News Ubisoft: "No more ‘compulsory’ DLC will be sold for our games"

Discussion in 'General Game Help & Discussion' started by Fool's Requiem, Nov 22, 2016.

  1. Fool's Requiem

    Fool's Requiem Is that a pro Genji?! Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Posts:
    14,324

    -Return to Top-

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ubisoft-no-compulsory-dlc/

    Basically, new weapons, maps, and modes and such will be available for everyone for free so that no one is left out. However, non-gameplay effecting stuff like weapon skins and the like will be available through micro-transactions. This is the same model for Ubisoft's "Rainbow Six Seige" and Blizzard's "Overwatch".

    Good on Ubisoft, I hope this becomes a trend. Though, I feel like full on expansion packs like the ones for Fallout 4 or Destiny shouldn't/won't be included as those probably cost the devs a lot more money to make than a few weapons and maps and weapon skin micro-transactions won't be able to fund full on expansion packs.

    I am still OK with those shortcut kits. If players don't have the time or will to grind for stuff and as long as that stuff isn't more powerful than what most of the other players have, I don't have a problem with them.
     
  2. dimmerwit

    dimmerwit Tremendously High Energy Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Posts:
    12,813

    -Return to Top-

    I'd take microtransactions for cosmetics over paid maps any day, so I'd support this. I think they'll do better in the long run as nothing splits a playerbase like paid DLC, and having fresh new maps for everyone is a great enticement for both keeping existing owners playing and new potential owners buying. No doubt Ubi think the same as that's probably why they do it.

    I was impressed by Rainbow Six Siege during the recent free weekend on PC, and would probably have bought it if I hadn't gone a little crazy on new game purchases. The characters do need unlocking but the time needed to do so was not very long, and in some ways it's better as it means you have to learn a bit about how the different operators play and not just go in blind every time.

    As for shortcuts, they don't bother me personally, and since they are basically free revenue for developers they were never going to go anywhere.
     
  3. Jon

    Jon Official Thread Killer Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Posts:
    16,262

    -Return to Top-

    I don't know... I don't really recall Ubisoft being famous for this. EA, Activision/Infinity Ward/Sledgehammer, most FPS companies are, and their the ones that will never drop out season passes, and their the ones that need to do this. Expansions on a game a fantastic. They keep a game interesting for much longer than it otherwise would be. However, making someone pay full price for the game, then nearly the cost of another game to play all the addon content is normal now, and frustrating. The pay to win atmosphere of most games now is atrocious. And they aren't going anywhere because they are a cash cow. It's why Madden's MUT is still around. It's an awful game mode because it's P2W.

    Even Call of Duty is awful because of it. It used to be just the people who spent days grinding were the best after skilled players. Now you need the time and skill, but you also become good from spending money on supply drops and even some luck from supply drops. I watched this video the other day of someone who had $200 worth of supply drops and opened them. Mind you I this is a sponsored player so either his payed for it mostly, or fully. He opened two Epic (orange and highest quality gun variants in the game) in all of that money. And neither were any good. So he either had terrible RNG or the RNG on supply drops are broken in IW. Then I watched a guy with $50 worth open drops and get 4 Epics and all the best ones in the game. It's terrible for balance (because the guns are that big a deal).

    Either way, I do wish they'd do away with the microtransactions that affect gameplay and/or balance (like the ones I mention). But, I'm all for the ones that affects aesthetics or cosmetics. This is a good step in the right direction, for sure, but I think Ubisoft is one of the companies that violate this the least. They have always been more for paying for aesthetics and cosmetic payments, not gameplay.