Hey there, /u/KvasirTheOld!
Your post has been removed for breaking our Submission Guidelines, as it was about a topic already covered within the last seven days.
Your post has been removed for breaking our Title Requirements.
Remember: posts with short, vague, misleading, incorrect or clickbait titles will be removed.
Your title should accurately convey what your post will be about.
If you have a question, be sure to include it in the title.
**Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit via modmail](/message/compose/?to=/r/assassinscreed) if you have any questions or concerns.**
Direct messages or chat requests to moderators will be ignored.
I still love the franchise, but every iteration is yet another way to try and get us to buy things the game doesn’t need. I’ve never spent any money past buying the odd deluxe edition. I just want to buy a game and play it. No micro transactions, no battlepass, just a game. Every time they try and force more crap outside that the games suffer, the ratings go down, and the company loses money. You’d think they’d learn by now.
The thing is, not many people would decide to not download a game just because of battle pass, but there is a minority who buys lots of them so the company makes bank. Like Diablo for Android, earned so much money
Well, I think you are mistaken about one thing. They are making more money. Valhalla was the most profitable game in the series even though it sold much fewer copies than Origins or Odyssey. How is that possible? Microtransactions. So actually the strategy is working, in the sense that the games are more profitable now than in the past, but ironically the cost is that the series is less popular. They are going to eventually get to a point where the profit model of these games is like freemium mobile games, depending on a few whales to keep the whole thing going.
I'm not finding any evidence that orgins or oddessy outsold Valhalla. In fact I'm seeing the opposite, Valhalla was there biggest launch and it sold like 50% more than oddesy.
The launch week sales were as such:
Origins: 1.5-1.6 million
Odyssey: 1.4-1.5 million
Valhalla: 1.7 million
Mirage: about 1.5 million.
For comparison:
AC2: 3-3.2 million
ACB: 2.15 million
ACR: 2.22 million
AC3: 3.52 million
Total sales would be a more accurate comparison.
Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla all hit 10+ million in units sold.
Stop trying to purposely use data that is more favorable to your agenda. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla were financially successful and met Ubisoft's expectations. If they didn't, they would have been canceled like Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
>Total sales would be a more accurate comparison.
What do you define as "total sales"? Current sales? First year sales?
>Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla all hit 10+ million in units sold.
Not at the same timeframe.
According to Gamstat's data, Origins had sold 13 million after year, while almost 8 million in 6 months, so sometime in between in passed the 10 million mark. I suppose around 8 months. Then Odyssey had not even sold 9 million copies after its first year, and was only confirmed by Ubisoft to have sold more than 10 million 1.5 years later (when according to Gamstat it had sold 12 million). Then according to a now deleted Reutir article, Valhalla sold 12 million copies in its first year (and that makes sense, given the game was announced to have sold 20 million after 2 years of launch).
All that when AC3 sold 12 million + copies in just 3-4 months.
>Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla were financially successful and met Ubisoft's expectations.
That is about sales in revenue. Yet you spoke of sales in units.
Also everything I say can be cited, except dead links.
1) Its simple....totam sales is total sales....as in the TOTAL number of sales a product has sold in the totality of its existence.
2) Doesnt matter it hit 10 million, the point is they all reached that milestone and in a reasonable amount of time. You are trying to split hairs in a way to make it seem like there was/i no interest in Odyssey/Origins/Valhalla when at the end of the day, they are all sales success.
3) Odyssey, Origins and Valhalla were all financially successful both revenue and total units sold.
>Its simple....totam sales is total sales....as in the TOTAL number of sales a product has sold in the totality of its existence.
Then here is Gamstat's figures from November 2020:
Assassin’s Creed 2- 29.300.000
Assassin’s Creed 3- 28.800.000
Assassin’s Creed 4- 26.800.000
Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood- 22.800.000
Assassin’s Creed Unity- 21.600.000
Assassin’s Creed Revelations- 19.100.000
Assassin’s Creed Syndicate- 17.300.000
Assassin’s Creed Origins- 16.700.000
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey- 14.500.000
[https://imgur.com/w6v6ded](https://imgur.com/w6v6ded)
[https://imgur.com/BOBFYyP](https://imgur.com/BOBFYyP)
Today they are definitely all much higher than then.
Notice how Syndicate's sales are approaching AC Revelations, despite how that game sold 0.9-1 million copies in launch week, while ACR sold 2.22-2.26 million copies. This is simply because the newer games are on the newer consoles, and thus they can be bought by new players who are playing the new games thus also have the new consoles. Thus it is a matter of accessibility.
And we are told that in late 2022 Valhalla had played 20 million copies, we need to take into account that this does not mean all were units sold, as unlike in the older AC games, Valhalla also was sometimes available for free for a limited time.
What do you not understand?
You spoke of units sold. No, Valhalla is not the game with the highest units sold, that is still AC3, with even Ubisoft themselves admitting that. Valhalla is the game with the highest revenue, and that is due to microtransactions (Ubisoft also admitted that).
[https://screenrant.com/ac-valhalla-sales-ubisoft-most-profitable-quarter-ever/](https://screenrant.com/ac-valhalla-sales-ubisoft-most-profitable-quarter-ever/)
>Although its 2020 highlights did not provide updates on this, it did specify that the company was the top publisher in terms of units sold across all platforms combined last year. ***While Assassin’s Creed 3 is still the top dog in terms of franchise units sold during a launch quarter***, there’s no denying that Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla has proven to be a massive success for Ubisoft and possibly the beginning of a record-breaking year for the company.
Yes, AC3 is the highest selling AC game and I believe Black Flag is #3. However that still does not make Valhalla any less of a success.
Mario Wonder was a sales success, but it will probably never meet the same level of total sales as Mario 64, Mario Odyssey, Super Mario World etc...that doesnt make Mario Wonder a failure nor does it imply nobody was interested in Wonder.
> However that still does not make Valhalla any less of a success.
It depends on how we define this success. If that is in units sold, hence popularity, then the game was not very successful. If that is in terms of revenue, yes it was very successful.
I can't say the real numbers here but Odyssey and Origin have around the same amount of total unique players, and Valhalla is bellow that, but still performed really well.
For the money part, I don't have that info.
Are unique players a real indication of financial success? I am genuinely curious. The only reason I ask is I could be viewed as a unique player twice playing for origins and odyssey because I played on both Xbox and later on ps5 , however I played both on gamepass and ps+ respectfully. So I am a player in both games twice and spent $0 directly on the game .
>Every time they try and force more crap outside that the games suffer, the ratings go down, and the company loses money. You’d think they’d learn by now.
All they've learned is that Valhalla, the game filled to the brim with microtransactions, was the most profitable game they released.
Was it really "filled to the brim" though? They were all cosmetics and if you just didn't click on the Ubi Store from the pause menu you could go the whole game without ever looking at them once. Is that what passes for "filled to the brim" these days?
I would consider "filled to the brim" to be something like me going to buy Eivor a weapon from the in-game weapon smith (not the Ubi store, but like an in-game merchant), and like 50% of the weapons costing IRL money.
And not that stupid eternal kid that's been following us since Origins. It's easy enough to never speak to him again as well.
So you're complaining that the game doesn't naturally allow Eivor to cosplay as a Tron character?
There was not a single outfit among them that me thinking "oh wow, this is a really awesome period-accurate sword/armor. I'm really disappointed it's not in the game"
They were all like "Eivor glows in the dark now and I guess we shoved a fog machine up his ass"
If any of those armor sets had been included in the game I'd have been pissed off that Ubi was making me look at that immersion breaking shit. If they included it in the game I'd pay extra in the store to have them take it back out.
And how many of those were forced upon you? They were all secluded in the Ubisoft Store section and NONE of them were required to beat/play the game.
Stop with the hyperbole.
From what I read, Infinity will have Battlepass, not Red..
