Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon sells 1 million, could be getting physical release

Monday, 9th September 2013 01:50 GMT By Ewan Miller

One of year’s great surprises, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon has sold more than a million copies in less than six months and Ubisoft’s CEO, Yves Guillemot says it might not be done quite yet.

Speaking to Game Informer, Guillemot said that between the runaway success of Blood Dragon and solid sales of Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, the company’s “mini-AAA” development model had been proven and would continue to be a focus for the publisher going forward. Indeed, Guillemot has previously lobbied for greater digital sales transparency this year, presumably due to the success of these new mini-AAA games.

These plans might well include a retail release of Blood Dragon, to “achieve a bit more” with the game according to Guillemot. The game’s creative director, Dean Evans, has said before that he’s hoping to work on a sequel to the game.

Thanks, Joystiq.



  1. Creteck

    Therese already a physical release on the PC. It includes a CD soundtrack, a poster and the game. Totally worth it!

    I am really happy that the DLC turned into a success, a bit short but a lot of fun!

    #1 1 year ago
  2. TheWulf

    Good, it deserves it. It and Saints Row IV were both experiments focused around the nature of video games, and they’re both fun. I wish we had more like them, in all honesty.

    I’m tired of the desperate attempts to imitate reality that gaming has become so obsessed with. We can’t make it too fun because then it wouldn’t be REAL any more, yo. It is… well, to call it honestly? It’s utterly stupid.

    The obsession with being real has had us put through an era of bad game design. There’s a reason why games these days aren’t nearly as satisfying or fun as games of even the early ’00s.

    Saints Row IV and Blood Dragon feel very much like the light at the end of a very long, very dark tunnel.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Oynox Slider

    I will buy it this week in the DotW on Xbox Live :)

    #3 1 year ago
  4. TheWulf

    On another topic, can I also touch upon a topic that’s occurred to me? Chasing immersion is fool’s gold, it’s idiocy of the highest calibre to actually try to create immersion by making something more realistic, believable, and sensible. Which is what most games are doing.

    I wouldn’t say that without a good reason for saying it, it’s just a revelation I’ve had, and it’s been a niggling thought at the back of my mind for the longest time. A thought that’s been trying to realise itself, to tell me what it is that’s wrong with contemporary, mainstream video gaming. I think I know what it is, now.

    It’s this obsession with immersion. Trying to create immersion is dumb.

    I could get immersed in a game that had blocky graphics back in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I could get immersed in a top down game with very basic sprites, and it wasn’t hard at all. Why? Here’s a very simple truth: If you’re having fun, you’re immersed in something.

    Where video game development has gone wrong is that they’ve stopped trying to make games fun and engaging, and they’ve placed making them immersive on a higher tier of priority. What these developers aren’t realising is that you can’t fake immersion, you can’t try to coax it out of people. Older gamers like myself are going to see right through that to the boring game that lies beneath, it’s going to have the opposite effect.

    Adding compulsive elements (like operant conditioning-based grinds) isn’t going to disguise that, because the smarter members of your audience are going to see it and call you out on it.

    So what makes a great game?

    There are many elements that can attribute to a good game’s worth. Whether it’s a good story, brilliantly written dialogue, amazingly crafted areas that you want to explore, and so on are all important. But the most important thing is fun.

    You can have fun in different ways, too, and they don’t have to be cheap and schlock-laden. Gone Home, for example, creates fun through its atmosphere. It’s got that feeling of exploring an eerie old house, which is reminiscent of films from my youth (and this likely applies to a lot of you). They could have ruined this with schlock horror by adding in jump scares, but they didn’t.

    Instead, they concentrated on keeping you on the edge of your seat, engaged, and alert, as they told you a story. It was intense, that’s what Gone Home was, it was fun because it was intense. Gone Home kept your interest in the same way a passionate, wild-haired story teller sitting in front of a fireplace, waving his hands around and weaving tales of majesty would. It’s an almost mesmerising experience.

