Ubisoft executive Laurent Detoc said that publishers have to commit to making sure that games don't stop at launch, so people stick with them over the long run as they did for many Ubisoft titles.
Considering the fact Odyssey looks like a brand new game and hasn't got anything to do with Assassins or the Creed I think they'll end up making 3 new franchises within the franchise by the 3th iteration
I hope FC3 was a typo because FC3 was awesome. One of the few games I called sick to work to stay playing back in 2013-14, even if it aged a lot for me thanks to 4 and primal, but FC3 was awesome
The game played fine, but it was heavily downgraded. But in my opinion so did Watch Dogs, the game was amazing, but it looked terrible compared to the original demo.
Like Prince of Persia? Rayman? Who knows what Beyond Good and Evil will have and I wouldn't be shocked to see Splinter Cell have a focus on online elements as well. They've pretty much already cut back on single-player content.
Haven't played in Origins or Far Cry 5, but Wildlands was awful at launch - terrible helicopter controls, empty world without any incentive to expore it, repetitive missions, awful AI for everyone, a ton of missing features (no way to create distractions aside from special grenades, bodies disappear almost right after they touch the ground, capturing enemies is pointless, no way to customize AI partners, no garage/vehicle customization), bad progression system.
Last gen, it was more about making sure that they didn't stay engaged too long, so they could sell the next game. A form of planned obsolescence. Now, they just want them to continue so they can make more money doing less work.
But every game ends. Even those that have practically infinite game play have huge drop offs of players at some point, as those players will always want something new.
ubisoft, do you know that even a game that ends, if done well, keep peolpe playing for years instead of a multiplayer shitty game? i rather play rayman legends challenges because why not instead of AC, the division or other crap games like these
Games that have an end they find hard to monetize after the first sale. They want to provide craptastic smaller content packs for years to games instead of actually producing quality games that have deep stories they would rather have flash in the pan shallow MMO's sorry sorry MMO lights. This is all a step away from where games were headed. Games this gen have been less works of art more works of greed and half a$$ed attempts..
But the world doesn't revolve around you. Other people have different tastes and preferences. You may prefer to play Rayman Legends, but I would vastly prefer to play a game like Assassin's Creed Origins over Rayman Legends.
Yeah, some games are just fun to go back into once in a while. I still boot up GT6 once in a while. Rayman is always fun to putter around in if I don't have a lot of time, and I can work on trophies. Sometimes I'll just go back and replay a full game because I enjoyed it a while ago.
I tend to find that kind of stuff more fun than just ceaseless repetitive matches that tends to make up MP type game play.
I rather have a great ending in a game and be able to think about it and talk about it and look forward to a potential better sequel (see God of War, original Halo trilogy, Ratchet & Clank, the old Red Alerts etc.). If you want people to keep on playing make a great game to come back to. This service stuff is going to hit them bad one day! Because those ubisoft games "without end" they almost all become stale and just forgetful. I'm gonna go back to God of War, still got valkyries to defeat and!
I dont think people are willing to play the same game year in and year out. Yes support youre game, but people playing a game for more than a year is an anomaly.
Nobody actually wants games to keep going, and what we used to have was a feature called "replay mission" so that we could choose to actually replay parts of a game that we liked.
Ghost Recon & Splinter Cell is all I'm really interested in from Ubi. If they start locking these behind a service or subscription well I have other forms of entertainment I enjoy that I can spend money on.
Games do end and players will keep playing some of them year after year....What it requires is that they are done well and if they are memorable. They need something amazing that makes the players want to return to the games. That's pretty much it, no other bullshit reason needed.
I love how every company has to tell the people what they really want. You know what I really want Ubisoft? I want a fun experience then move on to the next. If I wanted an ongoing never ending money grab I would sign up for WoW and watch soap operas all day.
Point being that many games NEED to have an ending. They need to have a conclusion that makes playing the game feel worth the time put into it. Adding to a game through its lifespan for sure is a great thing but you need to keep that ultimate game ending experience that many games seem to lack these days.
The entire 'keep players playing' without the included give gamers a good story from beginning to end is going to be the bane of games in the near future.
Ubisoft rocks. Queue the downvotes if you will but they just do.
No doubt, their post-launch support is second-to-none -- if only things weren't so routinely crummy at launch.
But they do end which is why u put out sequels every year
Instead of worrying about how long players will keep playing and spending please focus on quality of your gaming content and not quantity
ubisoft, do you know that even a game that ends, if done well, keep peolpe playing for years instead of a multiplayer shitty game?
i rather play rayman legends challenges because why not instead of AC, the division or other crap games like these