Ubisoft's boss Yves Guillemot has said something about needing next gen consoles, and everybody is reporting on that something. Not me, though, because I'm Johnny Contrarywise. Instead, here's a snippet from FIFA 13's executive producer David Rutter. Seems that as far as EA's mega-selling football franchise is concerned, Xbox 720 can wait - there's plenty left to achieve with existing hardware. Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it, newshounds!
"For the FIFA team, we haven't got to a point where anything we've wanted to include in the game hasn't been possible," Rutter told CVG. "In the past, [when we] have decided not to include something, it's not been because of technological limitations.
"All of this was possible because the way our game code is structured. So, theoretically, we could adapt to such things on more powerful systems. But it's not something we're doing at the moment."
What would you do with next generation consoles if you had access to them, Rutter? "Well I know what everyone wants us to do, which is make the crowds look good. Our crowds are not that great, but improving them is not a priority on our list of things we need to do.
"Having more power would probably allow us to do that as well as a number of different things, but for now we are just focused on our current project."
Rutter's offhand attitude to the prospect of new console platforms may have something to do with his insistence that FIFA will become an online service, once the market completes its evolution away from boxed games. We're not sure whether this means "cloud gaming FIFA", but we suspect it's not outside the bounds of probability.
8 comments so far...
tbuxton42 on 23 Jul '12 said:
No, FIFA team, YOU do not need next gen yet- because people are still buying the same identikit FIFA games year in, year out, regardless of technology! People want next-gen because it will evolve video gaming as we know it, but I couldn't care less about the better visuals and physics FIFA will get on new consoles, FIFA shouldn't ever be a hardcore priority.
bamozzy on 23 Jul '12 said:
Do you really believe that next gen will evolve gaming? Personally I am not so sure - it gives developers the opportunity to make the same games with a bit more polish and a higher frame rate but ultimately the same game! It also means that developers have to 'learn' how to programme for the next gen. If you think back to the release of the xbox 360 - we got games that were just xbox games with the 360 graphics put on them they certainly diodn't break 'new' ground! We also thought that the games looked awesome and how nice it was to play these games with better graphics but at the end of the day they were still the same games! In terms of actual gaming we have not yet reached the apex of what this generation has to offer. Because developers now know what they are doing and how to programme for the console they are able to let their creativity flow. Games that are currently being released also look a lot better than we have ever seen. If the next generation is released today for example we would have to wait a few years whilst developers get to grips with the new consoles and would just give them a 'lazy' option to basically port older games and give them a graphical enhancement. The fact that we have had this stability is also enabling the developers to be creative . I am not saying I don't want a next generation console - because IF I could and afford it I would but I also think that the games would not necessarily be bigger or (game play wise) better Granted though I would expect them to look better and maybe have a higher frame rate too but underneath that glossy shell - I think they would still be the same games we already have.
In this economic climate it may not also be the 'right' time to release a new console - especially as games are still improving on this generation. I can barely afford the games I want and have to wait and be much more selective over my choices too. If a new console is released that is a minimum of 5 games (new releases-equivalent cost based on £200 although I would expect the next generation to cost probably double this!) that I would not be able to get. A console is just a tool to play games on - it is however the games that are most important as that determines the success of any console. Without the games - even the best and most capable console will fail!
YoungTobias on 23 Jul '12 said:
You've missed the bigger story here. Next-gen gaming is inevitable, whether it's in 12 months, three years, or whatever. The most worrying aspect about the interview was the fact that he explicitly stated that Fifa is almost certainly going to become download only in the near-future. This is a huge, industry-changing statement, and not in a good way. Being able to buy and sell a product as you see fit is a given right for the consumer. If games become download only, the latter half of that right has been eradicated, and so has the opportunity for independent retailers to sell at their own prices. Soon, you'll have no choice but to buy the yearly Fifa update, which will differ in no real tangible way from the previous edition yet will be absolutely essential if you want to continue online playability and updated features, at around £50 a pop followed by several hours of downloading and 10+GB of space on your hard drive waved goodbye for another twelve months or so, when you'll inevitably delete the game and get the new edition. If you don't want to do this, you have no alternative and cannot browse elsewhere, and your license will expire within a year or so anyway. You cannot sell the game on, and you cannot even play it on more than a handful of consoles that you yourself may own. And the justification for this? It's either that second-hand games retailers are undercutting the market (in which case the answer is to put pressure on them to get in line, not to cut them - and thus, a huge number of gamers, out of the equation entirely), or it's simple convenience for those who'd rather have every aspect of their lives managed and controlled by a corporate climate than bother to get out of their chair and switch the disks over.
