To be fair, Ubisoft isn’t in a good position right now, to be able to experiment or do whatever they want. So the cancellation is understandable, if they expect it to be controversial and flop because of that. In the end, its the fault of the people who had political issues with prior games. I wish people would stop, so that companies can experiment and be more creative.
Which does not change how logical a decision from a company is. To me, the decision to cancel the game makes sense. I wish they would not, but I understand why. And my understanding is not affected by my feelings about how much I like or dislike the company.
They have gone the safest path for over a decade now, making reskins of the same three games over and over to the point where Assassin’s Creed and FarCry which used to be real innovations in their fields are now just boring copies of copies. They haven’t taken a single risk since AC2.
They got negative feedback to including Yasuke - a real historical figure who did exist in the era the game depicts - and now they’d rather preemptively cancel their own game than tell a story about freedom and rebellion from an unusual perspective.
If you don’t really have time to play and you buy as you play, that’s quite understandable. I also noticed this from my Steam friendlist: The people who play less and have fewer games, don’t care if there is a sale or not. They buy games if they want and start playing right away.
The only games I can think of where you fight back against racists as a Black person are Mafia 3 and Assassin’s Creed Freedom Cry. Maybe Dustborn too, if you count alternative history fascism. It’s wild that there isn’t more after so many years of video games. It makes the news of the cancelation incredibly sad.
I used to buy a ton of games. Its now hard to justify with the price of everything going up so dramatically. I still buy more than average, but probably more along the lines of one every few months and never full price releases.
Yeah I’m right there with you. we are the 22% of US game players that are not directly discussed in this article, the ones that are price sensitive but still buying games on a semi-regular basis. Mat Piscatella suggests that it’s that most frequent 14% at the top that are propping up the legacy industry these days, and he’s probably right. I’m inclined to believe that those of us in the next 22% still account for a decent chunk, but more and more of us are shifting towards spending money on live service games only. Idk how some people can afford to spend money on every new game as they come out, that cohort must be almost entirely wealthy folks at this point.
I’ve played live service games with the one I’ve been playing being The Finals, but I’ve spend 0. But, have all the BP just from the multibux I saved up for free.
I’ve wondered what percentage of live service gamers are like me spending no money on them.
I have been a massive fan of Overwatch since launch day. I haven’t spent a dime on it since the original purchase of the game. I haven’t spent anything on any Live Service game either.
I don’t think this is about enthusiasts buying less games, though. We’re not talking about the average number of purchases the consumer makes. This is more evidence that there are a lot more casual players out there, who will make their 0-2 large game purchases a year and play their games over a long time. The college guy who literally only buys a couple sports games that they play online with a friend. The burnt out parent that can only make time for their 2 open world adventure games all year. I know a few people in my life who own a Switch, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, and that will be literally the only two games they load all year. And this is to say nothing of people who strictly play F2P tirles, which apparently are 33% of players.
“US game players purchase 1-2 games a year on average” is not the same thing as “the bottom 60% of purchasers only purchase 1-2 games a year.” This is evidence that, one, the medium is reaching a much more widespread market and, two, the casual market is often more engaged with F2P titles.
I think if we looked at enthusiasts and hobbiests, there would still be a decline in purchases. I don’t think this is evidence that games have become too expensive for most.
You’re right! The guy that published the info had a funny disclaimer:
Pro-tip, before replying, know that even seeing this post likely puts you into that hyper enthusiast bucket, so the actions of you and your immediate cohort likely do not match those of the general gaming audience.
I have a console. The games I bought (on sale or no) in reverse order are:
expedition 33 (31?)
It Takes Two
Baldur’s Gate
CP2077 (discount)
No man’s Sky (discount)
Days Gone (discount)
Diablo IV
Jedi: Outcast
Horizon: Forbidden West
And it came with the latest(?) god of war, but I’ve never played it.
So if you’re talking about AAA brand new games, my average is under 2 per year. But I have so many hours logged between BG, DG, and NMS it’s ridiculous.
It’s rare that I find a game that I want to buy anymore, so I’m probably often in that percentage. I’m still regularly playing games I’ve owned for over ten years now, and usually don’t see a lot of reason to keep buying more. I did buy two this year, one on launch and one on a sale. I also picked up a few DLCs for two of my long-time favorites.
Not even necessarily F2P. Depending on what you have access to, Epic, GOG, Prime/Amazon Games, Steam, Itch, and a few others all release freebies nearly every week. Some of them are even AAA titles.
If you’re not supremely picky about what you play, you can get hundreds of free games over time.
Since I started !freegames I’ve not bought a single game but my backlog is growing way faster than I can play through it. Not a bad first-world problem to have, really!
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne