Update: Ubisoft has sought to expand on the comments it made during yesterday's earnings call by committing to the sort of full-priced AAA titles it has produced for many, many years. In a statement shared with Eurogamer, a spokesperson said: "Our intention is to deliver a diverse line-up of games that players will love - across all platforms. We are excited to be investing more in free-to-play experiences, however we want to clarify that this does not mean reducing our AAA offering."
"Our aim is to continue to deliver premium experiences to players such as Far Cry 6, Rainbow Six Quarantine, Riders Republic and Skull and Bones to name a few while also expanding our free-to-play portfolio and strengthening our brands to reach even more players."
Original story: Ubisoft has announced it will be somewhat shifting its release strategy for the future, choosing to focus on "high-end free-to-play games" alongside the usual "three to four premium AAA" titles per year the publisher has stuck to in the past. This new business strategy was confirmed as part of the French team's full-year earnings call yesterday, and while it doesn't mean the usual Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs experiences are disappearing in their current format, Ubisoft sees it as a chance to expand the audiences of its franchises. The move has been made in accordance with financial guidance.
Chief financial officer Frederick Duguet said: "In line with the evolution of our high-quality line-up that is increasingly diverse, we are moving on from our prior comment regarding releasing 3-4 premium AAAs per year. It is indeed no longer a proper indication of our value creation dynamics. For example, our expectation for Just Dance and Riders Republic are consistent with some of the industry’s AAA performers. Additionally, we are building high-end free-to-play games to be trending towards AAA ambitions over the long-term."
One very recent example of this would be The Division Heartland, announced last week as a free-to-play game that "will provide an all-new perspective on the universe in a new setting". On that topic, Duguet added: "In terms of Heartland, the way we think about building the audience reach growth for our biggest franchises, so starting with The Division, is to come with high quality free-to-play games."
Ubisoft states it has learned from its experience with Hyper Scape (which hasn't exactly set the Battle Royale market on fire), and will also be testing the waters with future titles such as Roller Champions. So while it doesn't sound like the publisher is moving away from the AAA titles we've come to expect entirely, it will be experimenting with more free-to-play games going forward. What do you make of this? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
[source videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 42
I understand the appeal, and can't deny some of the massive, massive hits, but I just do not care about any of the free to play games at all. It's usually multiplayer focused which I do not care for, and always such a heavy emphasis on the whole cosmetics ecosystem which I also do not care about. So my reaction to this news: meh.
<<Jim Sterling’s voice>> Recurrent user spending
Then I guess I will see Ubisoft when they stop making piss poor games to exploit young children
So they want to compete with Epic
Its a nope from me. But i do recognise that as the cost of game development increases, game developers will want to put out titles that potentially have a longer shelf life than the traditional single player experience.
Issue i see is that gamers flock to a small pool of titles - Warzone, Overwatch, Fortnite, Minecraft, Apex Legends.
It takes something special to dislodge the mindshare from those titles, and as games like Anthem and Avengers have shown, if you fail to engage customers from the outset, the changes of increasing that engagement down the road is nigh on impossible.
Personally i'll be sticking to those self contained story driven experiences, but i can understand the thinking here, even if i dont like it.
I don’t mind free to play as long as it makes it’s money from idiots wanting to buy cosmetics, rather than gating content or progress behind grinds that people are encouraged to pay to avoid.
That is, as long as they don’t prey on kids.
Doesn’t really impact me to be honest as I never play Ubisoft so called AAA. They do release some decent AA content though, which I hope they continue to do.
As long as Assassin Creed remains SP only then that's fine with me.
I haven't played a Far Cry game yet but 6 looks promising so maybe add this series to the list as well.
they will find it is a hard nut to crack free to play! I will take Single Player games over this model any day.
Considering I gave up on Ubisoft’s games back during the 7th Gen this news has about as much impact to me as EA announcing they’re leaving the industry and moving into the Casino market.
Also “3 to 4”? More like 1 game with 3 to 4 different skins.
Any bets that Beyond Good & Evil 2 will be FTP now?
@lolwhatno irony?
I am amazed the government hasn't stepped in and insisted this term be banned. It should be 'free to download' or 'free to start'.
Hate the term.
I can just go ahead and ignore Ubisoft then, great, will save me a few quid
I'm editing my post after what Liam added for clarity's sake. I'll probably buy Far Cry 6 as I really enjoyed 5. I'm hoping Ubisoft finally comes to their senses and returns Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six their former glory.
imagine working on Fortnite for 10 years or making something like The Last Of Us, one of those is a great story and the other is a platform for sucking money
Hmmm, disappointing. I’ve become quite partial to the AC and FC series’... and am looking forward to playing Immortal: Fenix rising too.
@FX102A "Also “3 to 4”? More like 1 game with 3 to 4 different skins."
Honestly, that reeks of judging the books by the cover.
Look at their three major titles last year: Watch Dogs: Legion, Immortals Fenyx Rising and Assassin's Creed Valhalla.
Yeah, they are open world action games, but that's really were the similarities end.
Immortals have more common ground with Breath of the Wild than it has with AC: Valhalla. I also thought it was a AC reskinned as a Greek mythology adventure, but it is a very different game, from how combat works to a strong focus on puzzles.
And Watch Dogs, well, it has a completely different focus as well from the other two.
Mtx overload incoming w "free-to-play" games. Book it.
What's an Ubisoft?
Nothing makes me lose interest faster in a game like hearing it's "Free To Play" so my engagement with Ubisoft games certainly will drop with this news. I'm still interested in Far Cry 6 and hopefully Assassins Creed will go back to the old style someday but it's a shame to hear they going this direction.
