MTX is the future - Ubisoft to shift focus away from AAA development

[Arika]

Summary

 Well this was bound to happen eventually. Ubisoft has decided that "F2P" (LOL) is a more lucrative venture than releasing AAA games.

 

Quotes

Quote

Ubisoft doesn't want to be as reliant on AAA game releases as it has in the past, and will instead look more closely at free-to-play games and its back catalog to make money.

 

In an earnings call today following the company's Q3 financial results, the publisher said that its plans for fiscal 2022 (the period from April 2021 through March 2022) included three AAA game releases, but that in the future, Ubisoft didn't want AAA games to be the focus of its business model.

 

"But we see that we are progressively, continuously moving from a model that used to be only focused on AAA releases to a model where we have a combination of strong releases from AAA and strong back catalog dynamics, but also complimenting our program of new releases with free-to-play and other premium experiences."

 

He also nodded to a previously-announced Assassin's Creed mobile game planned to come to China with the help of Ubisoft investor Tencent, which he said was a part of the company ramping up its investment and interest in free-to-play games, especially on mobile. Mobile currently makes up about 9% of the company's total business.

Meanwhile, Ubisoft's financials indicate that games like Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle, Far Cry 5, The Crew 2, Anno 1800, older Just Dance games, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, and aforementioned Rainbow Six Siege are still doing meaningful numbers for the company, meaning it doesn't necessarily need to churn out multiple blockbusters a year to keep making money -- though based on Assassin's Creed Valhalla's launch sales breaking records, it certainly doesn't hurt.

---

 

My thoughts

All these game developers keep referring to it as "free to play", but what they really mean is "money milking software". F2P doesn't exist outside of indie games. Anytime a large publisher like EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft etc release a "free-to-play" game it is ALWAYS filled with Micro-transactions. Not as any form of "hey buy this to support us", it's "buy this to continue playing". Ubisoft already have some of the most egregious MTX in their AAA games as it stands already, so it will only get worse when they see this as a better form of income because they will exploit MTX as much as they can to make as much money as possible.

 

I think over the next few years we're going to see a massive decline in the number of AAA games being released and a surge in Free-to-Play games. Prepare for Games as a service to become the norm i guess.

 

Sources

10/10 IGN

https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-moving-away-from-reliance-on-aaa-releases

[Spotty]

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

[bellabichon]

This was pretty predictable, especially considering the declining quality of Ubi's AAA games in the past few years. It does definitely make me worried for the future of gaming, though. 

8 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Prepare for Games as a service to become the norm i guess.

I don't even know if a subscription to a games service is the future. Looking around, I'm much more concerned about the borderline-addictive nature of Gacha games where you throw crazy amounts of money at lootboxes in the hope of getting that cool skin or whatever. 

[Entropy.]

17 minutes ago, bellabichon said:

This was pretty predictable, especially considering the declining quality of Ubi's AAA games in the past few years. It does definitely make me worried for the future of gaming, though. 

I don't even know if a subscription to a games service is the future. Looking around, I'm much more concerned about the borderline-addictive nature of Gacha games where you throw crazy amounts of money at lootboxes in the hope of getting that cool skin or whatever. 

I mean the game industry is taking a trend from a different industry (music applications such as Itunes, Spotify, youtube music, what have you) on one side, and going with subscription services, and on the other is adopting almost a casino-like mentality. Having most to all high-budget triple-aaa/extremely popular games be specifically designed to be as addictive and PTW as possible... ugh. That would be a nightmare. Don't know if one will prove to be more effective in terms of generating revenue and a user base, but I dearly hope that these FTP PTW games don't take over the market and become the norm.

[Arika]

Just now, Brok3n But who cares? said:

. Having most to all high-budget triple-aaa/extremely popular games be specifically designed to be as addictive as possible... ugh. That would be a nightmare.

GTAVII:

*walk up to a car to steal it*

*press Y*

*popup box*:

To unlock this car you will need to buy a lockpick for $0.99, or you can buy 10 for $7.99. Go to store?

