- Ubisoft’s annual financial report claims microtransactions makes game experiences “more fun”
- It comes after years of criticism regarding microtransactions, particularly in single-player games
- It calls for a change, especially considering the increased price standard for games
After the release of Ubisoft’s recent Assassin’s Creed Shadows, the French video game publisher is in the spotlight yet again – but this time, it’s not particularly for the best reasons for gamers.
As reported by Notebookcheck, Ubisoft’s annual financial report claims its microtransactions and monetization in premium games “makes the player experience more fun”. It’s a bold statement in the wake of titles like Star Wars Outlaws, Skull and Bones, and Assassin’s Creed Shadows, all of which have microtransactions for boosters, skins and other cosmetics in-game.
It’s not a good look for Ubisoft in the eyes of gamers; most AAA games cost $70 / £60 or more, whether single-player or multiplayer, and the addition of monetization doesn’t make matters any better – especially when microtransactions have a significant presence in single-player titles.
It’s a very similar rhetoric to complaints from gamers (and myself) regarding microtransactions dominating the Call of Duty franchise, with a plethora of cosmetics costing $16 or more, despite the $70 standard edition cost. As for single-player, similar complaints were widespread for Capcom’s Dragon’s Dogma 2, with character editing and fast travel items having microtransaction options, albeit to an admittedly less egregious degree.
Ubisoft also stresses in the report that monetized cosmetics are optional, but gamers will be aware that some titles are created to encourage players to make in-game purchases – and that’s either for faster progression, or for better character customization.
Analysis: Microtransactions have no place in non-free-to-play games, so make it stop
Statements such as these from Ubisoft are nothing but an attempt to defend microtransactions against their deserved criticisms in the past few years. I’ve held the same thoughts about EA when it introduced microtransactions to older FIFA titles, and it’s simple. Monetization should only be present in free-to-play games and out of full-priced single-player games, entirely.
From a business standpoint, Ubisoft and many other publishers have zero qualms about implementing microtransactions, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. However, for consumers, it serves very little benefit to pay extra for cosmetics, which will likely lose their value in quick succession.
It’s evident in Activision’s Call of Duty games; while recent titles have allowed players to carry over cosmetics from previous iterations to new titles, this only lasts for about a year or so. I’d argue that these in-game purchases hold even less value in single-player games, where the same cosmetics can often be unlocked from normal game progression.
The sudden rise in game prices is already bad enough, but I fear that if these video game monetization models continue, it will only make publishers more comfortable to pull egregious pricing practices.