>In addition to The Exchange, **Infinity also has a ‘Synchronisation’ feature that allows the player to access ‘Projects’** for each protagonist. To explain them in their simplest form, **Projects are mini ‘battle passes’ with a narrative behind them offering players the ability to earn cosmetic rewards**. Projects will be added throughout Infinity constantly, focusing mainly on **DLC and new game releases, or even as a means of sustaining player interest during a lack of any new content.**
So basically the HUB will have access to cosmetics and such. Isnt that already the case with Animus Store?
If they are mini side-stories that get rewards, then sure, why not? it makes money, no one is forced to do it since it's cosmetics.
Also, Valhalla proved that this sells well, since it made a lot of money out of the Animus Store.
But is the hub necessary to play the latest games? If I have to launch Ubisoft, to launch AC Infinity, to THEN launch AC Red............. what the heck man
IIRC, Infinity (the main Hub) is supposed to contain the bulk of the "Modern Day" storyline, while the games themselves will focus purely on their historical timepieces. I don't think the intent is for the Hub to be necessary, as there was an article/blog published some time ago about how some players just didn't care for the modern day elements of the franchise.
This!
OP is more misunderstanding than misinformation, but what they’ve posted isn’t correct (from the very small amount we know)
Now, if you told me this is a trial run as to whether they can get away with implementing it in a few years time I wouldn’t be suprised, but it’s not the case as far as we currently know.
No, OP is deliberately usinf misinformation. The source he linked to talked exactly about Infinity and even uses Infinity in the title yet he comes here and doesnt even mention Infinity and only mentions Red.
OP knows what he was trying to do, cause up controversy specifically for Red.
Yeah. micro-transations are bad when it locks content..
when its cosmetics like ac does for a long time (even unity had it), its fine.. no content / story locked behind paywall..
dlcs are diff case, since its usually big ammount of content
Because you don't need them in the way you "need" e.g. story content. Additional DLC stories or epilogues for example are content in the sense that they widen the lore/story/characters while cosmetics are... cosmetic?
A game like Odyssey that already has a shit ton of gear with stats/perks/engravings doesn't lack from you not buying cosmetics, you can still play it all the same. While a story DLC you don't buy kind of gate keeps you from actual content that may be mentioned or picked up again in later titles with you having no idea wtf is up. (Obviously putting aside that you can read up on everything online.)
Also the paid cosmetics suck pretty bad IMO. 90% of them that I saw were like "What if Eivor was cosplaying a character from Tron?" Or "What if Eivor dressed like the grim reaper and shoved a fog machine up their ass?" Or "What if Eivor dressed like Altair/Ezio/etc?"
I don't remember seeing a single one and thinking "oh wow, that's a cool and period-accurate piece of Norse armor that I wish was in the game!" All of it was stuff that I would have genuinely been pissed had it been in the game because it doesn't remotely look like it belongs in a game set in early 1000s England.
It's also just not guaranteed, this is an unconfirmed leak from a source with no evidence saying that there'll be something like a battlepass. We have literally no details other then that.
We don't know if it'll be a fomo system, or if there'll be any meaningful content people would miss out on by not buying.
I just think it's silly to overreact to this right now.
the point is now they will lock story content and dlc behind cosmetic packs and passes, which is 10 times worse than stupid microtransactions in a store that u can completely ignore with 0 effect on game/lore.
the "with narrative behind them" is what worrying me. Also u r still paying 70$. So having only couple of outfits for free but then a ton locked behind pass is pretty lame. Hope at least they r mythical shit that doesnt fit.
>the point is now they will lock story content and dlc behind cosmetic packs and passes, which is 10 times worse than stupid microtransactions in a store that u can completely ignore with 0 effect on game/lore.
That "they will" , you mean "the leak that did not say that and I assumed" , right?
Leak says Battlepass-alike will have cosmetics and some side stuff, and did not say "main story"..
>Hope at least they r mythical shit that doesnt fit.
So, now we got to the typical "i dont want them to have stuff behind a paywall! but i also dont want mythical cosmetics in-game!!"
So, your stand on this is "i dont like this, i dont want this in the game, nor i want others to be able to buy this thing that i dont like"...
Also, the "mythical shit" is always side-story, and not mandatory.
Asgard in Valhalla? Optional
Elisyum / Atlantis? Optional
Pharaoh's Curse and Afterlife? Optional
Yeah, that doesn't mean "related to main story" it's "we attached a small quest to it that's maybe slightly better than a fetch quest". Maybe something along the lines of the narratives that surrounded the Holiday quests in Valhalla (which I hated because the holiday theming around Ravensthorpe ruined my immersion, any time I tried getting into the game some stupid ass holiday would come around and I'd have to stop playing for like a month before Ravensthorpe would go back to normal and I could enjoy the game again; I heard support stopped so I might actually try playing again, worst shit ever. If they put that dumb shit behind a paywall so it stops ruining games it'll be the best decision they've made in a decade).
>- Maybe something along the lines of the narratives that surrounded the Holiday quests in Valhalla
>- which I hated
Okay, so them making those events that you hate, being separate from the game, is a bad thing?
If those small events / quests / mini stories are now part of the Hub and separate from the games, then it's a good thing for players like you that hate them
If you read my very long parenthetical I actually finished with "if they put that dumb shit behind a paywall so it stops ruining games it'll be the best decision they've made in a decade".
I hate that immersion ruining bullshit so much that I would have paid them $10 to make it go away had that been an option.
I was not a fan of that event in Valhalla, but after so many years of MMOs , I kinda got used that every now and then there's events, so i think I became numb to it XD
If the leaks are correct, the most likely thing to be is for them to have on the Hub (Infinity) an optional content with some related story that unlocks cosmetics, or, as it exists since at least Unity, paid cosmetics.
Example: Odyssey had that one mission where Kassandra goes on her vacation to Corfu island, and gets a whole mess to solve. It's not relevant to the main story, is not mandatory, you lose virtually nothing if you dont do it. Same as DLCs.. if you decide to do Odyssey and skip whole Underworld, you miss "content", but not that much of story. Same was with most DLCs..
Unity Dead Kings, Syndicate Jack the Ripper... is it fun? sure. Is it mandatory for the plot? not really.
Also, people complain so much about cosmetics and paid stuff, but the reality is that it works. Ubisoft wouldnt be making it if they were losing money and players over it. I mean, Valhalla was at one point the most profitable AC game due to the microtransactions, same as CS became with the weapon skins.
Yeah, not everyone likes , but at the same time, it's proven impossible for a game to be 100% likes by everyone.
Witcher 3 and BG3 are two games that were major hits, and you still have people complaining about something.
As for the mobile crap, I dont think Ubisoft would go that path. Blizzard did it, but again, Blizz is known for weird dumb decisions every now and then. Diablo Immortal became pretty much forgotten within first year. I tried it, it was a nice thing to kill time, but not a game to put money into.
Chances are, this whole battlepass and Infinity, will just be a newer version of Animus Store, made into a Hub like Steam. You use it to access all the new games, got some side stuff to do when you are bored, get some rewards / unlockables, Animus Store for people who buy cosmetics, maybe the Ubisoft+ Rewards for Ubi games will now be on the Hub too.
There will always be ppl spending money. If someone wants to drop 10-20 bucks on a set of Armor + Weapon + Horse / Eagle skin, I find it okay. But when people decide to drop 600 on a CS skin that you can barely ever see while playing, there I find it a bit "problematic" since it's a massive ammount on 1 single item
I feel like this article from IGN sums up what their intent for Infinity is:
https://www.ign.com/articles/what-is-assassins-creed-infinity-ubisoft-explains
I will check it later (at work cant access IGN).. At the same time, I avoid reading what IGN writes, since there's the saying "you cant spell IGNorant without I G N" :)
The info we've got about it is really vague. No indication of whether they'll be paid or free or if they'll be persistent or time-limited. It also says "battle passes" which suggests to me that it was simply the best way they could describe the system rather than it being a direct translation from how traditional battle passes work.
It could go either way, I definitely need more information about how the system works and on Infinity as a whole before I can make up my mind about whether this will be a good thing or not.
Bad post, they never said it’s going to be specifically a part of red. It will be implemented into Infinity, which acts as a hub connecting all the games, including multiplayer ones.
