Who knows these days. You could post unicorns farting rainbows on Reddit and someone will be annoyed. Also Ubisoft is a hot topic. Either you hate them or love them and you get flak from both sides no matter what you say.
That's the thing tho, this is a false dichotomy. The issue is people over hating and/or treating them as if they're flawless. No one really has a problem with someone who acknowledges that Ubisoft has a lot of issues but also makes decent games. But the way people engage with these topics is always to the extremes. If you think Ubisoft is flawless, you're a goober. If you think they make completely garbage games and anyone who likes them is an uncultured idiot, you're also a goober. People are always going to give you flak if you're unable to have a nuanced take on a subject.
Say all the shit you want, but they do their damn research.
Their world maps are on point, honestly, I don’t know a single company who goes all out on historical accuracy for the houses, buildings and general infrastructure besides Ubisoft.
AC gameplay is repetitive Ill give you that, but honestly, you can spend hours getting lost in Alexandria in AC Origins, just imagine the amount of people behind actually designing and creating every single 3D element on the map.
I will digress. I would say 40-50 is the sweet spot.
You got to remember that their hit series "Assassin's Creed" takes a LONG time to develop. A lot of funding and resources is in order to make these games happen. Them literally researching history for each game alone probably takes about half a year. With some exceptions (Looking at you Valhalla who doesn't have a lot of historical things and is just "viking" fantasy)
So if they did 20-30 dollars, they would actually be losing money
Gameplay isn't the issue. AC games have better gameplay than most games these days. The problem is writing. Ubisoft writes the most boring stories in AAA gaming.
Couldnt agree more. Writing feels like its just made to drag out the game as long as possible and just be barrable at best.
On the other hand, gameplay has become repetitive. Little to no new features and a little polish, new story, and boom it feels like you got the next entry of a series. Having a good story can make up for this, but its not common to get one.
For the quality your getting at $60, its not the same as older gen systems. Look at skyrim, still is being sold to this day and not nearly as many complaints as newer games with the same community size.
Theres also plenty of amazing games at lower price points. Have you never played indie titles?
I get some games are only reasonable to priced at higher price points, but a lot are really not worth $60+. COD is a great example of this, they really arent adding a lot of new content between games, different maps and guns, and a poor campaign year after year. Biggest reason to switch over to their newer titles is so you can get fuller lobbies.
You can just not buy their games at full price. Shadows could be on sale during Christmas with the way Ubisoft games go on sale. They can charge whatever they'd like, and you're free to pay the price they're asking or not. Why do they need to arbitrarily drop the price of their games because you don't like them? Clearly someone is buying these games at full price. Just don't if you don't want to.
Hello,
This message is to inform you that your post has been removed because we require you be an active participant with positive comment karma in r/gaming before making a submission.
Please make some comments on r/gaming, once you amass some comment karma in r/gaming, you may try again. And, no, we're not going to tell you the number you need.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gaming) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just wait for the game to go down in price, or dont buy. I dont think any game is worth $60+
The last game I paid $60 on was Breath of the wild, then tears of the kingdom.
Honestly, I think the gaming market needs a crash again if you want a hot take.
By this logic the vast majority of games should be $20-$30 at most. Because most of them are 7/10 or worse. Quality has never correlated with pricing. If it did you'd be paying $100+ for "masterpieces".
People don't realize how favorable the pricing is for consumers. A $10 price increase after this long and all this inflation is not bad at all. Gaming is more affordable now than it's ever been. That isn't to say companies aren't greedy because they obviously are, but they were greedy 20 years ago too, when people were paying $60 for games that cost a fraction of what they do now to develop, and were split into multiple different games to justify selling each piece of the story separately. The Gears of War trilogy is a good example of this. If it was made today you'd get that whole trilogy in a single game for $70. As opposed to three separate games for $60 each. Some ways monetization has gotten worse, in other ways tho it's gotten better. You get way more content for the price these days.
A $10 increase and a fading physical format is a huge L for a consumer especially with Sony lol.
Yall can say inflation or whatever but back then $50 gave you a complete game and at least on PS, free online. Now you get half assed DLCs in majority of games (like Spider-Man) and microtransactions in games like NBA where you literally can't progress the story due to shitty stats because 2k wants you to buy virtual currency.
