Ubisoft admits that they cut game content and resell it as DLC

This has always been known that publishers cut essential game content and later release it as DLC. I'm glad a major publisher finally admits it.

What's more annoying is that you have some gamers that vehemently defend this practice. Especially with the phrase "it's DLC, you don't have to buy it". When in essence the DLC is needed to get the "full experience".

All questionable practices by publishers are a result of gamers supporting and encouraging it. Season pass, online pass, preordering, purchasing DLC, micro transactions, paying for XBL/PSN, etc.

"No more DLC that gamers have to buy for the full experience" - Ubisoft

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-11-22-no-more-dlc-that-gamers-have-to-buy-for-the-full-experience-ubisoft

Did they ever deny it?

I read the entire article, and not a single paragraph mentioned they were cutting content and reselling it. Could you supply us to a link that states that they said that?

Watch Dogs 2 springs to mind. All the pre-order DLC is already on the disk/downloaded via that patch, and is unlocked with a 1mb download. That's proof enough it's available, but they want to charge us extra for it.

The day a game company (bar CD Projekt Red, Nintendo and perhaps the former Evolution Studios) decide to release content for this generation that isn't cut, and it's new will be a good day. It happened before last gen with Fable II and III, content created after the game release and sold to us under a DLC.

In other words, $60 for a game isn't enough for any Developer/Publisher due to high cost making games and this is no surprise why any Publisher would just cut-out content and resell it as DLC.

i highly admire their practice on Rainbow Six Siege, if you get the season pass you'll have early access to some operators or maps, if you don't get the season pass you gotta earn it through playing the game, which is the right thing to do.

Here's hoping we see more of this, especially in games like Battlefield, which you gotta pay like 50$ to have access to the new maps, and that's the goddamn only way, fracturing userbase and hurting the longevity.

What the ...

@AzatiS: ?

except rainbow six siege is half game with no SP sold at full price. and SP is what series known for.

nobody play rainbow six for MP.

Fucking pigs. That's why I don't buy their shit.

yep... standing orders for places like Ubi and EA. Whether or not they admit it we all know they do it.

...that's not the reason I avoid most of their games though...

It's not like Ubisoft is one of fewwho does this..

C'mon *chuckles*

It has a ton of players, and it's so popular hence MP does worth it

However, i grabbed it with 50% off

@Litchie: one of many.

It cost too much to make the games, so AAA has to cut content. Its been like this for awhile now.

@ghosts4ever: uhhhh what? Back in the day Rainbow Six Raven Sheild barely had a single player, it was literally just bots in the multiplayer maps with a little blurb of story. It was all about multiplayer man, custom servers with modded maps and modes.

With Vegas 1 and 2 it was a better campaign but it was like 4 or 5 hours long and most people I know beat it once before logging hundreds of hours online. Between terrorist hunt and mp is where I probably spent 90 percent of my time playing.

Rainbow six has never been single player focused and seige is a great game.

Who would have thunk it

It's easier for the consumer to swallow a purchase in bite size chunks.

Game devs need to raise their game prices to fund their projects, but could you imagine the uproar if they said games would now start at $100? That's why they have been selling DLC this way for years. Gamers still consider games as a $60 purchase.

It spreads to all parts of the industry really. Imagine if Sony or MS charged $700+ for a console and gave it free online? Sales would be zero. Charging for online in bite-size pieces makes gamers think consoles only cost what they spent day one.

Pretty genius on the part of the devs and hardware makers.

You really meant what you said there or you were sarcastic ?

That's basically an IOS game where it's pay or grind. The grind being £200.

Except it costs £50 and doesn't have anything beyond MP.

For contrast, Insurgency cost me £17, and everything is free. No grinding, no season pass, no arbitrary leveling up system giving advantage. Everything, maps, guns = free

I'm a big believer in supporting guys who aren't cocks. Ubisoft are the Empire State building of cocks, If there is some insidious, screw the consumer over for wods of cash, they will be on it like flies to shit.

I mean you only need to look at this to get an idea of the mentality going on.