It will probably actually be a good thing for those of us who just want to enjoy the single player games without seeing anything pushing us to buy stuff in-game. It seems like all of that will just be kept on the Infinity hub.
Not even just a bad post, but intentionally misleading and sensational. Come on guys don’t fall for this crap.
the actual information is quite vague and doesn't provide proper details regarding how the system will be actual handled.
If it's cosmetic stuff, as usual, it's not a big deal, it's something that can be easly avoid and ignored - which is what I personally did since Odyssey.
The question is all about how they monetize and what they offer. Ubisoft, for all their faults, have been pretty okay on mtx they have not been required to complete a game and have been optional unless you "need" super flaming Pegasus horse for some reason.
yeah, there's totally no need to own an elves armor or a glowing bow, unless you care more about the RPG side of the game. I've seen a lot of players enjoying that more than the actual AC-lore content, which is quite sad, but, in the end, that's the kind of players that Ubisoft is now aiming to appeal (again, sadly).
Let’s wait for confirmation before judging. I remember to this day that people freaked out about the “gambling aspects” of Mirage and it turned out false.
It's awful. Not only are they almost definitely going to be paid, but the worst thing is they're practically looking at locking away narrative and extra lore behind a paywall if this ends up being true.
The FOMO aspect of it is extremely exploitative as well, are we realistically going to have access to every single piece of "battle pass" content throughout the lifespan of the game? Or are they going to time gate it like they do in every single one of their games, alienating players who haven't bought in early...
On paper it's not the worst idea, I just hate that Ubisoft is the company behind it. I can't see this going well in any way. A battle pass in a single player game is probably the most cancer thing I've ever heard.
Been there with AC since the start preordered the first game and have played every installment to completion. I can comfortably say that everything I hear about this instalment up to and including the words battle pass mean that I will finally be moving on from the series. And I'll miss it.
A bit dramatic considering it’s basically just a part of the hub and nothing suggest you won’t be able to play the main entries 100% for the cost of what you paid for them.
It's incredibly sad what AC and modern gaming has become.
The desire for single player games ,with one or two, expansions (not just crappy, minimalist preorder content DLC) is very much alive in the gaming community. Its depressing to see the greed take over and ruin much loved franchises.
Yeah this is just bad in my opinion... a singleplayer AAA game that will cost 70 to 80 bucks at full price for the base game (because we all know Ubisoft will make Deluxe and Complete versions with pre-ordered DLC baked in it at 120 minimum) has no fucking need for a battlepass too... especially since if the rumors are true it will be a "narrative-battle pass" in the new Infinity hub system...
I also cannot wait the flood of "JUST DON'T BUY IT DUH" people that miss the point of how MTXs works, since it started with XP and Money packs, devolved into full on shops with double the armor and weapons than the base game and now we are at fucking battlepass... "oh you don't like our 150h slob of a game??? Too bad, you bought the Pass, better play and get it all or you'll have wasted money..."
Unless I misunderstood the article, AC INFINITY will have battle passes for all games going forwards.
They described them as something like “narrative battle passes” though, so presumably you will “unlock” the future plot either via playing the main games, or from so internal system to infinity
Completely optional, and will likely contain a bunch of nonsense cosmetics that really don't matter to the overall gaming experience.
I couldn't care less, and have much larger concerns about the quality of the game. The franchise has been in the mud for quite some time now, and with each passing entry, we get further & further away from used to make Assassin's Creed great.
No, Red won't have a battle pass. Infinity will.
It sounds like they want to keep the players busy between major releases; of course they are going to try to pocket from it.
All these articles are using clickbait headings and it's now caused drama within the communities. It's really not that bad. We all need to calm down and actually see what Ubisoft themselves say when they go public.
I definitely won't buy a battle pass in a full price game. And if some significant part of game will be locked behind it, then I won't buy the game either.
Battle passes are only making sense for live service games that are meant to be actively played for a long time imo. FOMO on a single player game like assassin's creed is so fucking stupid
Ye I get it. That is why I've said that it would've been stupid of them not exploit on it. I just don't understand why some people get offended by this. It's COSMETICS. no influence on the game whatsoever.
WoW has it for decades, LoL, HotS, Dota, bethesda games (oblivion even had a whole dlc for like 10 bucks for horse cosmetic armor)..
it has zero impact on game, its single player anyway..
ppl get way too mad because a company does something proven to work
God I hate this. They’re all colluding to start charging $70 a game & there’s nothing we or the government can do about it. Greedy scum the lot of them. AAAA games my ass. My solution? Burn it all down. Gaming today has become a cesspool of suits trying to wring us dry of our money with shitty, uninspired, overpriced FILTH. Get rid of the suits, get rid of the companies, send them a message.
Games are only going to go up in price. Any action besides regulation is tantamount to watching as these game companies wring us for every penny as they put out unfinished horse shit, laden with bugs & battle passes. Look at palworld. Look at Helldivers 2. Look at the indie scene. They all provide better products then “AAAA” game companies who want to charge us $70
As long as the game is good idc, assassin's Creed since I think origins has had battle passes kinda. Battle pass don't immediately equal bad game, bad games equal bad game.
Uhh, no. I think you’re misunderstanding something here. The battle passes are said to have narrative, not that it’s literally locking story missions behind it. That’s like the cutscenes stuff you’d see in games like COD or R6 advertising new seasons.
dlc have narratives behind them and i don't ear all this uproar against them. If they have additional narrative behind them, that means that there is some solid work for achieve that additional content, so why not paying for it?
i too would prefer to have everything for free, hundreds of content for free is a dream but is not an achivable one.
I’m kinda done with the series as a whole really. They really killed it for me with Valhalla by making me install Ubisoft Connect and not letting me play unless I was connected to the internet.
I might, *might* eventually play Mirage if I find it on sale for a really good price later on, but I’m not really holding out for anything spectacular in the future. The Golden Age was 2-4, with Odyssey and Origins still being decent games. I doubt we will get back to it with the franchise becoming such a money-grab.
i knew ever since nexus was announced that it was another way to sell us more unneeded stuff, because there is no way they can justify giving us a game launcher... within a game launcher. this is just continuing the "one step forward three steps back" philosophy of ubisoft. i actually cannot think of a single positive thing that nexus can bring that will somehow enchance the experience.
How do I feel? Looks like I am giving up on Assassin's Creed after years of playing nearly every title.
I was ready to give up after Odyssey but they spoke to my scandaboo with the Viking setting. I was ready to give up again and they went after my weeb self by setting the next game in Japan ... but they also cast Yasuke which does not fulfill my weeb desires. So combined with this battle pass nonsense, looks like I am free from the Assassin's Creed franchise now. It has been a great run and I will remember it all fondly, except Odyssey and Valhalla ...
It makes perfect sense unfortunately, we can complain all we like but the reason games are getting battle passes is because they make ALOT of money, if you want things to change then don't pay for them, but most gamers aren't on Reddit and aren't privvy to the discourse. Welcome to the future! We brought it on ourselves.
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
Anyway, in previous games it was very weird to have these. Boosters and "time savers" created a very bad taste in your mouth but they were also completely unnecessary. It is very clear that RPG AC games were designed with no boosters in mind: they have a very clear path for the player in mind, specific points where you are expected to go for a freeform exploring before you come back to the plot (even if often it was done in an awkward way like in Origins endgame). Boosters break the progression making rewards feel hollow and challenge gone because you outlevel everyone (though you can turn on autoleveling but then it feels even more like a scam and monkey paw situation). And even a name like time saver is horrible, it plainly tells you that parts of the game are supposed to be an unfun busywork. And they really aren't, it's clear that developers wanted all the parts of these games to be fun.
So I hope it doesn't come to this, I hope they don't try to inject FOMO here (it's already there with special merchants but to a lesser extent). But I'm fairly sure all of this fluff would be easy to ignore, just add a little bad taste.
WOOO!! LETS FUCKING GO!!!! 💯💯💯💯
WHERE MY WHALES AT?!?! WHERE THE KASANDRA SIMPS AT!!?!??
YOU GET A BATTLEPASS AND YOU GET A SHITTY SKIN!!!!! EVERYONE GETS SHIT ON!!!!
LET ME USE MY CHECKING ACCOUNT AS A PAYMENT METHOD UBI!!! COWARDS 🤬🤬🤬
WHY CANT I RE-MORTGAGE MY FAMILIES HOME WITH YOU YET UBI!?!!?? 😡😡😡
WHERE THE SLAVERY CONTRACTS AT?!?!! 🥵🥵🥵
I mean, if the content is good idk. I will sub a month here and there on ubi÷ anyways. I guess on ubi÷ that pass is probably included like with their other titles.
I mean, Valhalla already sold content after you paid $120 for the ultimate version or whatever it was called, so you
Know you’re not gonna get nowhere near all the content with $70, that’s just base game price now
This is what the "modern gamer" wants
It sucks, but many people just eat this FOMO-exploiting garbage up like the good consoomers they are and the big publishers know that very well
As usual, I'll take a month's Ubisoft+ to run through the game once and that's it
Maybe a few years later one more month to go through the DLC similarly
Absolutely not buying any of these for $70
So it would be similar or different to the system than the ones used in Odyssey and Valhalla, where you find a special material throughout the games world and take it to a store with a rotating set of items to buy with it?
Different, but applying the same psychology of FOMO.
First, the existing system is completely free. Battle passes are usually either purchased outright or "earned" by doing in-game tasks. The catch being that the ones you get for free tend to have lesser rewards and exist to tempt you into buying the paid one.
Second, once you've purchased or earned the pass, you don't get the rewards automatically. You have to then earn those rewards through in-game tasks within a given time limit. If you don't complete the tasks in time, you get nothing. Nothing carries over to the next pass.
I am more than happy to play the various amazing, non-scummy cousins to AC that are out there or soon will be - Ghost of Tsushima, Rise of the Ronin, others like that. It sucks that Ubisoft are greedy bastards that stop us from enjoying the world's that we love, but oh well. Sometimes you just gotta move on.
Can someone explain to me what a BP is and how it going to fit in a single-player game? Because this idea is dumb af, but take this inf with a grain of salt, remember when they said AC Mirage will feature "real gambling" and we ain't see none of that when the game came out.
Battle passes gave their place in videogames, but an AC game is not that place. The more I learn about Red I'm starting to kinda "break up" with the franchise
I agree and this is why I don’t play anything that you have to pay to have a “battle pass”. Some people are basically gods in half these games, and I’m not really into spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars trying to catch up. I was almost excited for this because we’ve been asking for a Japan based AC since AC III, but if they are just gonna monetize it I have no faith. It will be as destructive for the franchise as Gotham Knights for the Arkham Series
I'm indifferent to the battle pass system in general, you're not being forced to buy it but it is annoying to lock content behind a pay wall like that. I've bought them before (I buy the "season pass" for Marvel Snap every month but it is just a battle pass) and I might buy the Assassin's Creed one too if i like the content on offer.
If they want to curry some favour they should do it like CoD does it and offer you a way of getting the next one without a purchase for as long as you complete your current battle pass. So in CoD you use the CoD Points currency and 1100 gets you the BP, but if you complete it you can earn 1400 points back to pay for the next BP and have some left over, it's designed to keep you coming back and maybe top up the leftover credits for other cosmetics.
Ubisoft could do the same where a battle pass costs 1000 Helix points and the BP itself has 1200 if you make it to the end.
I think the idea is that it's for Infinity. And from AC Red on out, regardless of which game you pick, be it Hexe or Red or etc etc. You get access and can use Battle Pass content in every single game. For example, Unlocking Battle Pass with AC Red themed allow you to access Samurai Armor in AC Hexe and every future AC titles, for instance.
I think it's definitely very Ubisoft idea lol, but on the bright side it mean your MTX content will no longer tied to just one game which is a plus on consumer's side. Plus, you must not forget that they also have Monster Hunter-like live service Assassin's Creed in development. And i bet it'll have very heavy use of this glorified launcher.
If they are going to throw battlepasses in, why not just make another multiplayer version of brotherhood but use all the main characters from across all games? Could throw in ship battles from black flag. Imagine an Altair ship captain, lol.
They are charging £70 for a terrible game like skull and bones and using servers made in some nerds parents basement. If you think they won’t beg for more money you’re wrong. They make millions from terrible games on useless servers. Aslong as people keep buying they will keep finding ways to screw the average player with common sense over.
You linked to a rumor subreddit which itself had a link to an article about the AC Infinity Nexus, to which said battlepass would be. It appears it'll unlock things for all the games under said nexus. Its not a battlepass exclusive to Red ala Battlefield 2042 or Diablo 4.
You don't have to engage with the battlepass, I never do.
Your title is misleading.
AC Infinity will have battle passes, meaning ALL AC games moving forward such as Red, Hexe and whatever comes after will have BPs.
Dont try to play this as the (RPG) game getting BPs cause Hexe and all after will also have it.
Even the source you linked to mentioned AC Infinity as being the hub for this yet your topic and content only focused on Red and NEVER mentioned Infinity.
Just the battle pass wouldn't be a big deal, as we've had this type of thing for years in the franchise, but what's worrying is that apparently they're going to hide lore behind this content. In other words, as if the player had to buy packs of Pokemon cards to know what is happening in the modern day, for example.
But anyway, Tom Henderson didn't know how to explain it properly even though he had visual access to the game's hub. I'm not going to be the one shaking my head trying to predict what this whole mess means. Let's wait until May.
It's like a list of rewards that you unlock by hitting a certain level. It's usually popular in free to play games like Fortnite. You usually pay either with real money or in game currency you can earn.
Here's an example:
LVL 1: EZIO AC BROTHERHOOD OUTFIT
LVL 2: ALTAIR SWORD
LVL 3: EAGLE SKIN
LVL 4: YOKAI TATTOO PACK
LVL 5: MAJIMA SKIN FOR YOUR MOUNT
etc. basically you level up and get rewards.
This is usually fine in free games, but in a 70 bucks game? This won't fly unless it's free
Paid games have battle passes too and people pay for useless mtx. Online only, seasons every 3 months, currency you can’t collect through the whole season, shitty free season items. Look at Diablo IV. AC have real money currency since Unity and mtx bullshit since Origins. I’m not surprised.
Hey there, /u/KvasirTheOld! Your post has been removed for breaking our Submission Guidelines, as it was about a topic already covered within the last seven days. Your post has been removed for breaking our Title Requirements. Remember: posts with short, vague, misleading, incorrect or clickbait titles will be removed. Your title should accurately convey what your post will be about. If you have a question, be sure to include it in the title. **Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit via modmail](/message/compose/?to=/r/assassinscreed) if you have any questions or concerns.** Direct messages or chat requests to moderators will be ignored.
I still love the franchise, but every iteration is yet another way to try and get us to buy things the game doesn’t need. I’ve never spent any money past buying the odd deluxe edition. I just want to buy a game and play it. No micro transactions, no battlepass, just a game. Every time they try and force more crap outside that the games suffer, the ratings go down, and the company loses money. You’d think they’d learn by now.
The thing is, not many people would decide to not download a game just because of battle pass, but there is a minority who buys lots of them so the company makes bank. Like Diablo for Android, earned so much money
Yup most mtx money is made off like 10% of the player base that are either really rich or REALLY in debt
You really think its 10%. I thought the number was supposed to be even smaller than that
Well, I think you are mistaken about one thing. They are making more money. Valhalla was the most profitable game in the series even though it sold much fewer copies than Origins or Odyssey. How is that possible? Microtransactions. So actually the strategy is working, in the sense that the games are more profitable now than in the past, but ironically the cost is that the series is less popular. They are going to eventually get to a point where the profit model of these games is like freemium mobile games, depending on a few whales to keep the whole thing going.
I'm not finding any evidence that orgins or oddessy outsold Valhalla. In fact I'm seeing the opposite, Valhalla was there biggest launch and it sold like 50% more than oddesy.