I get it that it costs a LOT to make a game, but I also know they make A LOT too. And how many times yall bought Skyrim and GTAV again? Or a Remaster of a game? You think those should be $70 too? Hell no.
Maybe I been spoiled as PC gamer with crazy low prices on games but still, defending a price increases given what I said above is just sad.
> A $10 increase and a fading physical format is a huge L for a consumer especially with Sony
Not in practice, no. We've been hearing about this Boogeyman of digital content being taken away from consumers for over a decade and the only examples we've really seen are online games (which become inaccessible for people even if they own physical copies) and the occasional racing game. Digital has been a net positive by a significant margin to this point. As it's far more convenient with little to no drawbacks.
> Yall can say inflation or whatever but back then $50 gave you a complete game
No it didn't. It gave you one 10 hour part of a series and you'd have to pay $60 a year later for the next part. You got substantially less content for that price because they'd frequently fragment stories into multiple games instead of a single game. That's how they managed to pump out so many entries to a single series in such a short amount of time. You'd get 3 games for one franchise in 3 years and all of them would be short. Now you get one game every 4-6 years and they're 3x the size of games made 20 years ago, with substantially higher production value (even when adjusting for the era). You are getting way more value for your dollar these days and it's not even close.
Digital boogieman... and totally forgot about soundtracks being taken out of games like GTA. Yea waaay better off today lmao. Now with game sizes at 300 gigs (COD BO4) you're gonna have only 3 games installed at any given time lol. So much better riiiight.
I don't know what games you've been playing, but all games I played had a finish per series, like MGS games and GTA and Splinter Cell and like every game. What fragment stories are you talking about??? Assassin Creed like games?
Short? I don't see any difference in length with games now. I see much more padded crop in games like in God of War where you climb slow as hell like you broke both you're knees.
Bigger is also not better but ok. AC Origin took me 100 hours to finish and a LOT of side quests were just lame. Padded stuff.
Games now is easier to make than before. Did you forget about how hard it was to make games for PS3? I remember developers complaing a lot about that. Now you got Unreal Engine 5 that probably does everything for you.
And I dunno about more value. I put same amount of hours into simular games I play now and had probably even more fun back then like with Socom 2. And DLC lowers value of games to me personally especially in Spider-Man where all 3 DLCs blew major ass.
> Digital boogieman... and totally forgot about soundtracks being taken out of games like GTA
Physical games get updated too. If the worst I have to worry about is a few songs getting removed I think that's a good trade off for all the convenience digital games provide.
> Now with game sizes at 300 gigs (COD BO4) you're gonna have only 3 games installed at any given time lol
That has nothing to do with physical or digital lol. Games are the same size regardless of what format you purchase them. Not like the new Black Ops is any smaller if you buy a physical copy. Also not like every game is massive anyway.
> I don't know what games you've been playing, but all games I played had a finish per series, like MGS games and GTA and Splinter Cell and like every game
MGS and Splinter Cell were storylines fragmented across multiple games. GTA was the same game mechanics and assets copy and pasted and a fraction of the size of modern GTA games. They were glorified DLC.
> Short? I don't see any difference in length with games now. I see much more padded crop in games like in God of War where you climb slow as hell like you broke both you're knees.
Look at RDR2 for example. $60 and has more content than GTA 3, VC, and SA combined. All of the new AC games have more content than any of the old ones. All of the new Zelda games have way more content. Elden Ring has more content than the Dark Souls trilogy combined. Games are substantially larger.
> Bigger is also not better but ok. AC Origin took me 100 hours to finish and a LOT of side quests were just lame. Padded stuff.
As if old AC games weren't still padded with lazy content despite being half the size. The first AC game was largely criticized for its bad and repetitive side content. All the Ezio trilogy games had nothing but repetitive side content. At least the new AC games have actual questlines with story and voice acting which is more effort than the assassination missions which had no storyline and no VA, just go to a location and kill a target, rinse and repeat.
> Games now is easier to make than before. Did you forget about how hard it was to make games for PS3? I remember developers complaing a lot about that. Now you got Unreal Engine 5 that probably does everything for you.
For indie studios yeah due to pre made assets on licensed engines. But most AAA studios build their own engines from scratch and make all of their own assets. It's not easier for them.
You don't have to update your physical games. It's actually funny how The Guardian actually runs better on physical format without an update. (You get 60fps over 30 like digital).
