Ubi Soft Burns Fingers On Creativity In Games
Immacolata
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Originality, schmoriginality!</div> From <a href='http://www.gamespy.com/solefood/february04/sf18/' target='_blank'>GameSpy</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil were two of the best games of 2003. Both were critically acclaimed titles that ranked among the finest games of the year, including here at GameSpy. Both titles had sizeable marketing dollars behind them. Logic dictates that these games should have sold like hotcakes; I mean, they're two superb games backed by major marketing money from one of the world's largest publishers. Yet that wasn't the case. Prince of Persia had modest numbers compared to the expectations on it (it was Ubi's flagship game for the holidays), while BG&E achieved pitiful sales. So what went wrong? I asked a bunch of industry buddies from numerous companies for their opinions on the lack of success these two games had and these were the five themes that came up consistently.
Psylancer puts on his Nightwing costumer to investigate Ubisoft's poor sales.
1) They were too unconventional. Many of my peers felt that BG&E's style was too eccentric and didn't convey what type of game it was. Most of the editors at GameSpy feel it's an action-adventure title that delivers a lot of the same excitement you'll find in a Zelda game, but set in an imaginative world. When asked about the title one PR rep asked, "That's that game with the young **** and the camera and the pig. Right?" Considering that BG&E's creator is best known for games starring a floppy-eared creature with no limbs, it isn't surprising that many people thought the game was too weird…which is a shame since it's fantastic.
Prince of Persia, on the other hand, was served poorly by its genre-defying status. It's not quite an action game nor an adventure nor a puzzler, but contained elements of all three. Despite its wondrous gameplay and gorgeous look, it's tough to sum up what PoP is using a handful of words. Compare that to say a sports game or an action game and it's easy to see how some buyers overlooked this title -- especially when it came out, which conveniently leads me to my next point.
2) Q4 was over saturated. It's customary for all the big games to come out during the last three months of the year in order to capitalize on holiday sales. 2003 was no exception, with a ridiculous amount of games released in October and November. Considering all the huge sequels released in Q4 2003, it was tough for these games -- one original property and one series that hasn't seen the light of day in years -- to make it. A producer commented to me, "With sequels like Jak and THUG and Final Fantasy, and also licenses like Dragonball, it's no wonder [these games] got overlooked."
Advertisement
3) The marketing for these games sucked. Many of my peers mentioned that the advertisements for both games were horrendous. While I didn't find any of the print ads so offensive, I didn't find them extraordinary either. But then someone showed me the television commercials…man did those suck. I was particularly appalled by the Prince of Persia spots with the DJ. Sure he displayed some wicked skills with the turntable and his time manipulation helped him erase any crossfader mishaps, but so the hell what. It only distracted the viewer from seeing how unique the game is and how beautifully distinct its setting is. While I understand that the ad was meant to garner mainstream interest, I felt the game had a strong enough look to deliver the message on its own. One marketing executive was quick to point out that, "Poor marketing can only help sales. It can't hurt them." Considering the lofty goals for PoP and the paltry numbers BG&E did, the games needed a lot more help.
4) There was little buzz from the hard core. GameSpy's Beest pointed out that the hard core weren't really buzzing about these games in our Forums. In the last six months of 2003 there were some Prince of Persia threads and a handful of BG&E threads, but they weren't exactly lighting up our Forums. Compare that to console games like Metal Gear or Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy, which have more of our readers' attentions. Sure, those are established franchises, but even Far Cry (admittedly more for its PC version than the Xbox one) has gotten more Forum posts.
5) There's too much of a generational gap. The last reason applied to PoP only. A few of the people I spoke to felt that the words Prince of Persia didn't mean anything anymore. For old-school gamers, it's a series that brings back fond memories but perhaps doesn't have a place in modern gaming. Younger gamers probably don't know that PoP was one of the most thrilling series during the Amiga, Commodore, and Apple gaming days. Or worse, they might think that the Dreamcast version was indicative of the series.
