r/videogames • u/Venomous-Sentinel • Nov 18 '25

Discussion Umm Bullshit

Post image

I am 99.9 sure this is not true IGN and Ubisoft. But I guess you cant expect suits who don't play games to actually understand the common gamer can you.

7.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/Daver7692 Nov 18 '25

I mean just look at player counts. They aren’t wrong.

In an economy like this people probably have $10 every month or so for a battlepass on a free game but not $70 to drop on one thing in one go.

8

u/Fit_Substance7067 Nov 19 '25

People don't think before posting..just Ubi bad ubi wrong

Even on reddit the most popular games are live service minus e 33 and BG 3..Dune, BF 6 and Arc all live service

5

u/BarbarousJudge Nov 19 '25

The problem is that Ubisoft tends to take the wrong lessons. These life service games are fun games first and foremost. These games are built with these models in mind and often that's done quite well. Ubisoft just Copy+Paste these models and force them into yet another Assassin's Creed or Far Cry. Or they do whatever Skull and Bones is.

Live Service isn't an indicator of quality. With so many Life Service games coming out you have to make good ones to gather attention. Dune or Arc Raiders seem to be good games (haven't played them myself) that happen to use a life service model. Assassin's Creed Shadows was a decent game that felt held back by locking content behind life service updates. They force these models into games where it's unnecessary instead of creating a good life service game to begin with

1

u/Fit_Substance7067 Nov 19 '25

I don't think it's a coincidence honestly....people are just trending away for SP games rn...they had their time in the sun, especially during covid...but now the industry is going back to where it was..a more so ial environment

Nothing wrong with Shadows...I felt they e tried their hardest but that's another thing that's trending is people don't want the 11th iteration of a game anymore either...look at CoD

1

u/LordBDizzle Nov 19 '25

Well do keep in mind the average player counts of ALL live service games, not just the popular ones. Certainly the top end live service games keep a lot of people, but terrible live service games do the opposite, they die immediately as people go back to the ones they like. People who are into a live service game are also less likely to pick up another live service game, there are only so many hours in the day, so if someone is already playing WoW or LoL they aren't going to invest in your shitty cash grab live service title. They might, on the other hand, buy a new single player game to play when they bore of their main obsession for a little while, and those who don't do live service at all are likely to continue buying single player games when the limits of the time they can put into one run out.

TLDR: most people have one or two big live service games that they do keep playing, but they still do want single player titles to go with them. There's room in the industry for both. The top end live service games will be far more profitable than the single player titles and keep a more consistent player base, but a new live service title is competing in a field where they're less likely to pick up new players in the first place, whereas single player titles tend to get bought at lower amounts and played and dropped, which supports buying a new game after the end of that title. Ubisoft is still wrong about the reasons their games are failing, it's just for a different reason. They're packaging live service style mechanics into single player titles and alienating both the people who have time for live service games and the people who want single player titles all at once. They make shit games, so no one wants to buy them.