Top
820°

Why Do Ubisoft Games Lose So Many Players?

GameRave.com writes:

''Ubisoft has released three multiplayer focused games in as many years. This is not news or that surprising. Nearly every big name in the industry has at least one title that focuses purely on multiplayer. If successful, a good multiplayer title can support a company for years to come.''

Read Full Story >>
gameraven.com
Garethvk5d ago

Popular theory is that the games are released with issues, they lose players, they listen to the fans, patch them and add things, then players come back.

PixelGateUk5d ago

which is funny given how many 'beta' tests they run

naruga5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

i say is the lack of talent that haunts their games ...meaning lack of genuine characters /adversaries, unoriginal plots, mediocre concept art /worlds, boring overused mechanics /gameplay (aka not enjoyable), quick sloppy made games and all of these just shrouded with pretty game engines ..just everything from Ubisoft games cannot touch players ...Ubisoft is like a cheap burger restaurant ....you can eat what they serve but is not the best and it bores you easily

Aeery5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

This guy have zero stats except steam chart so go on with useless, brain dead article. You will get some click now, but zero credibility in future.
They screwed The Division, but For Honor is pretty healthy, Rainbow six siege is still kicking.
Not all the games in this world can be as appealing to a wide audience as Overwatch.
...

Goldby5d ago

@Aeery

Its a Free to play model on a retail game.

if you were to earn every little bit of cosmetic and weapon upgrade for just the starting 12 charatcers, say goodbye to 2 years of your life.

or just spend 700$. which every comes easier to you and cheaper i guess.
People who are defending the practice behind this game need to be taught a few things about gaming. how it shouldn't be a chore to complete the game

ABizzel15d ago

Because the majority of their games are overhyped with above average graphics, slightly above average gameplay, and mediocre storytelling.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5d ago
5d ago
IamTylerDurden15d ago

They patched The Division and it got worse..

Garethvk5d ago

I think it is much better with the new modes, expanded Dark Zone, and so on.

ChronoJoe5d ago

Not really true though. Division's players never came back, neither did The Crews, neither will For Honors.

Ubisoft are sustaining these games financially off of pre-release hype and then extortionate MT which only attracts whales. It's a shame but someone will spend £200 or more on For Honors DLC, while it screws the rest of the community over.

The only game that's really sustained a healthy player base, supported a community that's actively grown has been Rainbow Six Siege, and the overlap with the esports competitive communities, and Rainbow Six's existing fanbase really helped a lot there. It's not as if the game itself wasn't broken and full of MT.

But I think most of the problems don't relate to their MT systems, but the fact that the games tend to put people off with their design. For Honor, for instance is incredibly unbalanced right now, with a myriad of bugs and glitches (e.g. indicator glitches) that directly affect gameplay, balance and the overall player experience. That harms player retention and engagement more than anything else.

TheArkatek5d ago

R6 Seige is STILL going strong. Best multiplayer ever and highly addictive. Ghost Recon Wildlands is good but dumbass ubisoft didnt give us competetive multiplayer just this coop shit. The Division would have been good if it didnt take 3 entire clips of ammo to take down 1 guy. The division would have been awesome if they would have used zombies instead.

EyeAmTJ4d ago

the division doesn't need zombies sorry. too many game that don't need zombies has them already smh

Seraphim5d ago

they lose players because their games aren't built to last. They skimp on the meat and add it later in the form of DLC/Season Pass. Even then it's often too little too late. If Ubi wants to retain players they need a meaty, beefy game that can withstand the rigors of not only long term play but in holding interest of players.

UltraNova4d ago

But then they wouldnt be able to get you to buy their 'new' games each and every year...

Timesplitter145d ago (Edited 5d ago )

I think it has more to do with the fact that the average Ubisoft game design process goes like this:
1- Hire 999 human psychology experts
2- Lock them in a room for a year and tell them they need to find the absolute most generic and wide-appeal ideas possible
3- Make a huge game based of this, and focus on quantity instead of quality
4- Invest in a big ad campaign to create artificial, short-term hype

...and then it results in a highly-produced soulless bland game that everyone thinks is "okay" but no one truly loves. Ubisoft is more like a video game factory than a video game studio. They make the game equivalent of Marvel movies

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
annoyedgamer5d ago

Because they aren't very enjoyable?

Compare that with classics like Halo 2 and Bad Company 2 which still have scores of players and would have many more if the companies actually made working remakes.

PixelGateUk5d ago

Halo 2 would have still been active if it wasnt for it being trapped on services long gone. As for Bad Company 2, the player base was pretty damn small towards the releases of BF 3/4

InMyOpinion5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

For Honor is extremely enjoyable and well-made technically (graphics, gameplay etc).
Problem is that the multiplayer is unbalanced as all hell and the netcode is produced by baboons. It's a damn shame because it was just inches from being one of the best MP experiences ever.

Out of their past titles only Watchdogs 2 is a gem. The seemless MP is awesome and the game is superb overall. It sh*ts all over Mafia 3 which was a big disappointment.

Goldby4d ago

For honor has more issues than netcode and graphics and such.

they should never have put a free-to-play model behind the 60$ game

Bigpappy5d ago

I am enjoying the GR co-op. That game is a lot to fun. You and set traps, use the darkness to your advantage by shooting out lights, and you can disable escapee vehicles. Single player is fun but the using the wheel makes some missions too hard. I do prefer to play with people I know though.

TheArkatek5d ago

But its missing one CRITICAL element. Multiplayer vs. That really pisses me off

_-EDMIX-_5d ago

But doesn't that just speak to the Testament of how difficult it actually is to make multiplayer games? I don't think this has anything to do with Ubisoft I actually think it just has to do with the difficulty of crafting a balanced multiplayer game.

Even the games that you named are by well-known companies that clearly have trouble capturing that same type of concept long-term.

I think if you simply look at the Call of Duty 4 remake numbers you'll realize that the majority of that fan base didn't just all return in millions to Simply play Call of Duty 4 over again despite and actually selling more than the two games that you listed I'm sorry but I think you're looking at it with Fanboy glasses on because you enjoy the game and you're not realizing that the majority of an install base of multiplayer Gamers actually never return to multiplayer games after a specific point in time

That might have nothing to actually do with the quality of the game and just the nature of the industry.

Sorry but I don't remember that special edition of Call of Duty with the Call of Duty 4 remastered selling 25 million.

Goldby4d ago

i will have to disagree with you there edmix.

If we were just looking at balancing issues, Ubisoft could have easily had For Honor or even Division in the same boat as Destiny, that game was super unbalanced at the beginning, yet they have managed to keep their fan base somewhat happy through nerf cycles.

But instead of going about it where you need to actually play to get the equipment like in Destiny and many other PVP MP games, For Honor lets you purchase in game currency to unlcok everything, in essence rewarding themselves for their own fuck ups by making it more appealing to throw 20$ at ubisoft to get better gear instead of going through the chore... sorry grind of earning the steel.

No one, and i mean no one should be defending a 60$ AAA retail game that has over $700 of in game MT to complete your game

InMyOpinion4d ago

Destiny wasn't pay to win but still an overpromising and underdelivering grindfest. I'd rather give a nod to games like Battlefield 1 or Overwatch. Uncharted 4's MP isn't too shabby either. I especially enjoy the Survival mode.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4d ago
cberg255d ago

I wonder if saturation is becoming an issue for Ubisoft. They're releasing multiple major multiplayer games a year, each claiming to have a long lifespan of content ahead of it. Those audiences will inevitably overlap.

thekhurg5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Nothing with saturation. Their games just aren't enjoyable for long term playing.

For Honor has atrocious combat which didn't welcome casual players. It had level advantages which didn't welcome new players post launch. Especially after many people no-lifed AI matches to boost their level. The lack of a large amount of new players meant that whoever was new, was eventually matched with the no-lifers, was subsequently stomped and those people likely quit.