There are a few lessons to learn here. The vital one is that unique and original games require unique and original handling. In a market where sequels are an almost guaranteed road to success, creative and effective marketing is required. While it's a bit sad that it's not enough for a game to be excellent in order for it to succeed, I truly hope publishers will continue to seek out fresh and unique games like these two Ubisoft titles. Hopefully they won't serve as a cautionary tale and scare publishers into releasing more games in the shoot-people-a-lot-during-WWII and throw-the-ball genres that dominate the sales charts. That's the easy way to go. For the industry to continue to evolve it needs to learn some hard lessons. Sadly, it came at the expense of a publisher that had two awesome games. *Sniff* I swear, it's like Ico all over again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there we learn it. Making games is a hard business. If you diverge from the downtrodden path of making another sports titles reiteration/avalanche for Christmas, you better hope for luck. Because apparantly, great games do not sales make. People whinge about the lack of good games, yet they do not hesitate to rush out the door and pick up the latest hyped up copy of some sequel or triquel.
It is sad as well as it is our own just desserts. If the new games suck, then it is because we buy too many sucky games and ignore the good ones. That is the harsh reality of marketing I guess.
So did you save your money for Prince of Persia or Beyond Good & Evil - or did you, as many other, blow them all on predictable stuff such as the next Final Fantasy, EA Sports title or another 3d-shooter? I am guilty, partially. I bought Call of Duty, but also Prince of Persia. I passed by on BG&E even if I read it was a good game.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil were two of the best games of 2003. Both were critically acclaimed titles that ranked among the finest games of the year, including here at GameSpy. Both titles had sizeable marketing dollars behind them. Logic dictates that these games should have sold like hotcakes; I mean, they're two superb games backed by major marketing money from one of the world's largest publishers. Yet that wasn't the case. Prince of Persia had modest numbers compared to the expectations on it (it was Ubi's flagship game for the holidays), while BG&E achieved pitiful sales. So what went wrong? I asked a bunch of industry buddies from numerous companies for their opinions on the lack of success these two games had and these were the five themes that came up consistently.
Psylancer puts on his Nightwing costumer to investigate Ubisoft's poor sales.
1) They were too unconventional. Many of my peers felt that BG&E's style was too eccentric and didn't convey what type of game it was. Most of the editors at GameSpy feel it's an action-adventure title that delivers a lot of the same excitement you'll find in a Zelda game, but set in an imaginative world. When asked about the title one PR rep asked, "That's that game with the young **** and the camera and the pig. Right?" Considering that BG&E's creator is best known for games starring a floppy-eared creature with no limbs, it isn't surprising that many people thought the game was too weird…which is a shame since it's fantastic.
Prince of Persia, on the other hand, was served poorly by its genre-defying status. It's not quite an action game nor an adventure nor a puzzler, but contained elements of all three. Despite its wondrous gameplay and gorgeous look, it's tough to sum up what PoP is using a handful of words. Compare that to say a sports game or an action game and it's easy to see how some buyers overlooked this title -- especially when it came out, which conveniently leads me to my next point.
2) Q4 was over saturated. It's customary for all the big games to come out during the last three months of the year in order to capitalize on holiday sales. 2003 was no exception, with a ridiculous amount of games released in October and November. Considering all the huge sequels released in Q4 2003, it was tough for these games -- one original property and one series that hasn't seen the light of day in years -- to make it. A producer commented to me, "With sequels like Jak and THUG and Final Fantasy, and also licenses like Dragonball, it's no wonder [these games] got overlooked."
Advertisement
3) The marketing for these games sucked. Many of my peers mentioned that the advertisements for both games were horrendous. While I didn't find any of the print ads so offensive, I didn't find them extraordinary either. But then someone showed me the television commercials…man did those suck. I was particularly appalled by the Prince of Persia spots with the DJ. Sure he displayed some wicked skills with the turntable and his time manipulation helped him erase any crossfader mishaps, but so the hell what. It only distracted the viewer from seeing how unique the game is and how beautifully distinct its setting is. While I understand that the ad was meant to garner mainstream interest, I felt the game had a strong enough look to deliver the message on its own. One marketing executive was quick to point out that, "Poor marketing can only help sales. It can't hurt them." Considering the lofty goals for PoP and the paltry numbers BG&E did, the games needed a lot more help.
