Ubisoft explains why they switched from making games to making live services

Oct 25, 2017
4,073
#3
"So we can sell you more useless shit and make money with less effort"

It's sad that the industry is heading this way.
 
Oct 26, 2017
376
#5
"So we can sell you more useless shit and make money with less effort"

It's sad that the industry is heading this way.
It's more "we can get more money with less effort on a front so we can have bigger dev time and produce better games at the end"
 
Oct 27, 2017
319
#7
"So we can sell you more useless shit and make money with less effort"

It's sad that the industry is heading this way.
Basically, what they sell is the base game as a platform for piecemeal microtransaction content that is incredibly cheap to make compared to the game itself.

It's all about earning those 5$s for a weapon skin/horse armor/whatever that actually costs like 10000$ (almost nothing) to make in production. Margins on that kind of stuff are crazy.

Lootboxes and made up game currencies are even better since they further obfuscate how much money you have to put in to get item x you want.
 
Last edited:

Cybersai

Banned
Member
Jan 8, 2018
11,631
#10
And this is why I stopped buying a lot of their games. Granted Assassins Creed Origins was great, but unless we get a new Splinter Cell, more 2D Rayman, or Prince of Persia is revived, I'm done with them.
 

Lackless

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,091
#11
And this is why I stopped buying a lot of their games. Granted Assassins Creed Origins was great, but unless we get a new Splinter Cell, more 2D Rayman, or Prince of Persia is revived, I'm done with them.
Nearly every big publisher is moving toward this though. Ubisoft is just more honest about their intentions.
 

Cybersai

Banned
Member
Jan 8, 2018
11,631
#14
Nearly every big publisher is moving toward this though. Ubisoft is just more honest about their intentions.
I don't buy many Activision or EA games anymore either. In fact all I bought was Crash Bandicoot which are remakes of 20 year old games.

And my favorite modern EA franchises were Mass Effect and Dead Space....both of which are dead this generation. Titanfall 2 was good though.
 
Oct 27, 2017
258
#15
While I don't generally care for "live" games (I only ever pick up and play an MMO for 1-2 months max, I don't play Destiny, Dota 2 and League I used to sink a lot of time into, but it's dropped off), my friends got me into R6: Siege, and I quite like what Ubi has cultivated with that game...

..not to say they haven't tried to fuck it up, with the Starter Edition (which I'm convinced was a compromise for Smurfs/Cheaters so they can get in for cheaper, because they won't care about everything taking 800% longer to unlock) and their plan to re-release the game for $60 to try and bring the base value of the package up (thanks TO the updates it received as part of being a live game).
 

Birdo

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
826
#17
I really hate the fact that single player games have become live services. I won't purchase a single player title until I feel it's content complete (e.g. not getting any more updates).
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,433
#18
Well they're not wrong. Some games and fanbases benefit greatly (Siege), but some games suffer hard because they are designed to exploit consumers. Some development tries to move towards the latter, and they can end up successful, which is the real fear.

Tons of service games have worked well though-- Rocket League, Siege, Overwatch, PUBG, Fortnite. Then there are games like Destiny. And games like GTA which killed SP content for MP content.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,439
USA
#23
Players have made a choice:


You can be an old man yelling at the cloud, but the market clearly prefers service and living games.
God damn millenials with the acovado toast! Get off my lawn!

For real, I'm jealous of people that play one game and stick with it. I just can't spend that much time with one game.
 

ZhugeEX

诸葛亮 - 卧龙
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
2,741
#25
I really hate the fact that single player games have become live services. I won't purchase a single player title until I feel it's content complete (e.g. not getting any more updates).
But the whole point is that the game launches complete and DLC is extra content. Did you not buy Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild because they had updates after launch.

This way of thinking really makes no sense. You're getting more of the game, not less.
 
Oct 27, 2017
258
#26
But the whole point is that the game launches complete and DLC is extra content. Did you not buy Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild because they had updates after launch.

This way of thinking really makes no sense. You're getting more of the game, not less.
I saw that post and immediately wanted to say "So you didn't buy BOTW? (Because they had an Expansion Pass for it)"
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,474
#27
A 10% increase in MT revenue leads to an overall 3% increase in margin?
Yeah, I can see why they’d do that.

(I’d love to have a peek at the details of the business model, all the initial expenditures, operating costs, how revenue is distributed between users, etc)
 

Vadara

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,563
#28
Comic book movies and pop music dominate their respective fields too. It sucks, so I hope everything doesn't go this way.
Comic book movies and pop music existing hasn't killed indie movies and indie bands, so I don't see why you should be worried about non-AAA games dying.
 
Oct 31, 2017
4,372
#31
"So we can sell you more useless shit and make money with less effort"

It's sad that the industry is heading this way.
If you think a particular thing is useless, then you don't have to buy it. So why does it matter to you.

There are plenty of DLC cosmetic things I don't care about, so I don't spend money on them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,366
#32
I don't remember the last truly bad Ubisoft game (outside performance issues)
That's not my point though. For someone that does not care for live games things have got much worse in the AAA space. As good as Siege or The Division are if i don't like multiplayer it means absolutely nothing to me whether they're good or bad games. And in the process, everything that can't be sold as a live game falls by the wayside.
But more to the point of what i actually said though, no bad games does not translate to actual very good and defining games. The Sands of Time, Chaos Theory, Beyond Good & Evil and Rayman Origins are all masterpieces. Most live games are designed as loot box dispensers. The former make up our shared history of the medium. The latter are transient, disposable and quickly forgotten once the new fad comes along. And this is just talking about Ubi.
 

Birdo

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
826
#33
But the whole point is that the game launches complete and DLC is extra content. Did you not buy Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild because they had updates after launch.

This way of thinking really makes no sense. You're getting more of the game, not less.
I'm the type of person where once I finish a single player title, I'm done. Even if DLC comes out down the line, I just can't bring myself to play the game again. Because of this, I rather wait until all of the updates are out so I can feel I played the "ultimate" version of the game. That's why I'm waiting for Final Fantasy XV to finish getting its updates and by the time I play it, I feel I'll have had a drastically better experience than most people.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,006
#34
I'm the type of person where once I finish a single player title, I'm done. Even if some DLC comes out down the line, I just can't bring myself to play it again. Because of this, I rather wait until all of the updates are out so I can feel I played the "ultimate" version of the game.
And what if updates come out months later without indication there would be any? Like that new mode in Odyssey? Are you going to wait years before you buy every game, just in case?
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,061
#36
Stop supporting this shit, full-stop. It's not hard and you rarely miss out on any good games.
But what if I like GaaS? :p

That's not my point though. For someone that does not care for live games things have got much worse in the AAA space. As good as Siege or The Division are if i don't like multiplayer it means absolutely nothing to me whether they're good or bad games. And in the process, everything that can't be sold as a live game falls by the wayside.
But more to the point of what i actually said though, no bad games does not translate to actual very good and defining games. The Sands of Time, Chaos Theory, Beyond Good & Evil and Rayman Origins are all masterpieces. Most live games are designed as loot box dispensers. The former make up our shared history of the medium. The latter are transient, disposable and quickly forgotten once the new fad comes along. And this is just talking about Ubi.
But you are ignoring Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs, Rayman, Wildlands, Mario Rabbids, and a whole myriad of PC only releases.
 

Birdo

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
826
#37
And what if updates come out months later without indication there would be any? Like that new mode in Odyssey? Are you going to wait years before you buy every game, just in case?
Yes, I'm more than willing to wait years. I'm more of a multiplayer gamer in the first place so the wait doesn't bother me too much.
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,825
#39
Stop supporting this shit, full-stop. It's not hard and you rarely miss out on any good games.
Why would we take the opinion of someone who isn't buying the games yet telling us that we aren't gonna miss out compared to the good reception and word of mouth?

That's not my point though. For someone that does not care for live games things have got much worse in the AAA space.
Has it really?

-Games on average are longer and more ambitious than they were before
-They get supported for a lot longer and that includes getting more polished overtime or in the best case scenarios, free dlc like new modes, (Horizon, FFXV, and AC:O all got new game plus modes)
-There is a much larger variety of games both in terms of overall aesthetics and genres overall compared to last gen.
 

MattWilsonCSS

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,349
#40
I pretty much only play indie games and retro games at this point so if AAA crashes, it won't have a major impact on me. If they're so convinced that this is the ONLY WAY, then let them see where it leads them. I think they're thinking short term and not anticipating a bubble burst, but whatever! I'll just keep playing my walking sims.
 
Nov 3, 2017
7,208
#42
From the casual market perspective, I can imagine to them it seems like “buy one game to play for the rest of the year!”

If you only ever buy Assassin Creed, then you’ll love that you can play AC all year Long.
 
Dec 15, 2017
1,724
#43
For real, I'm jealous of people that play one game and stick with it. I just can't spend that much time with one game.
Yeah.
I stopped playing MH World after reaching HR60.
How the hell do people keep playing the same stuff over and over and over again?
 

Valkyr1983

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,523
NH, United States
#45
That's not my point though. For someone that does not care for live games things have got much worse in the AAA space. As good as Siege or The Division are if i don't like multiplayer it means absolutely nothing to me whether they're good or bad games. And in the process, everything that can't be sold as a live game falls by the wayside.
But more to the point of what i actually said though, no bad games does not translate to actual very good and defining games. The Sands of Time, Chaos Theory, Beyond Good & Evil and Rayman Origins are all masterpieces. Most live games are designed as loot box dispensers. The former make up our shared history of the medium. The latter are transient, disposable and quickly forgotten once the new fad comes along. And this is just talking about Ubi.
I played The Division, GR Wildlands, Steep, the crew and all assassins creed games this gen (and both watchdogs ) and all were 100% completable and enjoyable solo

So not sure I understand the criticisms?

The division and ghost recon in particular were amazing surprises

Ubisoft is the best most consistent AAA dev imo
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,340
#46
"So we can sell you more useless shit and make money with less effort"

It's sad that the industry is heading this way.
? If anything they've delivered better, bigger games with more content and more meaningful updates. Ubisoft has done great work this gen and their Games as a Service approach has been great.
That's not my point though. For someone that does not care for live games things have got much worse in the AAA space. As good as Siege or The Division are if i don't like multiplayer it means absolutely nothing to me whether they're good or bad games. And in the process, everything that can't be sold as a live game falls by the wayside.
But more to the point of what i actually said though, no bad games does not translate to actual very good and defining games. The Sands of Time, Chaos Theory, Beyond Good & Evil and Rayman Origins are all masterpieces. Most live games are designed as loot box dispensers. The former make up our shared history of the medium. The latter are transient, disposable and quickly forgotten once the new fad comes along. And this is just talking about Ubi.
Nope, it has got better. Just because you have a dumb anti-MP bias, that doesn't change it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
668
#47
yeah ive almost completely lost interest in aaa games from western publishers which makes sense as they seem to have almost completely lost interest in consumers like me
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,340
#50
Stop supporting this shit, full-stop. It's not hard and you rarely miss out on any good games.
? Ubisoft has done great with this. Origins is ridiculously better than any other AC games. Rainbow Six Siege is one of the best MP games of the generation. Their approach is actually resulting in good games.