WYP
News Guru
Last edited:
Ubisoft reveals Assassin's Creed Valhalla's release date and 35 minutes of gameplay
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
ImprovizoR
Active member
It somehow looks worse than Origins and Odyssey.
But at least they're honoring us with the possibility of paying $120 for the privilege of playing the "ultimate edition", which also still includes in-game microtransactions, thank Christ. I don't know what I'd do if my $120 single player experience didn't have in-game microtransactions. I don't even care about performance and optimization. Just let me spend that cash on those sweet, sweet microtransactions. And I really hope they'll incentivise me to spend by making the game grindy as f***.
But at least they're honoring us with the possibility of paying $120 for the privilege of playing the "ultimate edition", which also still includes in-game microtransactions, thank Christ. I don't know what I'd do if my $120 single player experience didn't have in-game microtransactions. I don't even care about performance and optimization. Just let me spend that cash on those sweet, sweet microtransactions. And I really hope they'll incentivise me to spend by making the game grindy as f***.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
1 of the main reasons I was looking forward to this is that the composer from the series "Vikings" is doing the music for this but the gameplay looks pretty meh, Just Odyssey with a different theme.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Idk man the combat is definitely far more gory and has at least 10x the amount of animations going on.
The was one of two drawbacks to Odyssey for me. Combat animations were low and made combat repetitive.
Other was conquest battles were cool in theory but made it a one man army "kill x to win". They seemed to have fixed that.
Other than that if it's as good as Odyssey, plot/story/pace/etc, this is an easy 10/10 for me.
Last edited:
Avet
Active member
Prince of Persia original trilogy had proper, amazing, beautiful, and challenging gameplay. Getting a new sword, and learning combos. It was pure. And you could fail hard.
Then Assassin's Creed came out and I was disappointed to the bone. What? You can run, and jump by holding one fcking button, and that is it? You just mash one button and he does the fighting alone? Wtf? A blatant copy made for retarded kids. And somehow they have managed to dumb it down more... How?
Fck Vikings I am going to install Prince of Persia Warrior Within and enjoy one of the best games ever made. Dahaka here I come.
Then Assassin's Creed came out and I was disappointed to the bone. What? You can run, and jump by holding one fcking button, and that is it? You just mash one button and he does the fighting alone? Wtf? A blatant copy made for retarded kids. And somehow they have managed to dumb it down more... How?
Fck Vikings I am going to install Prince of Persia Warrior Within and enjoy one of the best games ever made. Dahaka here I come.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Honestly simply couldn't get into Odyssey or even Origins, I've tried multiple times but it's the same thing over and over again, I liked the Ezio saga and then the next one I liked was Syndicate and Unity, Unity being absolutely gorgeous but the others I can't get into no matter how much I try.
The only game so far, IMO, To warrant a beastly GPU is Unity, That is 1 gorgeous game, Syndicate was toned down and everything after Syndicate seems to be on the same graphical level i.e meh.
Plus we all know by now that Ubisoft cannot optimise worth a damn.
Unity was bug ridden and terribly optimised. We all remember the skinless faces issue that created a heaven for meme lovers. Perhaps thats why it was so tough.
I kind of like Origins and Odyssey to a point. But its too repetitive I think. I'll probably check out vikings for the sake of it, but I am not in a rush. I still havent finished Unity or syndicate...
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Oh I agree the bugs were terrible and it is terribly optimised but still a gorgeous game but it too is one I cannot complete, I've fully completed 1, 2, Brotherhood, Revelations and 3, Played half way through Black Flag and then maybe played 10% of Unity, Rogue, Liberation, Syndicate, Origins and Odyssey, I just get less and less interested with each release.
ImprovizoR
Active member
I liked Origins because of the setting and the much needed changes to gameplay mechanics. But it got old fast. Odyssey was also kinda fun, but they tried too hard to turn it into an RPG, despite not having any real experience with RPG's, which shows.
Also, these are no longer real Assassin's Creed games. They're just using that IP instead of creating a new one because they're afraid of starting over fresh and having to devise a new marketing strategy for a new IP.
