the problem, your competing against something that is persistent because of it's replay value. It's like competing against WOW in a way. Where if you are competing against a game like Prince of Persia you can just wait till everyone's beaten it.
It's like television, if someone owns a time slot you don't compete with them even if you have quality programming. You just try and dominate a different time slot and wait till it wears out.
bring on the 3rd person shooters!!
I do agree with him to the extent that when you give a controller to someone who doesn't often play games, FPS are the most intimidating controls to learn because people keep shooting at your head.
But this sounds like a PR spin on "Tom Clancy games sell way better than our FPS efforts".
"I feel as if FPS is the genre that most non-gamers would be open to (at least, as far as young men are concerned.)"
Actually, I'm not sure the non-gamer population in that particular demographic is very large. I think what Ubi is doing makes sense as there has been a recent glut of FPS titles that fail to differentiate themselves. I just hope this isn't their way of saying all future development talent is going into Rayman Raving Rabbids 3 and 4
In other words, they are going to make Wii games.
in my view FPS games, unless there is something absolutely specatular about them has pretty much gone dead- not because of the first person aspect, but you can only run around and shoot people mindlessly for so long and it gets really boring- personally I think that the first person genre needs to expand to more fprpg's or fp-puzzlers(which is kind of what portal is) to keep the genre interesting.
Moar Rabbids, please
Please make no more 1st person shooters ever. They all suck.
(except Black- needs a sequel)
Good move. Sure, Halo 3 and CoD 4 are very successful, but the market is very saturated with FPS games right now. I'm not very likely to buy more than a couple of them, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. For me, there's no point to owning CoD 4 AND Rainbow Six 2 AND Halo 3 AND...well you get the point. Just like we don't need fifteen different NBA games a year, we don't need so many first-person shooters. In the end, people are basically going to play the couple most popular ones, anyway.
The console FPS genre is such a waste. Halo 3 was so slow paced because the controller can't handle what a mouse can.
Hate if you want but people that argue the controller is just as good or better simply have never played a FPS on a PC. Pure and simple.
Disclaimer: The last FPS I actually liked was Doom 2.
It's about time developers moved past Super Mario 64 and Quake. I don't fathom the reasons cited but, whatever. 3D for 3Ds sake should stay on the PC where players can have an emotional Crysis every time they hafta fork over $500 dollars for a video card. The new generation of consoles are mature enough to start fielding less generic titles.
I don't think any one company should focus on a specific genre.
Give your developers some room to breathe rather then making them churn out update after update or rehash after rehash.
I'm firmly against doing something just because someone else did and was successful at it. If you are doing it because you think you can do it better, or bring something to the table that lifts up the genre as a whole, then go for it but if your whole motivation is "Well they sold a million doing this, lets copy it" then you will never be as successful.
@ Jasper-
It seems that a console vs. PC war can be started in just about any thread, eh? Nice try.
Many of us will concede that you can aim faster using a mouse. However, I will not pay thousands of dollars to experience that ease. Also, moving around with a keyboard does not sound like fun, sorry.
Good job taking his comment out of context. What he was saying is that UBI won't be making shooters like the old entries in the Rainbow Six series with realistic guns and body armor, as opposed to Vegas' fast and loose approach. Nowhere did he say that they would be making less shooters.
FPS's have been sucking ass for years, even before FPS made the jump from console to PC. If it wasn't for games like Bioshock I wouldn't even own an FPS in my collection.
Here's the full quote:
lavalant asks: I'm a longtime fan of the old Ghost Recon 1 games on Xbox 1 and PC, mainly becuase they were more realistic, with one-hit kills, no recharging health-bars and massive levels. The newer Ubisoft shooters seem geared towards a mass market. Are there any plans to release or re-release any of these old super-realistic shooters on next-gen consoles?
Phil Therien: I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made. We have some ideas to improve on the situation though - keep in mind however that we want our games to be accessible to as many people as possible, otherwise we just couldn't keep making games.
Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=94737
GOOD. Im so tired of FPS games
Hmmm I never really thought about UBI Soft as being a FPS company either. Oh well, maybe this means we are finally getting a Beyond Good and Evil sequel! *crosses fingers*
somewhere tom clancy is working feverishly on a series of espionage titles revolving around matching 3 items of the same color.
Yay for some variety!
...
It's nice to see people READING the comments before adding their own.
Maybe they should focus on fresh games instead of rehashes, which the newest R6 apparently is. Sad sad disappointment. At least they realize they can't compete as well as they used to.
it's tough to make a fps that spawns all friends to buy it (halo)..but if you hit that goldmine, it can be one of the most rewarding businesses.
Uh huh..just bring out R6:Vegas 2, that's all I want from them.
But without a FPS scheme, I might be able to tell exactly where I am in the game world, or see whats going on behind or 'gasp' beside me! And we all know that everybodies favorite character isnt mario or snake, its 'hand & gun barrel'
Since when did ubisoft focus on FPS?