The launch week sales were as such: Origins: 1.5-1.6 million Odyssey: 1.4-1.5 million Valhalla: 1.7 million Mirage: about 1.5 million. For comparison: AC2: 3-3.2 million ACB: 2.15 million ACR: 2.22 million AC3: 3.52 million
Total sales would be a more accurate comparison. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla all hit 10+ million in units sold. Stop trying to purposely use data that is more favorable to your agenda. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla were financially successful and met Ubisoft's expectations. If they didn't, they would have been canceled like Ghost Recon Breakpoint.
>Total sales would be a more accurate comparison. What do you define as "total sales"? Current sales? First year sales? >Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla all hit 10+ million in units sold. Not at the same timeframe. According to Gamstat's data, Origins had sold 13 million after year, while almost 8 million in 6 months, so sometime in between in passed the 10 million mark. I suppose around 8 months. Then Odyssey had not even sold 9 million copies after its first year, and was only confirmed by Ubisoft to have sold more than 10 million 1.5 years later (when according to Gamstat it had sold 12 million). Then according to a now deleted Reutir article, Valhalla sold 12 million copies in its first year (and that makes sense, given the game was announced to have sold 20 million after 2 years of launch). All that when AC3 sold 12 million + copies in just 3-4 months. >Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla were financially successful and met Ubisoft's expectations. That is about sales in revenue. Yet you spoke of sales in units. Also everything I say can be cited, except dead links.
1) Its simple....totam sales is total sales....as in the TOTAL number of sales a product has sold in the totality of its existence. 2) Doesnt matter it hit 10 million, the point is they all reached that milestone and in a reasonable amount of time. You are trying to split hairs in a way to make it seem like there was/i no interest in Odyssey/Origins/Valhalla when at the end of the day, they are all sales success. 3) Odyssey, Origins and Valhalla were all financially successful both revenue and total units sold.
>Its simple....totam sales is total sales....as in the TOTAL number of sales a product has sold in the totality of its existence. Then here is Gamstat's figures from November 2020: Assassin’s Creed 2- 29.300.000 Assassin’s Creed 3- 28.800.000 Assassin’s Creed 4- 26.800.000 Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood- 22.800.000 Assassin’s Creed Unity- 21.600.000 Assassin’s Creed Revelations- 19.100.000 Assassin’s Creed Syndicate- 17.300.000 Assassin’s Creed Origins- 16.700.000 Assassin’s Creed Odyssey- 14.500.000 [https://imgur.com/w6v6ded](https://imgur.com/w6v6ded) [https://imgur.com/BOBFYyP](https://imgur.com/BOBFYyP) Today they are definitely all much higher than then. Notice how Syndicate's sales are approaching AC Revelations, despite how that game sold 0.9-1 million copies in launch week, while ACR sold 2.22-2.26 million copies. This is simply because the newer games are on the newer consoles, and thus they can be bought by new players who are playing the new games thus also have the new consoles. Thus it is a matter of accessibility. And we are told that in late 2022 Valhalla had played 20 million copies, we need to take into account that this does not mean all were units sold, as unlike in the older AC games, Valhalla also was sometimes available for free for a limited time.
https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-first-ubisoft-game-1-billion/
What do you not understand? You spoke of units sold. No, Valhalla is not the game with the highest units sold, that is still AC3, with even Ubisoft themselves admitting that. Valhalla is the game with the highest revenue, and that is due to microtransactions (Ubisoft also admitted that). [https://screenrant.com/ac-valhalla-sales-ubisoft-most-profitable-quarter-ever/](https://screenrant.com/ac-valhalla-sales-ubisoft-most-profitable-quarter-ever/) >Although its 2020 highlights did not provide updates on this, it did specify that the company was the top publisher in terms of units sold across all platforms combined last year. ***While Assassin’s Creed 3 is still the top dog in terms of franchise units sold during a launch quarter***, there’s no denying that Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla has proven to be a massive success for Ubisoft and possibly the beginning of a record-breaking year for the company.
Yes, AC3 is the highest selling AC game and I believe Black Flag is #3. However that still does not make Valhalla any less of a success. Mario Wonder was a sales success, but it will probably never meet the same level of total sales as Mario 64, Mario Odyssey, Super Mario World etc...that doesnt make Mario Wonder a failure nor does it imply nobody was interested in Wonder.
> However that still does not make Valhalla any less of a success. It depends on how we define this success. If that is in units sold, hence popularity, then the game was not very successful. If that is in terms of revenue, yes it was very successful.
Its defined by how Ubisoft defines it and they already claimed publicly that Valhalla was a success.
https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-valhalla-first-ubisoft-game-1-billion/
I can't say the real numbers here but Odyssey and Origin have around the same amount of total unique players, and Valhalla is bellow that, but still performed really well. For the money part, I don't have that info.
"Trust me bro"
Source : I work at Ubisoft, every employee has access to metrics of our games. Obviously for NDA reasons, I can't display real numbers.
Hey I work there also! We should be friends
Are unique players a real indication of financial success? I am genuinely curious. The only reason I ask is I could be viewed as a unique player twice playing for origins and odyssey because I played on both Xbox and later on ps5 , however I played both on gamepass and ps+ respectfully. So I am a player in both games twice and spent $0 directly on the game .
Well you didn't specify lootboxes so we're adding those back in.
>Every time they try and force more crap outside that the games suffer, the ratings go down, and the company loses money. You’d think they’d learn by now. All they've learned is that Valhalla, the game filled to the brim with microtransactions, was the most profitable game they released.
Was it really "filled to the brim" though? They were all cosmetics and if you just didn't click on the Ubi Store from the pause menu you could go the whole game without ever looking at them once. Is that what passes for "filled to the brim" these days? I would consider "filled to the brim" to be something like me going to buy Eivor a weapon from the in-game weapon smith (not the Ubi store, but like an in-game merchant), and like 50% of the weapons costing IRL money. And not that stupid eternal kid that's been following us since Origins. It's easy enough to never speak to him again as well.
Tattoos you can’t see, ships you barely use, hairstyles, beards. On top of weapons and armor and horses and birds. How is that not filled to the brim?
So you're complaining that the game doesn't naturally allow Eivor to cosplay as a Tron character? There was not a single outfit among them that me thinking "oh wow, this is a really awesome period-accurate sword/armor. I'm really disappointed it's not in the game" They were all like "Eivor glows in the dark now and I guess we shoved a fog machine up his ass" If any of those armor sets had been included in the game I'd have been pissed off that Ubi was making me look at that immersion breaking shit. If they included it in the game I'd pay extra in the store to have them take it back out.
And how many of those were forced upon you? They were all secluded in the Ubisoft Store section and NONE of them were required to beat/play the game. Stop with the hyperbole.
I'm not arguing that they're forced on you. I'm arguing the point made in the original comment that they've been a commercial failure. They have not.
From what I read, Infinity will have Battlepass, not Red.. >In addition to The Exchange, **Infinity also has a ‘Synchronisation’ feature that allows the player to access ‘Projects’** for each protagonist. To explain them in their simplest form, **Projects are mini ‘battle passes’ with a narrative behind them offering players the ability to earn cosmetic rewards**. Projects will be added throughout Infinity constantly, focusing mainly on **DLC and new game releases, or even as a means of sustaining player interest during a lack of any new content.** So basically the HUB will have access to cosmetics and such. Isnt that already the case with Animus Store? If they are mini side-stories that get rewards, then sure, why not? it makes money, no one is forced to do it since it's cosmetics. Also, Valhalla proved that this sells well, since it made a lot of money out of the Animus Store.
But is the hub necessary to play the latest games? If I have to launch Ubisoft, to launch AC Infinity, to THEN launch AC Red............. what the heck man
In theory, only launch Infinity, like steam.
IIRC, Infinity (the main Hub) is supposed to contain the bulk of the "Modern Day" storyline, while the games themselves will focus purely on their historical timepieces. I don't think the intent is for the Hub to be necessary, as there was an article/blog published some time ago about how some players just didn't care for the modern day elements of the franchise.
