Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

apparently ubi-soft is making some sort of "Game as a service" assasin;'s creed. I can't see this game being enjoyable at all, in retrospect it's no suprise, Ubi-soft has been wanting to push some vaguely games as a service approuches for awhile now. frankly this annoys me, another single player game series I enjoyed is being screwed up into a online multipleyr removed

https://www.ign.com/articles/assassins-creed-infinity-online-platform-multiple-games-settings-fortnite-gta-online

/shrug

It doesn't preclude them shoveling out their normal AC titles.

The franchise has been an uneven mess from the start; an even more online title isn't going to make or break it.

I'd say this tarnishes their integrity, but, well, they lost that a long time ago.

Voss wrote:
/shrug

It doesn't preclude them shoveling out their normal AC titles.

The franchise has been an uneven mess from the start; an even more online title isn't going to make or break it.

generally when a franchise launches a MMO thats the end of the franchise otherwise, when's the last time blizzard relased a warcraft game that wasn't a WOW expansion?

Probably better to say that a successful MMO marks the end of a series.

Really enjoyed Odessey - mainly because the "real world" stuff is so rare and I love the period/history.

Tried GTA 5 but thought it was hugely inferior to the earlier versions - grpahically better but systems much less so not tried GTA online

Having lots of other people in the same game would be a big disincentive - I don't play computer game to interact with people - quite the opposite!

Whilst the AAA industry has always flirted with evil I've always thought their ability to do sums steered them away from stupid

Its nice to be wrong sometimes, hope they've reserved a plot in the graveyard, next to Anthem might be nice

I gave up after the boat one (4?)

Assassin's Creed fans make 40k players look content and happy in their fandom.

Eh AC was already a warning when they put real money experience and gold boosters into a singleplayer game and then banned/blocked/removed user made quests that gave "too much reward".

That right there was a sign that UBI didn't want to make a singleplayer game, but a multiplayer; but didn't really want to pay for servers.

I basically burned out on 2. I played 2.2 a bit then took a break. Finished 3, but it's.... more than a little rushed and awkward. I'd definitely had my fill by then.

BrianDavion wrote:

Voss wrote:
/shrug

It doesn't preclude them shoveling out their normal AC titles.

The franchise has been an uneven mess from the start; an even more online title isn't going to make or break it.

generally when a franchise launches a MMO thats the end of the franchise otherwise, when's the last time blizzard relased a warcraft game that wasn't a WOW expansion?

You're confusing causes. RTS games are pretty much a dead genre deemed not worth the risk- that's why there's no Warcraft 4 yet (though it also didn't stop a remaster of Warcraft 3, though they faffed that up to the point that they've reinforced the idea that RTS is bad idea)
Blizzard also has its own issues with staff, development and management.

The Elder Scrolls MMO isn't stopping (though possibly delayed) Elder Scrolls 6. Several Star Wars games were blocked by EA being stupid, but still happened regardless of the Old Republic MMO.

Every ac game is the same.. lost interest after the first game. Black flag was fun coz pirates but since then... meh...

 LunarSol wrote:
I basically burned out on 2. I played 2.2 a bit then took a break. Finished 3, but it's.... more than a little rushed and awkward. I'd definitely had my fill by then.

That's a shame, because 4 might be the best one.

Voss wrote:
The Elder Scrolls MMO isn't stopping (though possibly delayed) Elder Scrolls 6.

Elder Scrolls 6 is going to be a live-service wide awake nightmare.

Its barely in pre-production, so that's a hot take.

It'll also come out under Microsoft's umbrella, so we'll see a lot more of what to expect once Avowed and Starfield come out.

Voss wrote:
Its barely in pre-production, so that's a hot take.

There's nothing hot about it, especially when you factor in the way Bethesda has "evolved" over the past 10 years. They're awful, and they're just getting worse.

That said there's been some significant pushback against some of the micro transaction mess that developers were fostering on games - esp EA with their casino hidden in a basketball game.

IT might be that some are a touch more cautious now since its one thing for customers to complain, but governments can fine you!

That said I have to agree that the mess Bedethsa made of Skyrim's modding when they tried twice to add paid mods; suggests that their overall company focus is very much on the greed side of things.


That said its a few years off and we'll just have to wait and see. I will say that I greatly dislike the whole notion of "online all the time" singleplayer games (looking at you Diablo 3 PC edition); and of singleplayer games getting MMO style micro transactions. I can justify such costs for MMO games because its an MMO and they have to pay for servers, mods (or at least head mods); support and other costs long term. But for singleplayer games its just greed.


Honestly Paradox has the right attitude - generally solid core game which they then continue to expand with DLC addons which are optional and which often add nice chunks of content so long as the game and its DLC keeps selling. Mixed with regular sales and humble bundles and such to offer low cost buy-in.

There is an interview with Todd Howard where he says without saying it directly that he wasn't able to capitalise on Skyrim's popularity in a monetary fashion, that the game has been filled with free content for years and that they scarcely saw a penny of it.

He's not going to make that mistake again, and that's what has me worried.

Hey I'm all for official paid for mods and such. I think done right its a nice way to allow modders to add quality and bigger content to a game and to make some income from their hard work.

That said such a system needs curation to ensure that the modders are submitting their own work; that the mods are quality products and that the prices are fair.

