Ubisoft eyeing microtransactions for full priced $60 titles

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Well folks, if there ever was a line that should not be crossed in terms of game business models, this would seemingly be it. Ubisoft is apparently considering working microtransactions into its full-priced $60 games.

Source

Future Ubisoft games could offer in-game purchases after taking an initial $60 chomp of your wallet.GamesBeatsays during an investor call, Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez and Worldwide Online Director Stéphanie Perotti acknowledged the flexibility of free-to-play business models and the opportunity for full-priced games offering microtransactional items.

Free-to-play is a very flexible business model, Perotti said. The player has the capability to spend more than in a traditional model. We can control everything from the pricing to marketing as if we were anonline store.

With games like Watch Dogs, we could see more opportunity for $60 games to learn from the free-to-play model, Martinez added. The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games profitability.

How far will these companies go? We've already seen increasing amounts of DLC, and now the rise of the "season pass" (Forza Horizon will be sporting a whopping $49.99 season pass at launch). In all honesty, this kind of business practice scares the crap out of me.

#2 Posted by Cataclism (1517 posts) -

Well folks, if there ever was a line that should not be crossed in terms of game business models, this would seemingly be it. Ubisoft is apparently considering working microtransactions into its full-priced $60 games.

Source

Future Ubisoft games could offer in-game purchases after taking an initial $60 chomp of your wallet.GamesBeatsays during an investor call, Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez and Worldwide Online Director Stéphanie Perotti acknowledged the flexibility of free-to-play business models and the opportunity for full-priced games offering microtransactional items.

Free-to-play is a very flexible business model, Perotti said. The player has the capability to spend more than in a traditional model. We can control everything from the pricing to marketing as if we were anonline store.

With games like Watch Dogs, we could see more opportunity for $60 games to learn from the free-to-play model, Martinez added. The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games profitability.

Vari3ty

How far will these companies go? We've already seen increasing amounts of DLC, and now the rise of the "season pass" (Forza Horizon will be sporting a whopping $49.99 season pass at launch). In all honesty, this kind of business practice scares the crap out of me.

And lots of idiots will buy them, you can be sure of that. But, in truth, Guild Wars 2 already does this. At least you can get anything with in-game gold. And subscription games are even more expensive. Heck, WoW has a box price, a subscription AND microtransactions.
#3 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Well folks, if there ever was a line that should not be crossed in terms of game business models, this would seemingly be it. Ubisoft is apparently considering working microtransactions into its full-priced $60 games.

Source

Future Ubisoft games could offer in-game purchases after taking an initial $60 chomp of your wallet.GamesBeatsays during an investor call, Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez and Worldwide Online Director Stéphanie Perotti acknowledged the flexibility of free-to-play business models and the opportunity for full-priced games offering microtransactional items.

Free-to-play is a very flexible business model, Perotti said. The player has the capability to spend more than in a traditional model. We can control everything from the pricing to marketing as if we were anonline store.

With games like Watch Dogs, we could see more opportunity for $60 games to learn from the free-to-play model, Martinez added. The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games profitability.

Cataclism

How far will these companies go? We've already seen increasing amounts of DLC, and now the rise of the "season pass" (Forza Horizon will be sporting a whopping $49.99 season pass at launch). In all honesty, this kind of business practice scares the crap out of me.

And lots of idiots will buy them, you can be sure of that. But, in truth, Guild Wars 2 already does this. At least you can get anything with in-game gold. And subscription games are even more expensive. Heck, WoW has a box price, a subscription AND microtransactions.

True, but I'm used to that being an MMO exclusive sort of deal. Seeing something like this in the upcoming Watch Dogs or future Assassin's Creed games would be disturbing.

#4 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

As long as they don't start locking key content behind transactions (which would be suicide, so I highly doubt it), I say let 'em experiment.

#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18214 posts) -
In other words: "Bigger gun" $2 extra, which doesn't concern me in the slightest: I want to play the game the way it comes out of the box, I don't need to pay to make the game easier or my character prettier. Let them add an online store for horse armor idiots. No offense to all horse armor idiots, of course.
#6 Posted by DoomZaW (6470 posts) -

We already have that. It's called DLC

#7 Posted by Cataclism (1517 posts) -

As long as they don't start locking key content behind transactions (which would be suicide, so I highly doubt it), I say let 'em experiment.

c_rake
 That is all.
#8 Posted by Avenger1324 (16344 posts) -
It appears Ubisoft missed the first word in "Free to play concept" when they applied it to a $60 game.
#9 Posted by LordQuorthon (5266 posts) -

You HARDCORE AND SRS GAMERZ spent this entire generation voting with your wallets and the suits have listened.

#10 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6691 posts) -

**** you Ubisoft.

#11 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

That is all.Cataclism

Examples, please.

#12 Posted by BranKetra (47947 posts) -
Ubisoft will receive a ton of money with such a business practice. Look at the success of Team Fortress 2.
#13 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

Gamers have no self-respect and Ubisoft is shameless when it comes to that sort of thing. I wouldn't be surprised if Assassin's Creed 3.5 was full-priced and made you pay for every weapon except for the base blade. And I also wouldn't be surprised if that business model happened to be hugely successful when applied to that franchise, or any super popular, can't miss, AAA rehash franchise.