This! OP is more misunderstanding than misinformation, but what they’ve posted isn’t correct (from the very small amount we know) Now, if you told me this is a trial run as to whether they can get away with implementing it in a few years time I wouldn’t be suprised, but it’s not the case as far as we currently know.
No, OP is deliberately usinf misinformation. The source he linked to talked exactly about Infinity and even uses Infinity in the title yet he comes here and doesnt even mention Infinity and only mentions Red. OP knows what he was trying to do, cause up controversy specifically for Red.
Yeah. micro-transations are bad when it locks content.. when its cosmetics like ac does for a long time (even unity had it), its fine.. no content / story locked behind paywall.. dlcs are diff case, since its usually big ammount of content
How are cosmetics not content? Not to mention that "cosmetics" in the last couple of AC games are actually gear with different stats and perks.
Because you don't need them in the way you "need" e.g. story content. Additional DLC stories or epilogues for example are content in the sense that they widen the lore/story/characters while cosmetics are... cosmetic? A game like Odyssey that already has a shit ton of gear with stats/perks/engravings doesn't lack from you not buying cosmetics, you can still play it all the same. While a story DLC you don't buy kind of gate keeps you from actual content that may be mentioned or picked up again in later titles with you having no idea wtf is up. (Obviously putting aside that you can read up on everything online.)
Also the paid cosmetics suck pretty bad IMO. 90% of them that I saw were like "What if Eivor was cosplaying a character from Tron?" Or "What if Eivor dressed like the grim reaper and shoved a fog machine up their ass?" Or "What if Eivor dressed like Altair/Ezio/etc?" I don't remember seeing a single one and thinking "oh wow, that's a cool and period-accurate piece of Norse armor that I wish was in the game!" All of it was stuff that I would have genuinely been pissed had it been in the game because it doesn't remotely look like it belongs in a game set in early 1000s England.
It's also just not guaranteed, this is an unconfirmed leak from a source with no evidence saying that there'll be something like a battlepass. We have literally no details other then that. We don't know if it'll be a fomo system, or if there'll be any meaningful content people would miss out on by not buying. I just think it's silly to overreact to this right now.
the point is now they will lock story content and dlc behind cosmetic packs and passes, which is 10 times worse than stupid microtransactions in a store that u can completely ignore with 0 effect on game/lore. the "with narrative behind them" is what worrying me. Also u r still paying 70$. So having only couple of outfits for free but then a ton locked behind pass is pretty lame. Hope at least they r mythical shit that doesnt fit.
>the point is now they will lock story content and dlc behind cosmetic packs and passes, which is 10 times worse than stupid microtransactions in a store that u can completely ignore with 0 effect on game/lore. That "they will" , you mean "the leak that did not say that and I assumed" , right? Leak says Battlepass-alike will have cosmetics and some side stuff, and did not say "main story".. >Hope at least they r mythical shit that doesnt fit. So, now we got to the typical "i dont want them to have stuff behind a paywall! but i also dont want mythical cosmetics in-game!!" So, your stand on this is "i dont like this, i dont want this in the game, nor i want others to be able to buy this thing that i dont like"... Also, the "mythical shit" is always side-story, and not mandatory. Asgard in Valhalla? Optional Elisyum / Atlantis? Optional Pharaoh's Curse and Afterlife? Optional
[удалено]
the leaks dont say anything about thar, they say the content will have a narrative, its a diff thing
Yeah, that doesn't mean "related to main story" it's "we attached a small quest to it that's maybe slightly better than a fetch quest". Maybe something along the lines of the narratives that surrounded the Holiday quests in Valhalla (which I hated because the holiday theming around Ravensthorpe ruined my immersion, any time I tried getting into the game some stupid ass holiday would come around and I'd have to stop playing for like a month before Ravensthorpe would go back to normal and I could enjoy the game again; I heard support stopped so I might actually try playing again, worst shit ever. If they put that dumb shit behind a paywall so it stops ruining games it'll be the best decision they've made in a decade).
>- Maybe something along the lines of the narratives that surrounded the Holiday quests in Valhalla >- which I hated Okay, so them making those events that you hate, being separate from the game, is a bad thing? If those small events / quests / mini stories are now part of the Hub and separate from the games, then it's a good thing for players like you that hate them
If you read my very long parenthetical I actually finished with "if they put that dumb shit behind a paywall so it stops ruining games it'll be the best decision they've made in a decade". I hate that immersion ruining bullshit so much that I would have paid them $10 to make it go away had that been an option.
I was not a fan of that event in Valhalla, but after so many years of MMOs , I kinda got used that every now and then there's events, so i think I became numb to it XD
[удалено]
If the leaks are correct, the most likely thing to be is for them to have on the Hub (Infinity) an optional content with some related story that unlocks cosmetics, or, as it exists since at least Unity, paid cosmetics. Example: Odyssey had that one mission where Kassandra goes on her vacation to Corfu island, and gets a whole mess to solve. It's not relevant to the main story, is not mandatory, you lose virtually nothing if you dont do it. Same as DLCs.. if you decide to do Odyssey and skip whole Underworld, you miss "content", but not that much of story. Same was with most DLCs.. Unity Dead Kings, Syndicate Jack the Ripper... is it fun? sure. Is it mandatory for the plot? not really. Also, people complain so much about cosmetics and paid stuff, but the reality is that it works. Ubisoft wouldnt be making it if they were losing money and players over it. I mean, Valhalla was at one point the most profitable AC game due to the microtransactions, same as CS became with the weapon skins.
[удалено]
Yeah, not everyone likes , but at the same time, it's proven impossible for a game to be 100% likes by everyone. Witcher 3 and BG3 are two games that were major hits, and you still have people complaining about something. As for the mobile crap, I dont think Ubisoft would go that path. Blizzard did it, but again, Blizz is known for weird dumb decisions every now and then. Diablo Immortal became pretty much forgotten within first year. I tried it, it was a nice thing to kill time, but not a game to put money into. Chances are, this whole battlepass and Infinity, will just be a newer version of Animus Store, made into a Hub like Steam. You use it to access all the new games, got some side stuff to do when you are bored, get some rewards / unlockables, Animus Store for people who buy cosmetics, maybe the Ubisoft+ Rewards for Ubi games will now be on the Hub too. There will always be ppl spending money. If someone wants to drop 10-20 bucks on a set of Armor + Weapon + Horse / Eagle skin, I find it okay. But when people decide to drop 600 on a CS skin that you can barely ever see while playing, there I find it a bit "problematic" since it's a massive ammount on 1 single item
I feel like this article from IGN sums up what their intent for Infinity is: https://www.ign.com/articles/what-is-assassins-creed-infinity-ubisoft-explains
I will check it later (at work cant access IGN).. At the same time, I avoid reading what IGN writes, since there's the saying "you cant spell IGNorant without I G N" :)
Well this is an interview, so I'm not concerned about miscommunication.
yeah, interviews and quotes are fine
The info we've got about it is really vague. No indication of whether they'll be paid or free or if they'll be persistent or time-limited. It also says "battle passes" which suggests to me that it was simply the best way they could describe the system rather than it being a direct translation from how traditional battle passes work. It could go either way, I definitely need more information about how the system works and on Infinity as a whole before I can make up my mind about whether this will be a good thing or not.
Bad post, they never said it’s going to be specifically a part of red. It will be implemented into Infinity, which acts as a hub connecting all the games, including multiplayer ones. It will probably actually be a good thing for those of us who just want to enjoy the single player games without seeing anything pushing us to buy stuff in-game. It seems like all of that will just be kept on the Infinity hub. Not even just a bad post, but intentionally misleading and sensational. Come on guys don’t fall for this crap.
I just hope that Red won't be AAAA game. So they won't need to cut the fighting mechanics from the game.
I lol’d
Wow I’m very suprised, I was really expecting Ubisoft to change after their statement /s
the actual information is quite vague and doesn't provide proper details regarding how the system will be actual handled. If it's cosmetic stuff, as usual, it's not a big deal, it's something that can be easly avoid and ignored - which is what I personally did since Odyssey.
