- Dec 20, 2019
I'm thinking that they actually researched this...
I will be using For Honor as an example, with some speculation, since I played that for a while and know what happened with that game.
For Honor is one of those games that was quite innovative, but, I think the AAA price to get it was a barrier for many people.
Ubisoft offered For Honor for free on many platforms multiple times. That's why I own it on Xbox and three times on PC (EGS, Steam and UPlay).
They for sure analyzed how many people got onboard for free, and they likely tracked how many of them spent additional money on the game afterwards. They likely came to the conclusion that if they offered the game for free since launch, they would have caught a larger audience from the beginning, which would have spent more money on the game compared to how they did things now.
“In line with the evolution of our high-quality line-up that is increasingly diverse, we are moving on from our prior comment regarding releasing 3-4 premium AAAs per year,” said Ubisoft’s chief financial officer Frederick Duguet. “It is indeed no longer a proper indication of our value...www.neogaf.com
I hope you're right. i'd love a new linear story driven splinter cell before i die. I'd even settle for a bluepoint level of quality remake of chaos theory.These headlines saying Ubisoft will stop making 3-4 AAA per years and that will focus on F2P are totally false, fake news. They didn't say that.
What they meant was that in the past they mostly focused on the 3-4 AAA games, and now (on top of that) they also want to push more than before their already existing Just Dance and F2P part.
Assassin's Creed of Fary Cry are working better than ever, they won't stop making them. They won't cancel Avatar, BGE2, Star Wars or similar. It just means they will push harder their mobile division and regarding console/PC F2P instead of making small stuff they will invest there harder maybe trying to find their own CoD Warfare, Apex Legends or Fortnite.
Problem is, the risk. Going to F2P means that more people might play their game and pay for stuff. And it is really strange that people spend so much money on just visual stuff in F2P games, or even stuff to get an advantage over other players.Everyone wants that fortnight money then a company like EA gets surprised by that Fallen Order dollar and realize there may be some money in both the services and traditional gaming pies. Both methods are sustainable for a business.
The people who spend lots of money on FtP games are doing it for the same reason anyone wear name brand items in public; social vanity. There are also whales, but they are a separate group. The point is you wouldn't pay money for skins for single player games because no one else can see them. While society has trained certain groups of people to pay money to alter their appearance for social approval. And that group is HUGE.Problem is, the risk. Going to F2P means that more people might play their game and pay for stuff. And it is really strange that people spend so much money on just visual stuff in F2P games, or even stuff to get an advantage over other players.
If you mean their output is seemingly worse than EA, sure, but otherwise I don't know how anyone could ever turn into a worse EA unless they bought up a couple dozen good studios (plus their IP) and then sat on them while churning out mtx-ridden garbage.Basically, Ubisoft turned into an EA but worse.
People like stuff that only has value to them. Especially kids, they have no thoughts of the future.Problem is, the risk. Going to F2P means that more people might play their game and pay for stuff. And it is really strange that people spend so much money on just visual stuff in F2P games, or even stuff to get an advantage over other players.