Lotus Prince Let’s Play – Amnesia: the Dark Descent (Parts 7-9)
Xbox One Reveal Show and Trailer
BT Podcast 55: Suck My XBone
XBOX ONE in 5 seconds
Spring 2013 Show and Trailer!
Posted By Robert H. about 7 months, 3 weeks ago
Free-to-Play Model Will Influence All of Ubisoft’s Future Gaming Efforts,
Wei Shen looks as unsure as I feel
In a recent talk with investors, Alain Martinez, chief financial officer for Ubisoft, stated that all of Ubisoft’s games will be considered with the free-to-play model. According to Ubisoft, the free-to-play model gives them more flexability and a wider audience that has the capability to spend more on a game than they would on a traditional release.
As an example, Ubisoft brought up the Settlers series, which had its last retail release, Settlers 7, in 28 countries. According to the company, another game, The Settlers Online, is set to make them more money in only four years compared to the entire main series over the course of nine. With that kind of trend, Ubisoft is seriously focusing on marketing and micro-monetization to capitalize on the success free-to-play has had.
This idea isn’t limited to the PC either. According to Martinez, “there will be free-to-play on consoles” and the company will be looking to more item-based content in future releases for games similar to Sleeping Dogs. As Martinez says, “The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games’ profitability.”
Ubisoft fully expects to earn anywhere from $50 to $60 million dollars from just its free-to-play and casual games in fiscal 2013, and considering that they earned a comparatively smaller $20 million in 2012, that’s saying a lot.
Personally, I’m pretty wary about this. I can’t fault Ubisoft for going with this business model, as free-to-play games with microtransactions often do make good money. However, seeing this on console releases that will most likely cost $60 themselves just seems to be nickel and diming players for all the content.
How do you feel about Ubisoft’s new approach? Be sure to tell us in the comments below.
Source: Venture Beat
I’m guessing this is going to be a fail.
I might be wrong but isn’t free-to-play work well with MMO titles only?
do they really think any consumer will pay for DLC items or extras after playing a 4-30 hour length game? do they expect every console players will have access to the internet?
How will this effect its franchise games like Splinter Cell or Assassin’s Creed? will I have to buy DLC in order to progress to the story?
or will ubisoft be focusing on online games only?
I apologize if I sound stupid here, but I honestly don’t get it.
How are they gonna make money with games that are free to play? Last time I checked, free means that you don’t have to give money to the company in order to play the game. I understand that this works for F2P MMO’s, where you can pay for different outfits or special weapons and stuff. But are they seriously able to make $50 million dollars with that?
And how is that supposed to work for the ‘normal’ $60 games?
Those games, by definition, are not free-to-play. You have to pay for a copy in order to play.
So the free-to-play part comes in the form of micro transactions? That still doesn’t make them free to play. So how does it work? You pay for the game once and any small additional DLC will be free? No, that can’t be it, now can it? I mean, that’s nothing new. That business model has been in practice for quite some time now…
…I don’t get it…
Look how much money stuff like Farmville makes with micro-transactions.
Heck, look at the amount of DLC nickle-and-dimming we already see with most AAA games. All they’ll do is offer a super-stripped down version of a game, probably 4hrs of content max, then sell the rest of the game as well as a bunch of other “stuff” as DLC. We already speculate that certain games are having content cut out to be sold as DLC, really this is just the natural progression.
So, what, this new free-to-play business model means they’re gonna give away free games with 4hrs of content and release the rest of it through DLC for which we do have to pay? Is that what you’re saying?
Frankly, I don’t know which games you’re talking about that supposedly have that right now, but that sounds like a very weird business model, cause that would mean that for every bit of DLC that doesn’t sell, they’d miss out on a lot of money.
Hm, makes me glad that I don’t play any Ubisoft games – and wary about trying the only thing they make that I have some interest in, the Assassin’s Creed series. Not sure whether it’d be worth it to get into a series they make if they’re going to start implementing a bunch of micro-transactions into non-MMO, console titles. I can understand using them in MMOs as an alternative to subscription fees, but in other games? Sounds exploitative to me.
Seriously, putting F2P micro transactions and mechanics into FULLY PRICED games? Who in their right minds is going to put up with that shit? At least DLC doesn’t block your progress.