Far Cry 5 Has Microtransactions, Campaign Is Playable Offline

Ubisoft confirms more details about the soon-to-launch PS4, Xbox One, and PC action game.

177 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: GS News Update: Far Cry 5 Has Microtransactions, Campaign Is Playable Offline

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

With Far Cry 5's much-anticipated release coming up soon, we've now learned a little bit more about the game and some of its features. Publisher Ubisoft confirmed to GameSpot today two key particulars about the game regarding microtransactions and whether or not you will need an internet connection to play the campaign.

As with many other games, including previous Ubisoft games, Far Cry 5 will offer microtransactions. Executive producer Dan Hay stressed that the game will be generous in what it offers, though if you want to speed up your progress by spending money, you'll have that option. "We've set the game up to be generous," Hay said. "We've set the game up so...nothing is locked [away]. You can go out and explore, and the game will reward you for your exploration."

No Caption Provided
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

Ubisoft PR followed up to offer a full statement on Far Cry 5's microtransactions, saying they will allow players to speed up their progress. Importantly, however, they are for cosmetic items only. Nothing you can buy will affect gameplay.

Far Cry 5's microtransactions will be available for single-player and co-op, and apparently head-to-head multiplayer as well. It'll probably make gamers happy to learn that all of Far Cry 5's microtransaction items are cosmetic only; they do not affect gameplay.

This is similar to the setup from another Ubisoft game, Assassin's Creed: Origins. That game offers "Time Saver Packs" that include items or packs of in-game currency that you can then spend to speed up your progress. They are totally optional, and can be unlocked through normal gameplay.

Also in our interview, Ubisoft confirmed that Far Cry 5's full campaign will be playable offline. Of course, if you want to play in co-op or are interested in checking out the game's online components, you will need an internet connection. You would expect to be able to play a campaign offline, but not all games allow you to. For example, Bungie's Destiny 2 requires a constant internet connection, even when playing solo.

We will have lots more from our interview with Dan Hay in the days ahead, covering many other topics, but notably the conception and creepy charisma of the game's main cult leader antagonist, Joseph Seed. We also asked Hay about Far Cry 5's impressive- and deep-looking map-editing tools. Far Cry 5 launches on PS4, Xbox One, and PC on March 27.

In other news, Ubisoft recently announced Far Cry 5's Season Pass, and it takes players to places like Mars and the Vietnam War.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 177 comments about this story
177 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for garysan
GarySan

Heard Sony wants to double down on making first party exclusives. It would be smart for them to just dish out quality games in high quantity without any MT as oppose to one's that have. That would put them in quite a unique position: The only huge publisher that doesn't offer MT. Focus instead on the value of their PS Plus

Avatar image for justerthought
justerthought

I smell a bit of bullcrap here. Can someone please explain how 'cosmetic only' can help with game progression. Oh if you're struggling to capture a base because you have not levelled up your skills and weapons enough, just buy a silly hat and the enemy will just die laughing.

Honesty always wins here. If you're up to shady stuff and hide it, then people are going to spot it and you loose all credibility. But if you're honest and feel confident you're being fair, you can spell it all out and say "yes we do let you buy better guns to speed up game progression if your game time is limited and you have lots of real world cash." That's only justified if the poorer gamers or gamers who want a long game that does not kill off valuable gameplay, can still earn all that stuff by working hard 'within reason' and play the game properly.

'Within reason' means you should be able to have a game that lasts 200hrs or more in total, not that you need to grind 200hrs in order to earn a single gold gun and then offer the ability to just buy it straight away as EA would do.

What you should not do is create impossible obstacles like EA so you have to pay extra in order to enjoy the full game. I just avoid anything with EA on it and refuse to play games that block progression then ask for money. That's what gangsters and criminals do with gambling, protection rackets and blackmail. Once something reaches mass market status, the gangsters and money men always move in to get a short term quick kill. It's basically a steal for very little work. They do not care if it will kill the golden goose host because they just move onto something else when it dies. Financial leeches raping the game industry.

Gaming platforms and game devs should be rejecting all this stuff to protect their livelyhood in the long term. Those who love gaming should be aware of this stuff and avoid buying it, because they will not repeat something if it did not earn them any money.

I have Far Cry 5 pre-ordered because I trust Ubisoft. They have proved with AC Origins and GR Wildlands that you can simply ignore their pay to win stuff within a large single player campaign and still get a great game with excellent value for money. Rockstar's GTV was the same. Even though the online multiplayer is full of shady pay to win stuff, you could just ignore all that and play the awesome solo campaign with excellent value for money.

In fact the Far Cry series goes one step further and even gives you a 'free' tool to make your own gameplay content and share it 'free' of charge with other gamers like 'free' DLC. Notice all the 'free' in that sentence. That needs supporting because generosity is precious. EA would simply charge gamers to download the content that other gamers had made for a greedy quick kill. In that instance, I would stop making the maps and the community would die in the long term, with game sales drying up.

