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

[Quackers101]

I would say the same in some parts for ubisoft, that there isn't all that much focus on a "complete" experience or on the gameplay in their previous titles over some years. Where it's just like in their games, grind and update graphics while releasing the previous one, with just with more grind maybe even less each time for a focus on gameplay.

 

Sometimes they do good, but just like assassin creed, far cry or maybe just open worlds from them in general.

Just played one of their "newer" assassin creed games were nearly all the focus was on the visuals with some RPG updates to their formula, sadly the gameplay didn't even make use of the visuals and made me feel like they worked too much on visuals that I will never see or use nor care about. This with the price on their game while on microtransactions just make the experience even worse compared to their older titles, while the older titles ofc had their own flaws. At some point I did feel like ubisoft had something they could work with, but the last years just makes it harder to get a view about how they will be able to work with open worlds in the future or go out of their mindset on the structure for open worlds. Unless they go very different.

[suicidalfranco]

Was expected to happen

And Frankly nothing of value will be lost, the last decade in Ubisoft was mostly garbage tier AAA releases anyway.

Now at least they'll remove the 60€ price barrier to access their soulless, empty husks they try to pass as games.

I'd like to say that it's not like they can cram more MTX than they currently do, but Ubisoft always had a knack to impress me in how shitty they can push themselves, so, I expect them to triple their efforts on that front.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

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.

We will have to wait and see. I Personally think that it would be smarter to go the route of those games that do F2P right as they make a lot of money while also being well received by the public. 

[Video Beagle]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

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

I didn't know either

[Dreckssackblase]

The idea, that the first thing they decide when making a game, is how they monetise it instead of figuring out what type of game it will be, should tell you a lot about AAA Publishers. They are so corporate they can't even pretend to care about the actual games anymore. What mechanics will your game have ? Ubisoft: A Store !

[ThreePinkApples]

This could in be a good thing, in regards to the quality of their AAA games. When a company no longer heavily relies on their AAA releases to make them money, they can actually slow down the development of those games, and give them more care. So fewer but better crafted AAA games. I'm all for that, if that is what this means.

Also, AAA isn't exactly dying, they still make a ton of money, when made right. Just look at all the PS4 exclusives that have made absolute bank, and Sony says they'll continue to focus on that. Ubisoft them selves earns a lot on their AAA games, so it's not like they're going to abandon that marked.

[porina]

Didn't Konami already make this kind of move? How is it working for them?

 

I have to wonder if this might also be in part due to MS' moves which may lead to many games being included under a subscription pass model. It'll be harder to make money with big releases if that gains traction, so ongoing monetisation will be something devs have to look at to work under that model.

 

I'm thinking about the lifetime spend per title. The highest might look something like this (US$ approximation):

$300+ Final Fantasy XIV: Monthly sub, expansions, cosmetic items

$200+ Azur Lane: Gacha, optional monthly pass which I got for a long time. I'm still daily active as f2p.

$100-ish Elite Dangerous: Gambled on the lifetime package in Kickstarter. One time payment gets me game and all future expansions. Optional cosmetic items.

$100+? Ragnarok Online: Monthly sub (this was in the height of the game, and not after they went f2p model)

$100 Yakuza Like a Dragon - One time payment at release + DLC

 

Also, see video below for one game industry perspective on this. They don't represent the whole game industry, but it gives some insight into their thought processes.

 

 

[flashiling]

9 hours ago, bellabichon said:

I don't even know if a subscription to a games service is the future

blizzard managed to do it 16 years ago, imagine how much money they wouldn't have made if games like WoW didn't require a monthly subscription AND an expansion pack every few years

[WereCat]

9 hours 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?

This is precisely what Arma3 does. Except you get a package of stuff in a DLC. Sometimes it let's you use the stuff you don't own but then you will occasionally get an advertisement over the entire screen for the DLC. 

While it is semi-transparent... it can still mess you up in middle of a firefight. 

[Sauron]

Considering their "AAA" games are already full of microtransactions I don't see much of a difference other than the game not having a box price... so in a way I guess it's good?

[CTR640]

10 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

F2P != P2W. They are "confused".

No, it's not confusing, it's a surprise mechanc.

[Jet_ski]

If that’s how Ubisoft wants to live out their decline years, so be it.

[Clarkius]

I don't really mind the "Free-2-Play" model as long as the microtransactions are purely for cosmetic purposes (skins etc). If a game is F2P and allows a player to gain a significant boost or advantage by spending their money is when I have an issue.

