I'm fine with it as long as the games are as great as AC: Origins. It's a complete game at launch, and the first expansion is great too
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ubisoft explains why they switched from making games to making live services
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
And this is why I rarely buy AAA modern games and stick to pre-2006 games, Those games are actually fun with high replay value, no DRM and I can play them with mods in offline mode. All of that as a one-time purchase.
I like most of their games quite a lot, so there's no way I'm going to stop just to make some stand. AC Origins was so good and I am very hopeful for Far Cry 5.
So if you're not buying the games how are we supposed to take your opinion on their quality or value seriously? Especially when general public and critical reception is positive.
I just don't buy any games from the big 3 anymore. They don't offer anything I want. And by the looks of where the industry is heading, that won't be changing. Thankfully there's a select few publishers that do and will continue getting my money. But it's a worrying trend
You mean the 60 dollars I spent on AC:Origins and have put in 50 hours into and have not even come close to finishing everything and is also the best AC game in like forever and not spent an extra cent on to enjoy it fully? Kay...
You don't need to play a game to know what it's about and the stuff that's in it, especially in this day and age. In fact, I would go as far to say not playing the game makes your opinion less bias and more open to more perspectives that other people have than your own.
If you're gonna say that a game isn't actually fun, you damn well better have played it. As there's no proper way for you to actually articulate based off of first hand experience. Even worse is claiming that there's no replay value, do you think the amount of hours players spend on any one title being higher on average is a coincidence or?
Spekkeh explains why he stopped buying Ubisoft games:
And a quick recap of why everyone else is doing this too:
Gotta find it hilarious that they say they're going from developer centric to player centric, but all the other slides are about profit profit more profit, lower quality and less researched shit we can sell at high prices, profit profit. Sure Jan.
Online games/MMOs tend to have longer play sessions because it's with other people and friends and usually require time commitment to be fully enjoyed. Whereas offline/SP games can be turned on and off at will more easily, so the average playtime and total playtime would in theory be lower. Take any popular game, remove the multiplayer, then tell me how you think how much longer those games will be played? So many modern AAA games rely on online to reel the players in and have forgotten that good game design, polished products and small details all add up to make a good game; an art now lost.
Engagement/habituation/addiction is not equal to the quality of a product, but then, the majority of the modern video game market would probably argue otherwise. "I got bored because there weren't enough things to collect/do/progress/chase." "I didn't buy/play it because it's too short." "I didn't buy/play it because my friends didn't buy/play it." etc. etc.
It makes sense in a capital market, but damn if it isn't kind of depressing.
It makes sense in a capital market, but damn if it isn't kind of depressing.
I'm ok with this, and I don't typically play GaaS. Development costs have continued to skyrocket, but sales and price per volume has remained stagnant for more than 2 decades. If you account for inflation, the money earned probably has gone down.
This is probably one of the few ways they can remain continually profitable and continue to make new content without going the way of the dodo as so many shops.
So what about SP focused games like AC:Origins and Breath of the Wild?
both of which have higher player retention than any other game in their respective franchise
It's about more player agency
...........Ok, please stop talking about games you haven't played.
It's crazy how much people scream at the concept of getting better, bigger games with more updates that make it better. Do people, like, don't think a actual second before shitposting?
So just another "hurr durr MP games are not real MP games" then?
OP
OP
I should note that R&D is just a reference to development budget as opposed to actual research.
Doesn't seem like you read the slides, or have played Ubisoft games lately. Which honestly, is no surprise. Most of the shitposters didn't.
This is one of the most hilariously wrong posts. Many of the games you posted are not MP or games as a service, or even AAA, and the fact that you link to a dumb Crowbcat video about details in GTAIV vs GTAV when GTAV is much more polished, much more playable, has much more content, a better written story and level design is quite something. GTAIV was goddarn terrible.
Last edited:
Higher player retention on average, (stop using YOURSELF as representative of the entire market as you aren't even buying the games in the first place supposedly) . The combination
-less releases from big pubs
-longer support for individual titles
-Longer and more ambitious titles overall
=a trend of games on average being played for longer periods of time
Did you really just link five crowbcat videos, (two of which don't even feature triple A games btw, and the rest having troubled development or feature early access titles, neither of which represent the subject we're talking about), as an argument that games aren't in general more detailed and polished than they used to be?
"GTAIV is more polished than GTAV! Crowbcat said so, players aren't playing games for longer on average because I only play pre-2006 games specifically for 100s of hours. Please take my arguments seriously."
Last edited:
Money is the short answer, I'll admit some games are good as GaaS, but it sort of stagnates selection.
I mean, BotW isn't the most played Zelda game ever and it was the Switch's biggest hit, half the reason why people even bought the console. As for AC: Origins, they stopped doing yearly releases and people returned to a game that changed the formula a couple of years later. But look now, not many people playing the game as on launch day, is there?
It doesn't matter who the video uploader is, the objective facts in the video itself still stand, which you have yet to answer to.Did you really just link five crowbcat videos, (two of which don't even have triple A games btw), as an argument that games aren't in general more detailed and polished than they used to be?