We are in the end days of gaming. The future is publishers wanting you to play the same game for 10 years. No thanks! Fortnight, warzone, destiny, elder scrolls online, fallout online. That is the future! Lazy cheap cash grabs that rinse as much money as possible out of a hardcore base.
The headline and text have been updated for further clarity. The quote in question seems to suggest the future free-to-play games will accompany the usual AAA Ubisoft titles rather than replace them.
Just popped in to say that “It is indeed no longer a proper indication of our value creation dynamics.” is some amazing word salad. Ubisoft is really upping their business-speak game.
Hopefully this move crashes and burns.
tbf, generally I hope Ubi crashes and burns so my stance hasnt really changed there.
@Col_McCafferty AC has had a strong multiplayer component through a handful of titles and AC Unity came pretty close to an actual full multiplayer AC. My point is, they have flirted with this in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.
All of the micro-transaction nonsense aside, I have never found free-to-play titles to be any fun. They are devoid of meaningful content. The all feel...hollow.
Well, this is the same company who's CEO was very heavily pushing cloud gaming with Stadia. Can't say I am too surprised.
After Genshin Impact, I have no problems with F2P.
They just need to be done with top production value. I am happy to support it with a few bucks every month if they do that.
But they need to keep epics like AC: Valhalla coming also.
@lolwhatno No it isn't. Nothing is really free to play. The sooner people realise that the better.
Terrible idea! Unless they somehow strike absolute gold with one of their games, which is unlikely, they have no chance in that market. Once the likes of Fortnite and Warzone (and Apex) get that audience, it's hard to get it back off them again as they are such established brands.
It's akin to trying to start a new social network now to take on Facebook. There's no point. It's already on pretty much everyone human beings mobile phone and most people are a) sheep and b) not that bothered to change to something else. It kind of becomes like when you stick with the same bank forever, even if they offer worse savings rates, because the alternative is to cancel all your direct debits and it just seems too much hassle!
Like, people aren't going to think "I know, I'll ditch my 5 years of progress on Fortnite to play this new game that's come out which is fairly similar anyway and that none of my friends play". Sure, some will, but vast majority won't because they like what is familiar. Whether that yields profits anyway, I have no idea. Seems like a stupid idea though.
@Amnesiac Surprise mechanics greatly enhance value creation dynamics in A.I cloud-enabled mobile experience based entertainment products.
@Boxmonkey Elder Scrolls Online doesn't really belong in that list of endlessly playing one game, like Fortnite. That game is massive with so many unique areas and quest-lines I doubt I'll ever see it all in my lifetime, and it's mostly a "buy once" (and buy each new area expansion if you want it) traditional sales model. An MMO where the subscription is optional, mostly if you're into crafting. There's a few QoL purchases that make the game better, but other than that it's mostly "traditional" expansion packs.
I could see them trying to do something akin to Vigor in The Division universe. Make it a co-op survival shooter with base building and battle royale elements (not strictly a BR game) and carve out a unique AAA-level niche.
There are worse things in the world like Cancer and pedos. Free to play is up there though.
About right for Ubisoft, they know all about predatory behaviour.
Looks like Ubisoft's future is EA's past
Don't see a big problem with it providing they, or any other big publisher for that matter continues to provide "quality paid for titles"
Although... quality now that I think about it hasn't really been a thing at Ubisoft for years now.
Feels like a move made for the likes of Gamepass etc Regardless if this is accompanying their AAA line-up,its testing the waters for trying for their own "fortnite"/GTA Online megahit.
Apart from maybe Scott Pilgrim on a sale, last ubisoft games I got were AC Black Flag (for its Pirates style theme),still on my pile of shame,& Rayman Legends & Valiant Hearts....none of their open world grindfests had me interested since.
The games of theirs I would only get again would be ps2 era Splinter Cell's,or Beyond Good & Evil HD,or Rayman Origins from ps3!
Makes me a little sad knowing that like a single player driven BG&E 2,continuing the story to find P'eyj,we'll never see remakes or new games unless they can make them online grindfests with cookie cutter characters & mtx!🙄😕
Yeah sure, very excited for the next copy-paste "Farcry whatever" or "Assassin's Creed whatever"...
Heh, to be honest I already find their triple-A, €60 games as dull and unappealing as possible, so there's absolutely no chance I'll try out their F2P games. It's a model I really despise and don't want to support.
Ubisoft, call me when you make another Rayman, as that's something I'd instantly get behind!
Considering how quickly Immortals Fenix Rising dropped in price by 50%, I figured Ubisoft was in dire straits financially and needed some quick funding. I still think that’s the case, and I wish them the best. I’m guessing they need a big, unexpected must-play hit badly, and I don’t think FTP is necessarily the right way to go...but FTP can be big albeit it’s a long shot with so many games currently on the market.
IMO they need better marketing, word of mouth, and online influencers...but so do 70-80% of today’s video game makers.
@lolwhatno not when it uses sketchy gambling mechanics
Last time I bought a new Ubi game was Far Cry 2 on release. They only got money from me once since, for DLC that wasn't ever available physically. Ubi might commit to whatever but I'll continue to steer well clear.
This makes me sad. I, for one, love many of Ubisoft's’ games but I hate to see them turning into F2P microtransaction-filled disasters… ugh.
Honestly... ubi games have dropped so much in quality and increased so much in monetization that i think the last one i bought was AC syndicate.
Really not interested in their games. Bad dev/publisher.
@lolwhatno There is no free. It's a trap.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...