Most of these games are sort of fun, but they're nothing special and they don't deserve the price tag of $120 if you want all the DLC. Their greed knows no bounds. They can't even refrain from putting microtransactions in a fully priced game. That just turns me off completely.
And they're just not very well designed games. These people are so afraid of not catering to every possible type of gamer, that they put all kinds of mechanics into their games in order to have a bit of something for everyone. Their games lack focus and that's just not what game design is about.
AC has become one of those franchises that I would never touch if 75% sales didn't exist.
Also, these are no longer real Assassin's Creed games. They're just using that IP instead of creating a new one because they're afraid of starting over fresh and having to devise a new marketing strategy for a new IP.
Most of these games are sort of fun, but they're nothing special and they don't deserve the price tag of $120 if you want all the DLC. Their greed knows no bounds. They can't even refrain from putting microtransactions in a fully priced game. That just turns me off completely.
And they're just not very well designed games. These people are so afraid of not catering to every possible type of gamer, that they put all kinds of mechanics into their games in order to have a bit of something for everyone. Their games lack focus and that's just not what game design is about.
AC has become one of those franchises that I would never touch if 75% sales didn't exist.
Last edited:
Sorry but thats the entire gaming market in general. I don't buy any full price now. They are not worth the price. Even Cyberpunk 2077. I refuse to pay €60 for that.
CDPR deserve all the credit for it, but the asking, is above what I think is a fair asking price. I wait for sales like you now, or via cd key sites. I know its a red flag, but for some people that's their only option to enjoy games, without going fully illegal and downloading torrents.
I think the best value game I have played to date was Senua Hellblade. It was over half the cost of all AAA and the content blew me away.
ImprovizoR
Active member
I will probably get Cyberpunk 2077 on release if I build a new PC beforehand. If I can spend $1500+ on a PC, I can spend $60 on a game that I think looks absolutely spectacular. Besides, The Witcher 3 is easily my favorite game of all time, a game that I still play and can't stop playing, so CDPR has earned enough of my trust that I feel comfortable spending $60 on their latest title.
Also, I have to admit that I pre-ordered RDR2 for the PC. But I'm a huge western fan so I didn't regret it. I thought that the game was worth it for single player alone. I still play the game.
The point of this is that the older and more experienced one is, the easier it is to discern whether a product is worth one's time and money. It's even easier for games than it is for any other type of entertainment.
That in itself is a bad trap. With the exception of some developers we jump right in expecting the same quality as before, but then get disappointed at the lack of care and attention. I agree older and experienced people tend to do more due dilligence, but at the same time, its often based on past choices.
Look at the downfall of Bioware, initially released the best RPGs around (imo) however, latest ME Andromeda, upcoming DA and the dreadful Anthem. People get sucked into a false sense of security based on previous titles. And titles today are focussing too much on graphical fidelity and less on content.
Cyberpunk is an exception. But €60 is still too high an asking price for a game. I will get it for sure, but it has to be cheaper. And god forbid, what the royal packs will cost with included cosmetic nonsense... Im guessing €100 or more.
ImprovizoR
Active member
Not solely on past choices. Past choices make me interested to look into what they're working on. But the thing that they're working on has to look appealing. It's not as simple as "previous game good, so new game good".
Everything about RDR2 single player looked appealing to me (don't care about MP whatsoever). And everything about Cyberpunk 2077 looks appealing to me. Experience with previous titles is there just to inform me of what I can expect. For instance if I can expect a game with a heavy focus on the narrative, stealth, action, branching storyline etc. and how certain elements will be implemented.
Andromeda looked bad when the first info was released. It was obviously going to be plagued with at least the same issues as Dragon Age: Inquisition, which was enough for me to stay clear. On top of that, the idea of the game screamed "we backed ourselves into a corner with ME3 ending, but f*** you, we still want your money". Andromeda is a lousy idea for a Mass Effect game.
