- Ubisoft’s annual financial report says microtransactions make play experiences “more fun”
- This comes after years of criticism concerning microtransactions, especially in solo games
- He calls for a change, especially given the increase in price standard for games
After the release of the recent Ubisoft Assassin’s Creed ShadowsThe French video game publisher is once again in the spotlight – but this time, it is not particularly for the best reasons for the players.
As reported in Notebookcheck, the annual financial report of Ubisoft says that its microtransactions and its monetization in premium games “makes the player more fun”. It is a daring statement in the wake of titles like Star Wars Outlaws,, Skull and boneAnd Assassin’s Creed ShadowsWho all have microtransactions for boosters, 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 solo or multiplayer, and the addition of monetization does not make things better – especially When microtransactions have a significant presence in solo titles.
It is a rhetoric very similar to the complaints of the players (and of myself) concerning the microtransactions dominating the Call of duty Franchise, with a plethora of cosmetics costing $ 16 or more, despite the cost of the standard edition of $ 70. As for a solo, similar complaints were widespread for Capcom Dogma of the Dragon 2With the character’s edition and the quick travel elements with microtransaction options, but to a degree certainly less blatant.
Ubisoft also underlines in the report that monetized cosmetics are optional, but players will be aware that certain titles are created to encourage players to make purchases in the game – and it is either for faster progression, or for better personalization of the characters.
Analysis: microtransactions do not have their place in non -free games, so stop
Such Ubisoft declarations are nothing more than an attempt to defend microtransactions against their deserved criticisms in recent years. I had the same reflections on EA when he introduced microtransactions to older FIFA titles, and it’s simple. Monetization should only Be present in free games and out of solo games at full prices, entirely.
From the company’s point of view, Ubisoft and many other publishers have no qualms about implementing microtransactions, which should not surprise. However, for consumers, it serves very few advantages to pay a supplement for cosmetics, which will probably lose their value in rapid inheritance.
It is obvious in Activision Call of duty Gaming games, although recent titles have allowed players to postpone cosmetics from previous iterations to new titles, this lasts only about a year. I would say that these purchases in play have even less value in solo games, where the same cosmetics can often be unlocked from the normal progression of the game.
The sudden increase in game prices is already bad enough, but I fear that if these models of video game monetization continue, it will only make publishers more comfortable to draw flagrant price practices.
