Respawn's New Star Wars Games

[DarthSkywalker]

Their comments are a worrying indicator of where their heads are at. It's practically advertising the intent to scam their customers. While they've released other games without such issues, you add that to a known property like Star Wars instead of something where it's become expected like in-house series, and suddenly it's probably going to look a whole lot worse. And I'm not sure there's any reason to put faith in their restraint.

Ubisoft hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt. They've shelved series they didn't feel they could monetize to the fullest.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Microtransactions have taken things that use to be included in games, and made them cost money. It's a very specific issue with microtransactions. Insomniac out here adding free outfits into Spider-Man years later, while Ubisoft is charging you for some fuzzy slippers.

Sure, but my point is simply that microtransactions are and have been a standard of the industry for a long time now. And with your example, AC Valhalla had over 100 hours of gameplay included within it, along with many, many free updates (including new cosmetics, abilities etc). Their paid for cosmetics are in the minority and take nothing away from the rest of the content.

However something like The Avengers game would be the opposite. Overpriced cosmetics that far outweigh any actual gameplay or content offerings.

Implementation is the problem, not the actual concept of microtransactions. In essence, it's no different from a season pass or a battle pass or a DLC expansion in general... It's a digital economic model completely at the mercy of the company administering it.

AYou can't talk about the abuse of systems, look at the companies we are talking about, and expect them to not abuse said systems. They always do.

The last 3 AC games, Far Cry 5 + 6, The Division 2. Off the top of my head, all of these games had totally reasonable levels of microtransactions. Cosmetic only and for the most part, silly, outlandish or lore breaking outfits that you don't really miss anything by owning.

And most of those games still gave you in-game ways to earn the microtransaction currency and purchase the stuff anyway. (In Valhalla, I earned a bunch of that without even really trying for it).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure, but my point is simply that microtransactions are and have been a standard of the industry for a long time now. And with your example, AC Valhalla had over 100 hours of gameplay included within it, along with many, many free updates (including new cosmetics, abilities etc). Their paid for cosmetics are in the minority and take nothing away from the rest of the content.

However something like The Avengers game would be the opposite. Overpriced cosmetics that far outweigh any actual gameplay or content offerings.

Implementation is the problem, not the actual concept of microtransactions. In essence, it's no different from a season pass or a battle pass or a DLC expansion in general... It's a digital economic model completely at the mercy of the company administering it.

An industy standard doesn't make it either a) well liked, or b) good. It's clear sexual harassment is a industry standard. Is that a good thing?

The last 3 AC games, Far Cry 5 + 6, The Division 2. Off the top of my head, all of these games had totally reasonable levels of microtransactions. Cosmetic only and for the most part, silly, outlandish or lore breaking outfits that you don't really miss anything by owning.

And most of those games still gave you in-game ways to earn the microtransaction currency and purchase the stuff anyway. (In Valhalla, I earned a bunch of that without even really trying for it).

Cosmetic only is not a boon in your favor. The reason they use cosmetics is they know people want them.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Ubisoft hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt. They've shelved series they didn't feel they could monetize to the fullest.

I would say what you're doing is the opposite of benefit of the doubt. It's assuming the worse despite recent evidence to the contrary. I mean, here we are splitting hairs about Ubisoft microtransactions in a Respawn thread - Have you seen the microtransactions in Apex? I would argue microtransactions for a loot box is far more insidious than minor and fully transparent cosmetic items.

And shelving series that they couldn't monetise to the fullest? You're just talking about the industry in general now. Acti, EA, Square... Plenty of publishers making the exact same kind of decisions.

I'm not gonna hold up Ubisoft as a bastion of purity (especially when they still need to sweep the worlds largest broom through that place to clear out all the creeps and bullies). But let's not pretend they're the only outliers here.

So no they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt but I don't see evidence that they've earned public execution either haha

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I would say what you're doing is the opposite of benefit of the doubt. It's assuming the worse despite recent evidence to the contrary. I mean, here we are splitting hairs about Ubisoft microtransactions in a Respawn thread - Have you seen the microtransactions in Apex? I would argue microtransactions for a loot box is far more insidious than minor and fully transparent cosmetic items.

And shelving series that they couldn't monetise to the fullest? You're just talking about the industry in general now. Acti, EA, Square... Plenty of publishers making the exact same kind of decisions.

I'm not gonna hold up Ubisoft as a bastion of purity (especially when they still need to sweep the worlds largest broom through that place to clear out all the creeps and bullies). But let's not pretend they're the only outliers here.

So no they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt but I don't see evidence that they've earned public execution either haha

We are talking about one of the worst run companies in the business, where the head of studios were sexually harassing the staff on the regular. They've just shut down Legion because they can't monetize anymore. They are about to ruin the Assassin's Creed franchise because they want to monetize it more. Why would I trust them?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

We are talking about one of the worst run companies in the business, where the head of studios were sexually harassing the staff on the regular. They've just shut down Legion because they can't monetize anymore. They are about to ruin the Assassin's Creed franchise because they want to monetize it more. Why would I trust them?

I'm not saying don't trust them in general, rather regard them with the same critical, open mind we should with any major company. Also, as someone who works in the industry, I promise you there's plenty of that happening at most of the big game companies.

Also re: Legion, that game was very disappointing. I don't think it's crazy for a developer to stop making new updates/content for a game if nobody is playing it haha

Look you clearly hate Ubi, which is entirely your prerogative. I just don't necessarily think problematic company = Bad games, especially when I've played some recent Ubi games that were great. But if we don't agree, all good!

 

[Sithborg]

Ubisoft's NFT guy



Yeah, **** Ubisoft.