Bedethsa just wants to basically do a steam and have no curation and just rake in the money.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is an interview with Todd Howard where he says without saying it directly that he wasn't able to capitalise on Skyrim's popularity in a monetary fashion, that the game has been filled with free content for years and that they scarcely saw a penny of it.

He's not going to make that mistake again, and that's what has me worried.

Considering he has now released the same game for how many consoles and PC versions, i don't think his argument holds any sway...
The only thing that annoys him really is the fact that he can't make 30% of his total earnings like ea from "micro" transactions out of one game.

OTOH Bethesda is now propperty of microsoft... and whilest microsoft has a rather questionable trackrecord, they also have become in regards to games produced somewhat of a decent publisher / owner.

I mean i'm not shocked. All major studios seems to be getting into the live service model as a way to have a constant revenue stream.

That said this is not my cup of tea so I wont be partaking.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
I mean i'm not shocked. All major studios seems to be getting into the live service model as a way to have a constant revenue stream.

That said this is not my cup of tea so I wont be partaking.

and yet minecraft hasn't done so under Microsoft.
Contrary with the whole realm scheme they actually have done something to monetise their game AND provide a valuable servoce to its custommers.

With Minecraft it had a vast population of customers before MS took it over and a huge part of its growth and appeal was its cheap and easy to approach system of gaming. It's also very much into the kids and schools markets and such as well so there's likely limits as to how far they could take any monetizing before it would backlash.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I basically burned out on 2. I played 2.2 a bit then took a break. Finished 3, but it's.... more than a little rushed and awkward. I'd definitely had my fill by then.

That's a shame, because 4 might be the best one.

I know! I actually own Black Flag, started it and just... didn't have it in me to play it. That was a big part of how I knew I was completely burned out on it.

 Overread wrote:

Honestly Paradox has the right attitude - generally solid core game which they then continue to expand with DLC addons which are optional and which often add nice chunks of content so long as the game and its DLC keeps selling. Mixed with regular sales and humble bundles and such to offer low cost buy-in.

While I agree, they still catch a lot of flack for it, with players complaining that Paradox is releasing "incomplete" games.

Of course, the games don't generally get considered "incomplete" at launch.

Eumerin wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Honestly Paradox has the right attitude - generally solid core game which they then continue to expand with DLC addons which are optional and which often add nice chunks of content so long as the game and its DLC keeps selling. Mixed with regular sales and humble bundles and such to offer low cost buy-in.

While I agree, they still catch a lot of flack for it, with players complaining that Paradox is releasing "incomplete" games.

Of course, the games don't generally get considered "incomplete" at launch.

Agreed. It can also get them some flack when they release a sequel and people expect it to have the same content as the previous game plus its 20 odd DLC - all at regular retail price.

In general though I think its mostly hot air complaining when it comes to "incomplete at launch" arguments. As you say few people tend to say that at launch, its more down the road when people think that all the DLC is just cut content and don't realise that no, it really isn't

Quite a few of their recent games have been really bad in that regard, and the DLC has been pretty sparse as well.

Imperator never recovered from being a hot mess and has since been abandoned, and HOI 4 in particular stands out for both, with only a few countries at a time getting entire DLCs to fill out the nation tree.

Voss wrote:
Quite a few of their recent games have been really bad in that regard, and the DLC has been pretty sparse as well.

Imperator never recovered from being a hot mess and has since been abandoned, and HOI 4 in particular stands out for both, with only a few countries at a time getting entire DLCs to fill out the nation tree.

I'll agree with Imperator.

HoI4 has been fine, imo. The major nations all had unique focus trees at launch. And subsequent DLCs have added content to large chunks of the map, plus have provided interesting reworks to most of the major nations. It's true that Battle for Bosporus - the most recent DLC - only had three national focus trees included in it. But Waking the Tiger had nine. And Battle for Bosporus was priced less than the usual DLC price. Further, the players seem to generally agree that the game is fine, since Paradox is apparently selling enough copies to justify continued development of the game (unlike Imperator).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There is an interview with Todd Howard where he says without saying it directly that he wasn't able to capitalise on Skyrim's popularity in a monetary fashion, that the game has been filled with free content for years and that they scarcely saw a penny of it.

He's not going to make that mistake again, and that's what has me worried.

I'm sure that bugs them, but they could have kept pumping out DLC if they wanted to make more money off Skyrim.

My guess is that while it sucks for Bethesda that they didn't have a subscription or loot boxes or other income streams from a game that remains popular a decade later, the game is probably popular a decade later because it didn't have a subscription or loot boxes. It's a rich, immersive fully single player, self contained experience. That's why people go back to it.

 Polonius wrote:
My guess is that while it sucks for Bethesda that they didn't have a subscription or loot boxes or other income streams from a game that remains popular a decade later, the game is probably popular a decade later because it didn't have a subscription or loot boxes.

AAA publishers don't see it that way.

"Assassin's Creed Online" is going to be an absolute gak show. Everyone's looking at GTA Online and going "I want me some'a that!". And this is Ubisoft we're talking about. They had pre-order bundles for the Assassin's Creed movie. No I'm not making that up.

 Overread wrote:
With Minecraft it had a vast population of customers before MS took it over and a huge part of its growth and appeal was its cheap and easy to approach system of gaming. It's also very much into the kids and schools markets and such as well so there's likely limits as to how far they could take any monetizing before it would backlash.

Yep, and yet Microsoft also didn't feth up AOE series.