What ubisoft focuses on is games with tom clancys name on the frount.
Good, but I hope that other companies go the same path, as I for one want the FPS era to die already, I want more variety in games.
I`m ok with one or two every now and then, but when every big budget game is an FPS I get kind of pissed off.
I like FPS, but the market is so over-saturated with them, that I think this is a great move on Ubisoft's part.
That is, assuming they make good games in other genres. The absolute worst thing that could happen if they put out a bunch of shit, it doesn't sell, and then they run around bemoaning the fact that you have to make an FPS to sell games and people listen to them.
Ubisoft should just go back to the good ol' military-simulation style shooters they started capturing the market share with.
I can't stand the current vogue of recharging health bars, neigh endless ammo, and magical cover systems!
@Rucksack, you're out of luck, that's exactly the kind of shooter he says there's no market for anymore.
I can definitely understand what he's saying. While ten of your friends may be playing Halo 3 or COD4, that's the problem... they're playing Halo 3 and COD4. Countless other FPS games have come out since those two titles and they're not selling well.
What's happening to first person shooters is what happened to platformers in the 1990s. The market has become super-saturated with titles trying to cash in on the success of a few stellar titles. And, like platformers, I predict that all but a few stellar first persons shooters are going to disappear from the market and a new genre is going to rear it's ugly head. Right now it looks to be casual games and MMOs.
@Azeron
A man can only dream.
FPSs has potential to explore new themes.
Look at Portal. Great use of a First-Person view.
Okay! its not a shooter, but it was definitely a different use of the Half-Life 2 engine.
The problem with FPSs are that they are still mostly Military shooters, realistic or scifi.
They need to move away from military action and create a new atmosphere. Bioshock was definitely a change in that kind of sense.
We need less generic military shooters and more Bioshocks and Portals!
Good, now they can get around to developing Splinter Cell Conviction.
good move in my opinion. There will always be plenty of FPS games out there and I'm sure at least 30% of which that will focus on WWII but as for Ubisoft it will be a shame to see the glory of R6 die out but if it gives more room for intense 3rd person RTS shooters like Tom Clancy's End War then I am all for it.
also R6V > Halo 3 all day as far as I'm concerned
As someone who is sick of all these military FPS games, I'm glad to hear this. I'm not a fan of FPS in general, and there are so many these days. I'd definitely rather see Splinter Cell.
In the history of major video game genres no one genre has lasted (in popularity) forever:
Fighter
Racer
and eventually the
FPS
Yet those are the main games I give my time to.
Thats good news
Destructoid really shouldn't use a fifth-hand source for an article.
He did not say they would be making less shooters people! You can read what he actually said here: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=94737
I understand where Ubi are coming from. The market is always changing. Halo 3 and CoD4 are gonna have the majority of players of fps games online.
FPS games have had to change from what the PC was offering, unfortuntely its not PC games that are selling like hot cakes, so this is understandable. I too own a PC, but its this that most PC hardcore gamers don't seem to grasp. Waving the flag of nostalgia for PC days gone by does little.
So long as i get me some GRAW2 I'll be happy. Perhaps now would be a good time to revive a BGaE type game.
He wasn't talking about making less FPS games -- he was addressing whether the Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon series would ever return to their more tactical (and VASTLY superior) roots which, according to him, they never will.
Just further evidence that the average gamer has become too lazy and too stupid to appreciate the sort of sophisticated experience that Rainbow Six (through Raven Shield) and the first Ghost Recon and its expansions provided.
variety is good, but I'd rather have a decently made FPS that I can have fun with then a 'gimmicky' revolutionary title that gets boring after 2 hours of playing...
you think they are insinuating that they'll be jumping on the 'casual'-bandwaggon pretty soon? ( as every developper seems to think there's some kind of hidden money-pot to be found... )
That's good, new genres are always awesome.
As much as I've recently gotten into FPS, I do feel that we need new IP's! Seriously.
Thieren is exactly right, if you include people other than young males in the statement "all consumers in the gaming market". Not a whole lot of older folks, parents, young children, teen girls, etc. are big on FPSs. As far as a lot of them are concerned, FPSs are videogames and if they're not interested in any of them, then they must not like video games. It seems like Ubisoft is trying to un-define video games so the medium can go back to being a catch-all. Imagine a market of hardcore Barbie gamers -- people who don't play Halo or some other FPS or sports game, but are still obsessive, buy-every-game-in-the-franchise fans. If Ubisoft can pull it off it'd be a gold mine.
Good idea. These days my 360's boring the crap out of me, every other title is a run of the mill FPS....I've been spending more time with XBLA titles than with 'real' games.
Reading the full quote kind of contradicts this article. They are focusing less on hardcore tactical FPS and are making it more accessible (see GRAW, Rainbow Six Vegas).
BG&E2 now, yes? Thanks!
yay? Dunno, let's wait to see if it's true before rejoicing :).