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.''

[Garethvk]

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.

[PixelGateUk]

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

[naruga]

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

[Aeery]

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.
...

[Goldby]

@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

[DemonChicken]

More like - https://m.youtube.com/watch...

[ABizzel1]

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

[IamTylerDurden1]

They patched The Division and it got worse..

[Garethvk]

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

[ChronoJoe]

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.

[Seraphim]

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.

[UltraNova]

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

[Timesplitter14]

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

[annoyedgamer]

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.

[PixelGateUk]

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

[InMyOpinion]

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.

[Goldby]

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

[Bigpappy]

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.

[Raziel893]

@thearkatek for now

[_-EDMIX-_]

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.

[Goldby]

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

[InMyOpinion]

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.

[cberg25]

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.

[thekhurg]

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.

[LabRat]

@ 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.

[SlightlyRetarted]

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.

[Fist4achin]

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.

[joab777]

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.

[TheOptimist]

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

[PixelGateUk]

Rainbow Six Siege is pretty damn good to be fair

[TheOptimist]

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.

[JayPi3]

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.

[TheOptimist]

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.

[naruga]

ubisoft just lacks gaming knowledge

[PixelGateUk]

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

[AcidDvl]

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.

[Goldby]

@Pixelgear,

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

[JayPi3]

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.

[RosweeSon]

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.

[l3w1s]

Because their games are heavily marketed while most of the time being complete shit with entertainment declining after one to six hours.

[ironcrow2386]

Probably because, minus a few exceptions, since the start of the decade their games have either been terrible or broken

[Manubiggs]

Something about the Ubisoft formula that makes it difficult to stick with or finish their games. The first 10 hours are super fun; then I lose any interest in returning

[XabiDaChosenOne]

Rainbow Six Siege is the only decent mp game they released this gen, Probably can argue the only decent big budget game they released this gen in general. Just garbage offerings.

[BillytheBarbarian]

The last game from ubisoft I liked online was Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. Spies vs Mercs was so addictive. I don't play online much anymore because everyone mods their controllers and cheats. Ruins it for people that just want to relax and have a good time.

[Goldby]

i was a pandora tomorrow spy myself, often goign into 3v1s and destroying all dem mercs

[BlakHavoc]

I just think their games tend to get boring quick. They're fun for the first month or so but ppl grow tired of them shortly after they release. I played For Honor for a week and was done with it. That's my issue with MP games, they get old fast similar to sports games, fighting games, and racing games. Just my opinion of course, but I'd much rather play a game that offers a campaign that eventually ends so you can move on to the next experience. I've noticed though that my taste in games has evolved over time, when I was younger I would sit on Halo 3 or CoD MW for hours playing online.

[JayPi3]

Maybe it's not so much of the games, perhaps it's just an age thing, i'm 25 going on 26 and when I was 15 I used to play Halo 3 and all that a whole lot for hours on in, but now i don't have time for it so I mostly focus on single player games that are meaningful experiences that I can take my time in.

I occasionally play Overwatch or Rocket League just for the pure fun aspect of them but i'm really hesitant to play online games that require a lot of time.

[BlakHavoc]

You're probably 100% correct. I played Destiny for over 60 hours but only cause I was able to tackle that game in its entirety with a friend. I rarely touched the pvp stuff though, so it's not actually MP stuff I no longer have a tolerance for, but instead pvp as I see it as a waste of time.

[justsomeoffdude]

'cos of their "profits before quality at all costs" mentality?

[GrimDragon]

Rhetorical question?

[JayPi3]

I think it's usually:

1) Uplay, people don't want to have to use 2 types of DRM (Steam and Uplay on PC) or have their game libraries divided.

2. Server issues, for some reason a lot of Ubisoft games have so many server issues it's disappointing, I remember I bought Siege and I couldn't even play it for a week or two because it had issues where it would freeze after every game.

