Atari selling the Driver Franchise to ubisoft

[8th lutz]

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200....1109.54351.htm.

 

I never played a driver game, I wouldn't by shook if atari regrets doing this down the road.

[Jess Ragan]

Damn, things are tough all over for them. Seems like it's only a matter of time before the new Atari goes the way of all the old Ataris...

 

JR

[n8littlefield]

Ultimately, it will take a pretty significant improvement to bring the driver games back to snuff - and a pretty hefty advertising budget to make gamers aware of it being a good game again. Atari simply doesn't have that type of resources at this time. Quite frankly, given the series reputation for insane difficulty and bad games, I'm surprise Ubisoft was even interested.

[Jess Ragan]

Ubisoft doesn't have a strong Grand Theft Auto clone of its own, and that's where the money is in this industry. That is, until the trend finally winds down. I suspect that the extremely generic Saint's Row will contribute to its eventual demise.

 

JR

[Atari Joe]

thats too bad i was hoping for a 8-bit driver game on FB3. what they should have done is sold of matrix since thats going no where.

[AtariJr]

anyone notice Driver isnt just for ps3, it will be for wii too.

Edited July 15, 2006 by AtariJr

[T2KFREEKER]

Hopefully Ubisoft will do a better job with Driver than the last two games were. Talk about trash, it's nce were high profile franchises being driven into the ground like Driver that is killing ould do that, they may be able to yet salvage the company, if it isn't already too late.

[hex65000]

Ubisoft has some chances of making Driver suck less. I think I have Driver 1+2, and absolutely sucked at them. Ubisoft has done some other acceptable and quirky titles such as Rayman and 13(XIII) I'm not expecting perfection, but at the same time, I'd like to think that the outcome will not be a cookie-cutter solution, which is not a bad thing IMO.

 

Hex.

[ "He'll take the syndicate to their graves..." --Dr. T. ; Gungrave ]

[AtariJr]

ubisoft is one of those companies that you just never know. They arent as bad as acclaim or anything. Its just you either get a dud of a game, or the coolest game ever. For instance i wasnt expecting Prince of Persia to do well at all, and it was great. So i think if they try they can do a great job, but if its rushed just to get money off the francise dont expect much, and most likely expect unintuitive controlls on the wii, as that system seems to take time (at least for now while developers get used to it) to really make the controlls perfect.

[Zoop]

i think ubi having Driver is great its a potential to have a great rebirth for the franchise. Ubi has made alot of great games

 

Beyond Good n Evil

Rayman series

Prince of Persia

Splinter Cell

 

,and i dont see Driver being any different

[AtariJr]

i think ubi having Driver is great its a potential to have a great rebirth for the franchise. Ubi has made alot of great games

 

Beyond Good n Evil

Rayman series

Prince of Persia

Splinter Cell

 

,and i dont see Driver being any different

 

theyve also made a lot of bad games like Over G Fighters, King Kong DS, Lost Magic, Sprung, Trollz Hair Afair, SW Trilogy Apprentice of the Force, Blazing Angels, Exit... etc... (thats not even counting some of their dreamcast games..)

[Zoop]

You also hafta to remember ubi didn't nesscerily develope these "bad" titles ,but rather published them. Theres a huge difference there. Like for instance Over G was Taito developed i believe.

[AtariJr]

yes but a company isnt forced to publish a game with a gun to their heads. A company publishes a game if they think it will be profitable for them to publish... thats why there are games that are complete for a year or more that have yet to come out, since no one wants to risk supporting a game that wont sell (like if the developer is new and unrecognized, or if it doesnt have a disney label ensuring money even if the game sucks )

[Zoop]

yeah ,but its not ubi's fault if lets say they publish a game that swinging ape developes which turns out to be a flop. they werent the ones who developed it. Now lets say if Ubi France developes Rayman Raving Rabbids ,and it turns to be a flop then thats ubi's fault.

[NovaXpress]

It is 100% Ubi's fault no matter who their developer was. The publisher carries the ultimate responsibitlity of deciding which games are released. They can easily delay or cancel a bad game. When they release shit, it's because they want to make a quick buck at the expense of gamers.

 

If a bad show is on NBC, it's NBC's fault because they control the means of distribution. Same goes for a radio station or a book publisher or a video game publisher.

[AtariJr]

It is 100% Ubi's fault no matter who their developer was. The publisher carries the ultimate responsibitlity of deciding which games are released. They can easily delay or cancel a bad game. When they release shit, it's because they want to make a quick buck at the expense of gamers.

 

If a bad show is on NBC, it's NBC's fault because they control the means of distribution. Same goes for a radio station or a book publisher or a video game publisher.

 

EXACTLY

[Zoop]

the point i'm making though is ubi devved stuff is good ,but aside from that their published stuff is questionable.

[supercat]

It is 100% Ubi's fault no matter who their developer was.

 

Yeah, but many companies have many divisions. If NBC buys a set of completed shows for a program that's a total dud, that's the fault of the division that bought the shows. If NBC buys series rights to produce a program, and it's a dud, that may be the fault of either the division that bought the show (if the idea was bad), or the division that produced it (if the idea was good but execution was bad). If NBC buys series rights for a program that does well, the division that bought the rights may deserve the credit (if the idea was so good that a bunch of monkeys could have turned it into a good show), or it may deserve none (if the idea was so horrible that only a bunch of genius production people would have been able to make something good of it).

 

I'm not familiar with Ubisoft, but it sounds as though their programmers might be of higher relative quality than their marketing execs.

[AussieAtari]

A local update for you guys, this from one of our major daily newspapers (www.TheAge.com.au):

 

Screen PlayMonday, July 17, 2006

 

House of fun no more?

 

The future of one of Australia's oldest and best-known development studios looks grim as its troubled parent company continues to offload its assets.

 

Atari is battling hard to remain solvent, last week selling the Reflections studio and its Driver franchise, one of Atari's most successful properties, to rival publisher Ubisoft.

 

Atari has been searching for a buyer for development studio Melbourne House for at least six months after defaulting on loan payments and having its line of credit withdrawn. Atari's net losses in the last financial year were US$69 million.

 

Melbourne House, originally known as Beam Software, is almost as old as the games industry itself and has produced over 160 games since 1980.

Edited July 17, 2006 by AussieAtari