- The Ubisoft Annual Financial Report states that microtransactions make the game experiences “more fun”
- It comes after years of criticism with respect to microtransactions, particularly in games for a player
- It requires a change, especially taking into account the highest price standard for games.
After the launch of the Ubisoft recent Assassin’s Creed ShadowsThe French video game editor is at the center of attention once again, but this time, it is not particularly for the best reasons for the players.
As reported by Notebookckck, the Ubisoft Annual Financial Report states that its microtransactions and monetization in Premium Games “makes the player more fun.” It is a bold statement following titles such as Star Wars Outlaws, Skull and bonesand Assassin’s Creed Shadowsall of which have microtransactions for reinforcements, skins and other cosmetics in the game.
It is not a good look for Ubisoft in the eyes of the players; Most AAA games cost $ 70 / £ 60 or more, whether a player or multiplayer, and the addition of monetization does not improve things especially When microtransactions have a significant presence in the titles of a single player.
It is a rhetoric very similar to the complaints of the players (and me) with respect to the microtransactions that dominate the Obligations Franchise, with a large number of cosmetics that cost $ 16 or more, despite the standard editing cost of $ 70. As for the players a single player, similar complaints were generalized for Capcom Dragon’s Dogma 2with edition of characters and fast travel items that have microtransaction options, although to a very less heinous degree.
Ubisoft also emphasizes the report that monetized cosmetics are optional, but players will know that some titles are created to encourage players to make purchases in the game, and that is for faster progression or for a better customization of the characters.
Analysis: microtransactions do not take place in the non -free games to play, so make it stop
Declarations like these of Ubisoft are nothing more than an attempt to defend microtransactions against their deserved criticism in recent years. I have sustained the same thoughts on EA when it introduced microtransactions into older FIFA titles, and it is simple. Monetization should only Be present in free games and games for a full price player.
From the commercial point of view, Ubisoft and many other editors have zero repairs in the implementation of microtransactions, which should not be a surprise. However, for consumers, it serves very little benefit to pay more for cosmetics, which will probably lose their value in rapid succession.
It is evident in Activision’s Obligations games; While recent titles have allowed players to bring cosmetics of iterations prior to new titles, this only lasts approximately one year or so. I would say that these purchases in the game have even less value in the games for a single player, where the same cosmetics can often unlock the normal progression of the game.
The sudden increase in game prices is already bad enough, but I’m afraid that if these video game monetization models continue, it will only make editors more comfortable to get practical from atrocious prices.