4) There was little buzz from the hard core. GameSpy's Beest pointed out that the hard core weren't really buzzing about these games in our Forums. In the last six months of 2003 there were some Prince of Persia threads and a handful of BG&E threads, but they weren't exactly lighting up our Forums. Compare that to console games like Metal Gear or Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy, which have more of our readers' attentions. Sure, those are established franchises, but even Far Cry (admittedly more for its PC version than the Xbox one) has gotten more Forum posts.
5) There's too much of a generational gap. The last reason applied to PoP only. A few of the people I spoke to felt that the words Prince of Persia didn't mean anything anymore. For old-school gamers, it's a series that brings back fond memories but perhaps doesn't have a place in modern gaming. Younger gamers probably don't know that PoP was one of the most thrilling series during the Amiga, Commodore, and Apple gaming days. Or worse, they might think that the Dreamcast version was indicative of the series.
There are a few lessons to learn here. The vital one is that unique and original games require unique and original handling. In a market where sequels are an almost guaranteed road to success, creative and effective marketing is required. While it's a bit sad that it's not enough for a game to be excellent in order for it to succeed, I truly hope publishers will continue to seek out fresh and unique games like these two Ubisoft titles. Hopefully they won't serve as a cautionary tale and scare publishers into releasing more games in the shoot-people-a-lot-during-WWII and throw-the-ball genres that dominate the sales charts. That's the easy way to go. For the industry to continue to evolve it needs to learn some hard lessons. Sadly, it came at the expense of a publisher that had two awesome games. *Sniff* I swear, it's like Ico all over again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there we learn it. Making games is a hard business. If you diverge from the downtrodden path of making another sports titles reiteration/avalanche for Christmas, you better hope for luck. Because apparantly, great games do not sales make. People whinge about the lack of good games, yet they do not hesitate to rush out the door and pick up the latest hyped up copy of some sequel or triquel.
It is sad as well as it is our own just desserts. If the new games suck, then it is because we buy too many sucky games and ignore the good ones. That is the harsh reality of marketing I guess.
So did you save your money for Prince of Persia or Beyond Good & Evil - or did you, as many other, blow them all on predictable stuff such as the next Final Fantasy, EA Sports title or another 3d-shooter? I am guilty, partially. I bought Call of Duty, but also Prince of Persia. I passed by on BG&E even if I read it was a good game.
Comments
Let's take a look at raven shield. What have fans of the series been complaining about since the first rainbow six? AI for starters. The tangos cheat like crazy and the computer controlled operatives don't exactly act like top-tier counter-terrorists. For months after the release of ravenshield, what kinds of things did they add in for patches? Fix some crash bugs, add some crash bugs, fix a couple stupid things (like silenced assault rifles being horrid), and add more DRM stuff that doesn't work and makes the people who buy the game mad. GG Ubi. (I think they might have gotten the hint now, and mention something about fixing it for Athena Sword, but I have serious doubts, and I refuse to pay for a bugfix.)
Them and Atari (for MOO3 most of all) are on my blacklist.
/rant
Records show that the idiots.... sorry, slipped right out of my mouth... the customers who got burned by one game earlier will be flocking back if a sufficiently interesting game is on the slate. It seems that quality isn't an objective here, you can release crapola like RS and earn money. You can release top polished products like Prince of Persia and not sell a copy.
So why did _YOU_ buy Raven Shield? Because you found this (imo tiresome) formula of terrorists and counterterrorists interesting, probably after having played CS for a while. So the game companies are rewarded for making unimaginative shite games because the customers wants it so bad.
I find it ironic that Atari is on your blacklist for "MOO 3". That's Master of Orion 3. THREE. As in "Geez, let's make the same game over and over and see how much we can milk the cow." That is precisely what the article is about, and I doubt you understood it. The article is about how originality in making something that isn't a "number 2" or a "number 3" in any given series, automatically makes people ignore it as they home in on the latest sequal. I mean, there is probably a reason to why we're playing Final Effin' Fantasy TWELVE now.
