Ubisoft: Free-to-Play Will Influence All Its Future Games - Polidicks

I don't see the problem with free to play games that only have cosmetic based micro transactions, and since we have no idea if that's what Ubisoft will do then we really can't complain yet. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=n0cturni;37833293]lol guess i won't be playing any future ubisoft games then[/QUOTE] Even watch dogs? It's silly to swear off all games from a publisher because your don't like something that hasn't even happened yet. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;37833401]its about time I get a different hobby[/QUOTE] What if Ubisofts plan is to get you to stop playing PC games and migrate to console, you're falling into their insidious plan.

You know I don't mind paying for games or anything

Oh god. Knowing Ubisoft any of the multiplayer games will be pay to win.

i miss when we paid once for a game and thats it now developers try to make their games free so they can constantly charge users for content and it be justified because "the game is free" tf2's free-to-play system works because you can get everything in the game for free by just playing it. all points bulletin? not so much

Shut your god damn Jew mouth Ubisoft!

Ubisoft, did all your idea guys commit suicide and you're now using what chunks are left from their brains?

Companies are too obsessed with longevity in their games nowadays. It's no longer about being profitable, it's about staying profitable for as long as possible. Thing is they never seem to care about attracting new people, just keeping the old ones from going away. They don't evolve, they stagnate. Not unlike what happens when a series gets a new release every year.

[QUOTE=plunger435;37840243]Even watch dogs? It's silly to swear off all games from a publisher because your don't like something that hasn't even happened yet. [/QUOTE] Being a future game, if it's influenced by free to play games and filled to the brim with microtransaction nonsense, I'm probably not going to want to play it.

[QUOTE=Andokool12;37840302]You know I don't mind paying for games or anything[/QUOTE] I don't mind paying for games either, my bloated library could attest to that. It's just that when a game already costs $60 on top of any extra fees, you have to question whether the purchase is worth the cost.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;37840599]Thing is they never seem to care about attracting new people, just keeping the old ones from going away.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, companies seem to be driving away all of their fans in order to appeal to the casuals. They don't give a shit about the old ones because they know that they'll make more money off of the new ones.

I think F2P is a great idea as shown by games like TF2 and League of Legends but the model is so badly abused it's kind of become a bad phrase among gamers now.

You know how people say that they just pirate games to try them before they buy them? Well Ubisoft is now letting you do that legally. At the end of the day, companies want, nay, require you to pay for what they make. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pitchfork;37840830]In my opinion, companies seem to be driving away all of their fans in order to appeal to the casuals. They don't give a shit about the old ones because they know that they'll make more money off of the new ones.[/QUOTE] But casual market is fickle, something that anyone paying attention to Zynga's recent news should be able to see.

[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;37840857]At the end of the day, companies want, nay, require you to pay for what they make.[/QUOTE] Not if you flat-out don't play their games.

[QUOTE=n0cturni;37840923]Not if you flat-out don't play their games.[/QUOTE] That's a given.

I'm just curious as to how successful the games affected will be, the F2P market is already quite saturated and depending on how much effort they spend on the games themselves, they'll just appear as not much more than cheap Facebook games.

F2P would only work in rts games such as Anno if it was for additional cosmetic items such as profile portraits, unit skins, etc. Otherwise you're just giving people an unfair advantage.

Ugh. First Windows 8 being a closed platform and all these dev's switching to F2P for the sole reason of DURR HIGHER PROFITS LOL is totally ridiculous. You sell a worthwhile triple A title that has taken effort to make, millions of people buy it, and you make hundreds of millions from that. You now want to take all of that bulk profit away so that a bunch of people can play your game until they're bored, not buy shit - whilst a handful who do buy the high end shit consistently can totally dominate everyone else for a while until they too are bored? Leave Free to Play to the smaller indie MMOs who can't latch a pricey subscription fee on, and spend more time making more triple A titles worth paying for. Fuck the 12 year olds who will (rarely) buy your dumb shit, or if you absolutely must appeal to them, set a minor studio to spend less effort making flashy (but otherwise very arcadey and lackluster) games. Games like Gunz, NFS World, Battlefield Heroes and release those for F2P.