EA is already facing the thin end of the wedge, and has been for years. The backlash against Mass Effect 3's ending and From Ashes had been brewing for over a decade, since before the days of Ultima 8 and 9 even. It's only now that the numbers have been substantial enough to warrant a response, but now that the consumer has a taste for revolt - and now that they know how vulnerable EA really is, especially given that their share prices have been in the toilet for four years - it would be a very naive, short-sighted decision even by EA's standards to now force Fifa customers into permanently buying a yearly product at a set price without any hope of resale. If they go down this route, it could very well result in one of two things - either the terminal collapse of Electronic Arts and the dozens of employed developers who depend on them, or - even worse - the slow, irreversible shift of the games industry from what little community elements are still in place to a purely monetary climate without consequence for those who continue to bleed the customer dry over every piece of DLC, every online pass, and soon to be every 'full' game which will naturally require day one DLC or an online pass separate from the original price in order to function properly, while hundreds of independent retailers and their millions of employers either go bankrupt or at the very least lose a massive source of revenue. I'd personally much rather see the latter.
Either way, it's terrible news for the games industry if this goes ahead, and I can only hope that EA aren't stupid or arrogant enough to think that they can get away with it.
OXM ETboy on 23 Jul '12 said:
We actually covered the FIFA 13 online-only angle weeks ago, as linked in the article - Rutter does seem to appreciate the value of boxed game retailers from a publisher's point of view, though as you suggest he doesn't seem to be excessively bothered about the welfare of second hand sellers...
Interesting points, but your case hinges on a lot of assumptions about what precisely a download-only FIFA would consist of, especially pricing and availability. I'd suggest that the present over-pricing (to my mind, anyway) of stuff like GOD reflects the fact that we're still in transition between the boxed game era and the digital era - high street sales are still perceived as the money-spinner despite huge growth in downloads, hence upset among EA stockholders, and publishers are still thrashing out what it's acceptable to charge for a digital product. EA's actually among the more successful operators, to my mind - look at how they've integrated weapon and item packs into Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, for instance. There's nothing there you can't earn just by playing, as far as I know, but you can save yourself time by investing. As it's a co-op game, there's no balancing problem to worry about. Quite elegant, really, and an act I hope others will follow.
As regards availability, limiting a digital-only title to certain platforms seems like an utterly nonsensical approach to me - why go to all the trouble of unhooking yourself from physical media, only to arbitrarily confine yourself to one or two boxes? Surely you'd want to spread out, maximise the avenues for investment and all that. I'm having a hard time seeing your point about declining community elements, too.
delmariachi on 23 Jul '12 said:
Digital works fine when executed properly, See Steam... the prices are generally driven down so its simply a matter of whether companies including EA will want to limit their revenue streams via cheaper games and the unhappy punters that cannot and will not embrace it.
I've been using Steam for some 4 years and quite frankly If I could use an equivalent on console that was fair in price terms, I'd jump at it, sadly this is going to take some time as companies don't want to take a hit on sales, so therefore i will never buy a digital version of any game on 360, even on the current dashboard "sale" prices are overblown, when you can buy these so much cheaper elsewhere.
There is a shift starting to happen in general, see Apples legitimizing your album collection for ex amount or the recent rumour of MS letting people upgrade to Windows 8 for a small sum. Companies are slowly realising that if they bring prices down, then arguably it will be for the better, not just for Joe Blogs but actually for them too...
In regards FIFA franchise, digital could work well IF... and its a big if, they knock on the pricing as you go, 40 quid for 14 digitally, less for 15 if you bought 14 etc... EA surprisingly, i know, ARE learning.. See Tiger Woods 13, in terms of the courses, you can finally earn the right to own them. It actually, despite many protestations adds to gameplay longevity (even without the whole "it should be on there already" argument).
In my 30 plus years of gaming, we've come to an odd and difficult crossroads which if done right could give the industry the kick up the jacksy it needs, if not, I think alot of gamers will just turn away in their droves, as being taken the p**s out of, can only be put up with for so long...
will_bazza on 23 Jul '12 said:
...because we wouldnt get away with altering defending, graphics and ball skills every year to make the 'next gen leap'
chate001 on 24 Jul '12 said:
There is a shift starting to happen in general, see Apples legitimizing your album collection for ex amount or the recent rumour of MS letting people upgrade to Windows 8 for a small sum. Companies are slowly realising that if they bring prices down, then arguably it will be for the better, not just for Joe Blogs but actually for them too...
http://www.keyforex.info/g.gif
StreakyMcMeeky on 24 Jul '12 said:
No you have decided to leave them out because you can sell that as the following years Major New Game Changing Feature ©