[niofalpha]

Kinda expected tbh, I've probably spent more on CS micro transactions and Destiny stuff than I have on new games in the past year.

[Radium_Angel]

23 minutes ago, Spotty said:

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

Pay to Play, Pay to Win, or my fav:

extortion

 

 

[givingtnt]

39 minutes ago, Spotty said:

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

They have, it's called PTW.
"pay to win"

All thanks to those whales. (Yes, that's what the industry calls big payers)

[dizmo]

Eh. Personally I don't see the issue. It's their business, if that's what they choose to focus on, then so be it. If enough devs see a huge hole left in the market, they'll split off and form their own studio, just like has happened many times before. There's something very important to realize here: If this does happen, and happens frequently, and we see AAA gaming die off, it's because it simply isn't what the majority want. Sad, but true.

 

Some games can do FTP decently. Hearthstone comes up as one of the only examples in my mind, but I don't play too many of them so I have a small pool to draw from. You can buy packs, but you can also earn them through gold and playing the game.

 

Just now, bellabichon said:

This was pretty predictable, especially considering the declining quality of Ubi's AAA games in the past few years. It does definitely make me worried for the future of gaming, though. 

I don't even know if a subscription to a games service is the future. Looking around, I'm much more concerned about the borderline-addictive nature of Gacha games where you throw crazy amounts of money at lootboxes in the hope of getting that cool skin or whatever. 

Eh, sounds more like a personal problem for the gamer than the studio. Though games like that should have an enforced 18+ rating.

Just now, Radium_Angel said:

Pay to Play, Pay to Win, or my fav:

extortion

Except, not that at all.

[bellabichon]

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Eh, sounds more like a personal problem for the gamer than the studio. Though games like that should have an enforced 18+ rating.

Definitely agree on the age rating thing. I just hope people can start to recognize lootboxes for what they are, a gambling addiction waiting to happen. 

[Dabombinable]

40 minutes ago, Arika S said:

GTAVII:

*walk up to a car to steal it*

*press Y*

*popup box*:

To unlock this car you will need to buy a lockpick for $0.99, or you can buy 10 for $7.99. Go to store?

With the shark card bullshit, they'll actually do that.

[descendency]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

Free-To-Play-Pay-To-Enjoy = FTPPTE

[AldiPrayogi]

Fine by me if they keep the MTX in the f2p games. Don't add those nonsense in the AAA game that I paid 60 bucks for.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

Summary

 Well this was bound to happen eventually. Ubisoft has decided that "F2P" (LOL) is a more lucrative venture than releasing AAA games.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

All these game developers keep referring to it as "free to play", but what they really mean is "money milking software". F2P doesn't exist outside of indie games. Anytime a large publisher like EA, Blizzard, Ubisoft etc release a "free-to-play" game it is ALWAYS filled with Micro-transactions. Not as any form of "hey buy this to support us", it's "buy this to continue playing". Ubisoft already have some of the most egregious MTX in their AAA games as it stands already, so it will only get worse when they see this as a better form of income because they will exploit MTX as much as they can to make as much money as possible.

 

I think over the next few years we're going to see a massive decline in the number of AAA games being released and a surge in Free-to-Play games. Prepare for Games as a service to become the norm i guess.

 

Sources

10/10 IGN

https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-moving-away-from-reliance-on-aaa-releases

I would say that free to pay doesn't mean pay to win and there are plenty of lucrative games that are free to pay but absolutely not pay to win. Most notably fortnite and league of legends. Also ther is apex legends but I am uncertain of how profitable that game is. Anyways free to play games can be good and plenty of fun without paying extra if implemented well. If they really can make a good free to play game then I am all for it but if it is a game that is clearly intended to be pay to win then yeah I think they should definitely get crap for it. Let's wait and see where this goes before we get our pitchforks. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

Pay-to-win?

