Home
Editor's note: Sometimes, it's not just a rushed release that hurts a licensed product. Kevin takes a look at all the factors that were working againt Avatar: The Game from the very start. -Shoe
Ubisoft loses money on an Avatar gamble and now says it will reduce its investment in movie licenses because AAA films' stringent release schedules do not mesh with the needs of AAA game titles.
But it wasn't a single factor that saw Avatar: The Game fail. Mismatched media goals, technology, and game identity all had a hand in its demise.
The following are quotes from Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot during a recent company conference call, via Gamasutra:
"We knew we were taking [some risk]. The fact that the movie was coming in December was a potential problem, and it did result in a problem."
"We thought the game would continue to sell after the new year."
"It will be difficult in the future to buy rights to a movie that comes in December, because it's too risky, and it cannot [capture] Christmas season [sales]. It doesn't work as well for a video game company."
I can understand why Ubisoft would come to this conclusion about why the Avatar game did not meet with the success of the film. James Cameron's MEMEs -- Most Expensive Movies Ever -- can release whenever they want. Avatar: The Game, however, was outclassed in its forced release window.
Ubisoft's "lesson learned" is that the game version would have sold better if it was released simultaneously with the movie in a less crowded quarter -- a period of time that is an endangered species these days. (Have you seen the spring release calendar? [wallet moans])
So scheduling priorities of the licensed movie trumped the release needs of the licensed game. Fair enough. As a remedy, Ubisoft is essentially excommunicating licensed properties from its library, unless they're lucrative or Ubisoft already owns them.
Guillemot explains that, "The goal is to reduce the investment in licenses, and put more emphasis on making our brands bigger [and appear] more often, with very high quality. It doesn't mean we will stop, but we are going to spend less on licenses in the future."
This is in line with Ubisoft's adopted convergence model of developing their media beyond games. The new Ubisoft Toronto studio recently started posting jobs, and its career section includes the corporate mission statement.
Here's an excerpt from Ubisoft's Jobs site:
"Ubisoft Toronto will work on Triple-A games and bring it's own flavour to the global Ubisoft brand. Collaborating with local film industry veterans to enhance video game production and extend Ubisoft's convergence strategy. Ubisoft Toronto will contribute to Ubisoft's global plan of extending its brand to complementary platforms and mediums, including books, comics, short films and other products."
It's nice to see a large publisher deliberately refocusing on its internal intellectual property across all media. Hopefully some of this inward focus will result in more original IP. That said, it sounds like the Avatar license was viewed as one way to achieve this corporate vision.
Guillemot statements give the impression that "complementary platforms and mediums" are where the Cameron partnership faltered. And yet another complication ensured Avatar: The Game's weak launch and subsequent sales -- one that is not acknowledged by Ubisoft's press release.
Tech. The game is a vehicle for 3D. Without it, the game likely would not have garnered what little critical response it received. Looking at the reviews, it is arguably the solitary reason to purchase the game.
Here's the problem. 3D in the theater is a totally different beast from 3D in the home. Who has a 3D-capable TV or monitor? As it stands now, a killer app like Avatar: The Game isn't needed, because the killer tech -- 3D at home -- isn't ready for prime time.
3D is the return of a sci-fi technology that should have come true 25+ years ago. The original promise of 3D for the masses -- "Here, just put these on and prepare to be amazed!" -- is also the big promise this go-round.
The market has yet to successfully move past the gimmicky nature of this so-called future technology. I wasn't keen on glasses the first time around. Being asked to buy yet another high-end television and still have to use glasses is a non-starter for me.
I believe that current 3D is going to be leap-frogged by a superior tech long before it achieves mass-market appeal. That tech may even be an evolved version of itself. The bleeding edge "3D without glasses" (I dub thee "3D-G") is the bullet-point branding that would make a game like Avatar matter.
Remarkably, as the success of the Wii illustrates, many people don't yet acknowledge HD as necessary, let alone 3D. With both gimmick accessory and display cost playing a factor in 3D's second coming-out house party, why would consumers fork out money for a 3D game if they can't use its lynchpin feature?
Avatar also might have had better sales performance had it been a better game, one with a stronger identity outside of license and 3D. I was intrigued by the multiplayer dynamic of "Giant Blue Melee & Mystic Magic vs Techno-Mercenary Industrial Complex." In such an entrenched shooter market, however, I did not seriously expect Avatar to rival Modern Warfare 2 or Halo 3. Had Ubisoft offered more than promotional hype than "Play The Game of The Movie, in 3D, just like The Movie...with multiplayer!" I might have cared more.
If the game's development was rushed, we have the movie to blame. Guillemot alludes to the game's quality and polish and again points to the licensing agreement as the systemic cause.
"We want to make sure with those kinds of games, we have time to polish as much as we want. The pressure of the release of the movie is always difficult in our industry, so I would say our goal in the future is to make sure we can have those games ready a long time in advance."
Licensed games often do serve another master, but developers could circumvent this issue by avoiding the "port from screen" approach. Admittedly Avatar: The Game was only an adaptation of the movie, but Rocksteady's Batman: Arkham Asylum proves that direct movie tie-ins and day-and-date launches aren't required to have a hit with a license.
I personally prefer game-specific content in my licensed games, even if it is non-canonical. Developers, if you don't see a game in the movie plot, don't make it. Instead, make something related that I will care about. Oh yeah, and make it something I can actually play on technology I can actually afford.
Why hasn't the future arrived yet?