Plagiarism > originality. The world wants to be deceived, and deceived it shall be.
Now, do you buy the familar generic-shooter part IV, which is an updated version of the other three (which you own) or do you buy that wacky looking Price of Persia game ?
Most people go for the former, simply because they know its a sure bet for at least an 'OK' game, they don't want to take a risk on the innovative and original game. Fear of the unknown leads to people buying the same games, over and over again.
To convince people to go for that original game you've gotta market it well, and I don't think that happened with PoP.
Being a well known developer helps as well. People are more likely to take a chance on Blizzard et al then somebody they've never heard off.
Unlike, I may mention, Westwood. Their game plan hasnt changed much since C&C Tiberian dawn. Even C&C Generals is closely similar to what they've done time and time again, except that there is a third side.
It all depends on the company making the game. Westwood are low profile, but crap out games at a fairly high rate alternating between RA and TS and have been going downhill ever since RA1. Blizzard on the other hand are also low profile, yet they dont put out games like there is no tommorow. They take their time and make a final, finished product with a decent storyline to boot.
For experienced gamers, company history is important too, unfortunately there arent as many experienced gamers as there are later generation gamers and thus the market gets saturated with what a majority of people want: Utter Trash.
By the way, I consider The Sims to be the ultimate milked cow. Not only is the game milked and milked, the Genre is milked and milked. Hopefully the milk will turn sour, and soon.
I know the only thing that stopped me buying BOTH games is the fact I'm dirt poor and can't afford them <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at warcraft, each sequel has remained quite fresh thanks to Blizzards philosophies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Warcraft 2 was basically the same as Warcraft with ships. Similar to how Red Alert was Command and Conquer with ships and a WW2 setting. I don't really see the distinction.
I'm still undecided if I like Warcraft 3. I have it and the expansion, but I go between utterly hating it and liking it a whole lot. I can never really make up my own mind.
Maybe that is because it still isn't anywhere near Starcraft.
Also, Air units changed War 2's strategy quite a bit, as with the addition of towers. War 3 added a new host of gameplay possibilities with each race having strengths and weaknesses instead of being clones of one another with scare differences (may surprise you to know, Orc Spearthrower in War1 had less range then the human Crossbowman, also, Orc Bloodlust gave them an advantage in War2 while healing offered a different facet, although they were twins in facets of gameplay, they still had improvements over the original).
I did love starcraft too, hopefully they'll get a worthy sequel out the door when they are done with WoW (which is in fact the very first MMORPG I've actually shown an interest in).
A terrorist vs CT formula is no different than a good vs evil, hero vs supervillain, or human vs alien theme. A theme or setting has virtually no bearing on whether or not a game is fun.
I bought Raven Shield because I hoped (foolishly) that Ubi knew enough about what they were doing to actually improve on the series. To some extent, they did: decent multiplayer support, a better graphics engine (if poorly optimized), some improvements on the actual gameplay. Those are the things that encouraged my purchase, but the reasons that I won't buy stuff from them anytime soon is what came after the game was released.
You cannot throw a modern game out and not support it. It's nigh impossible to make it completely bug-free, but that isn't even the issue. Just as all bugs are shallow given enough eyes (a few million players), finding something to exploit or whatever is a trivial adventure. As much as it sucks that playtesters aren't enough to make a game perfect out the door, it's an issue that can't really be avoided. Gamers are creative and motivated to find things like that.
Ubi has done the exact opposite of support Raven Shield. They've steadily made it worse, minus a few bugs. I actually liked the game better in 1.0 than I do now in 1.5.2 or whatever. There was a point when I was still playing the game that I woulda been happy to fix the damn tango and team mate AI myself if they had a way for me to do it. It wouldn't be hard at all to at least fix the glaring holes in the current AI with my current level of AI knowledge.