Ubisoft realise that offering such a service free of charge actually sells more games and keeps the franchise alive with a loyal fanbase. If I create a challenging map free of charge and someone wants to pay Ubisoft for a better gun in order to beat it, then that's fine. It's totally optional.

You might ask why would I want to create free content for others without getting paid for it. The answer is that map making is an enjoyable creative process. Just like buying a guitar then spending hours making music, or buying a camera to take lots of photos. People do it because they enjoy the creative process and if others like what you do then everyone wins. My reward for map making is that Ubisoft give me an even better map editor next time so I can enjoy my creativity even more. Community spirit should be protected from greedy vultures wishing to make extra money off it.

Avatar image for fierygrave
fierygrave

@justerthought: I can give you examples of Cosmetic time savers.

A gun variant that has a unique skin that is the same as a gun in game that needs to be unlocked, either through playtime or in game currency.
Collectible maps that reveal collectible locations
Same as guns but with vehicles.

Though it sounds to me they are saying their is time savers AND cosmetic MT not that they are "Cosmetic time savers". its just poorly worded here. The Paragraph here "Ubisoft PR followed up to offer a full statement on Far Cry 5's microtransactions, saying they will allow players to speed up their progress. Importantly, however, they are for cosmetic items only. Nothing you can buy will affect gameplay."
That is super confusing wording and not clear on what they mean. but isn't using the actual statement by Ubisoft or linking to it

Avatar image for Hordriss
Hordriss

@fierygrave: I assume they mean the cosmetic items can be earned in game, but you can pay to unlock them earlier than they would otherwise be obtainable. That type of microtransaction I'm fine with, as it is entirely optional and doesn't affect the actual gameplay.

Avatar image for Ryderych
Ryderych

As long as devs/publishers don't restrict essential game content to microtransactions--i.e., I can't progress in the game unless I buy something with real money, or I need to buy DLC that clearly should've been part of the main story, or I have to grind unreasonably--then I really don't care whether or not games contain microtansactions. That goes for multiplayer too--no pay-to-win. Regarding the grind, notice I said "unreasonably": the grind has been part of RPGs, in particular, for decades.

Cosmetic add-ons, or equipment packs? Time Savers? Cool. If consumers want to spend their own money to enhance a commercial product they've already bought, that's their choice.

Avatar image for randgt8
randgt8

was going to play AC Origins next but thanks this article and comments for bring microtransaction to my attention. I think I will pass on both.

Avatar image for huntem
Huntem

Thank You ! me and a few friend's are passing on this game. Still playing Monster Hunter World, DBZ Fighterz and some great reviewed Indie games that I bought for mere dollars. Japanese game developers are making a come back and Indie Game Developers are doing a great job. Great time to buy there games.

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@huntem: Isn't Monster Hunter selling character emotes for like $4-5 each?

Moderator
Avatar image for garysan
GarySan

@Mogan: not sure about emotes, but I know with recent update the character redesign they give you once free, after that you have to pay. They all have to start somewhere I guess

Avatar image for twztid13
twztid13

I hate that publishers still think that a purchase will be made based on a bulletpoint. Multiplayer on a game like this serves no other purpose. Noone will decide to play this game because it has a multiplayer mode, and noone will sell this game because the multiplayer sucks. Everything lives or dies based on the main content. The money wasted on that content is money that could have been invested in the other content. I'll save the conjecture.

In a perfect world, publishers wouldn't be able to request any content from developers. The developers should create the experience that they wanted gamers to play with no outside influence from money. Sure that would mean a tiny fraction of games or modes wouldn't exist, but the gaming ecosphere would be drastically better overall, so the means would justify the ends.

Avatar image for garysan
GarySan

@twztid13: Agreed. wish they could just seperate the multiplayer as an smaller individual game.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

really. thats a news that far cry 5 campaign we play offline?? really ubisoft??

and once again with whole microtansaction shit.

Avatar image for twztid13
twztid13

@ghosts4ever: that's more a Gamespot issue than an Ubisoft issue, as I HOPE Ubisoft doesn't have that much power over which articles the editors choose to publish.

Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

The reviews I saw for AC origins said the progression was obviously slowed down to an tedious grind to encourage use of microstransactions. The game looked good, but I won’t waste my time playing a game designed to manipulate me into emptying my wallet. Plenty of other awesome games that aren’t sleazy. If Far Cry 5 is the same way when reviews come out, I’ll pass on that too.