Why was the PS3 so low? I knew Sony spent a ton of money on it, but I wouldn't expect that to hit third parties so much. I know the cell made it difficult, but was it just that expensive to develop on PS3 compared to the 360? Are there other factors?
Crowbcat is bothered that GTA V doesn't adhere to weird intricacies when the reality is GTA IV was fucking boring and dull because it tried so hard to feel authentic. I'd take 50 GTA V's over that.
They didn't even stop doing yearly release, they kept the franchise in the public mind via a HD collection and a film, it wasn't some dormant franchise that got brought back to life after a couple years. I can also assure you that on average people played BOTW for longer than any other Zelda title on their first run through, even more so when you consider the dlcs.
Did you not see this slide?
If you think that GTAV isn't a more polished and detailed game than GTAIV then you haven't played either of them. And you still haven't addressed the fact that half of those games weren't even AAA. It's actually astounding how consistently wrong you've been ITT and honestly you should just stop, you know what would be a good starting point for being able to make a compelling and succinct argument, actually experiencing the things everyone else is talking about, aka, actually playing these games.
Take it from "mr. pre-2006 games specifically. GTAIV is more detailed than GTAV, No Man's Sky is Triple A, PUBG is a full release."
Agree 100%. It also depends on the quality of the game and if you're having a lot of fun and enjoyment in playing it. for ACO, I played and completed everything in the base game which took me 130 hours. Another 15 hours for 100% completion in the first expansion and im waiting for the second expansion in a few weeks.
While there's been rumors of a new AC game later this year and while it will be day one for me, with RDR 2 being released October 26th, im hoping that Ubisoft delays that game and instead, releases a season two with a few more expansions.
What are the objective facts in those videos? That GTA IV has some details GTA V doesn't, and at the same time not acknowleding any of the details V had that IV didn't, and completely ignoring things like actual level design, controls, gameplay in general, writing, etc? Yeah so many objective facts.
OP
OP
27% of their revenue is from recurring revenue (microtransactions, that sort of thing), though that's also higher profit revenue than what they get selling a game physically.
It's up from 21% last year despite Origins being less oriented that way.
That image is the reason why I brought up the launch day issue, Ubi claim that "user engagement" leads to more profit etc., in the AAA's mind, more content = more playtime when this just isn't the case, otherwise AC: Syndicate would have been more successful. What the AAA mindset doesn't understand is that older games, pre-2006, are still very much playable today because of how much polish and focus on fun they are. You can throw icecream onto a cone but eventually the cone won't be able to sustain the icecream on top, but if you made the cone larger or stronger, it might. AAA devs make content for money, bug fixing and focus on fun? Nah.Did you not see this slide?
We should really avoid talking about these things specifically as that would require actually playing modern games and that would just be unfair in a discussion about the average quality of the modern game in comparison to the past.
Came here expecting the answer to boil down to "more money"... Wasn't disappointed.
As a single player gamer, GaaS doesn't really seem to play well that without gimping the experience somehow (loot boxes for in game items for example).
I think it's clear Glass will always be around now but I hope it doesn't mean the death of the traditional SP epic games as a whole.
As a single player gamer, GaaS doesn't really seem to play well that without gimping the experience somehow (loot boxes for in game items for example).
I think it's clear Glass will always be around now but I hope it doesn't mean the death of the traditional SP epic games as a whole.
Those are subjective and down to the individual's taste. The objective facts are, GTA5 and DR4 are lacking in polish and detail (at the time of publication), which is what the videos were showing exactly.
*citation needed*
As what you're currently saying is that you know more than the devs about player retention metrics based on the scope of the game and how that leads to more profits overtime. On top of knowing more than the people actually playing the games in the first place, who, if they played these things to completion, would objectively take longer on average as the games themselves are longer. So I have to ask, where's your actual source?
AC Syndicate had less content in the base package than the game that came before it and also was the followup to that game which had less than stellar wom, on top of a smaller marketing campaign.
Is Breath of the Wild a gimped experience?
Maybe I don't want bigger games, I find the typical Ubisoft open world game to be extreme quantity over quality already. I remember in Black Flag 1-starring half of the missions. Updates, why would I want updates? Better? Let them make better games first before going even bigger and more live.
(I am lying, I did play and like Mario+Rabbids, even if I found that game too overly long as well)
I like Ubi's concept so far. I haven't purchased any of their live-service games but I really like the idea. And I want this from other devs also. I.E Bungie should let Destiny 2 for a long time in active development. D3 is unnecessary
I´d guess it was a combination of high development costs and terrible sales.
Breath of the Wild is not GaaS. It's not even a live game.
Im surprised episodic single player campaigns havent blown up. I think a yearly (or bi-yearly) 20$ 4-hour campaign would do great for years, and while the first few episodes might be expensive to make, the later ones will benefit from reusing assets and an experienced dev team.
Plus they can stop at any time due to the episodic nature.
Maybe im just not good at reading the market and this is actually a recipe for failure.
Plus they can stop at any time due to the episodic nature.
Maybe im just not good at reading the market and this is actually a recipe for failure.
idk man, an expansion pass with lots of DLC sprinkled throught the year sounds very GaaS-like to me.
Then you aren't representative of the current market and thus are irrelevant when it comes to the bigger picture?
Yes it is
