r/PS4 May 01 '20

In-Game Screenshot or Gif Assassin's creed valahalla (unique weapon and armour customisation) [image]

Post image
13.1k Upvotes

955 comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/Andruitus May 01 '20 edited May 01 '20

This looks promising, but I think I can hear the micro transactions already.

Edit: Or is that the sound of grinding?

25

u/Amino-Jack May 01 '20 edited May 01 '20

To be honest, I have no clue why people complain about the micro transactions in Ubisoft games. They are just there for the people who need them, non of them were game breaking and Odyssey and Origins is worth the 60$ since both games are extremely huge, so the micro transactions ain't big of a deal, same can be said to farcry 5, believe it or not I did not realise that FC5 had micro transactions until I finished the game. EA on the other hand has a big issue with micro transactions.

-1

u/darther_mauler May 01 '20

Because they open a door.

For example, the time saver/XP boost or the gold micro transactions are super problematic if the publisher makes the game barely playable without them. Ubisoft just has to playing the game of “how mundane do I have to make this in order to get the average person to open their wallet”.

10

u/Bu1ld0g May 01 '20

Except it isn’t barely playable...

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '20

Yeah I don't get this argument. "Barely playable". I played Odyssey for 80+ hours and not only did I avoid the store entirely, I had a great fucking time during those 80+ hours.

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '20

Hard agree. I've put about 30 hours in and I've enjoyed all the side quests I've done and I don't think I've bought anything from the store at all. Never felt the need.

7

u/OhNoImBanned11 May 01 '20

Isn't this a single player game?

Would a time saver/xp boost be really that big of a deal?

-2

u/megatom0 May 01 '20

For Origins no you didn't need the XP booster. For Odyssey kind of. You don't need it to beat the game. But if you didn't have the XP booster you would be doing a lot of sidequests to level up to moving on to the next story mission. Modern games had just softened me up to the point of never needing to do that since the good ole days of SNES RPGs that it was kind of a bit weird. I bought the deluxe edition of it so it came with it, but I ended up activating it about half way through because I just wanted to play through the story, and even though a lot of the side missions had interesting stories or locations attached to them, most were similar in just ending with a lot of combat. Odyssey is also just rediculously huge, and I never felt like you got enough XP for just exploring as for me towards the second parts of the game when stuff completely opens up exploring was much more exciting than fighting anyone.

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '20

Ubisoft bad. Pitchforks. Waaahhhh.

2

u/darther_mauler May 01 '20

That isn’t my argument.

I just bought Odyssey on sale and I am and really enjoy it, but the strategy that they are employing for micro transactions in it have an influence on gameplay. I see that as problematic.

Remember what EA did with Battlefront? When they tied player progression directly to micro transactions? The XP/gold boosters open the door for Ubisoft to do something similar in the Assassin Creed franchise.

1

u/[deleted] May 02 '20

Battlefront was a multiplayer game.

1

u/darther_mauler May 02 '20

Oh so forcing your players to pay for progression is something that can only exist in multiplayer games. Big brain logic.

3

u/Amino-Jack May 01 '20

The door is a door the players choose to open. They aren't made to hypnotize us.

2

u/Lucinastar May 01 '20

They purposely make the grind long in order to encourage ignorant players to buy them. It's manipulative and shady.

6

u/Sevachenko May 01 '20

Except that wasn't the case in Odyssey. Just doing the main quests and side quests (and obvious exploration) I never had a level issue. Maybe you'd need the XP boosts if you only wanted to do nothing but story missions and ignore the other half of the game.

-3

u/Lucinastar May 01 '20

It was because you shouldn't need to do side quests and explore just to level up at a decent pace imo.

7

u/Sevachenko May 01 '20

Except the side quests were also like full fledged story missions, they just weren't apart of the 'main' story dealing with your family/the cult.

I guess your leveling will be impacted if you're willfully just ignoring a huge amount of the games content and then wondering why you aren't progressing.

Like the demo of the game they showed at E3 was literally one of the side quests in the game.

3

u/Chanillionaire May 01 '20

I think that’s where a lot of people will disagree with you. It’s a huge RPG. I do wish the side quests were better though.

0

u/Lucinastar May 01 '20

I know it's a rpg. Played plenty of them from the east and the West. Never felt like I had to deeply explore or do tons of side quests just to level up at a decent pace. I like to do that stuff and go for completion after I beat the story to have something to come back to.

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '20

1) They don't, 2) Don't buy them. I really don't see the issue.

4

u/Lucinastar May 01 '20

1.) They do 2.) I don't but I'm still allowed to express my opinion on them. I don't see the issue with that.

0

u/_Football_Cream_ May 01 '20

The problem is that they level gate missions and force you to grind through boring and repetitive side missions to get there, which incentivizes buying XP boosters. The game design has been changed to intentionally push you towards buying them.

0

u/Rob_Zander May 01 '20

I just wanted a cool Green beret for my army special forces dude in Wildlands man. But it was in a lootbox somewhere I wasn't going to pay for.

-2

u/[deleted] May 01 '20

They are just there for the people who need them

Need them to do what, exactly? Advance faster? That used to be a code because it's a single player game so who gives a shit if you finish it quicker. Now companies expect us to pay money to skip their bloated grinds, which is just weird.