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@cappy: Which reviews? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

Moderator
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

@Mogan: the game is not slowed to a point where I feel the need to purchase anything. Doing the side and main missions you will level pretty quickly. The problem is there’s no serious cosmetic drops that keep it feeling less of a grind. I’m at lvl 30 and I still look the same as I did when I first started

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@cejay0813: You can buy a bunch of different outfits from tailors, and you get some from missions.

Moderator
Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@Mogan: The main one I remember was Worth A Buy’s video review. And I heard it at least one other place, as I remember going “ok, that seems confirmed now.” But I am now hearing contrary opinions on this thread so, maybe not so confirmed. Thanks.

Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

@cappy: Those reviews are full of shit. I platinum'ed AC Origins and maxed out everything with little to no effort, and didn't bother spending an extra cent. There's not even much of a grind. Play it for yourself and don't bother listening to lazy people who complain about a 40+ hour AC game. Good f'ing god.

Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@Xirtahm: lol! Ok, thanks, that’s great to know. I had not heard anyobe countering those complaints about it until this thread.

Avatar image for Xirtahm
Xirtahm

@cappy: Seriously, man. Go play it. It's actually good (and if you're an AC fan, you'll LOVE it), and I promise you'll feel ZERO urge to waste a dime on microtransactions.

Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@Xirtahm: Cool, thank you. i’m working my way through a few others at the moment, but it’s on my reserve list. probably pick up on sale. It looked so beautiful. To be honest, I never really love the AC games because they feel a little too easy, if you know what I mean? I do really like the immersive feel of the environments and the awesome freedom of their parkour system. They have been nice games to relax with after a hard work day.thanks again for prompting me to take a second look at it.

Avatar image for RicanV
RicanV

@Xirtahm@cappy: playstationtrophies has the game clocked in at about 50 hours for platinum with an ease of 3/10 so that falls in line with your approximation. Echoing your sentiments, user reviews tend to be less than factual.

Moderator
Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@RicanV: Thank you, that does support the idea. It’s probably a “wait for deep sale” game for me because of that.

Avatar image for blueinheaven
blueinheaven

I wouldn't worry about this at all. The microtransactions (and yes I hate them too) in Origins weren't imposing or overbearing and you absolutely didn't need to buy anything to fully enjoy the game. They haven't reached EA levels of fuckwittery yet, thank God.

Avatar image for dannymalt
dannymalt

With Assassin's Creed Origins, I just played on PC with a trainer which gave me cheats, pretty much negates the need for the stuff in the micro-transactions.

Avatar image for infiniin
infiniin

So this FC3 paste garbage has microtransactions on MP mode or throughout campaign? Propose hard pass no matter what though.

Avatar image for FefnirOmega13
FefnirOmega13

Wait, when did we start having to confirm that campaigns were offline? Is this really how far the industry has come?

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@FefnirOmega13: There are plenty of games out there that are online only, single player or otherwise, so now folks want to know if they can play offline or not before they buy. I think it's more how far the internet has come.

Moderator
Avatar image for genji_shimada
Genji_Shimada

I'm confused by the publishers and the people that defend this tactic. Making excuses that the price of developing games has somehow risen to astronomical values and they have to compensatre by reducing the content, quality, and adding microtransactions.

Yet if you look at The Witcher 3, a single-player game developed by a smaller independent studio that has better graphics, gameplay, story, more content, ECT. and yet it only cost 60 and had expansions that were large and worth the price.

There is no way you can justify this crap. Not to mention games are actually much cheaper and easier to make than ever before. Long ago developers had to build their own engine from scratch for every game they made. Now there's lots of great choices that developers can use to speed up the process and make every game AAA quality.

Avatar image for fierygrave
fierygrave

@genji_shimada: CDProjektRed was not an independent studio for a long time. They had a budget of 81 million dollars on the Witcher 3. They also had a team of 250 people working on it. They knew they were going to make majority of that back based of the Witcher 1 sales, which was published by Atari, and Witcher 2 sales. They were a runaway success which happens some times, but is not a guaranteed thing no matter how good the game is.

They aren't cutting content or quality to and charging you more, they are trying to add more contents thats demanded of them but its in trying to put more in that its start suffering. Maybe you would prefer a short game that higher quality but not everyone feels the same. Its easy to find comments and reviews saying "This game was shorter at only 12-24 hours" and put that as a negative or reason not to play something no matter how good the game play is or what other content is in it(MP or like the Farcade in here).

Games for the average person are easier and more affordable to make, but that doesn't hold when scaling up to AAA size games. Most use their own Engine because a lot of companies that make engines charge based on sales 5-15% of sales go to them. Plus often their is Licensing fees. Thats why BIG AAA Companies make their own engine as they can use it longer and on multiple projects and it end up being cheaper in the long run rather than pay an external company 5-15% of their sales. They also get more freedom and control with this.