It seems to be grind, but it's not, as you must play to get the hang of it ...it's so damn hard, it requires so much skills, so whether you get the season pass or not, you must put dozens of hours into it so you can get good at it, and it doesn't feel repetitive due its competitive nature ...i mean yeah you can say that about The Division where it's rather a co-op experience but not about this one.

i haven't played that but what advantage does leveling up in that game has ? level up to get more kewl stuff? that's the case in R6 as well so ...

lol

Ubisoft has always been under the gun, but you gotta give credits where it's due

Yes, and that's why I have maintained for years that Ubisoft sucks, almost as bad as Activision and EA.

They are not struggling to fund their games with how much they get.

This is a lie...lmao. Even to this day, I still play Siege with many of my friends online and I have been playing since Rainbow Six Vegas days. Unless you're talking about old ass Rainbow Six 3 games on the Playstation 2 & Xbox...

@kinky-unikorn: he doesn't know. He apparently doesn't understand the concept that Seige was designed to be an MP only game either.

I really don't understand people complaining about mp only games costing full price and calling them 'half games'. It's BS you only see on this forum that's full of single player gamers.

What exactly is wrong with making an MP only game? Counterstrike and BF2 did it you didn't see people complaining like nowadays.

If the primary selling point of your game is MP, I would much rather them spend money making more maps, characters and upgrades etc for MP than tacking on some lame single player campaign to appease people that only want to play it for single player.

Playing an MP game for single player mean you're doing it wrong. It's not a 'half game' it's just not the game for you.

When will they admit how shallow their games been since ~2008?

Exactly, numerous games these days are either multiplayer only. League of Legends, Dota, Overwatch, Paragon, Siege, etc. Some are free, some you pay. And numerous games also only have campaign only. I don't mind if a Developer understands the focus of the game and puts all the resources into making it either a great campaign or a great multiplayer. Instead of games like Tomb Raider or Uncharted which gets tacked on...

If they do that they should also complain about single player only games being half a game.

Honestly, it becomes difficult to determine what is intentionally "cut" and what is simply part of a long term vision of the game. Its pretty normal in the industry now to have some form of post release content (season passes, expansions, etc.). It wouldn't surprise me in some cases the developer sets out a story that they can tell and create within their target development cycle and budget. They eventually fall behind and the publisher says cut this original vision and sell it as DLC to cover the costs of any potential additional development. Most post-launch DLC feels like its part of the game. The major exception to me is The Witcher 3 expansions.

Last ubi game I brought was child of light. I don't purchase many if their games as most are unappealing.

I think my next ubi game will be South Park and then Nothing again for years on end.

Capcom also do this. Not a new practice if honest.

It has been apparent to me since day one that this has been happening ever since the practice started.

Their ideal, as in the likes of Dragonborn and the various Witcher 3 DLC, is to say "we have completed this game, what can we build on top of it to add to it?" No problem with it. Love it.

Their default is, "we have completed this game, what can we remove from it and charge extra for?" This is what most do. It's greedy.

Basically expansion packs, an almost dead term now sadly.

Well, on the bright side, most Ubisoft games are shitty. Not exactly tough to avoid them.

@uninspiredcup: Yes indeed. Take a finished, packed game, and then upgrade it from there. Different from ubisoft and capcom.

This deserves a big:

It's fairly common knowledge that they do cut content for it be sold as DLC. There's a video of an Ubisoft marketing guy talking about it from a few years ago. Whether it's essential stuff I don't know, can't say I've noticed it in the Ubisoft games I've played and I never buy their DLC or season passes (Apart from the Division, which several of my mates play and the DLC is certainly not cut from the base game)

They are far from being the only AAA publisher to do this.

@mjorh: i'm with you on how its done with rainbow six seige. Its not ideal but at least owning the base game everything is available to you. Frustrating when games like BF1 have both dlc and microtransactions. They would survive with making maps free and bank off of microtransactions.

It's not like there is usually a shortage of content to begin with ya know. Maybe you would like to visit the 80's where full content was 45 minutes worth of gameplay lengthened only by forced hard mode.

The only Ubisoft games I've bought in recent years were the Far Cry games. No real complaints. Hell. Ubisoft just gave away Blood Dragon.

The next time they make a Far Cry game with guns again, I'll probably buy it.

Yup pretty obvious already..when you no longer have or have less unlockables etc. Its not just Ubisoft...nearly all of them do it. :P