Why Does Ubisoft Continue To Avoid Splinter Cell?

Finally asking the right questions. Trouble is, as a few have already said here, Ubi have ruined the identities of most of the Tom Clancy franchises, merging them all into one big mess. As such, they are happy to churn out cookie cutter games where the main character tries to look edgy for wearing their bag single strap across the chest. I think it's time for a shake-up, pull the licensing from Ubi or have them let go of certain franchises like Splinter Cell, let more capable and willing devs bring it back. The franchise may as well be dead while Ubi retain the rights. They can't be making much money off SC anyway now, they shoehorn Sam into Ghost Recon, nobody cares. They stick him in R6 Siege, I barely see anyone play as him.

I'm actually playing through the whole series right now since I've never finished Conviction and breakpoint. Splinter Cell's are really great games, I hope they continue the series in the future.

Because SC is about up close and personal. It's a game that would need well designed gameplay and highly curated level design. This is ubisoft, they don't do that anymore. If they can't cookie cutter an open world game they aren't interested.

The only way sam Fischer can continue is if they get 100,000 or million lines from Micheal Ironside and use machine learning(with he's approval) to bring back the legend or splinter cells ded, and I'm fine with that because it's way passed damage control.

Effing great article, thank you!

I think a true stealth game genre is kinda dead. I would love to see a remake of Splinter Cell 1, though. But I don't want them to do the 'reimagined' as a stealth action RPG... Like why can't they just remake the original gameplay loop? I'd play that; and if it's a faithful remake there wouldn't be fan blowback, I think fans will like that.

Ubisoft already trashed the TomClancy brand games. It's all silly scifi and generic action stories. It's no longer unique and authentic like GhostRecon (2001) or RainbowSix3 RavenShield or the original SplinterCell.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=936020164

Because they only reskin the same open world games over and over.

Unless they make one final good one, I just do not see how this is working out and saying that it'll be successful because of Siege; you mean the live-service jargon that now BF6 is: mobile and pretty generic? I don't see how monetizing SC would go well, perhaps to share holders but they don't give a shit about the game integrity of it.

Also in the comments section; I disagree with Stealth genre's being niche only niche in the eyes of the idiotic triple AAA saying that it is because it won't make 300 million a year.

Ubisoft is about open world the past generation, and likely going into the new one. Idk if they're accustomed to making linear games anymore, particularly ones that don't sell as well.

In short, they learned "open world' sells. It's huge on their GR, AC, and Division games, all that have done reasonably well.

A lot of work are put into them, but for them, open world brings out many different ways to monetize, as compared to a small linear game.

Yes, its crazy! We need another game with Sam Fisher kicking ass! I do not see why they do not make another.....they are always popular. I do not get it.

Another naive article! Most games in the SC-series sold measily 2 million copies. This might have been suffice 15 to 20 years ago, when even very big games didn't cost more than $15 million, and games sold for more money in general, when adjusted for inflation.

But as of today, when even a medium sized production requires investments of $60 million, you would need five times the sales AND decent earning via DLC etc in order to call it a sound commercial success.

Good luck on creating these types of numbers, in a market climate, where the average consumer isn't even ready to spend $60 on this "medium sized production" at release, because to him, "medium sized" feels and looks "outdated".

Simple put: cause they didn't find a proper way to monetize it yet.

One reson. They are trying to hard to evolve it into an open world game in where they can justify MT.

Just making a great linear single player game, with cool lvl design is so early 2000 for ubisoft......

Man, I haven’t thought about Splinter Cell in forever. The holy trinity of Splinter Cell, Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory. So good. Even when they were frustrating they were so so good. I still remember my friend showing me the original Splinter Cell and showing off the night vision mode, we took turns playing through missions...good times.

I kind of shudder to think what they’d do to this series now. Episodic entries like what they’re doing to FFVII? Open world like...well, like damn near everything? Micro-transactions for better stealth gear? DLC?

They haven't found a way to ruin this franchise with a bloated open world. (the only things they make nowadays)

One major point that isn't addressed is how Ubisoft has moved away from strong, narrative-focused, single-player games; everything they create now is either a live service or has season passes. Splinter Cell was always a story-first game — although the spies vs mercs multiplayer was rarely a slouch — so I'd put money on this likely being a purely investor-based decision where a new Splinter Cell would sell well... but not well enough to make the CEO and investors happy for multiple quarterly reports.

I still hold Chaos Theory in very high regards for creating a compelling story in an equally compelling stealth game. However, seeing where Tom Clancy titles have gone over the decade, I doubt Ubisoft sees any value in that experience anymore.

Are we talking about the Tom Clancy ones like chaos theory or the Michael bay-esque conviction(still fun). Same could be said of ghost recon. I enjoyed the earlier ones over wildlands or future soldiers. And once more for rainbow six.

Cause AC is franchise that maters to them?

The article answers itself perfectly, the main audience that would purchase a new splinter cell have moved on to FPS or playground games where much of the profit is through DLC and online purchases.

Shame to, as SC was like a Lee Childs novel and I feel is still needed today.

I mean the first reboot game probably will have soft sales, until it garners a bigger audience. Take the Red Dead Redemption game by Rockstar. When it came out, it had no where near the sales of a GTA. But my god did they ever put so much love and attention to that game, it was breathtaking. And now, through word of mouth, and fanaticism - when RDR2 came out it blew up the world selling 30+ million copies , not as good as GTAO but I am sure there are plenty of ho downs going on at rockstar.

Sam and SC can and should come back, but Ubisoft has weak knees, and accountants hoping to grab that easy PUBG money then creating a franchise through tons of work and time. I mean, I am sure even now publishers are sitting around the next Elder Scrolls game, wondering how can we implement loot boxes....

I just want a back to the basics game for each mainline Tom Clancy series- Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell. I get that multiplayer is all the rage, but take a page from a game such as Doom by going back to your roots but include modern controls and a sexy coat of paint on top and you’ll be adored.

As always it’s a business decision. SC is mainly single player focused therefore its harder to shift copies compared to multiplayer games where all your friends also buy a copy.

For a new SC to be highly profitable it needs a massive investment to move in a new direction, the same funds could be used for the Division 3 a tried and tested model that is almost guaranteed to shift copies.

release an online only spies vs mercs game for $40 and ill buy it lmao

Because Splinter Cell games are more of niche series, unlike COD where they sold 444 million copies. Combine that with the clanking of gamers wanting more, more, more in their games and you have a recipe for lackluster sales & high dev costs.

For me nothing beats the graphics/action/replayability of COD games. Not Division, not TC Breakpoint, not Splinter Cell. Second in line is Battlefield for me, then SW Battlefront and Titanfall. If you can't beat the gameplay of those, then what is the point?

If there is one series I cannot live without it would the COD series. COD characters & guns are more easy to control and FUN, unlike the more stiff controls of the other games.

Maybe because they cant apply that generic open world formula to it.

Conviction was my favourite as I liked the Deniable Ops Mode, as it gave the game very good replayablity for single player gamers like myself.

I also really like the character movement and gunplay. Very good game imo. Hopefully if they make another, it will be like that one.

The original 'vs' multiplayer in Pandora Tomorrow and it's sequel, Chaos Theory is still, even after 15 years, one of the most engaging and intense online games I've ever played.

Double Agent's multiplayer, while still fun, went for 'different' rather than 'refinement', Conviction removed the 'vs' mode altogether in favor of a more robust, but ultimately less appealing co-op experience, and Blacklist at least attempted a return to form with it's 'vs' gameplay but cannibalized its own player base by including a simple deathmatch mode.

What's ironic is that me and a friend, while playing the mindlessly repetitive Cold War last night, somehow got on this very topic... and neither one of us can understand Ubisoft's indifference towards not only the Splinter Cell series itself, but also what was a revolutionary multiplayer game.

Take those first two iterations of ;'vs' mode, polish up the graphics and online code for 2021 and release it digitally.... there's nothing truly innovative on the console horizon anyway, so why not re-visit something that was.

The answer is simple. Blacklist didn't sell squat, Ubisoft is one of the most risk averse publishers in the industry (that is why most their games across genres contain the exact same gameplay loop), and there is no indication whatsoever that gamers will buy enough of any new Splinter Cell game to justify the development and marketing costs.