The Quality of a game doesn't come from the engine along, it mostly comes from hours put in. AAA games get their size and quality from Team size where hundreds of people are working 8-12 hours days to make this product. That is not even counting support staff needed when teams get to that size. Its actually a very complicated thing and a lot of things are done with very calculated moves.

I agree somethings are just predatory and need to go, like lootboxes, MT where you can just pick what you want and get it and don't affect gameplay is something I am perfectly okay with as it gives me an option to keep supporting devs who's games I like.

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@genji_shimada: I don't know how much it costs to make games, and I'm guessing nobody else here does either. I do know that it takes way more people and time to make a cutting edge game today than it did when I was a kid, and that $60 is worth less today than then too. So I imagine microtransactions are here to stay, whether we think they're justified or not.

That said, if a game isn't fun without microtransactions, I'm not real likely to buy it or them. And I don't think it's worth getting upset about any of this until the game is out and I have an idea of whether or not it's fun on its own. So far, I've had fun with Far Cry and Assassin's Creed, without needing to spend any extra money, so I'm not real concerned that Far Cry 5 has microtransactions just yet.

Moderator
Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@Mogan: There are a few great vids that break down the costs for modern game development. A huge chunk of the rise in costs are from marketing. That’s why Witcher 3 could do so much for so little: when you make a good game, you don’t have to market as much. If you make a pile of crap, yeah, you have to market the hell out of it. So price goes up, need for microtransactions comes in.

Avatar image for fierygrave
fierygrave

@cappy: As well the ballooning cost is coming from the demand for better graphics/more content than before. Where a team of 200 15 years ago would have been incredibly massive and seem excessive, its on the low end of AAA development now. On top of these people being more skilled and being worth more for time. The Witcher 3 even had a budget of 81 million dollars, which I am sure they went over with the delays. Even they had a fair amount of marketing.

Its also unique case more of an exception rather than a rule. The first Witcher was published by Atari and did have a lot of marketing for it.The studio already had a reputation and despite a few PR hiccups on The Witcher 2, wanted the next game.

They weren't trying to reach out to new people, they were aiming for the same people as before. While most studios aim for a boarder audience and want to try and get new people in on their games. Watch for CDProjektRed's next game im sure it will have lots of marketing. As unless its a Witcher game people wont be as interested unless they are given a reason to be interested.

Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@fierygrave: The breakdowns that I have seen, the majority of the costs are 90 percent marketing costs. Not for improved graphics. it’s a bit more in Dev time, but not significantly enough to require micro transactions

Sales have also skyrocketed for games, and that is one reason why they can still cost $60. They may get a smaller return per game but can sell far more games.

Witcher 3 marketing was nowhere near big corporate game marketing.

There are some great breakdowns of the costs on YouTube. Check em out.

Avatar image for Pupchu
Pupchu

Let the tedious grindfest begin... unless you pay up.

Avatar image for cappy
Cappy

@Pupchu: that’s what some reviewers said about AC origins. No thanks.

Avatar image for legamurfacexd
LegamurfaceXD

God who else just loves being an epic gamer in 2018? The current year is looking lit af my dudes! Loot boxes! Playing single player games offline is a feature! Politics!! Microtransactions!!! Awesome my guys simply awesome, it really is epic if I do say so myself. Is it not literally the best time in all of history to be a gamer??!

Avatar image for fierygrave
fierygrave

@legamurfacexd: To be fair, the Gamespot interviewer asked if it was playable offline and they answered the question. I don't really see them boasting "offline play" anywhere else as a feature

Avatar image for koospetoors
koospetoors

@legamurfacexd: Oh get over yourself, of course everything is doom and gloom if you only look at the doom and gloom parts.

Avatar image for The_Dragon_Born
The_Dragon_Born

Cosmetic only = skip the grind we built in the game? I am lying to your face and I bet you won't catch me cause you're so dumb and stuff.

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@The_Dragon_Born: I don't think they said the microtransaction were cosmetic only.

Moderator
Avatar image for The_Dragon_Born
The_Dragon_Born

@Mogan: you'll probably want to read the FULL article to save yourself embarrassment

Avatar image for mogan
Mogan

@The_Dragon_Born: I did. They said the microtransactions would allow players to skip stuff and that items bought through MTs would be cosmetic. Sounds like there are multiple kinds of microtransactions; the time saver pack kind, and the cosmetic item kind.

Moderator
Avatar image for jakesnakeel
jakesnakeel

@Mogan: Poorly written article. One sentence speculates on "time saver" transactions, then the next sentence says Ubi confirmed cosmetic only. I believe the speculation more than "Ubi confirms"

Avatar image for fierygrave
fierygrave

@jakesnakeel: Time savers can be separate but also not really affecting gameplay. Like if Fallout 4 had an option to buy Cap with RW money. Yes it gives you an advantage, but they are also everywhere in game and it wont really help you out after 2 hours into the game.