3. Bugs, just bugs, bugs, and bugs, it's frustrating really, when they design actually pretty creative games, but they come with bugs.

[Yohshida]

They are as deep as a puddle, thats why.

[WickedLester]

Because they all feel generic as hell. As if all their games are designed by committee in a corporate board room . If Ubisoft's games were food, they'd be McDonald's.

[HansSoloBerger11]

Their games are incomplete and have no soul

[RememberThe357]

Honestly I think it's because many Ubi games have sucked recently. I'm super pumped for For Honor but I'm on a roll right now in BF1 and I'm not really looking for a new skill based game to get into. In a few months I'll pick up For Honor and I just got Wildlands for the coop and dope gun customization. So for me at least, I'm hoping Ubi can charm players into sticking around.

[Goldby]

be careful with For Honor. unless you plan on putting 2 years aside for it, or 700$ you wont be getting heroic gear and all cosmetics for all the characters

[RememberThe357]

Good Lord is it really that bad?

[Goldby]

yup. its a blatant Free-to-play model on a 60$ price tag.

[Einhander1971]

For me personally Ubisoft are overrated don't particularly like any of there games except for rayman.

[V0LT]

As a PC gamer I dispise Uplay for one reason.

[IamTylerDurden1]

Bc the games never live up to the hype and are usually downgrades.

[jokerisalive]

They are mostly crap now and several of them with the ridiculous 'Internet Required' gives them even less long term value to many people.

[PlayableGamez-]

Well Rainbow Six is a fairly popular multiplayer game.

[PixelGateUk]

The post talks about that for an entire section :p

[IamTylerDurden1]

R6S is the most egregious of the downgrades. The initial showing at e3 looked like a different game (grfx wise).

[TheGoodestBoi]

Alot of people buy Ubisoft s games because they like them. Also, a game losing a large portion of its player base after release is not an occurrence that is unique to Ubisoft. People play games and they move on

[PixelGateUk]

Not at this rate.

[TheGoodestBoi]

Here's an article that actually presents useful data ' http://www.pcgamer.com/conc... In the article you mention For Honour losing over half player base. Compared to what? The game is not performing poorly it just seems like it's cool to hate Ubisoft games and it's easy to paint them in a bad light when you don't compare them to other games. Statistics suggest its not abnormal to lose over half your player base.

[IamTylerDurden1]

Herbiwhore

Ppl aren't hating on Ubisoft for no reason, they've released at least four games (maybe 5) this gen that were either severe downgrades, bug riddled, or both.

AC Unity - among the most technically flawed, unpolished games this gen riddled with bugs and framerate issues. So bad that Ubisoft had to apologize and offer free DLC as compensation.

Watchdogs - it really is the poster child for downgrade this gen. The game also was massively overrated (imo), lacked anything close to a compelling story, and both the protagonist and game itself were a heartless shell. It did look pretty at night in the rain and it was an impressive open world tech demo though.

Rainbow Six Siege - In my honest opinion, comparing what released on console to what was shown at the initial reveal in 2014 R6S is the worst downgrade in recent memory. What was shown was NOT anywhere near representative of the final release. Oh, and they hired voice actors and added the game chat later. Read the comments https://www.youtube.com/wat...

The Division - another downgrade, though not nearly as egregious as Watchdogs or R6S. Another game that was released with technical and gameplay issues. Patches seemed to worsen certain issues and by the time DLC started rolling out most ppl had washed their hands with the game.

Even Wildlands appears to have been downgraded to an extent, but overall Ubisoft has done a lot of dirt this gen and imo lost all the good will their incredible Ubi Art department created with gems such as Child of Light and Valient Hearts. As long as these games continue to sell i see little reason for Ubisoft to change. I know EA has earned a lot of hate, but i honestly think the Ubisoft criticism is well justified.

