So, Ubisoft delays Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway again, along with some other games. In an older entry, I wrote about why I’m so disappointed in Ubisoft for the series of delays, and I am still holding on to the sentiment I had at the end of the entry. Wait. No. I’m taking it a step further.
Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway is now on my vaporware list. I’ll still be looking forward to it, but I’m not counting on it. I do want it to be released, I do want to play it. Unfortunately, Ubisoft is just taking too long.
I still stand by with my arguments in my old entry. Ubisoft must be under so much pressure from its first-person shooter competitors. Infinity Ward created a storm with Call of Duty 4 by leaving its WW2 theme behind and opting for a more modern approach. Crytek shook the gaming community with Crysis. Other titles left gamers in awe such as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, The Orange Box, World in Conflict and Gears of War. And what do these games have in common? They have all adapted fast and quite adequately to the new technologies offered today, and in terms of themes, these games offer a new setting, new era and a new experience.
World War 2 themed games are lessening fast by the year. The new games have pleased the gaming community. How can a badly delayed Brothers-in-Arms fare? How can Brother-in-Arms 3 be such an innovation to rekindle gamers’ interests in World War 2 games? Can it even make such noise that gamers would actually pay attention to BiA? Yes, BiA possibly is a cult hit. The problem, however is that cult followers are such a small market. If ever, only cult members will appreciate the game, and that makes me doubtful if Ubisoft can actually make their $1.4B 2009 estimates and make up for their research costs. They have to rely on their other releases to do the heavy lifting–not Brothers-in-Arms, unless they otherwise turn Brothers-in-Arms into a Game of the Year release.
Game of the Year?
That was a joke
Haha.
Fat chance.
By the time BiA 3 comes out, it will no longer be a landmark release from Ubisoft. By then, many games would’ve made good use of the Unreal Engine 3 and other technologies. By then, gamers around the world would’ve become sick and tired of World War 2 games.
Where, I believe, Ubisoft made a mistake was in investing in a dying genre and pairing it with such ambitious goals in graphics, game play (How can they make a contextual right-click play different?) and story (The Americans lost in Holland. How can Ubisoft make it feel like a victory?). World War 2 is a supersaturated field, and delaying the game in a world of modern and innovative games does not help Ubisoft in any way whatsoever. They simply held on to an old promise for too long.
Sorry Ubisoft. Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway to me is vaporware. I’d rather hear that you pull the plug on the project and tell everyone to move on.
Poof.
Brothers-in-Arms? Nah. Let’s just eat some cake.
Like this:
Like Loading...
So, Ubisoft delays Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway again, along with some other games. In an older entry, I wrote about why I’m so disappointed in Ubisoft for the series of delays, and I am still holding on to the sentiment I had at the end of the entry. Wait. No. I’m taking it a step further.
Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway is now on my vaporware list. I’ll still be looking forward to it, but I’m not counting on it. I do want it to be released, I do want to play it. Unfortunately, Ubisoft is just taking too long.
I still stand by with my arguments in my old entry. Ubisoft must be under so much pressure from its first-person shooter competitors. Infinity Ward created a storm with Call of Duty 4 by leaving its WW2 theme behind and opting for a more modern approach. Crytek shook the gaming community with Crysis. Other titles left gamers in awe such as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, The Orange Box, World in Conflict and Gears of War. And what do these games have in common? They have all adapted fast and quite adequately to the new technologies offered today, and in terms of themes, these games offer a new setting, new era and a new experience.
World War 2 themed games are lessening fast by the year. The new games have pleased the gaming community. How can a badly delayed Brothers-in-Arms fare? How can Brother-in-Arms 3 be such an innovation to rekindle gamers’ interests in World War 2 games? Can it even make such noise that gamers would actually pay attention to BiA? Yes, BiA possibly is a cult hit. The problem, however is that cult followers are such a small market. If ever, only cult members will appreciate the game, and that makes me doubtful if Ubisoft can actually make their $1.4B 2009 estimates and make up for their research costs. They have to rely on their other releases to do the heavy lifting–not Brothers-in-Arms, unless they otherwise turn Brothers-in-Arms into a Game of the Year release.
Game of the Year?
By the time BiA 3 comes out, it will no longer be a landmark release from Ubisoft. By then, many games would’ve made good use of the Unreal Engine 3 and other technologies. By then, gamers around the world would’ve become sick and tired of World War 2 games.
Where, I believe, Ubisoft made a mistake was in investing in a dying genre and pairing it with such ambitious goals in graphics, game play (How can they make a contextual right-click play different?) and story (The Americans lost in Holland. How can Ubisoft make it feel like a victory?). World War 2 is a supersaturated field, and delaying the game in a world of modern and innovative games does not help Ubisoft in any way whatsoever. They simply held on to an old promise for too long.
Sorry Ubisoft. Brothers-in-Arms: Hell’s Highway to me is vaporware. I’d rather hear that you pull the plug on the project and tell everyone to move on.
Poof.
Brothers-in-Arms? Nah. Let’s just eat some cake.
Like this:
Posted in Comments, News, Reflections | Tags: Brothers in arms, gaming, Hell's Highway, Ubisoft, vaporware