Ubisoft shifts strategy to focus on "high end free to play" games
- Thread starter chris1515
- Start date
Just listened to Alanah Pearce take on this, which was also around the single player games aspect to this trend.
Would have FTP, but could also make a lot of money from normal games mtx & dlc from within a subscription service.
It's an intresting prospect.
Would have FTP, but could also make a lot of money from normal games mtx & dlc from within a subscription service.
And if they learn from other AAA f2p games with DLCs like Destiny 2, the players happily gobble the mtx and thin dlc contents (for example, the latest season only got 1 new mission at launch. More will be released weekly).
Although hopefully they can be better than bungie with Destiny 2 rather than doubling down on playing the same thing again and again. Otherwise, they will be directly competing with not much differentiation.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I like this model as I have more games to play than time and I'll just skip all the DLC and play the free stuff. LOL. 
Just be aware that Ubisoft will design their games with extreme grind timesink encouraging you to spend on their "time saving" microtransactions. So if you don't have a lot of playing time then your enjoyment will be a lot less, which is how they draw you into spending. You're fucked either wayI like this model as I have more games to play than time and I'll just skip all the DLC and play the free stuff. LOL.
What better for the gamers, traditional vs a race to the bottom
We have 2 perfect examples of both these now console games vs mobile games
Do you usually prefer the games on the consoles market where you typically pay a larger cost up front for X number of hours play (usually much higher quality experience)
or do you prefer playing games on the mobile market where its typically free to play but you get ad's and IAP all the time, these games are typically of worse quality theres many 1000s to choose from but you typically find each is only good for 5 mins before you move onto the next thing, costs you nothing (except your time)
A lot of current game types will not work with microtransactions, thus the creators will have to artificially force them in somehow to the detriment of the gameplay
This is related somewhat to the gamepass thread, more for cheap != better. I was watching a (not good) documentary about this the other night, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1737674/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
What becomes important is getting something out quickly and cheaply is valued, not taking your time and making something good.
Be careful what you wish for, Is this truly the future you want in gaming?
We have 2 perfect examples of both these now console games vs mobile games
Do you usually prefer the games on the consoles market where you typically pay a larger cost up front for X number of hours play (usually much higher quality experience)
or do you prefer playing games on the mobile market where its typically free to play but you get ad's and IAP all the time, these games are typically of worse quality theres many 1000s to choose from but you typically find each is only good for 5 mins before you move onto the next thing, costs you nothing (except your time)
A lot of current game types will not work with microtransactions, thus the creators will have to artificially force them in somehow to the detriment of the gameplay
This is related somewhat to the gamepass thread, more for cheap != better. I was watching a (not good) documentary about this the other night, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1737674/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
What becomes important is getting something out quickly and cheaply is valued, not taking your time and making something good.
Be careful what you wish for, Is this truly the future you want in gaming?
Imagine every game suddenly becomes MMO like with online service+transactions why even bother playing them in the first place? These games are already claiming so much time the more of them the less games people will or can even try to play in the first place. That really looks like a loser's game to me.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
In relation to Game Pass, this is why MS has aggressively expanded the number of studios that operates under MS Games.
Additionally, it's also why they didn't just target AAA developers. Their initial focus was on AA and high indie developers. Some of which have a reputation for delivering small to middle sized products in a timely fashion. Some of which also have a reputation for large scale projects, but again released in a timely fashion.
Instead of having a few studios pumping out as many titles as they can in a short amount of time, MS instead is trying to have a large number of studios pumping out a steady stream of titles.
They currently have 23 internal studios, I believe.
- That allows them to hypothetically release about 1 game title a month with each studio having 2 years to develop a title.
- However, some studios have multiple teams working on multiple projects. So lets say hypothetically 1 game title a month with each team having 3 years to develop a title.
- Hypothetically 36 teams working on 36 projects across 23 game studios.
- But some teams are putting out smaller titles that release in shorter amounts of time (for example, some teams at Double Fine Productions produce small quirky titles)
- So some teams are spending, let's say 6-12 months on a title.
- This means that some AAA teams could then spend 4-5 years on a title.
Sure, if you only have 4-5 internal studios then you'd have to pump out crap like crazy. But if you have a lot of studios with some studios having multiple teams working on multiple titles, the average development time per team can still be quite high (on average, 3 years per team hypothetically at MS with their current studio lineup).
Regards,
SB
Plenty of games require a AAA upfront cost and still rely on IAP/Loot Box/Surprise Mechanics/Season Pass to unlock the rest of the game. This isn't so much a choice anymore, except that you can have a free version now that makes tons of money, or one with an upfront price tag that sets consumer expectations higher, yet makes less money.
The future I want in gaming involves there being games, and those games need to be paid for somehow. What we are seeing now is just companies trying to figure out how to make it work.
I honestly don't mind the idea of episodic content as long as each release has something of substance to it. If content is released on a consistent basis of be a happy man.
I'm not a fan of microtransactions abd rarely spend money on something is derive little enjoyment from me. I won't pay to have temporary buffs to advance in a game at a much faster rate. I don't see the value in purchasing new skins. But there's no denying the huge profits microtransactions bring to the table and they're only needing more prevalent as time goes on. I don't see why the market can't accommodate both dependant upon the type of game and consumer.
At some point along this gen one company will come out with a game they sells millions at full price and will also command large microtransaction sales.
I'm not a fan of microtransactions abd rarely spend money on something is derive little enjoyment from me. I won't pay to have temporary buffs to advance in a game at a much faster rate. I don't see the value in purchasing new skins. But there's no denying the huge profits microtransactions bring to the table and they're only needing more prevalent as time goes on. I don't see why the market can't accommodate both dependant upon the type of game and consumer.
At some point along this gen one company will come out with a game they sells millions at full price and will also command large microtransaction sales.
You missed the news about the golden globes over the last few days? https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/golden-globes-scandal-timeline-1234631848/ one may even say its the 'pay to win' awards (how apt
)Though I do agree a lot of the streaming services do make good stuff, then again they prolly have larger budgets
edit: Thinking about it some more, you can't really compare TV with games, as TV traditionally started with a free to play/watch model, its free to watch (but you have to see the ad's)
I'm saying free to play/watch stuff is typically worse quality, so I guess you agree with this?
If you want a better comparison to games, it would be pay to watch eg movies in the theatre.
Now generally movies that one has to pay to watch in the theatre are better quality than the movies that are made to appear on TV, So I believe yes games are similar.
Since you bring up awards, mate well look at the game awards over the last few years (since we've had Free to play focused games etc so they've had a chance) I had a quick look and can't see any winners in either the D.I.C.E or G.D.C.A awards
perhaps Im wrong though, so correct me if I am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.I.C.E._Awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Choice_Awards
Last edited:
I hope you realize that most big AAA games for many years now from Ubisoft, EA, Activision and 2K do exactly that?
Similar threads