[PixelGateUk]

Another case of reading the title and that's all. Also glossing over the fact the topic is multiplayer games. I guess it's cool to ignore stuff though

[TheGoodestBoi]

I actually did read through the article. I just feel you would have presented a stronger argument if you had comparative data from other online games

[PixelGateUk]

There's plenty there. And I genuinely don't believe you did because you acuse of 'Ubisoft hating' don't show your hand too early lad ;)

[TheGoodestBoi]

Where then? I only see other Ubisoft games mentioned, and Overwatch (with no drop out rates). And lad? It seems you enjoy making assumptions, that I havent read the article, the article itself and my gender...

[PixelGateUk]

Northen England slang and chat, i'm not trying to insult before you start that game pal. There's also points about BF1 and Call of Duty. No Man's Sky isnt multiplayer, so why would it be included?

[IamTylerDurden1]

Ubisoft games seem to garner an abnormal amount of hate a month or two after release. I honestly feel as though it is bc Ubisoft oversells ppl on these games by showing unrealistic visuals early on, overhyping, and then releasing often unpolished games with little heart. I don't hate Ubisoft, and not every game they release is stricken with these afflictions, but it seems to be a pattern that far too many Ubi games follow. They are becoming a factory.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Because Ubi has been nothing but hype and/or smoke n mirrors for the entirety of this generation. Everything they show has great promise and presentation, til you actually sit down and put hours into it.

[cerpintaxt44]

well for honor has been plagued with server issues since launch. really kills it otherwise its a fun game

[PixelGateUk]

That's the problem, it doesn't have servers. It's peer-to-peer

[holdmyown83]

Hell they even fucked up Tetris.

[discobastard]

Because they are sh1t3

[Muzikguy]

Well for me the always online on many of their games just kills my ambition to play. Launch issues have not helped and then the frequency of game releases. People like to claim that more is better, but in many cases (and this being one of them), that's not true. When I was buying games for their multiplayer I wanted lots of time to enjoy it. Nowadays it just seems like a quick cash grab for companies. For that reason and others I just stay away.

And really I haven't enjoyed the games they've been releasing. Watch Dogs was my Lair of this generation. Good thing this generation has had some amazing games so that's been my only regret was buying Watch Dogs. Rainbow Six even though many seem to like it I was beyond disappointed. Glad I only rented that. The
Division didn't impress me either. Other online only games I'm not even going to try. I haven't bought any Ubisoft games besides WD and Monopoly. Even regret buying the Monopoly game because the Sega Genesis one seemed better IMO

[Richhard1]

The game has to have plenty of replay value, and variety. Many games these days feel like epic CGI film releases which provide awesome reveal trailers, but flop on release.

[TimelessDbz]

PFFT its human nature get bored after one week and is ready to play something different. Don't blame ubisoft because people have a short attention span.

[DVAcme]

Cause their servers are held together with spit and chicken wire and have enough microtransactions to sustain a micronation, that's why.

[Germaximus]

LOL It's not just Ubisoft.

[TheVetOfGaming]

Because Ubisoft.

[HeWhoDwellz]

Why does....

[Father__Merrin]

still lots of players on consoles

[XbladeTeddy]

Too many UbiTowers.

[BadElf]

If EVERY single game was handled like Overwatch is handled, then there wouldnt be that issue.

Constant free updates, adding loot, maps, characters etc.

[Maxor]

Ubisoft are careless at handling their online fanbase. Either they don't have basic anti-hacks on PC or they lack good servers on both platforms. They're also shit producing high quality DLCs which is a must for sustaining player interest.

[BlackIceJoe]

Easy answer, Ubisoft was better in the past, when they cared about making great single player campaigns. Look at games like Prince of Persia, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Beyond Good and Evil, Rayman and Assassins Creed. Now all their games have forced multiplayer and even when the game is a single player game, Ubisoft makes it so you have to play the game online. I for one want to see the old Ubisoft return, because these days their games just don't interest me and until they go back to how they made games in the past, I will continue to not buy their games.