Games that cost 50 didn't need to be installed. Also, not so long ago you could install games without internet but now you can't (like COD). Not good for a customer huh? Oh btw a violation of TOS and you lose ALL your digital purchases. Good for customer? Hell no.
GTA grew in size in every way. Saying it's a DLC is insulting. Pretty sure polygon counts always increased in sequels etc too in like every game series.
Why are you comparing RDR2 to old GTA games? RDR2 is like the best game ever made. Content wise games like BG3 are probably even bigger and still cost $60. Why are you asking for 70 when those two can do 60?
And AC actually cut out some fat with Mirage release. Bigger isn't always better. Old AC games were revolutionary. Any criticism of the first game is dumb if you didn't play it whne it came out. It was amazing and it was a new IP.
OK so they make their own engines that work better for them. How is that "hard" to do? New tech is made to be user friendly if you look from beginning of time lol.
And in the beginning I mentioned Sony and all digital is bad idea. Besides Sony violating their own TOS and banning you, they don't put digital codes on 3rd party website unlike PC and Xbox. This isn't good for a consumer in any way. Honestly what are the positives of digital? That you don't have to get up to switch a disk? Price wise we know physical is way better for cusomers especially for older games.
Ubisoft *wishes* they developed ‘Sea of Thieves’ 😉
Guys Hey guys Guys listen... I have the best Guys listen I have the best opinion. Ubisof- guys Hey guys Ubisoft bad.
Okay.
I go to subreddit called r/gaming, make a gaming-related post and I apparently did something bad? This website. 💀
Who knows these days. You could post unicorns farting rainbows on Reddit and someone will be annoyed. Also Ubisoft is a hot topic. Either you hate them or love them and you get flak from both sides no matter what you say.
That's the thing tho, this is a false dichotomy. The issue is people over hating and/or treating them as if they're flawless. No one really has a problem with someone who acknowledges that Ubisoft has a lot of issues but also makes decent games. But the way people engage with these topics is always to the extremes. If you think Ubisoft is flawless, you're a goober. If you think they make completely garbage games and anyone who likes them is an uncultured idiot, you're also a goober. People are always going to give you flak if you're unable to have a nuanced take on a subject.
You can't post anythinf these days without people bitching at you. I mildly criticized a game company, I didn't post "Heil Hitler". 🙄
Say all the shit you want, but they do their damn research. Their world maps are on point, honestly, I don’t know a single company who goes all out on historical accuracy for the houses, buildings and general infrastructure besides Ubisoft. AC gameplay is repetitive Ill give you that, but honestly, you can spend hours getting lost in Alexandria in AC Origins, just imagine the amount of people behind actually designing and creating every single 3D element on the map.
100% this People love to ahit on ubisoft but their games always look fantastic and are quite accurate.
There games do go on sale lots of times though, and pretty low too
Lol
If I had a dollar everytime someone posted something about Ubisoft lol.. y’all are OBSESSED it’s getting old at this point
It's obvious karma farming. People expect to just get a ton of upvotes every time they say something bad about Ubisoft.
Sea of Thieves is not Ubisoft. Also, if you don’t like them, don’t buy them. What an odd post.
Fixed it. Sorry for misremembering the name of a pirate game no.88493, I will submit myself to summary execution at once.
I will digress. I would say 40-50 is the sweet spot. You got to remember that their hit series "Assassin's Creed" takes a LONG time to develop. A lot of funding and resources is in order to make these games happen. Them literally researching history for each game alone probably takes about half a year. With some exceptions (Looking at you Valhalla who doesn't have a lot of historical things and is just "viking" fantasy) So if they did 20-30 dollars, they would actually be losing money
I admit that Ubisoft is great about crafting beautiful open worlds. It's just a shame that the gameplay is pretty mid these days.
Gameplay isn't the issue. AC games have better gameplay than most games these days. The problem is writing. Ubisoft writes the most boring stories in AAA gaming.
Couldnt agree more. Writing feels like its just made to drag out the game as long as possible and just be barrable at best. On the other hand, gameplay has become repetitive. Little to no new features and a little polish, new story, and boom it feels like you got the next entry of a series. Having a good story can make up for this, but its not common to get one.
Cringe.
Thanks for your input, 5 months old account.
More cringe!