    That was fun, it was fun because you were there. You were the detective unravelling mysteries in this eerie old house.

    Saints Row IV and Blood Dragon are also fun, but they’re a different kind. Saints Row, for example, is fun in how it’s an incredibly clever and amusing joke documentary about the history of video games. That’s funny. It’s also fun in how many different toys and gameplay experiences it keeps throwing at you. It’s one of the most generous and varied games I’ve played in a long time, since most games just tend to have reskinned content which is copy-pasted.

    A good game is fun in its own right, and if it’s fun, then it’s immersive.

    Pushing for immersion, just like throwing in obsessive-compulsive gameplay elements, seems to be a cheap excuse for not making a fun game.

    Which leads me to this conclusion: Many mainstream developers don’t actually play their own games.

    That might sound weird, but when you look at stuff like Call of Duty or Assassin’s Creed, it isn’t hard to believe, because those games don’t do a lot to foster a sense of fun. They try to create an artificial sense of immersion, and they have obsessive-compulsive elements. But are they really fun? I don’t think they are. Not even remotely.

    And that’s the position we’ve gotten ourselves into with the mainstream, the mainstream is creating what it thinks people want to play, and it’s trying to create a compulsive experience that they think will fit that. And the artificialness of this shows. This is opposed to games like the ones I’ve spoken of here, where the developers created what they wanted to create.

    You can always tell when a developer is making something because they think a mainstream audience will like it, even if they don’t like it (and haven’t played it). Or, alternatively, they’re creating something they really wanted to make, and they’re doing this with a great deal of passion and love for the subject matter. Because if they’re doing the latter, then they’re playing their own game. They’re not going to bother with fake immersion or obsessive-compulsive elements, they’re just going to make a game which is enjoyable for them to play.

    And in the process, they’ll create a game that’s fun for us to play.

    Ultimately, I think that the world has gone crazy with marketing. I think that developers need to stop trying to covet the lowest common denominator and start making games which appeal to themselves. If they do that, then they’ll have games that people will love and be immersed in without trickery.

    Edit: And I hope no one is going to tell me that I’m wrong about how some mainstream developers just don’t play their own games. Ubisoft have admitted that Assassin’s Creed is developed in tandem with three development houses, and it’s common knowledge that publishers use focus testing groups.

    That’s exactly why games suck, right there. They’re factory manufactured, artificial things. And yes, that can be applied to digital products like games as much as anything else. Food can do this with MSGs, to make it delicious, because MSGs are addictive in nature. The obsession with making a game perfect for a focus group is similar to that, because they’re artificially tailoring a game to be what a focus group wants. And the end result is artificial, since often they’ll use various forms of trickery (like obsessive-compulsive elements) to make it seem more fun to their focus groups.

    When you look at something like Saints Row IV though, you can tell that focus groups weren’t involved. It was just something that the developers wanted to make, and they were playing it as they were making it. They were having fun. And as such, they released a genuinely fun product.

    But people are so used to artificial brain foods, foods which have ways of creating obsessive-compulsive behaviours, that they don’t know how to react to something that’s just fun. It’s like when you try to get someone who’s eaten McDonald’s food for most of their life to try some proper food. They won’t know what to make of it at first, but soon they’ll come around and they’ll find it so much better, and they’ll feel happier with proper food. It’ll be better for them, and they’ll realise that.

    But it’s hard to get someone to try and do that. I see video game entertainment as being very much like food. There are good and bad examples of it. There’s artificially mass-produced nonsense which relies on fake immersion and obsessive-compulsive behaviour, then there’s the stuff that was lovingly created by people who just wanted their audience to have fun with their game.

    I’m very much aware of this, myself. I can only hope that, over time, more and more people will twig onto this awareness themselves.

    I just hope maybe Ubisoft will learn from this and let more of their development houses do “experiments” like this, where instead of creating artificial games, the devs are set free and allowed to make games they find fun. Free of focus testing, and free of managers breathing down their necks about making the game fit the marketing.

    #4 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.