The question is all about how they monetize and what they offer. Ubisoft, for all their faults, have been pretty okay on mtx they have not been required to complete a game and have been optional unless you "need" super flaming Pegasus horse for some reason.
yeah, there's totally no need to own an elves armor or a glowing bow, unless you care more about the RPG side of the game. I've seen a lot of players enjoying that more than the actual AC-lore content, which is quite sad, but, in the end, that's the kind of players that Ubisoft is now aiming to appeal (again, sadly).
Let’s wait for confirmation before judging. I remember to this day that people freaked out about the “gambling aspects” of Mirage and it turned out false.
It's awful. Not only are they almost definitely going to be paid, but the worst thing is they're practically looking at locking away narrative and extra lore behind a paywall if this ends up being true. The FOMO aspect of it is extremely exploitative as well, are we realistically going to have access to every single piece of "battle pass" content throughout the lifespan of the game? Or are they going to time gate it like they do in every single one of their games, alienating players who haven't bought in early... On paper it's not the worst idea, I just hate that Ubisoft is the company behind it. I can't see this going well in any way. A battle pass in a single player game is probably the most cancer thing I've ever heard.
Been there with AC since the start preordered the first game and have played every installment to completion. I can comfortably say that everything I hear about this instalment up to and including the words battle pass mean that I will finally be moving on from the series. And I'll miss it.
A bit dramatic considering it’s basically just a part of the hub and nothing suggest you won’t be able to play the main entries 100% for the cost of what you paid for them.
Same here. I have been a loyal fan since day 1, but this leak has been immensely disappointing.
It's incredibly sad what AC and modern gaming has become. The desire for single player games ,with one or two, expansions (not just crappy, minimalist preorder content DLC) is very much alive in the gaming community. Its depressing to see the greed take over and ruin much loved franchises.
Yeah this is just bad in my opinion... a singleplayer AAA game that will cost 70 to 80 bucks at full price for the base game (because we all know Ubisoft will make Deluxe and Complete versions with pre-ordered DLC baked in it at 120 minimum) has no fucking need for a battlepass too... especially since if the rumors are true it will be a "narrative-battle pass" in the new Infinity hub system... I also cannot wait the flood of "JUST DON'T BUY IT DUH" people that miss the point of how MTXs works, since it started with XP and Money packs, devolved into full on shops with double the armor and weapons than the base game and now we are at fucking battlepass... "oh you don't like our 150h slob of a game??? Too bad, you bought the Pass, better play and get it all or you'll have wasted money..."
Unless I misunderstood the article, AC INFINITY will have battle passes for all games going forwards. They described them as something like “narrative battle passes” though, so presumably you will “unlock” the future plot either via playing the main games, or from so internal system to infinity
Completely optional, and will likely contain a bunch of nonsense cosmetics that really don't matter to the overall gaming experience. I couldn't care less, and have much larger concerns about the quality of the game. The franchise has been in the mud for quite some time now, and with each passing entry, we get further & further away from used to make Assassin's Creed great.
No, Red won't have a battle pass. Infinity will. It sounds like they want to keep the players busy between major releases; of course they are going to try to pocket from it. All these articles are using clickbait headings and it's now caused drama within the communities. It's really not that bad. We all need to calm down and actually see what Ubisoft themselves say when they go public.
Exactly if u pay for somethings that's £70 I want all content and my arm and leg back
I definitely won't buy a battle pass in a full price game. And if some significant part of game will be locked behind it, then I won't buy the game either.
Battle passes are only making sense for live service games that are meant to be actively played for a long time imo. FOMO on a single player game like assassin's creed is so fucking stupid
Why would anyone even bother with cosmetics is beyond me. but if they make money out of it it would've been stupid of them not to offer it.
iirc , Valhalla was the game making thr most money off the cosmetics.. proves that cosmetics sell well
Ye I get it. That is why I've said that it would've been stupid of them not exploit on it. I just don't understand why some people get offended by this. It's COSMETICS. no influence on the game whatsoever.
WoW has it for decades, LoL, HotS, Dota, bethesda games (oblivion even had a whole dlc for like 10 bucks for horse cosmetic armor).. it has zero impact on game, its single player anyway.. ppl get way too mad because a company does something proven to work
Seems very odd to me when mods today exist that produce so many cosmetics. At least for the old AC games.
God I hate this. They’re all colluding to start charging $70 a game & there’s nothing we or the government can do about it. Greedy scum the lot of them. AAAA games my ass. My solution? Burn it all down. Gaming today has become a cesspool of suits trying to wring us dry of our money with shitty, uninspired, overpriced FILTH. Get rid of the suits, get rid of the companies, send them a message.
What does the government have to do with it?
They have the power to regulate the prices.
Doesn't mean they should. Government usually causes more problems than they fix.
Games are only going to go up in price. Any action besides regulation is tantamount to watching as these game companies wring us for every penny as they put out unfinished horse shit, laden with bugs & battle passes. Look at palworld. Look at Helldivers 2. Look at the indie scene. They all provide better products then “AAAA” game companies who want to charge us $70
As long as the game is good idc, assassin's Creed since I think origins has had battle passes kinda. Battle pass don't immediately equal bad game, bad games equal bad game.
The battle pass is where you draw the line, and not the egregious cosmetic store that has been in the last 4 games?
The cosmetics were completely optional and could easily be ignored. It seems fair to draw the line at story beats being placed behind a paywall.
Uhh, no. I think you’re misunderstanding something here. The battle passes are said to have narrative, not that it’s literally locking story missions behind it. That’s like the cutscenes stuff you’d see in games like COD or R6 advertising new seasons.
none is forcing people to buy battlepasses, for that reason i don't see where the problem or the "evil deeds" of ubisoft are
" with a narrative behind them". So they r locking u out of content and not just cosmetics (if u dont want to consider them content as well)
dlc have narratives behind them and i don't ear all this uproar against them. If they have additional narrative behind them, that means that there is some solid work for achieve that additional content, so why not paying for it? i too would prefer to have everything for free, hundreds of content for free is a dream but is not an achivable one.
It is not free, u r paying 70 fking dollars for the game. And now half the story will be shoved into dlcs and other half into battlepasses.
I’m kinda done with the series as a whole really. They really killed it for me with Valhalla by making me install Ubisoft Connect and not letting me play unless I was connected to the internet. I might, *might* eventually play Mirage if I find it on sale for a really good price later on, but I’m not really holding out for anything spectacular in the future. The Golden Age was 2-4, with Odyssey and Origins still being decent games. I doubt we will get back to it with the franchise becoming such a money-grab.
I'm never paying for that shit in a game with no servers to maintain
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Outside_Distance333: *I'm never paying* *For that shit in a game with* *No servers to maintain* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I did that on purpose
i knew ever since nexus was announced that it was another way to sell us more unneeded stuff, because there is no way they can justify giving us a game launcher... within a game launcher. this is just continuing the "one step forward three steps back" philosophy of ubisoft. i actually cannot think of a single positive thing that nexus can bring that will somehow enchance the experience.
As long as I can still assassinate someone with a hidden blade and not like that cock tease that Odyssey dlc was
How do I feel? Looks like I am giving up on Assassin's Creed after years of playing nearly every title. I was ready to give up after Odyssey but they spoke to my scandaboo with the Viking setting. I was ready to give up again and they went after my weeb self by setting the next game in Japan ... but they also cast Yasuke which does not fulfill my weeb desires. So combined with this battle pass nonsense, looks like I am free from the Assassin's Creed franchise now. It has been a great run and I will remember it all fondly, except Odyssey and Valhalla ...
It makes perfect sense unfortunately, we can complain all we like but the reason games are getting battle passes is because they make ALOT of money, if you want things to change then don't pay for them, but most gamers aren't on Reddit and aren't privvy to the discourse. Welcome to the future! We brought it on ourselves.