I swear, if they fuck up Watch_Dogs...

Coming 2012 - Tom Cullancy's Ghost Recon: Online

I'm almost at the point of losing interest in gaming altogether, I hardly see any games now that I would consider worth buying even if they're on sale. Free to play and DLC has ruined gaming for me.

Free to play can be excellent if the company doing it has restraint. Ubisoft doesn't have any restraint.

[QUOTE=plunger435;37840243]I don't see the problem with free to play games that only have cosmetic based micro transactions, and since we have no idea if that's what Ubisoft will do then we really can't complain yet.[/QUOTE] It's Ubisoft. Do you really have to even contemplate that possibility?

I can see it now: You are playing Assassin's Creed Whatever F2P on PC. You finish the insultingly short and easy tutorial area to be informed that you can't enter where the game actually begins because the "bridge" is out. Turns out you gotta plunk $20 to make said "bridge" get fixed. Then a short while in, you find your first target. Turns out he is wearing armor that is highly resistant to your starting equipment. The cash shop has an upgrade for a "mere" $20, otherwise you have to spend several hours plinking away to barely take a nick of health off. And thats just the start.......... I know its most likely a bad example, especially since I could be way off as I have never played anything Assassin's Creed, but given UbiSoft's apparent view of PC gamers, this could end up something that would make the evilest of Korean MMO companies jealous.

Just make an Assassins Creed game completely free, start to finish. Then pay for counter kills. Sit back and rake in the dosh. Or make a Splinter Cell game and sell LTL techniques/weapons. I'm a genius Ubisoft should hire me.

Assassins Creed 4: The Animus runs on your money

Oh my god, it's like Ubisoft isn't even trying anymore.

Realm of the Mad God is the only F2P game I will play

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;37840599]Companies are too obsessed with longevity in their games nowadays. It's no longer about being profitable, it's about staying profitable for as long as possible. Thing is they never seem to care about attracting new people, just keeping the old ones from going away. They don't evolve, they stagnate. Not unlike what happens when a series gets a new release every year.[/QUOTE] if you want to stay profitable for as long as possible... look at Unreal gold/UT99, Oblivion, Morrowind and Half-life 1, and god knows how many other old games like them are out there. Old as fuck, people are [I]still [/I]buying them. Why? Versatility, mods, OPEN modding no less! Power to the player through a powerful engine and even more powerful editor. Otherwise, your game will not last. Why? Because no one can make their own swords for themselves, or download user content and maps and qeusts free. Only a [B]true [/B][B]idiot [/B]would prefer DLC WELL over free user content.

[QUOTE=J!NX;37845057]if you want to stay profitable for as long as possible... look at Unreal gold/UT99, Oblivion, Morrowind and Half-life 1, and god knows how many other old games like them are out there. Old as fuck, people are [I]still [/I]buying them. Why? Versatility, mods, OPEN modding no less! Power to the player through a powerful engine and even more powerful editor. Otherwise, your game will not last. Why? Because no one can make their own swords for themselves, or download user content and maps and qeusts free. Only a [B]true [/B][B]idiot [/B]would prefer DLC WELL over free user content.[/QUOTE] Even better, ARMA II which is 3 years old has sales up over 500% thanks to mods.

[QUOTE=SSBMX;37845109]Even better, ARMA II which is 3 years old has sales up over 500% thanks to mods.[/QUOTE] To be fair, my examples are also up to about 13 years old. But once Arma II is 13 years old I predict a very good life for it, even still. Maybe just as good as HL2's life. [QUOTE=The golden;37845123]Exactly. 30-50 bucks will get you a great game with a great modding scene which can last you months or even years. What does $50 or less get you in a free2play game? Usually about 2 or 3 guns, OR a skin or two.[/QUOTE] I want to see 10-60$ games with DLC like skyrims or better. Cheap, but gives a fuckload of content. Not day one, months later to keep it flowing. Not only that, but a solid editor. The more games with this the more games will stay fresh longer. DLC should always be under 10$, and be very unique and actually official, making it far better than your typical "user content" because of that. but it doesn't disallow playing with people that don't have that content in MP like Fable does.