I'm just going to leave it at that. Ubi's make other decisions with Ravenshield that absolutely baffle me and make me think somebody really needs to be fired, but I'm already derailing the topic enough as is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it ironic that Atari is on your blacklist for "MOO 3". That's Master of Orion 3. THREE. As in "Geez, let's make the same game over and over and see how much we can milk the cow." That is precisely what the article is about, and I doubt you understood it. The article is about how originality in making something that isn't a "number 2" or a "number 3" in any given series, automatically makes people ignore it as they home in on the latest sequal. I mean, there is probably a reason to why we're playing Final Effin' Fantasy TWELVE now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MOO2 was an absolutely amazing game, but needed to be modernized. Another game in the series was warrented. It was developed when Win95 was still "good". I would have been happy to pay for MOO2 with better graphics, real multiplayer support, and some much needed rule-based automation (to deal with large empires) put in. Atari took the formula and murdered it.
On FF games: they aren't a series. They're all different games, sometimes vastly different. Final Fantasy just means an "rpg" developed by Square (or its many namesakes), so yeah there's gonna be a huge number of them.
edit: Oh, right. What does this have to do with PoP and creativity? If Ubisoft is incompetant, and I'm pretty sure they are, using them as an example to say that creative games are not profitable is flawed.
Much more important were, in my opinion, the bad product placement - let's face it, Q4 <i>is</i> the most risky time of the year to publish <i>any</i> entertainment product -, and the almost non-existant marketing, let me note that before everyone around here gets on their 'indy' highorses, marketing is first and foremost the art of actually showing up on the consumers radar. Making a product known says nothing in itself about its qualities.
I think the game that led us all on these boards shows quite nicely that innovation is indeed welcomed by players - maybe not '<i>the</i> players', this 'the' referring to the broadest mainstream, which many publishers target in the errenous assumption that the gaming demographic is a homogenous mass, but to enough players to make a game lucrative.
I still find it interesting that the legend of Deus Ex 1s bad sales prevailed for so long that many refused to believe in the first announcements of a sequel. People just couldn't believe that a complicated, innovative game could have attracted a considerable market force - yet, it did.
I'm also reluctant towards the assumption that 'sequels are a sure way to money' - while there's usually enough of a player base to ride on a games success for a second title, ask a certain Mrs. Croft about how commercially 'safe' the recycling of gameconcepts really is. If sequels are supposed to be successfull, they'll have to add new aspects to the initial games structure, in other words: They have to be innovative, as well.
So, summarizing, please knock the whining about the 'rot' of the gaming industry off. There have always been brainless clones (consider that the first ten years after Pong basically consisted of nothing but Pong ripoffs), there has always been innovation. Some of either prevailed, some didn't, as with any other kind of medium.
The assumption that any concept is a safe way to the customers purses is a ridiculous idea brought up by the part of the industry that sees itself as running a kind of very specialized bank - this mindset might die hard, but it won't keep you alive, either; see Infograms for a recent example.
Innovation, on the other hand, may sell just as bad as a brainless clone, but <i>can</i> lead to a <i>real</i> hit. Now what seems like the better choice to you?
As for Beyond Good & Evil, I can't wait to pick it up. Ubisoft has become synonymous in my mind with new, fresh, inventive games... I mean sheesh, look at their roster (Gamespot scores/reader review scores in parentheses):
Beyond Good & Evil (8.3/8.8)
Grandia 2 (7.9/9.2)
-Riven (7.8/8.3)
-Myst 3 (8.7/8.5)
-RealMyst (6.4/8.0)
-Uru: Ages Beyond Myst (7.8/7.7)
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (9.0/8.9)
the Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Rogue Spear series (first of their kind, IIRC) (7-8.7 range/7.7-9.2) *
the Rayman series (one of the first good 3D platformers) (7.4-9.4 range/5.6-8.9) **
<i>Splinter Cell</i> (8.7/9.3) ***
Tomb Raider (cliched by now, but universally lauded - and they didn't do the sequels) (8.5/8.1 on PC)
the Warlords series (Warlords IV: 8.4/7.3)
XIII (just *try* and tell me that's not innovative) (6.4/8.4 on GameCube)
<i>* Left out two or three lemons out of ~22 titles, e.g. Rainbow Six on PS1 got a 3.7/6.4
** Left out Rayman Arena and a few others
*** 8.7 was for PC; 9.3 was for XBOX</i>
This is just a selection, and I've left out dozens of games -- many of which might be excellent, but I'm simply not familiar with them. While it's true that many of Ubisoft's games are sequels, it's also true that they're *good* sequels. Ubisoft also has a pretty good track record with licensed content (they have published a few Batman Animated games, for instance). The point is, Ubisoft has published a host of PHENOMENAL games, and have more on the way like Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow and Far Cry. They've got good developers on board.