I know how EA thinks (and how similar publishers think). I know that they have no original bone in their body and that they essentially do the same thing as Ubisoft - they try to copy other games by adopting a shallow version of gameplay mechanics into their games for the purpose of being able to advertise their game as being open world or having co-op or whatever it is that's currently hot on the market. It was easy for me to see how Andromeda would turn out.
And I was right. I almost always am when it comes to games. Instances when I'm wrong are positive exceptions because I sometimes judge a game too harshly and end up being positively surprised.
As for Anthem, I have no idea what people saw in that game. It just looked boring from the moment it was announced. I couldn't understand the hype. I was almost convinced that every person who was praising it was either paid to do so, or just a moron.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
If you think 60 is an unfair price you'll be disappointed to know next gen will likely increase that price or include more dlc to offset growing development costs.
People don't seem to realize that games are being sold at a $60 price tag for decades now yet in that same time frame development costs have skyrocketed to insane levels. AAA games can costs anywhere from $50-150million to make. As each generation comes those costs go higher and to keep a stagnant selling price isn't feasible.
This is the reason dlc, expansion, and cosmetics are the norm. They need to offset the cost. Otherwise we will get smaller and smaller games for the same price.
ImprovizoR
Active member
1. Games cost a lot more than $60 when you account for all the additional content.
2. Games thst cost more to make are sold in millions of copies. Basically, a lot more copies are being sold today than decades ago.
3. Publishers and devs of those games are making an absolute killing in terms of profit. The idea that they have to increase the price comes down to one thing only - greed.
Nope. Still just greed. The cost is offset by the number of copies sold. It's just never enough for them.
If they want to lower their costs, they can always just make a smaller game.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You're assuming a massive amount here.
Just because more are sold today than before doesn't mean they are making more. They sell more because they have wider market access now. They cost more to make because costs of development goes up.
They increase price because costs are increasing to make. This is business 101. I'm not sure why you're arguing.
If your solution is to just make a "smaller game" then say goodbye to basically everything you like.
Even smallish games still costs 10s of millions to produce. Your argument for smaller games doesn't mean costs are smaller.
Using number of copies sold as the basis of your argument is a terrible point. That is virtually meaningless. Yeah it points to potential revenue sure but it doesn't mean they make money off of it. It doesn't always offset costs of producing the game, paying employees, providing benefits to employees, providing pay and benefits during a time of development where there income is basically $0(no product no money), marketing costs, server infastructure, Steam/GOG/etc fees, etc.
Not all games are fortnite that can rake in $1 billion every month or less.
I'm not saying I want a price hike but it's been talked about recently so you should prepare for it whether you like it or not. Regardless of opinions it's just business and that's just how it works.
Last edited:
ImprovizoR
Active member
Big publishers are earning more than ever.
Yeah. Look at all those poor publishers going bankrupt left and right.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You're argument is still flawed. You were saying number of copies sold was the reason for making more money. It's wrong.
Look at those big publishers, they are transitioning to software as a service. Cheaper or free entry into their games that sell cosmetics or dlc to keep players playing. Thats not the same thing as what you were claiming. Because your original claim is flawed.
You're now contorting your argument into something else. In addition to this there aren't many big publishers who release consistent products. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Blizzard(who just lost Destiny btw). So because those 4 make a lot we should screw smaller companies who cannot come even close to competing with the budgets of those 4? That makes no sense at all.
Get over it because it'll likely happen whether you agree with it or not. Once again not everyone has the budgets the big publishers do. Not everyone is a big publisher or owned by one. Maybe you should think about that before assuming so many things again.
Last edited:
There are a handful of big publishers exploiting the market who are somewhat well off, particularly the many big publishers that have essentially been running online casinos for kids for the past decade.
But generally the cost of game production has increased exponentially(Almost x10 more expensive to produce per decade), this increase in production cost has been vastly greater than the increase in profits when you average it across the industry.
From ~$1mil (2017 dollars) per AAA game in 1990, to ~$8mil in 2000, then into $100mil+ per game territory around the early 2010's (Despite a global recession).
Of course, the cost increases are heavily from the demands for better graphics, stronger and longer lasting online experiences, and the general desire for more complex games.
Last edited:
Similar threads