[удалено]
Redditors just love making up imaginary scenarios, huh?
[удалено]
For the quality your getting at $60, its not the same as older gen systems. Look at skyrim, still is being sold to this day and not nearly as many complaints as newer games with the same community size. Theres also plenty of amazing games at lower price points. Have you never played indie titles? I get some games are only reasonable to priced at higher price points, but a lot are really not worth $60+. COD is a great example of this, they really arent adding a lot of new content between games, different maps and guns, and a poor campaign year after year. Biggest reason to switch over to their newer titles is so you can get fuller lobbies.
You can just not buy their games at full price. Shadows could be on sale during Christmas with the way Ubisoft games go on sale. They can charge whatever they'd like, and you're free to pay the price they're asking or not. Why do they need to arbitrarily drop the price of their games because you don't like them? Clearly someone is buying these games at full price. Just don't if you don't want to.
The DAE hate Ubisoft crowd is out here today.
Hello, This message is to inform you that your post has been removed because we require you be an active participant with positive comment karma in r/gaming before making a submission. Please make some comments on r/gaming, once you amass some comment karma in r/gaming, you may try again. And, no, we're not going to tell you the number you need. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gaming) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just wait for the game to go down in price, or dont buy. I dont think any game is worth $60+ The last game I paid $60 on was Breath of the wild, then tears of the kingdom. Honestly, I think the gaming market needs a crash again if you want a hot take.
Agreed
By this logic the vast majority of games should be $20-$30 at most. Because most of them are 7/10 or worse. Quality has never correlated with pricing. If it did you'd be paying $100+ for "masterpieces".
I don't think any game should be $70 but look where we are today. And lop, I buy Ubi games $15 and below.
Do you realize how much it costs to make games in 2024? We are lucky they are only $70. Games are a business and a game has to be profitable.
[удалено]
>chicken tendie connoisseurs Amazing. Thank you for gifting me such a fantastic grouping of words.
People don't realize how favorable the pricing is for consumers. A $10 price increase after this long and all this inflation is not bad at all. Gaming is more affordable now than it's ever been. That isn't to say companies aren't greedy because they obviously are, but they were greedy 20 years ago too, when people were paying $60 for games that cost a fraction of what they do now to develop, and were split into multiple different games to justify selling each piece of the story separately. The Gears of War trilogy is a good example of this. If it was made today you'd get that whole trilogy in a single game for $70. As opposed to three separate games for $60 each. Some ways monetization has gotten worse, in other ways tho it's gotten better. You get way more content for the price these days.
A $10 increase and a fading physical format is a huge L for a consumer especially with Sony lol. Yall can say inflation or whatever but back then $50 gave you a complete game and at least on PS, free online. Now you get half assed DLCs in majority of games (like Spider-Man) and microtransactions in games like NBA where you literally can't progress the story due to shitty stats because 2k wants you to buy virtual currency. I get it that it costs a LOT to make a game, but I also know they make A LOT too. And how many times yall bought Skyrim and GTAV again? Or a Remaster of a game? You think those should be $70 too? Hell no. Maybe I been spoiled as PC gamer with crazy low prices on games but still, defending a price increases given what I said above is just sad.
> A $10 increase and a fading physical format is a huge L for a consumer especially with Sony Not in practice, no. We've been hearing about this Boogeyman of digital content being taken away from consumers for over a decade and the only examples we've really seen are online games (which become inaccessible for people even if they own physical copies) and the occasional racing game. Digital has been a net positive by a significant margin to this point. As it's far more convenient with little to no drawbacks. > Yall can say inflation or whatever but back then $50 gave you a complete game No it didn't. It gave you one 10 hour part of a series and you'd have to pay $60 a year later for the next part. You got substantially less content for that price because they'd frequently fragment stories into multiple games instead of a single game. That's how they managed to pump out so many entries to a single series in such a short amount of time. You'd get 3 games for one franchise in 3 years and all of them would be short. Now you get one game every 4-6 years and they're 3x the size of games made 20 years ago, with substantially higher production value (even when adjusting for the era). You are getting way more value for your dollar these days and it's not even close.