Why didn't these two particular gems do better? I almost want to say they were *too* good... I couldn't put Prince of Persia down, but I played it through so quickly that I didn't have *time* to talk it up much. I still pop it in every now and then and I'm certainly glad I bought it, but it hasn't seen a ton of playtime since I beat it for the 3rd time. I also agree that perhaps Ubisoft is a little *too* innovative... they make amazing, genre-defying games, and the mainstream "duh-huh?" gamer just doesn't know what to make of them. It's a damn shame, but kudos for them for not sacrificing creativity for marketability (yet).
That's the only thing I disagree with..
I'm 16 right now, prime gaming age perhaps, and I've had tons of fun with PoP1/2.
In fact, Prince of Persia was my first (noneducational) video game for the PC... way back years ago when it came on the 3.5 and 5.25" floppies and ran perfectly on an old 286SX.
Admittedly I'd probably have been more curious if it HADN'T had prince of persia in the title. Sands of Time without the old-game reference would've at least earned a twitch of the whiskers =3
I know it's a very silly reason not to play a game but a game's spirit is in everything it does, not just gameplay but setting and so i honestly don't think I'd enjoy it as much as many people seem to have just off my particular tastes. I've even got the demo on my HD but I can't make myself install it ^^;
As for Good vs Evil... I hated rayman as a char and so avoided the games. I don't mind weird, infact I love it if it's done right but for me the style of rayman just made me wrinkle my nose in disgust. Good vs Evil actually looks good and sounds great but I didn't feel the interest I needed to go check it out.
I don't know about you guys but since the advent of online gaming and the general loss of co-op I find myself more and more hard-pressed to bother with one player games =/
Every time I check out a title the first thing I want to know is if I can play with my RL friends or Net friends, failing that I usually only bother if I like the 'feel' I get from it. I don't really care if it has photorealistic graphics or poop ones... as long as the universe it's set in appeals to me =3
Outside of that I rarely buy games now anyways merely because I'm sick of sequels and 'by the numbers' replicants of what's gone before. Not that I'd complain much if they were doing it with the genres I'd fell in love with admittedly (2D platform shootemups... I miss titles like gunstar heroes -.-
3D-wise things of a decent calibre of genres like the non-linear action adventure found in zelda games or platform shootemups like jet force gemini are hard to find).
I loved Zelda btw - just played it on my GBA less than half a year ago, and it was a revelation.
Now, back to Ubi. It seems that ubi did screw up on the marketing and launch of the games. They ARE good.
As for single player games in general: if they made them harder, i'd be more of a buyer. Try Maximo for the PS2. That's a fine hard game if I ever saw any. Old Skool, almost to the bone.
Multi games: I find myself playing very little MMOG these days, since none of them can offer me experiences that are new. Instead I play games like NS 3.0, Call of Duty and a bit of GBA when a decent game comes out for it.
-Uru: Ages Beyond Myst (7.8/7.7)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder, though, what the score would be when folk find out that Ubi and Cyan are now putting Uru Live into storage, reportedly due to subscriber figures, and bringing out expansion packs instead?
Luckily, those who trialled Uru Live will get the first expansion pack for free, but it does seem strange that they are basing the commercial viability of the game on 2 months activity of something that has been poorly advertised.
And I was so looking forward to it as well! <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And Beyond who and what? Unless it has another title in the UK, I've never heard of it.