Ubisoft: Next Generation Console Cycle Needs to be Shorter

by William D'Angelo, posted on 22 February 2013 / 7,703 Views

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot in an interview with MCV has said that the seven year console cycle has been bad for the industry and the next generation console cycle needs to be shorter.

"The consoles have taken a long time, we've been saying it for a long time," he said. "It's really once those consoles come that we can let creative people more risk, and they feel they can take more risk because new consoles can be more open."

"They have so many features that they can play with," he continued. "It's easier to be a creative person with new consoles, because after four years of people using all the capacity, it's harder to be innovative. With PS4, we will see new ideas and new ways to approach gamers. And that will excite consumers and excite creators."

Guillemot believes that Ubisoft will be able to tap the full power of the PlayStation 4 much quicker than with the PlayStation 3, because the architecture is a lot more similar to a PC.

"I think we will see good things from the start," he added. "Sure, in two years engineers will figure out how to do a lot more. But these machines are easier to build on than before, so we should be able to reach their potential quicker."


More Articles

18 Comments

theprof00 (on 22 February 2013)

ubisoft did great this gen. I don't know what they're complaining about.


T.Rexington (on 22 February 2013)

I've been loving it personally. Here's hoping it becomes industry standard.


ganoncrotch (on 24 February 2013)

indeed it's not that fun having to reshuffle the area under your tv each 2 years with new systems, my 360 and ps3 are a piece of the furniture now.


  • 0
Bong Lover (on 22 February 2013)

Make your own console then if you don't like how the current console makers operate, or shut up and build the best games you can on whatever hardware is available.


TheJimbo1234 (on 23 February 2013)

...utterly ignoring the fact that many publishers and devs are losing money because they can't make better games due to proc restraints.


  • -4
TheJimbo1234 (on 23 February 2013)

...utterly ignoring the fact that many publishers and devs are losing money because they can't make better games due to proc restraints.


  • -4
ganoncrotch (on 24 February 2013)

Most Publishers and developers have infact cited the higher demands needed to draw huge games in Higher and higher definition graphics as one of the main reasons they're bleeding out money.


  • 0
cody6695 (on 23 February 2013)

Disagree 100%. It takes years for the console to reach it's full potential, plus as a consumer I don't appreciate support for my $400 console being dropped quickly. And as mentioned, adoption rates vary, look at the PS3 for example; it's in a good tie for second but took a couple years. If this cycle were shorter that would likely not have happened.


TheJimbo1234 (on 23 February 2013)

Utter rubbish. If you understood hardware and software and how consoles are made/design phasing of hardware, you would realise that it only takes a few years eg. 3-4 years at most to reach a consoles potential, not 6-7 years.
$400 dropped after a few years is actually a good deal nowadays when you consider smartphones, so the issue here is the fiscal flexibility of the current gamer compared to the average consumer....


  • -2
Roar_Of_War (on 23 February 2013)

No matter how much money you make, a few years of console life is terrible. Who gives a damn if its "not as bad" as smartphones or iPads; People don't want it to be "bad" period. It's about value: you are lowering a consumers potential value of a console by lowering the industry standard of a consoles life cycle, and video games aren't damn near important enough to be outdated after 3-4 years, especially not in this economy. 5 years should be the minimum. If I pay $400+ dollars for a console, I expect at least 5 years, and 7-8 max (10 would be too long)

It's good for developers, too. Just because ubisoft has run out of ideas doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other game designers out there who couldn't jump on the bandwagon as quickly as everyone else. Or maybe other companies who've already developed for the console want to make more games? It gives a lot of time and value to both consumers -and- game developers. Not to mention, sometimes consoles don't get much support for a long time. Look at Vita.


  • +1
cody6695 (on 24 February 2013)

That's exactly my point Jimbo. If a console only has 5 years on the shelf until it's replaced than the good games have just arrived and now we're onto a new console where it will take another 3-4 years to reach it's potential. One year of good games then the cycle starts all over again. That means we would technically have 4 year gaps where the system is experiencing loss of potential thus it's not worth the consumers $$$.


