Ubisoft says you're not supposed to 100% complete For Honor

[WMGroomAK]

According to a Techspot Article (http://www.techspot.com/news/68629-ubisoft-defends-honor-microtransactions.html): 

 

Quote

Earlier this week, redditor Bystander007 calculated that to see everything in For Honor, you’d have to pay $732, or play it for around 2.5 years.

This is extremely excessive as there are gamers out there with an addiction for 100% games that they really enjoy.  In Ubisoft's response, game director Damien Kieken defended the micro-transactions by saying:

Quote

"We never had an intention for you to unlock everything in the game," he said. "First, that doesn't truly make any sense. We applied RPG mechanics on top of a fighting game, in a PVP environment, but it's like in an RPG, like in World of Warcraft: you would never try to unlock everything for all the characters of the whole game. Same for any MOBA, you're not trying to unlock all the content for all the characters in the game."

In a game that you are already paying full price for, having to either play for 2.5 years, pay an additional $732 or some combination in between is getting out of hand.  My personal opinion is that add-on/DLC content is okay for requesting an additional fee to a full priced game, but if you pay full price for a game, you shouldn't be expected to pay additional to timely unlock the content or have to spend over two years playing to get it all.  Can game developers PLEASE stop this.

 

UPDATE:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/04/ubisoft-rebalances-for-honors-unlockables-amid-outcry/

 

I have to give applause to Ubisoft on this.  They listened to the user community and issued an update on Friday according to Ars Technica that will help out:

 

Quote

The update, which launched on Friday, increases the amount of Steel generated by in-game matches, Daily Orders, Side Orders, and Community Orders by anywhere from 25 to 200 percent. All told, Ubisoft estimates the changes will "raise your daily first two hours income by as much as 45 percent."

Of course, whether they would have listened had the user community not complained is another issue...

Edited April 3, 2017 by WMGroomAK
Updated information

[ivan134]

Fix for night theme users

 

[Froody129]

Inb4 the challenge accepted comments 

[Light-Yagami]

Or just play Witcher 3 like I do. Started 2 weeks ago, having a time of my life

[jakkuh_t]

Just now, Light-Yagami said:

Or just play Witcher 3 like I do. Started 2 weeks ago, having a time of my life

Awesome game, but I've yet to have the time to finish it. I probably have another 15 hours to go, rip.

[Light-Yagami]

Just now, jakkuh_t said:

Awesome game, but I've yet to have the time to finish it. I probably have another 15 hours to go, rip.

I've clocked 18 hours on it already, I have game of the year edition and every DLC possible. I reckon I have my summer covered.

[JoeCoke]

For full price games, paid DLC should NEVER exist. I refuse to support games that do that. If it's not a full price game, a cheap game or a free game, then I understand.

 

EDIT: Okay, I'd understand paid DLC if the DLC/expansion came out a good while after the game came out and adds a SHIT TON of content, but lots of DLC comes out day one or even a few months after the game releases and they aren't even that great. That's the kind of stuff that pisses me off. When I buy a game for full price, I expect the whole game.

[WMGroomAK]

1 minute ago, Light-Yagami said:

Or just play Witcher 3 like I do. Started 2 weeks ago, having a time of my life

That's one that I've been looking at for a while on PC, but got sucked into playing Horizon on PS4 and want to complete that first...

[PlayStation 2]

You don't make it so that you basically have to spend money to complete a game. You make it so that you can complete the game, no money required, and then start adding shit that people would want to spend cash on.

[Underi]

I don't know how much content there is in For Honor, but looking at the article, it seems like there is a lot of things. Why would you even try to have all the emotes and fucking ornaments in a game? And why would a casual player try to achieve 100%? Well, they probably don't. Vote with your wallet. You don't like the game, don't buy it. Of course you can't know if it's a good game or not, but it's ubisoft. What were you expecting? It's funny when all this shit comes down on ubisoft, when the article clearly states 

Quote

As noted by Ars Technica, For Honor isn't the first full price game to go down this route; getting every cosmetic item in Overwatch costs around $600, and the best set of “ultimate team” cards in FIFA 17 costs about $630.

And what about Battlefield 1? Getting all the skins for all the guns and all the puzzle pieces, how many battlepacks would that take? Or all the possible knifes in csgo? That's right. You wouldn't even try to.

[Guest Kloaked]

Have to defend the Ubisoft person on this one. They're right.

[samcool55]

Someone should do this for GTA V

 

Anyway, i hate that devs do this and even if it's an insanely good game, i won't buy it if they want to clearly rip me off.

[WereCat]

4 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Have to defend the Ubisoft person on this one. They're right.

They would be right if the game was free to begin with

[Princess Luna]

Wait you mean that other Ubishit games were meant to complete 100%? Lol go like AC formula, to make this game longer we threw 100 useless pieces around the map, collect them all to unlock this useless outfit which you won't use because who plays one of our repetitive shallow games after 100% finished any ways?

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

They would be right if the game was free to begin with

I don't understand what your point is.

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

I don't understand what your point is.

are you being sarcastic? 

[Princess Luna]

21 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

For full price games, paid DLC should NEVER exist. I refuse to support games that do that. If it's not a full price game, a cheap game or a free game, then I understand.

Unless it is The Witcher 3 where the DLC is another entire/full game using an already extremely polished engine lol

 

Ubishit DLCs having AC in mind were always one extra mission and an outfit for abusive pricing, that kind of thing that made them lose me as costumer

[Guest Kloaked]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

are you being sarcastic? 

Nope.

[Mr.Meerkat]

18 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

For full price games, paid DLC should NEVER exist. I refuse to support games that do that. If it's not a full price game, a cheap game or a free game, then I understand.

How about the way R6S works? 

All the DLCs/extra content (gameplay wise) are completely free, if you don't mind grinding a lil where paying real money is just to get a couple of skins and to have the ability to grind about 50 hours less to unlock all 8 "new" operators.

Non-season pass owners are missing nothing out, it may take us substantially longer to own all the operators but we still get all of em, all the maps, infact we still get everything sooooo....

[XenosTech]

10 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Nope.

I don't understand his response either lol... I've played more free games that have way more micro-trasactions than the paid ones.

[imreloadin]

26 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Have to defend the Ubisoft person on this one. They're right.

Out of curiosity what is your reasoning for defending them?

 

Personally it doesn't affect me as I was never going to buy the game to begin with.

If they want to put assloads of micro-transactions into their games they're free to do so. It simply means that I won't buy it.

If there are plenty of people out there that are willing to part with their cash on that stuff then by all means keep at it, I know if I was a game dev and that opportunity presented itself I would definitely do it as well. I mean let's be honest here people, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase these kinds of games yet it keeps happening. They're a business after all so they're not going to derail the money train any time soon

[WMGroomAK]

36 minutes ago, Underi said:

I don't know how much content there is in For Honor, but looking at the article, it seems like there is a lot of things. Why would you even try to have all the emotes and fucking ornaments in a game? And why would a casual player try to achieve 100%? Well, they probably don't. Vote with your wallet. You don't like the game, don't buy it. Of course you can't know if it's a good game or not, but it's ubisoft. What were you expecting? It's funny when all this shit comes down on ubisoft, when the article clearly states 

And what about Battlefield 1? Getting all the skins for all the guns and all the puzzle pieces, how many battlepacks would that take? Or all the possible knifes in csgo? That's right. You wouldn't even try to.

My issue is that this is becoming more common with a lot of games, not just Ubisoft, where you purchase a game, but to get everything in a game you purchased, you either have to grind the game for some ungodly amount of hours or you have to spend more cash on the game.  This kinda reminds of the South Park episode "Freemium Isn't Free" except with a paid game.  My personal feeling is that if you are going with a micro-transaction model game, you start the base game free and then allow for the micro-transactions.  Otherwise on a paid game, just make that content paid DLC and not included as unlockables in the paid game.  Too much of this micro-transaction w/i a paid game model and pretty soon you'll see paid games with micro-transactions to progress in the game.

[Shakaza]

I honestly see little to no problem with this. Ubisoft is not forcing you to pay micro-transactions in order to play the game; you can still have fun whether you purchase them or not. Also, what's the big deal about 100% completion? If you can only have fun with a game by getting 100% completion, this game isn't right for you, so you don't have to buy it or play it, and if you can have fun by just playing the game and killing people, why exactly do you care about absolute completion? It's one game out of many, the large majority of which would be more favorable for completion than this one. No big deal, right?

[AresKrieger]

Ubisoft is approaching konami levels of retardation so I'm not remotely surprised by this info, they however don't seem to realize making a slapped together game and adding microtransations hurts perception which in turn hurts sales which ultimately defeats the point of said microtransations

[typographie]

48 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

For full price games, paid DLC should NEVER exist. I refuse to support games that do that. If it's not a full price game, a cheap game or a free game, then I understand.

I agree with a lot of points being thrown at Ubisoft et. al. over microtransactions, but you've completely lost me on this one. Publishers have every right to charge for additional content post-release. This was fine back when we called it an "expansion" and it came on a piece of plastic.