You're already paying twice for content that's on the disc ("DLC"), why not shell out a few extra bucks to be able to enjoy the game at all?

#14 Posted by Cataclism (1517 posts) -

Gamers have no self-respect

ReddestSkies
This. A million times this.
#15 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18214 posts) -
[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Gamers have no self-respect

Cataclism
This. A million times this.

Speak for yourselves
#16 Posted by coasterguy65 (5847 posts) -

As long as I can get the full gaming experience without using micro transactions then I'm ok with it. If people want to buy extra gun skins or whatever that's their thing. However if I have to start buying stuff just to finish the game then I'm done. Done with Ubisoft and any other company that tries that crap. I already avoid season pass type games just out of principle.

#17 Posted by SouL-Tak3R (4024 posts) -

I would stop buying their games unless it is only gun skins and things that affect the game in no way whatsoever. Gamers need to stand up to this bs when it actually affects the game.

#18 Posted by Drosa (3119 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cataclism"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Gamers have no self-respect

Black_Knight_00

This. A million times this.

Speak for yourselves

That's about right for a lot of gamers.

There are countless examples of gamers buying broken buggy garbage and getting mad about it. The main thing to happen is a lot of complaining on the forum boards. And then the cycle starts all over again.

Then there is behavior in games. Almost from day 1 I was told that World of Warcraft doesn't really begin until your character is maxed out. That end game content is nothing more than repetition. There is not much self respect here but there is alot of addiciton.

Its hard to imagine that someone with a lot of self respect with say the things I've seen on the chat channels or done some of the thing I've seen in game.

#19 Posted by koospetoors (3244 posts) -

As long as they don't start locking key content behind transactions (which would be suicide, so I highly doubt it), I say let 'em experiment.

c_rake
They already sold a game's ending as DLC (PoP Remake) once, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do some questionable things with their micro-transactions. But anyway, I'm starting to deeply loathe what gaming has come to, so many companies are just in it to suck every possible customer dry and most of them don't even bother hiding it any more because people just gladly bend over and take it all in anyway.
#20 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18214 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Cataclism"] This. A million times this.Drosa

Speak for yourselves

That's about right for a lot of gamers.

There are countless examples of gamers buying broken buggy garbage and getting mad about it. The main thing to happen is a lot of complaining on the forum boards. And then the cycle starts all over again.

Then there is behavior in games. Almost from day 1 I was told that World of Warcraft doesn't really begin until your character is maxed out. That end game content is nothing more than repetition. There is not much self respect here but there is alot of addiciton.

Its hard to imagine that someone with a lot of self respect with say the things I've seen on the chat channels or done some of the thing I've seen in game.

I agree with everything you said. Still, saying "Gamers have no self respect" is incorrect. "A lot of gamers have no self respect" hits closer to the mark
#21 Posted by wiouds (5023 posts) -

There is little different between microtransaction and DLC. If used poor they are a con.

The second thing is how long of a window for DLC do most single player games have? There not that long of a time for a singple player game to have DLC that will sell.

To go along with this is the that it seem many games believe anything that you can get for the game was cut from the game and should have been there from the start.

#22 Posted by LongZhiZi (2453 posts) -

You HARDCORE AND SRS GAMERZ spent this entire generation voting with your wallets and the suits have listened.

LordQuorthon
Unfortunately, this is true. There have been a few examples this generation where DLC was a positive- I'd point to the GTA4 expansions as fine examples of DLC. But most of it was utter crap. All I've learned from this generation is to never pay full price for a game on release day. What's the point when you're not getting the full story? It's just better to wait for a 'complete' edition at a budget price.
#23 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

So don't buy the microtransactions. Problem solved.

#24 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -
Ubisoft games are 9/10 times utter trash anyway. Unless these microtransactions involve them paying me I don't really care.
#25 Posted by svaubel (2436 posts) -

As if we werent getting ripped off enough by DLC, Online Passes, Season Passes, and games in general that cost 60$ for six hours of gameplay.

Said it before I will say it again, the only thing that will kill these BS business practices is A: Gamers stop buying into them like the good little sheep the pubs see us as and B: the publishers themselves go too far and we have another repeat of 1984.

Which at this point I feel we need another major crash to get the publishers to freaking wake up that they themselves are their own worst enemy.

#26 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

As if we werent getting ripped off enough by DLC, Online Passes, Season Passes, and games in general that cost 60$ for six hours of gameplay.

Said it before I will say it again, the only thing that will kill these BS business practices is A: Gamers stop buying into them like the good little sheep the pubs see us as and B: the publishers themselves go too far and we have another repeat of 1984.

Which at this point I feel we need another major crash to get the publishers to freaking wake up that they themselves are their own worst enemy.

svaubel

Gaming isn't gonna crash again, and gamers will never stop buying so-called AAA titles. The market is too big now, it's too easy to make "appealing" games and marketing teams are more competent than ever.

I mean, RE6 seems to be the epitome of AAA failure, but even if those 4.5 million copies Capcom shipped stay on the shelves, it's still not gonna affect the industry as a whole like ET did