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

F2P != P2W. They are "confused".

Since this is Ubisoft it's almost certainly going to be P2W. In it for the money right?

 

Though personally I don't define AAA as games not F2P, I use it as a measure of development cost, effort and size. So it's quite fair in my mind to label a game a AAA F2P game so long as it meets that same criteria as any other AAA game.

[Arika]

21 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would say that free to pay doesn't mean pay to win and there are plenty of lucrative games that are free to pay but absolutely not pay to win. Most notably fortnite and league of legends.

Correct, but those types of games are also in the minority of F2P.

 

The ONE AND ONLY microtransactions that should even be allowed in a game that you have to buy should be cosmetics, things that don't change the game. Something Ubisoft does not do, so i don't have much hope for any of their up coming "F2P" titles

 

And no MTX doesn't include expansions/"real" DLC.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

And no MTX doesn't include expansions/"real" DLC.

Ohhhhhh I was afraid to ask but I just got it, MTX = microtransaction. Wow so obvious now.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Ohhhhhh I was afraid to ask but I just got it, MTX = microtransaction. Wow so obvious now.

yus. tbh i've been calling them MTX for years but do not remember where i picked up that term XD

[Quackers101]

paid game for pay to play, but now in free 2 play form? how nice.

They have done this on mobile games?

F2P can be really great for some games, but others it will destroy them too or destroy over time. (goes on about call of duty warzone)

Also when nobody is going for the microtransactions, the gameplay or transactions will be altered, which means there can be big impact to the overall experience and likely at any point.

[lostcattears]

It better not be those gacha/loot boxes....

[poochyena]

well, i'll continue to play games I like and not play games I don't like. Not like video games are some limited source, so I don't see what it matters if a company makes a bad game or whatever.

[D13H4RD]

And people ask me why I've lately been playing older games...

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Spotty said:

The industry needs to come up with a more accurate name if "free-to-play" is more lucrative than traditional AAA games. 

I'd put forward that "free-to-play" can only describe games with no consumable microtransactions. Basically everything but expansion packs. 

 

How it should be regulated:

a) Expansion packs - Not Free to Play, payment required for full experience.

b) Cosmetics - Free to Play, payment to customize. Not Free to Play if all cosmetics are gachapon or consumables.

c) Consumables - Not Free to play if the consumables are required to continue play, otherwise it puts an artificial difficulty floor on content past a certain point where you are required to pay to get past it, or get carried by those who did.

d) Gachapon/LootBoxes - Gambling. Not free to play. If there is a collectable mechanic to it, it's even more egregious as you can typically only get that via RNG, which creates FOMO for players.

 

Free-to-Play should only describe:

1) Games that have no initial purchase

and

2) Any purchase after the initial download is one-time, and does not block off access to content that is already in the game (eg additional heroes/skins may be permitted provided they can be purchased at any time, and have zero impact on the game experience for the player or other players.

 

Games with recurring purchases are not free-to-play by any means, and "surprise mechanics" should have a ceiling set on them to prevent gambling addiction, and restrict to one-account-per-player, forbid anonymous payment (Eg bitcoin, prepaid debit cards, etc), only payment methods that match the player's name.

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

Then again Ubisoft really hasn't released a single worthwhile game in literally decades. All they do is rehash the exact same concept over and over and over. Just look at endless Assassin Creed games or endless Far Cry games or Watch Dogs and so on and on. They are all using exact same concept, they feel the same, play the same. And not in a good way. Not to mention their rotten "always on" DRM nonsense where you keep getting dropped from SINGLE PLAYER games because their servers shit themselves. And they plagued them all with fuck ton of microtransactions.

 

Frankly, I think we have a dark era ahead in gaming if everyone moves to this dumb model. Which probably also explains why I almost don't buy games anymore unless they are really exceptional. And I'm mostly buying indie games, because they are the only ones that have the guts to try something fresh and are usually also entirely devoid of microtransactions junk.