[StDragon]

6 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

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

Yeah, there's some real gems out there long forgotten. GOG.com is typically my go-to for classics. And, you can get them cheap.

 

Also Steam; I've had a few in my Wish List pop-up for as much as 80% off. Rarely a disappointment.

 

Bonus: Because they're older titles, they run smooth with all settings maxed out with just about any mid-tier PC. I some cases, an iGPU suffices perfectly fine (but better be within the last three generations)

[MageTank]

11 hours ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

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.

The trend has long existed in the gaming industry, it was just more tailored towards the MMO genre. Plenty of MMO's from the early 2000's with subscription based models and micro transactions that precede the streaming services you listed, though now I feel old having remembered them, lol.

 

Knowing the current market, this likely means we will see another generic battle royale with generic skin-based micro transactions and minimal effort put towards content updates. Either that, or they'll push for a MOBA or card game and milk that for what they can out of simplicity.

 

Given the IP's under their belt, it wouldn't surprise me to see them charge $20 to play as Sam Fisher or Ezio in some kind of BR game mode. That said, I doubt they'd get away with making things P2W. They might try at first, but they'd learn really quickly that it wouldn't end well in the eyes of gamers. Nobody likes  Wallet Warriors, PayPaladins or MasterCard Mages.

[Doobeedoo]

Sadly it was bound to happen... Also even more sad is people that support this buy crap in such games for insane amount of money. Literally playing for skins. Game is second.

[GravityHurts]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

All they do is rehash the exact same concept over and over and over. Just look at endless Assassin Creed games

And yet Assassin's Creed fans are mad at them for changing the style of the games. I kind of get where they are coming from though, they are pretty much Assassin's Creed only in name at this point.

[GravityHurts]

31 minutes ago, MageTank said:

it wouldn't surprise me to see them charge $20 to play as Sam Fisher

Already done in Rainbow 6, either spend a good chunk of time to unlock him or just pay for the Year 5 pass.

[RejZoR]

13 minutes ago, GravityHurts said:

And yet Assassin's Creed fans are mad at them for changing the style of the games. I kind of get where they are coming from though, they are pretty much Assassin's Creed only in name at this point.

While I also want certain games to just never end, like System Shock 2, Deus Ex or Dead Space and you just want more of the same, that's not the case with Ubisoft games. Maybe by their biggest fans, but their games are just so empty and soulless. The usual open world issue. Sure there are seemingly massive amounts of stuff to do, but it's really not.

[Master Disaster]

10 hours ago, AldiPrayogi said:

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.

Except that is exactly what will happen. They build an ecosystem in the "free 2 play" market then slowly start introducing those mechanics into their AAA releases.

 

They want players to be paying $70 for a game that you cannot actually play without spending more after the fact. They want quick turnaround cash cows where they can shit out multiple per year and make as much as they can before abandoning it and moving on to the next. They don't want to be spending millions and years on developing good games when they can make twice as much by churning out digital casinos instead of actual games.

 

Thats not just Ubisoft either, EA, Acti/Bliz, Take 2, 2K, they all want the same thing. As much of your money as they can possibly take while giving you the absolute bare minimum product they can get away with in return.

 

There's a reason retro gaming has become such a big thing.

[JZStudios]

16 hours 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'm not even sure the last Ubi game I wanted that was actually good was. Add EA to that. I guess BF4 in 2013. Haven't bought anything from Ubi outside Splinter Cell Blacklist... which was also 2013. Everything else in my library I got for free and wouldn't have paid for.

[Pc6777]

well if all the big devs ignore quality singe player games then maybe some smaller to medium time developers will saturate that market and make bank. the big corporations have no idea what we want. google thought we were fine streaming games over the cloud and look at stadia its dying before it got a chance to live lol. 

[YellowJersey]

They also have no problem with making you buy the initial game that you then have to pay to actually play.

[Pc6777]

21 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

They also have no problem with making you buy the initial game that you then have to pay to actually play.

hopefully people wake up and they get badly burned for investing in this money cow mmo crap, I don't dislike mmos and stuff they are cool and have a user base, but when you only make pay to play mmos and try to suck as much money as you can you just become another ea. Ubisoft has some legitimately good singe player games and they will regret leaving the singe player open world game market.  

[Brooksie359]

20 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

To be fair just because you aren't a pay to win game doesn't mean you will make less money. If implemented correctly I strongly believe free to play pays better than pay to win as you have a huge player base as many more people enjoy playing free to play vs pay to win games. I mean just look at fortnites success.