I'd really be curious to know what prompts developers/publisher to taking that philosophy when it comes to their "policy" making. I know there are some games that link their multi- and single-player "experiences" with things like leader boards or cash flows like some Need for Speed and Grand Theft Auto titles have respectively, but for the large part that isn't needed or even desired from what I've seen.
It's very much like these companies want people playing alone as little as possible, if not at all. If those are the kinds of games they want to make then, in all honesty, why don't they simply make MMO, multi-player only, or "free to play" games? The actual game play quality is often on par with what one would expect from such an offering anyway, and then to essentially force people to play online on top of some of the DRM placed on games..... do they really want you to even buy the thing?
I just don't understand what all the control freak behavior is about when it comes to single-player aspects or why they think we all should be playing together instead of alone.
Ubisoft is attempting to push the industry further towards the "games as service" business model rather than the...well..."games as games." Thanks to the popularity of MOBAs and pure multiplayer experiences like Overwatch, modern gamers are buying fewer games and playing those games longer. Just look at last month's retail sales reports to see the trend in action. Losses across the board while Overwatch soars thanks to its social media boost.
Since gamers are sticking to one game longer, Ubisoft is getting dollar signs in their eyes and attempting to make their traditionally single-player games more socially focused rather than story-focused. Keeping people playing one game longer - because their friends are - means Ubi and other companies can more easily sell content for that game over and over and over again. Look at GTA Online as a prime example. That thing rakes in cash and has been doing so for years, preventing Rockstar from even considering doing single player content while multi is making them so much revenue.
For a company like Ubisoft, this means they can spend less money developing new titles and simply pimp out cheap (to develop) microtransactions and DLC for as long as gamers hold onto that one game. They've been planning for this since AC: Unity, the game they hoped would turn into a multiplayer sensation and earn them bank in microtransaction revenue.
So this "gentle nudging" we're getting away from pure single player and towards "social" experiences is purely a corporate strategy to shift the market towards a better business model for Ubisoft. Welcome to modern AAA gaming, where creativity and innovation take a far back seat to profits and shareholder interests.
Didnt they do this with the first WD? I have already pre ordered my WD2 and enjoyed the first one. Heck I did not even connect to the online side of the game.
I opened a service ticket and wrote them asking if I could for sure play offline. Then I gave them a few reasons I wanted to play offline and use a Trainer in the game.
They replied, yes, I could play Offline but they didn't answer at first about the trainer. So I wrote back and pressed for an answer. Guy wrote me back and said he would advise against using a trainer. I'm sorry Bear, you and I usually agree about games. I thought the first one was just average and I'm not gonna buy WD-2.
If you guys all drool over it after a coupla weeks I might change my mind but otherwise I'll skip this one.
🤐
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics