• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Ubisoft says it’s changing strategy to focus on more ‘high-end free-to-play’ games

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,138
6,213
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: megreotsugua

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
20,528
30,993
670
 

Kadve

Member
Jun 5, 2019
599
633
425
Can't fault them for wanting to make money and there is a lot of money to be made with whale bait.

Still disappointing though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Paulistano

Member
May 18, 2018
215
370
510
Free-to-play is a codeword for pay-to-win...

Thankfully I don't play their games in ages, so nothing was lost..

Every Assassins Creed is like a reskin of the one before so....
 
Last edited:
Mar 16, 2021
468
624
330
Ubisoft really only has like one franchise that interests me anymore (Assassin’s Creed), and even then I wait for sales on those. Maybe if the PoP remake didn’t look like shit and they’d actually finish Beyond Good and Evil 2 I’d care more, but this news just further cements my apathy for them at this point.
 

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,884
4,191
895
Watertown, NY
I wrote Ubisoft off, after last coupel farcry titles. They just dont make anything thats exciting or original. All of their open world games have a similar formula. Until they make something that really hits different, I stay away from Ubisoft.

Disappointing, was hoping we see them bring back Splintercell.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,829
3,023
445
Fundamentally, we are seeing a repeat of what occurred when Console gaming replaced Arcade gaming.

People still WANT to play arcade games; there just isn't enough of these people.

Now, ftp games have a larger pool of gamers to get money from. And big companies chase the money.

That does not mean we can't criticize them. Imagine if Nintendo decided they will stop making games and focus entirely on making and selling tv Dinners? The TV dinners might be delicious, but that don't change the fact that the target audience was abandoned. The fact is major studios are abandoning one set of customers for another, and those who are abandoned are fully justified in complaining.

In the end, there is still money to be made for single player games. And as long as you put your money where your mouth is then we will still get a few titles a year. Support titles that you enjoy, take care of studios who respects your preferences. Understand that your hobby can survive without big money. AA is always good enough.
 
Last edited:

thief183

Member
Aug 23, 2018
1,105
908
440
Italy
ACtually I'm trying right now Trackmania 2020 and if this is the model they want to go for I'm all in.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
3,545
5,175
615
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.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
I blame Microsoft and Sony for only lifting the paywall on garbage pay to win games. That was the scummy backdoor to more customers its bullshit. I warned everyone this would happen for rewarding pay to win and fucking over retail customers. Should of been the other way around pay wall lifted for those paying 70 fucking dollars for a game.
 

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,884
4,191
895
Watertown, NY
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.

I don't think anyone is disputing that Ubisoft has taken a look at this long and hard. But the issue is this predicament is their own doing. They made games year over year all in the same series from Farcry to Assassins. Then tried making looter shooters and failed to support that game properly. Even in the changes in the sequel thats good, the world is just uninteresting, and the way they did DLC content made it really bland.

Ubisoft is better off just making smaller titles like RAyman, MARIO:RABID kingdom. They could bring back franchises like Splintercell, Prince of persia and really focus on gameplay instead of making a game that has all these checkboxes for keeping the player in the game. WHich is the formula for AC, FARCRY, even The division.
They as a publisher seem unorganized and making sequels to franchises that are actually not that great like watchdogs. Watchdogs could be unique but because it follows a formula similar to their other IP's it looses it's identity.

Ubisoft's slate is probably one of the most predictable, even when they have a hit in a series they end up taking the idea of that series and making another IP from it. Like with the ship battles in AC series they made that pirate game that has yet to come out.
For some titles like For honor, Rainbow Six, Ghost recon I could see them going F2P. ANd maybe do single player expansions that are paid expansions if people want that Tom Clancy storyline. But in terms of originality, all that talent left a long time ago. They now just follow whats popular in multiplayer.

Honestly last Ubisoft game I played was Rayman:legends.
 

Belmonte

Member
Nov 6, 2018
1,644
3,355
440
If this means more games like Rainbow Six Siege, this is great news. Siege is a masterpiece.
 

AJUMP23

Member
Sep 29, 2020
5,931
7,324
620
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.
 

saintjules

Member
Dec 20, 2019
4,727
14,598
580

brian0057

Member
Jun 18, 2018
2,409
4,731
585
Imagine buying games by Ubisoft post 2010 that aren't UbiArt.
I hope Splinter Cell stays dead.
 
Jan 30, 2019
424
537
310
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.
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.
 

Allandor

Member
Feb 8, 2018
1,396
1,101
435
Germany
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.
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.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Oct 21, 2019
561
742
450
Belgium
I remember when Ubisoft made these obtuse and cryptic French adventure games on Amstrad and Amiga that were practically unplayable..

It's been downhill from there.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,829
3,023
445
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.
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.

It is the same group who say they will never eat at a resturant alone or go to the movies alone; they only do anything at all to socialize, anything that benefits socializing is worth spending money on.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Allandor

Cert.in.Death

Member
Jun 28, 2013
3,789
3,992
750
Utah
I will miss Far Cry. And Ubi Art albeit those projects have been dead for a while.

Can't really think of any other Ubisoft games I frequent.
 

StormCell

Member
Dec 11, 2018
3,123
3,282
550
Basically, Ubisoft turned into an EA but worse.
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. :LOL:
 

AJUMP23

Member
Sep 29, 2020
5,931
7,324
620
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.
People like stuff that only has value to them. Especially kids, they have no thoughts of the future.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
10,017
21,316
1,010
I basically just buy AC when it's $10. I enjoy it for about 30 hours and then drop it and never finish them. If I can do that for free, then I guess I don't care.

They'll still probably put out the rare game I feel like buying, like Mario + Rabbids, that isn't free to play.

The reality is, I don't really buy anything from mega-publishers anyway (Activision, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft). Hopefully it wont affect me that much, because it sounds awful.