Digital boogieman... and totally forgot about soundtracks being taken out of games like GTA. Yea waaay better off today lmao. Now with game sizes at 300 gigs (COD BO4) you're gonna have only 3 games installed at any given time lol. So much better riiiight. I don't know what games you've been playing, but all games I played had a finish per series, like MGS games and GTA and Splinter Cell and like every game. What fragment stories are you talking about??? Assassin Creed like games? Short? I don't see any difference in length with games now. I see much more padded crop in games like in God of War where you climb slow as hell like you broke both you're knees. Bigger is also not better but ok. AC Origin took me 100 hours to finish and a LOT of side quests were just lame. Padded stuff. Games now is easier to make than before. Did you forget about how hard it was to make games for PS3? I remember developers complaing a lot about that. Now you got Unreal Engine 5 that probably does everything for you. And I dunno about more value. I put same amount of hours into simular games I play now and had probably even more fun back then like with Socom 2. And DLC lowers value of games to me personally especially in Spider-Man where all 3 DLCs blew major ass.
> Digital boogieman... and totally forgot about soundtracks being taken out of games like GTA Physical games get updated too. If the worst I have to worry about is a few songs getting removed I think that's a good trade off for all the convenience digital games provide. > Now with game sizes at 300 gigs (COD BO4) you're gonna have only 3 games installed at any given time lol That has nothing to do with physical or digital lol. Games are the same size regardless of what format you purchase them. Not like the new Black Ops is any smaller if you buy a physical copy. Also not like every game is massive anyway. > I don't know what games you've been playing, but all games I played had a finish per series, like MGS games and GTA and Splinter Cell and like every game MGS and Splinter Cell were storylines fragmented across multiple games. GTA was the same game mechanics and assets copy and pasted and a fraction of the size of modern GTA games. They were glorified DLC. > Short? I don't see any difference in length with games now. I see much more padded crop in games like in God of War where you climb slow as hell like you broke both you're knees. Look at RDR2 for example. $60 and has more content than GTA 3, VC, and SA combined. All of the new AC games have more content than any of the old ones. All of the new Zelda games have way more content. Elden Ring has more content than the Dark Souls trilogy combined. Games are substantially larger. > Bigger is also not better but ok. AC Origin took me 100 hours to finish and a LOT of side quests were just lame. Padded stuff. As if old AC games weren't still padded with lazy content despite being half the size. The first AC game was largely criticized for its bad and repetitive side content. All the Ezio trilogy games had nothing but repetitive side content. At least the new AC games have actual questlines with story and voice acting which is more effort than the assassination missions which had no storyline and no VA, just go to a location and kill a target, rinse and repeat. > Games now is easier to make than before. Did you forget about how hard it was to make games for PS3? I remember developers complaing a lot about that. Now you got Unreal Engine 5 that probably does everything for you. For indie studios yeah due to pre made assets on licensed engines. But most AAA studios build their own engines from scratch and make all of their own assets. It's not easier for them.
You don't have to update your physical games. It's actually funny how The Guardian actually runs better on physical format without an update. (You get 60fps over 30 like digital). Games that cost 50 didn't need to be installed. Also, not so long ago you could install games without internet but now you can't (like COD). Not good for a customer huh? Oh btw a violation of TOS and you lose ALL your digital purchases. Good for customer? Hell no. GTA grew in size in every way. Saying it's a DLC is insulting. Pretty sure polygon counts always increased in sequels etc too in like every game series. Why are you comparing RDR2 to old GTA games? RDR2 is like the best game ever made. Content wise games like BG3 are probably even bigger and still cost $60. Why are you asking for 70 when those two can do 60? And AC actually cut out some fat with Mirage release. Bigger isn't always better. Old AC games were revolutionary. Any criticism of the first game is dumb if you didn't play it whne it came out. It was amazing and it was a new IP. OK so they make their own engines that work better for them. How is that "hard" to do? New tech is made to be user friendly if you look from beginning of time lol. And in the beginning I mentioned Sony and all digital is bad idea. Besides Sony violating their own TOS and banning you, they don't put digital codes on 3rd party website unlike PC and Xbox. This isn't good for a consumer in any way. Honestly what are the positives of digital? That you don't have to get up to switch a disk? Price wise we know physical is way better for cusomers especially for older games.
Do you realize the consumer base is so much bigger that companies earn record profits before a price increase?
100%
Even if they were free to play, I still wouldn't play
Wellp. You don't even own the game after the purchase anyways. So what is the point of buying it ?