Assassin's Creed III Supports Microtransactions

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Assassin's Creed III Supports Microtransactions

image

American and British currency are both good for bypassing level restrictions.

If it's anything like the previous titles, Assassin's Creed III will probably justify its $60 price tag with a lengthy campaign, tons of side missions, and extensive multiplayer options. However, Ubisoft sees no reason why it can't ask a few dollars more of those willing to pay. As of this week, players can purchase "Erudito Packs" with price tags ranging up to $20 in order to unlock multiplayer content for the soon-to-be-released title.

The Erudito Packs, so named for an enigmatic supporting character in the Assassin's Creed series, will allow players "to acquire some game items, disregarding your current level." Whether they can also be used for single-player purchases remains unknown at this point, but Assassin's Creed III has its fair share of DLC slated for the near future, so it's not impossible. The cheapest pack, weighing in at 80 Microsoft Points or $1 on PSN, will give 20 units of Erudito's currency, while the heftiest will set you back 1600 MSP or $20 and net you 925 of them.

Alain Martinez, Ubisoft's CFO, addressed the possibility of adding microtransactions to Ubisoft games in a previous interview: "[In] the future ... we could see more opportunity for $60 games to learn from the free-to-play model," he said. "The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games' profitability." Apparently, the next generation is already here, but Ubisoft will have to wait a few weeks to see if its earnings respond accordingly. It's hard to find fault in Martinez's logic; after all, the operational cost of hosting microtransaction DLC packs is almost nil, so even a relatively small number of consumers should make the venture profitable.

Source: Worthplaying

Permalink

Wow... I was remotely considering getting this game too. Well, at least my mind's been made up for me now. Is there anything that publishers won't charge extra for at the moment?

Oh boy. I can hear the shit storm coming. Ah well, still getting Assassin's Creed 3. I'm just gonna...you know...NOT buy this stuff.

No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

yeah, you can pay to unlock stuff early. if you really want this game, something like that shouldn't stop you buying it.

actually if you want to demonstrate that you don't care for microtransactions in a full priced game, why not buy the game and not buy the extra stuff

erttheking:
Oh boy. I can hear the shit storm coming. Ah well, still getting Assassin's Creed 3. I'm just gonna...you know...NOT buy this stuff.

like he said

You know I don't really have anything against micro transactions but the whole points thing is getting a bit annoying. I mean I would have to spend real money to buy Microsoft points to buy Erudito points to buy dlc. Why can't they just cost real money?

Eh, if they know the market's there, why not cater to them?

I can't imagine who would honestly pay to win, maybe it is a little underhanded to cater to those people, but...if anything it's a sound business decision, if not a good gaming decision.

I'll still be getting it, touched the multiplayer in previous games once, and never will again.

SonOfVoorhees:
No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

The unfortunate thing here being that the reigns of the multiplayer are essentially handed over to those who paid to win, they'll have a significant advantage which may affect personal enjoyment, depending on who's paid to win.

Great now the multiplayer will be more broken than the British tax code.

Clearly they've not learnt that free-to-play games have micro-transactions because they're otherwise free.

Core concept, Lana.

Sounds like paying to level up to me. I get why people dont like this but I also hate the concept of good gear being limited to the highly skilled. It throws of balance even more. Paying for gear and levels seems to help even the playing field between those who have jobs and those who play all day.

DVS BSTrD:
Great now the multiplayer will be more broken than the British tax system.

I say we have our OWN Tea Party.

Without the slightly gay subtext. >.>

Fuck off Ubisoft. Either you have a title that costs money when you buy it, or you make it free and have microtransactions.

On the other hand, I guess its not a new thing. Developers have been nickle and diming their way along for ages now, in a very simular fashion, except they call it "DLC packs".

Pay-to-win gaming makes the leap to consoles, hurrah... also you know Free to Play means it doesn't cost $60 out the gate, right Ubisoft?

Just more reasons to hate the French.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fuck off Ubisoft. Either you have a title that costs money when you buy it, or you make it free and have microtransactions.

On the other hand, I guess its not a new thing. Developers have been nickle and diming their way along for ages now, in a very simular fashion, except they call it "DLC packs".