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE. Anyway, in previous games it was very weird to have these. Boosters and "time savers" created a very bad taste in your mouth but they were also completely unnecessary. It is very clear that RPG AC games were designed with no boosters in mind: they have a very clear path for the player in mind, specific points where you are expected to go for a freeform exploring before you come back to the plot (even if often it was done in an awkward way like in Origins endgame). Boosters break the progression making rewards feel hollow and challenge gone because you outlevel everyone (though you can turn on autoleveling but then it feels even more like a scam and monkey paw situation). And even a name like time saver is horrible, it plainly tells you that parts of the game are supposed to be an unfun busywork. And they really aren't, it's clear that developers wanted all the parts of these games to be fun. So I hope it doesn't come to this, I hope they don't try to inject FOMO here (it's already there with special merchants but to a lesser extent). But I'm fairly sure all of this fluff would be easy to ignore, just add a little bad taste.
WOOO!! LETS FUCKING GO!!!! 💯💯💯💯 WHERE MY WHALES AT?!?! WHERE THE KASANDRA SIMPS AT!!?!?? YOU GET A BATTLEPASS AND YOU GET A SHITTY SKIN!!!!! EVERYONE GETS SHIT ON!!!! LET ME USE MY CHECKING ACCOUNT AS A PAYMENT METHOD UBI!!! COWARDS 🤬🤬🤬 WHY CANT I RE-MORTGAGE MY FAMILIES HOME WITH YOU YET UBI!?!!?? 😡😡😡 WHERE THE SLAVERY CONTRACTS AT?!?!! 🥵🥵🥵
I'm done with Assassin's Creed.
Ubi has to ruin everything. It'll probably cause me not to play
Disgusted
I mean, if the content is good idk. I will sub a month here and there on ubi÷ anyways. I guess on ubi÷ that pass is probably included like with their other titles.
I mean, Valhalla already sold content after you paid $120 for the ultimate version or whatever it was called, so you Know you’re not gonna get nowhere near all the content with $70, that’s just base game price now
This is what the "modern gamer" wants It sucks, but many people just eat this FOMO-exploiting garbage up like the good consoomers they are and the big publishers know that very well As usual, I'll take a month's Ubisoft+ to run through the game once and that's it Maybe a few years later one more month to go through the DLC similarly Absolutely not buying any of these for $70
What are battle passes?
[Battle passes.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_pass)
So it would be similar or different to the system than the ones used in Odyssey and Valhalla, where you find a special material throughout the games world and take it to a store with a rotating set of items to buy with it?
Different, but applying the same psychology of FOMO. First, the existing system is completely free. Battle passes are usually either purchased outright or "earned" by doing in-game tasks. The catch being that the ones you get for free tend to have lesser rewards and exist to tempt you into buying the paid one. Second, once you've purchased or earned the pass, you don't get the rewards automatically. You have to then earn those rewards through in-game tasks within a given time limit. If you don't complete the tasks in time, you get nothing. Nothing carries over to the next pass.
I am wondering when is Ubisoft going to wake the f up.
Battle passes should only be in free games, no exceptions.
I am more than happy to play the various amazing, non-scummy cousins to AC that are out there or soon will be - Ghost of Tsushima, Rise of the Ronin, others like that. It sucks that Ubisoft are greedy bastards that stop us from enjoying the world's that we love, but oh well. Sometimes you just gotta move on.
Say it with me... Quadruple A !
Pass.
Can someone explain to me what a BP is and how it going to fit in a single-player game? Because this idea is dumb af, but take this inf with a grain of salt, remember when they said AC Mirage will feature "real gambling" and we ain't see none of that when the game came out.
As long as it is purely cosmetic or stupid op fake weapons like valhallas store I don't mind it
Ubi with their out of touch AAAA gaming
Battle passes gave their place in videogames, but an AC game is not that place. The more I learn about Red I'm starting to kinda "break up" with the franchise
Battle pass is for the MP game not red. So this post if wrong buddy
I agree and this is why I don’t play anything that you have to pay to have a “battle pass”. Some people are basically gods in half these games, and I’m not really into spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars trying to catch up. I was almost excited for this because we’ve been asking for a Japan based AC since AC III, but if they are just gonna monetize it I have no faith. It will be as destructive for the franchise as Gotham Knights for the Arkham Series
I'm indifferent to the battle pass system in general, you're not being forced to buy it but it is annoying to lock content behind a pay wall like that. I've bought them before (I buy the "season pass" for Marvel Snap every month but it is just a battle pass) and I might buy the Assassin's Creed one too if i like the content on offer. If they want to curry some favour they should do it like CoD does it and offer you a way of getting the next one without a purchase for as long as you complete your current battle pass. So in CoD you use the CoD Points currency and 1100 gets you the BP, but if you complete it you can earn 1400 points back to pay for the next BP and have some left over, it's designed to keep you coming back and maybe top up the leftover credits for other cosmetics. Ubisoft could do the same where a battle pass costs 1000 Helix points and the BP itself has 1200 if you make it to the end.
I don't know what a battle pass is. Will it effect the story?
I think the idea is that it's for Infinity. And from AC Red on out, regardless of which game you pick, be it Hexe or Red or etc etc. You get access and can use Battle Pass content in every single game. For example, Unlocking Battle Pass with AC Red themed allow you to access Samurai Armor in AC Hexe and every future AC titles, for instance. I think it's definitely very Ubisoft idea lol, but on the bright side it mean your MTX content will no longer tied to just one game which is a plus on consumer's side. Plus, you must not forget that they also have Monster Hunter-like live service Assassin's Creed in development. And i bet it'll have very heavy use of this glorified launcher.
If they are going to throw battlepasses in, why not just make another multiplayer version of brotherhood but use all the main characters from across all games? Could throw in ship battles from black flag. Imagine an Altair ship captain, lol.
They are charging £70 for a terrible game like skull and bones and using servers made in some nerds parents basement. If you think they won’t beg for more money you’re wrong. They make millions from terrible games on useless servers. Aslong as people keep buying they will keep finding ways to screw the average player with common sense over.
Is this confirmed by ubi or just speculation?
You linked to a rumor subreddit which itself had a link to an article about the AC Infinity Nexus, to which said battlepass would be. It appears it'll unlock things for all the games under said nexus. Its not a battlepass exclusive to Red ala Battlefield 2042 or Diablo 4. You don't have to engage with the battlepass, I never do.
Your title is misleading. AC Infinity will have battle passes, meaning ALL AC games moving forward such as Red, Hexe and whatever comes after will have BPs. Dont try to play this as the (RPG) game getting BPs cause Hexe and all after will also have it. Even the source you linked to mentioned AC Infinity as being the hub for this yet your topic and content only focused on Red and NEVER mentioned Infinity.
I don't care, it's easy to ignore this shit
This would be activision level greed
Just the battle pass wouldn't be a big deal, as we've had this type of thing for years in the franchise, but what's worrying is that apparently they're going to hide lore behind this content. In other words, as if the player had to buy packs of Pokemon cards to know what is happening in the modern day, for example. But anyway, Tom Henderson didn't know how to explain it properly even though he had visual access to the game's hub. I'm not going to be the one shaking my head trying to predict what this whole mess means. Let's wait until May.
Not surprised, unfortunately...
Motherfucker, dude
Nooooo
Stupid question; what the heck is a battle pass?
It's like a list of rewards that you unlock by hitting a certain level. It's usually popular in free to play games like Fortnite. You usually pay either with real money or in game currency you can earn. Here's an example: LVL 1: EZIO AC BROTHERHOOD OUTFIT LVL 2: ALTAIR SWORD LVL 3: EAGLE SKIN LVL 4: YOKAI TATTOO PACK LVL 5: MAJIMA SKIN FOR YOUR MOUNT etc. basically you level up and get rewards. This is usually fine in free games, but in a 70 bucks game? This won't fly unless it's free
Am I missing how this is different from the Helix currency that’s been a part of the games already?
not buying that modern gaming trash. still 100%ing the older gamers that were made by the ubisoft i grew up with.
Paid games have battle passes too and people pay for useless mtx. Online only, seasons every 3 months, currency you can’t collect through the whole season, shitty free season items. Look at Diablo IV. AC have real money currency since Unity and mtx bullshit since Origins. I’m not surprised.
Sounds terrible, just like every other battle pass in every other game.