  • 0
ChristianTheAtheist (on 23 February 2013)

Around six years is ok, I don't want to migrate to a new console every four years. The capabilities of next gen consoles should be enough for putting together almost any idea that developers have. It is as David Cage said, they are now only limited by their imagination.


Roar_Of_War (on 22 February 2013)

Completely disagree. Certain creators are the ones who hate long life cycles because they run out of ideas (like Ubisoft). Consumers -love- them. It's refreshing to buy a new $300-$400 console and know it's going to stay standard for at -least- 5 years, and if it can stretch out to 7-8 years, that is even better. Knowing new games will be supported on the console for that long is great. Furthermore, it takes time to reach a consoles peak point. Sometimes a year, sometimes longer. Developers should be wanting that extra time to bask in the consoles full potential. It's good for consumers and good for developers. It gives developers more time to release games before the console is too late into the life cycle, which could weaken the games potential sales.


BShornock (on 23 February 2013)

How can Ubisoft run out of ideas? Sony sure hasen't, the past couple years the PS3 has come out with some awesome titles.


  • 0
ganoncrotch (on 24 February 2013)

Bethesda Still haven't managed to get a game running smoothly on the PS3 hardware and they've had 7 years on it... maybe mid way through the PS4s lifetime they'll finally get skyrim dlc working properly for us on it.


Mr Puggsly (on 23 February 2013)

I imagine the limitations become a burden to triple A developers, but I like the idea of not buying new hardware so often. I'm doubting this gen will be much if any shorter.


teigaga (on 23 February 2013)

zero chance of that lol


Nem (on 23 February 2013)

I disagree aswell. Especially given that graphical improvement is ever harder to notice between gens. They havent sold the PS4 yet and they are already telling us to expect a PS5? They still have to convince me to get the PS4. One step at a time.


TheJimbo1234 (on 23 February 2013)

This isn't just about graphics...It's about entire game engines. Do you want buildings that can collapse, true particle physics etc? Do you want a game to do something new? If yes, then you need more proc power.


  • 0
nnodley (on 22 February 2013)

5 years at the least and around 7 years at the most.


newwil7l (on 22 February 2013)

I agree this gen dragged on too long. In the end it just backfired on everyone.


TheJimbo1234 (on 23 February 2013)

Exactly, hence the losses and cutbacks all the devs and publishers are now facing.


  • -3
Bristow9091 (on 22 February 2013)

Fuck you Ubisoft, they need to be longer!


Araknie (on 25 February 2013)

Why don't they shut up? They are ruining their image in a month if they don't shut the fuck up.


michel3105 (on 23 February 2013)

This Ubisoft manager got it completely backward...


chidori-chan2 (on 23 February 2013)

Five years at max.


DCOK (on 23 February 2013)

I don't necessarily agree with this premise. Consoles architecture (especially for the PS3) is still being figured out by most developers. Second, You spend anywhere from $200-$600 from launch to present day for a console, then $60 for every game. That becomes quite expensive for some people, and it would also become costly to continuously redesign and advertise a new console every 2-3 years. Just think, the PS3 didn't become profitable for Sony until it's 3rd year in (someone correct me if I'm wrong on that). Releasing a new console every 2-3 years would actually create a mass of confusion for consumers and producers alike, as there will be too many variables to keep up with, especially with the plethora of online aspects. A solid 5-7 year cycle is probably optimal, in all honesty. After all, if you want the latest and greatest, just go with PC.


MARCUSDJACKSON (on 22 February 2013)

10 yr.'s. it all depends on adoption rates. you don't want new consoles out that don' tgain fast adoption like that of WiiU.


TheSource (on 23 February 2013)

Consoles don't last for 10 years. Being out on the market is not the same as being used by a large number of people for 10 years. PS3 will be on the market far less time than PS2 and in a far less successful way, but PS4 is seven years after PS3 while PS3 was six years after PS2. The PS2 was six years after PS1. Seven years was just too long - it's probably going to be a Vita launch for PS4.


  • 0