• 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

N1tr0sOx1d3

Given another chance
Nov 28, 2014
1,050
1,672
760

Going by what the trends is saying of Live Service and Microtransactions and DLC not likely. The gaming industry is changing i don't like it where it going to but it is what it is these companys are in it to make the most money.
I do not deny that, you’re bang on, however we need only look at the commercial success that is Cyberpunk. That game has profited by 100s of millions and that’s with a hefty refund policy due to its original broken state.

I honestly believe there’s plenty of money to be made if they make the right game, with the right budget and it’s released in a completed state.

Cyberpunk is one game out of many that have generated a truck load of money. Do they make as much money as mobile? probably only on rare occasions, but then we’ve stepped over the line of wanting to make a handsome profit, to just pure greed.
 

VN1X

Member
Apr 21, 2016
2,668
4,506
820
You say that like free to play games aren't cookie cutter and by the numbers collectathons.
I didn't say that. In fact I fully expect their f2p titles to be full of grindy mechanics and other typical f2p tropes. I'm saying that if this enables them to put more effort and focus into the remaining AAA offering then it's a win-win for everyone.
 

xrnzaaas

Member
Dec 9, 2013
12,715
7,169
805
This thread is so weird. Are people not able to read and they are just going by the tweets or something?

They are not saying they will stop making SP games. Like I don't even know how you all came to that conclusion?

Valhalla is the best selling AC in years. They will not stop making them lol

Division F2P is their version of Warzone. Activision didn't stop making COD because of it.
The thing is unless you're ready to hire more people (and if there's enough available talent on the job market) you will have to divide your current workforce. So yes, SP games from Ubisoft aren't going away, but expect less of them to make room for F2P projects.
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
6,063
10,774
755
Remember when Crytek did this then immediately fell into several years of financial struggle after multiple attempts of producing a free2play title that'd actually gain an audience?

Except Crytec had absolutely nothing to back up any failed F2P attempts, aside the first Far Cry and Crysis they haven't release a single game ever since that was as universally acclaimed and commercially successful, C2&3 were a decline of the series, Ryse wasn't a smash hit either, and their VR titles could reach only so tiny userbase, while Ubisoft in contrast can always drop a new AC, WD, GR, Division etc. that will bring billions to the company and make it perfectly sustainable.
 

Audiophile

Member
Jun 25, 2015
718
2,374
700
England, UK
I think some of their games, particularly Tom Clancy multiplayer components actually suit the service approach. But I'd much rather see a fair subscription-based approach rather than F2P+MTX which causes segmentation of the experience.

What I also wouldn't mind so much is core stuff like AC, Splinter Cell, Watch_Dogs etc. being left alone and made to be the best experience they can be; strengthening the brand image, keeping dev morale and creativity intact; and forging good customer relations. Then use service games to make silly money.

One a smaller (dev) scale, take a look at Respawn for eg. my hopes for them is that they continue to rake in the money on APEX (a game I have zero interest in); but use that to have the financial/creative freedom to create great Star Wars games, VR games, new IP and more TitanFall (please more TF!!).

This approach of let's make all the money, all the time across all of our projects is all well and good initially but in the long run you end up alienating core fans (the ones who aren't fickle); and squashing creativity and morale among developers. Invest in creative endeavors that range from break-even to moderate profits, invest in developers, invest in core fans, invest in the brand, effectively build a long term, sustainable insurance plan; a foundation. Then have quality service driven stuff to buy you those freedoms.
 
Last edited:

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Sep 5, 2007
12,083
13,906
1,820
UK
I can see Rainbow Six & For Honour going free to play
 

Kuranghi

Member
Apr 17, 2015
6,892
12,066
830
Oh hopefully they will just completely get rid of motion capture to save even MORE money. In fact, you pay mtx to get the faces :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Can't fucking wait.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
6,343
12,481
665
People people people.

F2P means more risk taking from developers.

When you plan to charge $60 dollars for a game, you know it has to be a safe bet for consumers. THAT'S what's leading to stagnation at Ubisoft.

Going F2P will allow them to flex their creative muscles again. Rejoice!
 

Phase

Member
Sep 25, 2019
2,092
3,845
665
People people people.

F2P means more risk taking from developers.

When you plan to charge $60 dollars for a game, you know it has to be a safe bet for consumers. THAT'S what's leading to stagnation at Ubisoft.

Going F2P will allow them to flex their creative muscles again. Rejoice!
Yeah right. They're still going to be expecting a certain amount of revenue tied to how much they put into the game.