Editorial On Ubisoft's Aim to End Finite Gaming Experiences

[enxo218]

Not. Nearly every game has scenes outside of different animus devices, and then has the protagonist going back in.

They are all fragments, each gathering disjointed pieces and putting them together in a limited geographical and time period story.

to me the very war with the templars and worldly threat never end. It's true the setting and actors are refreshed but what I assume is the core aspect of the game has no end.

 

[rtwjunkie]

to me the very war with the templars and worldly threat never end. It's true the setting and actors are refreshed but what I assume is the core aspect of the game has no end.

I guess that is certainly another way to look at it. If that is what Ubi wants to do, then they are already doing it and it is not very intrusive.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

He could be talking about the return of true expansion packs too. Make Assassin's Creed V in one environment then release more and more expansion packs (each with their own full campaign) that flesh out the world more and more. I mentioned Watch_Dogs previously because it's a title that could really benefit from that.

 

[Vayra86]

He could be talking about the return of true expansion packs too. Make Assassin's Creed V in one environment then release more and more expansion packs (each with their own full campaign) that flesh out the world more and more. I mentioned Watch_Dogs previously because it's a title that could really benefit from that.

In essence almost every game in history ever that had an expansion or even post release DLC can be considered the same concept, just in a more limited shape.

There really is nothing new here, in the end its just a business decision to keep investing in the same project and keep expanding it, and that decision is based not on roadmaps but on sales numbers. It really is that simple. No developer ever will tie himself to a commitment to keep investing in one project forever and neither is Ubisoft saying anything of the sort. They just try to make it look like that.

The only possible differences exist in the actual implementation and how long or how far you are willing to draw it out. The MMO is the perfect example of this.

Realistically: what defines 'a full campaign'? There is no set definition, and it doesn't matter if content is called 'DLC' or 'Expansion' or 'New game'. Its content. Most of it built on the same engine or on the same codebase. The only real choices are business choices: what price tag for what content and how do you choose to cut things up and put it in a box.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Imagine a good qaulity WWII game that plays out beginning to end..all theatre's of war...each part an expansion pack update with more generic group online goals...
That lasts for years...

 

[Vayra86]

Imagine a good qaulity WWII game that plays out beginning to end..all theatre's of war...each part an expansion pack update with more generic group online goals...
That lasts for years...

... 7 years and in real time from 1938 - 1945
Immersion factor guaranteed

 

[Deleted member 67555]

... 7 years and in real time from 1938 - 1945
Immersion factor guaranteed

Exactly!

 

[rtwjunkie]

... 7 years and in real time from 1938 - 1945
Immersion factor guaranteed

Idk...people weary of war. After 7 years the public and surviving soldiers everywhere were weary of war.

By the same measure, it would be wearisome for players to go on that long. I for one, play for enjoyment and relaxation, not so I can feel like my daily work does to me.

 

[R-T-B]

So Ubisoft discovered the term "sandbox" and decided to put their spin on it?

Idk...people weary of war. After 7 years the public and surviving soldiers everywhere were weary of war.

By the same measure, it would be wearisome for players to go on that long. I for one, play for enjoyment and relaxation, not so I can feel like my daily work does to me.

Parts of war are boring as hell. You can even get relaxation in war as weird as that sounds.

Case in point: Silent Hunter series.

 

[Fx]

In essence almost every game in history ever that had an expansion or even post release DLC can be considered the same concept, just in a more limited shape. There really is nothing new here, in the end its just a business decision to keep investing in the same project and keep expanding it, and that decision is based not on roadmaps but on sales numbers.

Exactly. I don't see this as a new concept either. What I see is a studio making a business decision to spend more time investing into their releases. For example, I am currently playing Total War: Warhammer 2. This game isn't even a whole new game compared to Warhammer; it is an expansion with balancing tweaks since Mortal Empires was released and even requires Warhammer 1. They are also going to make a "Warhammer 3" and I bet it also shouldn't be called 3 since it probably won't be any more different than DLCs added to the base game and what is in 2.

Another game that does this already is Crusader Kings 2. It has had so many DLCs that I've lost count yet I keep buying each DLC and firing the game up since it is dynamically changing storyline and mechanics just enough that it no longer feels like the base game.

When I read this article, I didn't think of WoW and don't believe that is a good comparison. MMOs already are infinite by design. It is rather taking single player titles and making them more like an MMO in that the game is an evolution instead of a story that abruptly ends or continues in an expansion.

This can work out well for them and us gamers as long as it isn't overdone. If it is only applied to certain titles, it could work out well assuming that they put good effort into each game.

 

[Adam Krazispeed]

Reading this, all I can hear is "Windows 10: product as a service." Ubisoft already did it with The Division. They took a complete game and then changed everything and added more stuff in subsequent updates. I think he fails to see two things:
1) the developer component: developers don't like beating a dead horse any more than the next guy. They want to explore different ideas because it is fun, rewarding, and challenging. There's going to be retention issues with product as a service model.
2) a lot of gamers won't keep investing time and money in a game they consider finished even if it is significantly updated; moreover, the more of these product as a service games there are, the less time/money they have to spend on other games. Ubisoft really needs to take into account player satisfaction when considering this model. There's also gamers that simply won't buy an incomplete game which means a long-term boycott of the product.

only thing i hated about the division was they changed it from the E3 2013/2014-E3 2015 demo's??? that really pissed me off!!!! i almost wanted my money back, but i grew to love and even enjoy " The Division" yeah i was still highly disappointed, but, i would rather the current game be " Fully UPGRADED " to the new Version of the "SnowDrop" Game engine and a new story added as a new Full game "ADDED" the the current Game "The Division" where we could still play up to 6 hours or Level up to Max Level of 6 like it is, then pay, or dont > if u want the new story? but the game engine used in "The Division" and "The Division 2" is still the same "Snowdrop" Game Engine, but supposedly much more capable now!!! "as so Ghraety says" what ever his mane is the creative director of the division/ but if the whloe first game can/COULD be upgraded with the new version of the game engine and the new content/story id be down// id love it to be that way// and eiter continue our current agent in the DC story or creat a who new one also would have been fu***ing SWEET!!! btu it not that way ?
oh well


The Division 1 better not get shut down, after Div 2 comes out cuz i may not want it on the release day.or few months after... div on had too many problems when i pre0ordered div 1 so i am not pre-ordering diviosion 2 no f"ing way this time ubisoft???