[Takwin]

1. They release broken, buggy games
2. They follow the same cut-and-paste formula on all their open-world games
3. We are getting real tired of #1 and #2

[esmittystud101]

If they tried for quality instead of rushing out that next title they would have a better product.

[utosser]

there was a time when they were winning lots of awards far cry3 ps3
but there business practice is heading the wrong way and that is to make the games online only.
which is bad for business.

The Division, good game but should had made it total offline play would had sold a lot more if they did do this
for sure they could do a offline patch if they wanted to.

For Honor slowly losings its players online because of cheating and the game is crap
should had made it like dragon age with a good story base.

[redaxis]

still got the bitter taste of for honor in my mouth. yuck...

[RosweeSon]

Uninspiring and unoriginal come to mind yearly churns don't help, Ubisoft can make a great game but they all about the money rather than the game itself first and foremost the money will come and people will pay (normally) if the game is good enough. For me personally tho Ubisoft is up there with EA 😩😉

[formanbradley]

Here is every single good game that Ubi has released in the past five years...
Rayman Legends
South Park: The Stick of Truth
Rainbow Six: Siege

Did I forget any?

[Prince_TFK]

Simply because their games are usually bland or a repetitive of their last games. Ubisoft lack imagination and its starting to show in their latest games. I bought Watch Dogs 2 And i regretted buying that sh*t. Its one of the most boring games i had ever played.

This is why I am really worry about the new South Park game since its now developed by their in-house developer. South Park is one of my most favourite tv serie, don't fu*k this up, Ubisoft.

[Ausbo]

Siege is still doing well I believe

[Segata]

The same gullible dopes fall for essentially the Sonic cycle only with Ubisoft games. Hype it to hell,promise big things. Once they get it downgraded visuals. Mediocre game. Nothing to do after just a few hours,people get bored. Next game won't do that right!? Yes.

[joethetimelord]

They're released with numerous issues and content cuts made worse via deceptive marketing.

[RedPill86]

Typically Ubisoft titles have some of the worst multiplayer around. Not to mention awful communication with the community. And that's saying something considering guys like Blizzard ignore and take a dump on their communities chest.

[ginsunuva]

They lack love. They're cookie-cutter formulas so they're (relatively) quick & inexpensive to make, but they don't have that passion and emotion that developers put into their games.

[zerocarnage]

fans come back to ubisoft games just like any other developer out there. Players have done it very long time and often it's nothing to with the franchise or developer but instead how fast content is injected into games. Why make out though , like it's ubisoft games alone.

[dauntingcookie]

I love Ubisoft games. Finished Far Cry 3, 4, Primal, Assassins Creed Black Flag was the best current gen AC game and Siege is awesome. Only issue I have at this point is the strict nat bs on Wildlands.

[melons]

Hah, Siege is bigger than ever.

[Kocurstvo]

Ubisoft games are sterile and is very obvious they are meda chiefly for the profit. They lack passion and enthusiasm. Therefore its games lack soul and fun...

[PiperMCFierceson]

Rainbow 6 siege has a great community. Not sure about the other titles. But once I played the division beta I returned it. And with for honor almost the same story. Played the beta and didn't like it, so didn't pre order it. And wildlands.
Also if you play R6 on psn send me a request(platinums and up only please). Same name.

[frostypants]

They're just bland.

[taijutsu363]

Cuz they are just rapid firing games out for quick cash grabs and then the quality dips, then theres no surprise when the game launches it needs a junkload of patches! Why do you think the AC series actually needed a breather from its year-to-year release? Because players were starting to notice the dip in quality and in turn Ubi saw a dip in their wallets.

[yeahokwhatever]

because ubisoft has great ideas, with piss poor execution. good ideas, bad games.

[rezzah]

I avoid their games, especially if they are MP focused.

They lost their essence for developing great games once they decided to milk the Assassin's Creed series.