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

[Guest Kloaked]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

With Skyrim....its far easier to unlock everything, and all of that content doesn't have a "give us money to win/unlock everything" option-which is designed to make people pay instead of earning it ingame.

You guys keep looking at this the completely wrong way. They don't have a "give us money to win/unlock everything" option. Please tell me how buying extra loot boxes that you can earn while playing the game is that kind of system?

 

I'll continue bringing this up, but Overwatch has a similar system, but because it's Blizzard nobody is going to complain about it. Ubisoft does it = hell on earth and the end of gaming.

Just now, Sauron said:

Does bethesda sell the items you didn't find yet for real money? When microtransactions are involved there's always the suspicion that the grind may have been overtuned to promote spending money. In a full price game, that's a little ridiculous.

The games are different. My point is you can play a game for as long as you want and you may never unlock everything.

 

Take Overwatch for example - a game that you pay full price for and has a similar system that doesn't get shit on because it's Blizzard: every time you gain a rank/level you get a free loot box for a chance to get that shiny skin that you want. You can also pay REAL MONEY to buy a lot of those boxes for yet another CHANCE to get that shiny skin. Oh, you opened them all and still got the skins you already own? Tough luck m80. Pay up or keep playing.

 

World of Warcraft itself has microtransactions for certain mounts and cosmetic items that you can only get if you pay extra money.

 

F2P titles charge a decent amount for skins that you will not simply unlocked just by playing the game, like you can in Overwatch or For Honor, or any other game that has a similar system.

 

The Ubisoft rep was making a point that in their perspective, players won't ever unlocked everything. They used more examples to get their point across other than WoW and its amount of content They purposely designed their game to keep you interested for a certain amount of time until they churn out the follow up DLC or game, just like every other game that comes out from any other company.

 

They did nothing wrong here.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

You guys keep looking at this the completely wrong way. They don't have a "give us money to win/unlock everything" option. Please tell me how buying extra loot boxes that you can earn while playing the game is that kind of system?

 

I'll continue bringing this up, but Overwatch has a similar system, but because it's Blizzard nobody is going to complain about it. Ubisoft does it = hell on earth and the end of gaming.

The games are different. My point is you can play a game for as long as you want and you may never unlock everything.

 

Take Overwatch for example - a game that you pay full price for and has a similar system that doesn't get shit on because it's Blizzard: every time you gain a rank/level you get a free loot box for a chance to get that shiny skin that you want. You can also pay REAL MONEY to buy a lot of those boxes for yet another CHANCE to get that shiny skin. Oh, you opened them all and still got the skins you already own? Tough luck m80. Pay up or keep playing.

 

World of Warcraft itself has microtransactions for certain mounts and cosmetic items that you can only get if you pay extra money.

 

F2P titles charge a decent amount for skins that you will not simply unlocked just by playing the game, like you can in Overwatch or For Honor, or any other game that has a similar system.

 

The Ubisoft rep was making a point that in their perspective, players won't ever unlocked everything. They used more examples to get their point across other than WoW and its amount of content They purposely designed their game to keep you interested for a certain amount of time until they churn out the follow up DLC or game, just like every other game that comes out from any other company.

 

They did nothing wrong here.

Uhm honestly I don't recall ever defending overwatch for this, and it has gotten quite a bit of flac for it although fanboys have partially drowned it out. F2P titles are free to play, therefore can get away with it if it's reasonably balanced. WoW has an unbelievably greedy monetization system as well, but in this particular aspect it's better than for honor. And let's be honest here, for honor is nowhere near as exploration based as something like wow where finding everything is impossible for the sheer scale of the game. The comparison is more easily drawn with a battlefield game, where you can expect to unlock non-dlc content in a reasonable amount of time (not that EA's day one dlc is in any way acceptable, but it's a different problem).

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm honestly I don't recall ever defending overwatch for this, and it has gotten quite a bit of flac for it although fanboys have partially drowned it out. F2P titles are free to play, therefore can get away with it if it's reasonably balanced. WoW has an unbelievably greedy monetization system as well, but in this particular aspect it's better than for honor. And let's be honest here, for honor is nowhere near as exploration based as something like wow where finding everything is impossible for the sheer scale of the game. The comparison is more easily drawn with a battlefield game, where you can expect to unlock non-dlc content in a reasonable amount of time (not that EA's day one dlc is in any way acceptable, but it's a different problem).

I will have to agree with this. FH is def similar to the battlefield/cod experience. Players can unlock all content in a reasonable about of time leaving the player able to try out all aspects of the game. And then can unlock and play the full game within their attention spans.

 

Blizzard should not be in this argument as they get away with their fanboys supporting them. I mean people still pay $15/month to play a dead game that at its core has not changed since release. People just have been so used to paying willingly that no one bats an eye to it. 

[Guest Kloaked]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

Uhm honestly I don't recall ever defending overwatch for this, and it has gotten quite a bit of flac for it although fanboys have partially drowned it out.

I disagree, but fine. I don't care for defending Blizzard too much more than I already have for other reasons, but I still feel like their system in Overwatch is fine.

 

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

WoW has an unbelievably greedy monetization system as well, but in this particular aspect it's better than for honor. And let's be honest here, for honor is nowhere near as exploration based as something like wow where finding everything is impossible for the sheer scale of the game.

It's incredibly greedy but it's better than For Honor? You have to pay $10 USD for a PET of all things. It's $25 for most mounts. These are all items that you cannot earn in the game. Yet given a chance at better gear and cosmetics by just playing the game [For Honor], or paying for more loot boxes (a la Overwatch) is worse?

 

For Honor was designed for players who tend to focus on one or two classes. That is the context people are missing and are making a big deal out of.

 

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

The comparison is more easily drawn with a battlefield game, where you can expect to unlock non-dlc content in a reasonable amount of time (not that EA's day one dlc is in any way acceptable, but it's a different problem).

Now we're getting somewhere.  

 

Thing is, you unlock gear in a reasonable amount of time in For Honor too, if you have actually played the game.

[Sauron]

18 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Now we're getting somewhere.  

 

Thing is, you unlock gear in a reasonable amount of time in For Honor too, if you have actually played the game.

The article claims 2.5 years without paying

[Dabombinable]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The article claims 2.5 years without paying

Which is why the system is designed to make people pay to unlock everything.

[WMGroomAK]

Decided to update rather than create a new topic, but have added that:

 

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...

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

Decided to update rather than create a new topic, but have added that:

 

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...

Please fix for Day Theme users:

 

On topic: Well that's good. See I had no problem with the fact that you had to earn everything in-game over a long period. The exact balancing of that in-game grind was of course, up for discussion, and it looks like they decided to increase the pace of the grind to make it a bit easier to get rewards.