The Division had the dark zone, which for the vast majority of players, simply wasn't fun. Griefing and gear gaps ruined the experience for the bulk of the community, and again, the no-lifers who went all out got the massive advantage and eventually ran off the rest of the community because "git gud". During the beta, I was not alone in trying to tell Massive/Ubisoft that the dark zone was a terrible idea. But because the streamers loved it, it had to be amazing right??

Dunno about Rainbow Six. But it probably also has something to do with being anti-casual friendly. Although that's a 100% pure guess on my part.

LabRat5d ago

@ theKhurg - Rainbow six is alive and kicking. Probably one of their most successful in terms of long term playability and I hear the player base keeps growing, not shrinking. Since there is no "gear stats" in the game, and just takes learning the maps like every other multiplayer game out there, its more welcoming to new players.

SlightlyRetarted5d ago

Rainbow Six Siege has like 4 times as much daily players compared to it's release. It has really similar growth since release as CS:GO had. Yes, it has a pretty steep learning curve, but i managed to push through it late last year and now i'm so addicted that i've found hard time to be interested in any other games right now.

Fist4achin4d ago

I would attribute saturation, at least partially. There are so many games with MP that it is hard to keep gamers interests, when there's so much cool stuff coming out.

joab7775d ago

That's it. Many publishersbtake years to make a game. Ubisoft pumps out a bunch every year. Definitely more like they are in it for the money. That said, it's quite impressive how damn good so many of them are.

4d ago
TheOptimist5d ago

Becuase their games are boring and repetitive and have issues at launch.

PixelGateUk5d ago

Rainbow Six Siege is pretty damn good to be fair

TheOptimist5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Agreed, but then that game is an exception to a thumb rule. Also I doubt a PvP or PvE multiplayer only game will become repetitive? I mean I have 1k+ hours in CSGO and I didn't find it repetitive because it's about getting better and thinking two steps ahead of the enemy.

JayPi35d ago

Siege, For Honor, Child of Light, Grow Home, and then some are some of their pretty good games, I'll agree with their launch issues, but their games are far from repetitive and boring when when they aren't open world and really put love into their work.

TheOptimist5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

10 Assassin's Creeds (Albeit 2 and Brotherhood were the best among them, they were still repetitive as hell, can't replay any of the Assassin's Creed games), 4 FarCry (Again 3 was decent, but can't replay it), The Division, Watch Dogs 1 and 2, Steep (Which was a SNOW rip off), most of their titles follow the same rules like a checkbox list.

Yes there are exceptions and R6Seige is a good game, For Honor could have been if they would have had dedicated damn servers, so much wasted potential. That leaves me with Grow Home and Child of Light, their indie department which is making the beter games.

naruga5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

ubisoft just lacks gaming knowledge

PixelGateUk5d ago

For Honor and Siege are pretty fresh in terms of approaches, design and mechanics. They just release them with awful servers and a glut of bugs

AcidDvl5d ago

And with a huge lack of complexity and variety, unbalanced, shortage of content and relying too much on season passes (more money from the consumer), weak plots, generic characters, heavy reliance on 'Ubisoft mechanics' from their other titles (which makes every game somewhat 'familiar' not in the good sense), the infamous 'downgrades', very ambitious promises that are never delivered, relying too much on the same gameplay loop without proper variation...

Their games are short lived (Siege is the exception) because within a few hours you basically see everything the game has to offer.

Goldby5d ago

@Pixelgear,

Ya lets take a great combat style thats used for 1v1 and throw in more players /s

JayPi35d ago

I disagree, they're one of the few companies who are willing to take risk outside of Assassin's Creed, like Rayman, Child of Light, For Honor, Siege, and then some. As Pixel said, servers and bugs plague their games.

RosweeSon5d ago

A Mario Clone they've been banging out for 29 years is a risk? I never got into Rayman myself. Assassins creed 2 was cool and Prince of Persia sands of time, then they just rinse the series dry, new assassins was pretty good mainly because it was in Ye olde England so probably a bit biased but I wouldn't miss Ubisoft if they wanted to take a year or 3 out.