At least most DLC nets you something additional.. this is like.. well.. buying levels.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.
They got rid of their craptastic DRM (which I refused to put up with so I didn't buy any of their games) to come out with the idea that they should stick microtransactions into their full price games?
If they actually do end up withholding content that people will have to pay again for to access in their full price game then I will point blank refuse to buy a game like that.

If I'm paying 40 for a game, then I expect to receive the full product. I suppose if I was pushed I could accept them limiting micro-transactions to unlocking game modes or levels earlier than usual, as long as someone who doesn't pay can still get the content with reasonably little hassle, but it's a very slippery slope to going full-blown F2P restrictions with a P2P pricetag.

No. No no no no no no no. No. No no. Nine. No. Uh uh. No way.

I am still ircked by how DLC has grown in a horrible way (not all of it), but microtransactions in a $60 NEW game? No.

If you really want this, be fair at the games release. Dont do it until the price drops in stores, so that the people who buy it then can get into the game. Battlefield did it that way, and it worked pretty well. But at the release of a game? No.

I dont see this as too much of a problem. It sounds like it'll just be some multiplayer skins and items, and considering the competitiveness of the game does rely mostly on player skill, and not how many smoke bombs you can carry, I think it won't be tipping the balance too far in either direction. So long as it doesn't mean we're getting single player content cut, or multiplayer features withheld, I think what they're doing is perfectly fine.

This sounds a lot like the system in Mass Effect 3 where you can buy little packs for money if you feel like it. Meh, that's okay. It seems unlikely that I will, but remember that little trick got us free multiplayer maps for ME3, so maybe Ubisoft will be nice and cuddly and give away something for free too... maybe... right? Hello? Anyone?

Wow, money grubbing French Canadians! In all seriousness though, the game isn't going to be so good that it's worth caring about this. It sucks for the fans of the series, but I would only ever buy this on super cheap sale anyway. The only game I bought from this series first thing was the first one.

In all fairness though, judging by the language being used it sounds like you are buying level unlocks early. Not paying to win. I understand the fear, but we should at least wait till we have played the game before deciding this is the worst thing. As soon as they are cutting out content to sell as a microtransaction, I will be just as outraged as some people no doubt are.

SonOfVoorhees:
No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

It's the idea that they're withholding content that should've been in the game.

But I get your point, I'll buy the game but not the content.

SextusMaximus:

SonOfVoorhees:
No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

It's the idea that they're withholding content that should've been in the game.

But I get your point, I'll buy the game but not the content.

It sounds like they aren't holding anything back, all they're doing is letting you buy multiplayer unlocks without having to level up.

I don't remember hearing that many people complain when Valve started letting you buy guns in TF2. It looks like the same deal here

SonOfVoorhees:
No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

It's an issue because it affects multiplayer balance (Based on reading this) which would affect my enjoyment if I were to play Multiplayer. Mass Effect 3 had a similar thing, but it was coop only, so the worst that happened was you were slightly less responsible for a successful run. When your opponents are the ones paying to win, it's a whole lot more annoying.

PieBrotherTB:
The unfortunate thing here being that the reigns of the multiplayer are essentially handed over to those who paid to win, they'll have a significant advantage which may affect personal enjoyment, depending on who's paid to win.

Except that that isn't the case. They're not getting premium items you can't get otherwise. That would be the case in, say, Star Trek Online where certain (top of the line) ships are only available for real cash.

In AC3 it's just a shortcut to get items everyone can get anyway. Lame, yeah, but completely optional.

Eh, I never played AC games for the multiplayer anyway.

This is not a big deal. Sure, people in multiplayer will be able to use abilities as if they were level 20 right out the gate if they want to pay for it. So what? By the time I get to multiplayer, I will be dealing with both them and people who earned their abilities the hard way. I'll still be level 1 in either case with no cool abilities and I'll still be getting a decent score because the special abilities are just tools to help you, not replace your skills as a gamer. It's not like they get armor or a longer life-bar in this game.

I will admit that the wording in the article regarding F2P is a bit off, but many games that have microtransactions were still full-priced games. I believe Guild Wars 2 has items you can purchase, but cost $60. Diablo 3 has the auction house. Lots of MMO's started as games you purchased, and then paid monthly fees for, but then became F2P and get by on microtransactions or expansions. It's the same thing in my mind.

As long as it won't be pay-to-win and is completely optional, I don't mind.

If idiots are willing to part with their money for this crap then let them.

Baresark:
but we should at least wait till we have played the game before deciding this is the worst thing.

I totally agree with everything else you said, but what I've singled out here sounds pretty stupid. I don't want to buy the game in order to find out it's a piece of shit. As a consumer I want to make sure I get my moneys worth, not gamble it away and hope for the best, that's why reviews exist.

It's for the multiplayer people
Do I agree with it, no, but there's always people out there willing to pay to get more quicker (be it levels, ammo, guns, whatever!)
Get the game, play the game, enjoy the multiplayer, just don't buy these "Erudito packs"

It's going to come to the single player games eventually, you just wait. People have been defending the abuse of microtransactions as they've gotten worse and worse over the years, and soon we'll be paying for chunks of a single player game.

SonOfVoorhees:
No one is making you buy it so whats the issue? There is always some idiots willing to pay to cheat, as it were. I wouldnt let it effect your enjoyment of the game. Just see it as there are always suckers that are easily parted from their money.

The issue is that it doesn't end with this sort of thing; this is how it starts. Look at MMOs; Microtransactions were billed as a way to shore up flagging games by charging for "fluff" items, or as a way to get more "fluff" items into the game than would otherwise be the case, it was sold as a win-win, and a substantial portion of the MMO playerbase bought that concept.

Then it was "fluff" items, and other items, but not "pay to win" just alternate versions of items already ingame. Lots of people still thought this was a great idea.

Then it was "fluff" items, and the other items were made better than the standard stuff in the game but that was justified by the devs saying that you could go out and grind ingame to earn either similar items or to access the RMT currency and buy from the store. For some reason, folk were still cool beans.

Now you have games like Star Trek Online; utter steaming crap-piles, riddled with bugs, all the development resources focused on creating new stuff to shove into the ludicrously priced RMT store, all the content that is created broken down as much as they possibly can in order to eek every last penny they can out of you, with the mechanic designed to allow players with more time than money to grind for access to the new content tweaked such that it takes months to earn one suit of armour-analogue.

So you're right, nobody is "making" anyone buy anything, but if enough people are stupid enough to buy into the publisher/developer's lies and/or have more money than sense, eventually you'll end up forking over cash for games with a third of the content available even in today's often hilariously short games, and then have to hand over more and more cash for every weapon, suit of armour, mission, and multiplayer feature that anyone in their right mind should expect to be part of the fucking game in the first place.

Was already not getting the game, because the setting interests me not at all and the series has been run into the ground. Actually aside from bits and pieces of AC2 and a few, maybe 1 in 30, multiplayer sessions across the others I don't think I even like the series to begin with.

I liked AC1 oddly enough.

But adding this (the stuff in the article) to their list of "how to milk our only remaining viable franchise to death" ideas just makes me not want to follow the company anymore. They have quite talented people, but their management of their IPs is amateur at best.

People liked PoP, and I even think the movie was at least a solid 5 or 6 but I never liked any of the games. Then they went and did a remake, of a game that was already a remake and people didn't really care for it.

They have Rayman, but made so many shovelware Rabbids games that people were astonished that they went back to Rayman Origins. I have never played a Rayman game and likely will not.

I couldn't even name another of their IPs without checking GameFAQs. Tom Clancy stuff right?

Woodsey:
Clearly they've not learnt that free-to-play games have micro-transactions because they're otherwise free.

Core concept, Lana.

+1 Archer.

Assassin's Creed is an excellent game, and having played a bit of AC3, I love it. The running-jumping-climbing-trees is so much damn fun. I don't care if a couple of idiots cheat for items with real money, because let's face it - Ubisoft has made AC an extraordinary game.

I don't get the Ubisoft hate. I've never run into DRM problems, and microtransactions... I just don't give a shit. Why would you?

Fools, none can fight the microstransactions and win!

Considering we're now fighting the British, I'm not surprised they probably thought of "Hey, since we now at a point where a currency that was used then still exists today, why not have UK players trade in their real pounds for virtual ones".

What bullshit...

using microtransactions to allow people to buy things before they unlock them in game...

wait...

Marshall Honorof:
The Erudito Packs, so named for an enigmatic supporting character in the Assassin's Creed series, will allow players "to acquire some game items, disregarding your current level."

... actually, I cant see anything wrong with making money of the gamers who are to lazy to put the effort to unlock the items in game...

Good for them... I guess...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 61069)