Former Ubisoft director, Clair Obscur maker slams AAA dev bloat: "It would've taken 25 years" to make my game

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,452   +1,586
Staff member
Let's get back to fun: The video game industry has always been unpredictable, but the current trend in triple-A development raises serious concerns about its long-term viability. As costs rise and development processes grow increasingly bloated, many question whether the industry is on the verge of another crash. Recent statements by former Ubisoft creative director Guillaume Broche suggest the situation may be more dire than previously thought.

Broche, who founded Sandfall Interactive after his tenure at Ubisoft, recently commented that getting approval to develop Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 would have taken "25 years" at a larger corporate studio. His statement emphasizes the magnitude of bureaucratic red tape involved with large AAA developers. Fortunately, Broche escaped the constraints of corporate politics.

His departure from Ubisoft is a case in point. Broche told the BBC that he quit Ubisoft because he was 'bored' with his job and frustrated at the lack of creative freedom. That says a lot about the struggling publishing house, considering his titles included Assistant Creative Director, Associate Producer on Ghost Recon Breakpoint and The Division 2, and Brand Development Manager and Narrative Lead on the Might & Magic franchise.

"Projects like these [Clair Obscur] – with new IPs, original stories, completely original characters – are super hard to push through in a big company. There are a lot of approval steps, and in general, in big structures, you already have to have proven yourself and be pretty high up in the hierarchy just to have a chance at pitching this kind of project. For me, a project like this would've taken 25 years to make in a big company. And I don't have that much patience. We also wanted to do things our own way and really create an atmosphere. That's what this game is – creating a vibe."

His feelings are hardly surprising considering how the industry's biggest franchises – particularly Ubisoft's – have stagnated. Assassin's Creed, once groundbreaking for its parkour and crowd mechanics, has become a repetitive cycle of sequels offering more of the same with less polish. What began as a fresh and exciting series is now a shadow of its former self.

Despite attempts to refresh the series with features like settlement building and "museum mode," these additions failed to rekindle the magic. Ubisoft put multiple teams and studios to work revamping the franchise, but much of what they added felt like clutter. Even the mechanics that once made the series unique – like moving through crowds – now feel neglected, as if developers put little effort into maintaining them. In AC Syndicate, for example, Jacob or Evie sometimes perform the nudge-aside animation after they've already passed the person they were nudging.

Also read: Former PlayStation boss says gaming price hikes are inevitable, but lack of value is the real issue

It's easy to use Ubisoft as a whipping post, especially considering Broche's remarks, but this problem isn't unique to the French developer. Nearly every AAA studio has fallen into the same rut, treating microtransactions, season passes, and price hikes as the only solutions to declining revenue while ignoring the real issue: a growing lack of innovation.

If the industry doesn't change course, it will face a crash similar to 1983, with only indie studios surviving. The signs are already visible: players reject inflated prices and formulaic designs by playing their backlogs and waiting for sales. The days of blindly throwing money at games offering little in return have ended. If developers don't take risks and embrace new ideas, they'll face a market that no longer accepts their stale approach.

Permalink to story:

 
"while ignoring the real issue: a growing lack of innovation."

While no one would disagree that this is a problem - and not just in this industry --> hello Hollywood...

This isn't the MAIN issue. The main issue is simply that the "good ones" (see popular) cost a TON of money to make. Big developers can't afford to have their game flop, so gambling that users might like "something new" over buying a sequel of something that's already been proven to sell is a no-brainer for them.

The same thing has happened to Hollywood. It costs an astronomic amount of money to make a movie, and so the "big" movies are sequels, reboots or rehashes of similar plots (looking at you Zach Snyder).

Indie developers - of both movies and games - put up far less money to make their games, and the only way to make a profit is to stand out. Hence, innovation remains for these companies.

You'll see it in every industry. Whenever large amounts of money become involved, people are far less willing to gamble on something new.
 
Clair Obscure is kind of a mess on PC. And I guess I'm alone here, but I don't find the game to be all that interesting.

Just like a lot of UE5 games, everything is really foggy/hazy all the time which makes everything look washed out. I hate that about UE5 games.

I do wish there were more big budget turn based games tho, and I think that sentiment is why the game is getting so much praise. But this game is only semi turn based since you have to dodge in real time, which I also hate.
 
This is the natural endgame of consolidation leading to the homogenization of gaming. If you want to push new ideas, it won't come from studios whos decision makers answer to a board of directors who are naturally going to be risk adverse.

Agreed. This is exactly what I'm alluding to each time I tell someone that major studios can't afford to make fun, creative games anymore. There's just too much money involved. Ironically, their commercial successes will be the brick around their neck that ultimately sinks major developers / publishers, because with great money comes great responsibility. Suffocated by their own shareholders.
 
Well done, a huge strike right on the chin for the big studios... Oh, if only consumers had the conscience to avoid buying lifeless garbage.
 
Sadly most of these old highly popular IP’s are victims of their own success. Attempting to create new content based on well established highly successful franchises is prohibitively risky and only the companies with very deep wells of capital (Microsoft) are going to even attempt it. The costs need to come down across the board to foster creative freedom and a willingness to be bold. How do we do this? No idea, perhaps AI might be factor, but how to do this without alienating your human workforce.
 
Agreed. This is exactly what I'm alluding to each time I tell someone that major studios can't afford to make fun, creative games anymore. There's just too much money involved. Ironically, their commercial successes will be the brick around their neck that ultimately sinks major developers / publishers, because with great money comes great responsibility. Suffocated by their own shareholders.
they make games to make money. They dont make games to make fun games.

Its why indie devs are the best! AAA is starting to mean the opposite actually. Its wild how this has happened.
 
Back