Far Cry 7 Is A Live Service Game Similar To Assassin's Creed Infinity - Report

harmattan said:
I agree with that assessment. It's going to be blood and tears when the majority of those properties that switch to live service die a slow death due to their fanbase giving up. They'll be some winners, of course, but most will fizzle out or just become shells. The draw to a live service model is too strong however since every publisher and dev now want to get in early and investors get fizzy in the britches over subscription models. And I'm sure most of them are banking that, even if they lose 80% of their subscribers, they can just leave a game to languish while it takes income from the remaining few (quite a few MMOs have been doing this for years).

Well, I suppose in 10 years we can look forward to reboots of properties that die on the vine.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think so but that might not be true. Most younger people don't use forums, they want more instant, constant gratification. So they use Twitter and TikTok. This carries over into gaming. Using a gun isn't good enough. You need to get that hot pink gun to keep you interested in playing, with rewards, unlocks, live events, "character"s and everything. They've been trying to make the jump to single player games for a long time and I suppose it is finally coming to fruition. We've been seeing SP games do this on a limited scale for a while, Hitman, Wildlands, Assassin's Creed, where special missions are timed and never available again. It might not resonate well with gamers who started in the 90s-2000s, but perhaps the upcoming Tiktok generation will enjoy this small piece-meal approach. We might not understand it, but then Twitter made a business out of dumbing down discourse to 100 characters or whatever and Tiktok made a business out of making videos limited to 60 or whatever seconds. So anything is possible.

I hope it fails, because this type of game sucks as a multiplayer game and sucks as a single player game. Has the worse aspects of both.
 
Just like with Assassin's Creed, I don't think the idea is inherently bad. Both series' have become noteworthy for their sequels being too similar year after year. That and worlds that are too large for their own good. Once you do 1/2 the stuff in the game, there's no point in doing the other 1/2. If they were to break them up into chunks and continually add content, they could (hopefully) better manage things. Trick is, it's Ubisoft at the helm. They'll find a way to screw it up,.
 
Domingo said:
Just like with Assassin's Creed, I don't think the idea is inherently bad. Both series' have become noteworthy for their sequels being too similar year after year. That and worlds that are too large for their own good. Once you do 1/2 the stuff in the game, there's no point in doing the other 1/2. If they were to break them up into chunks and continually add content, they could (hopefully) better manage things. Trick is, it's Ubisoft at the helm. They'll find a way to screw it up,.
Click to expand...
Well, the concept is actually not that bad. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla are basically the same game. So Odyssey and Valhalla could've been DLCs for Origins. That would've worked.
But as soon as they call it a live service that means trickle fed content with virtual carrots and bait attached, no proper story arc, just discoherent weekly or monthly "raids" and content drops.

Breaking games into chunks is exactly what I don't want. I want to finish games is one go, not play 1 week, then wait two months for additional content, and then have to re-familiarize myself with the controls all over again, or worse re-install the game from scratch.
 
M76 said:
No, it's not. It just seems good compared to the crap they make nowadays. Compared to the best TV shows I've seen since 2005 it is mediocre at best.
Click to expand...

I was comparing it to the recent SW content...Clone Wars was excellent and Mandalorian is a close second
 
Domingo said:
Just like with Assassin's Creed, I don't think the idea is inherently bad. Both series' have become noteworthy for their sequels being too similar year after year. That and worlds that are too large for their own good. Once you do 1/2 the stuff in the game, there's no point in doing the other 1/2. If they were to break them up into chunks and continually add content, they could (hopefully) better manage things. Trick is, it's Ubisoft at the helm. They'll find a way to screw it up,.
Click to expand...

There is a solution for this. Make shorter games with more coherent game flow and stories. Most games can't retain momentum past 30 hours. Nothing wrong with going back to the 30-40 hour experiences of previous games. They will save on development costs to.
 
Flogger23m said:
There is a solution for this. Make shorter games with more coherent game flow and stories. Most games can't retain momentum past 30 hours. Nothing wrong with going back to the 30-40 hour experiences of previous games. They will save on development costs to.
Click to expand...

I could get behind this. Back when I was younger I would play games, stuff like FF7 where I maxxed the played timer before getting to the last disc in the game. Now I play for an hour or so and if the game is too big I lose interest. Would much rather shorter more fulfilling gameplays.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I completely missed it at the time, but apparently they set something up where you could pay extra for praxis points.

I never noticed, and if I had, I would just have ignored it anyway, but I heard that this pissed off a lot of people.

And yeah, I agree it is a real shame, it's a rich world with a great story, and its a shame it is unlikely to be wrapped up at this point :(
Click to expand...
It was more than just praxis points that you could buy but it was all pretty pointless and basically paid for cheats in the main game. The real issue with that was that they took devs off of the main game to create that breach mini game thing that was created solely to push microtransactions.

The other main complaint was that they cut the original story that was planned in half and decided to do only one major hub. The game had a decent amount of side stuff to flesh it out but the main story was short and more importantly felt completely unfinished, the fact that breach mode was one of the main reasons they didn't finish the whole story they had planned is another reason many including me disliked them including MT. On the plus side they did also say that cutting it down to one major hub allowed them to make Prague more detailed and cutting the main story allowed them to add more side stuff.

My overall opinion is that the game is pretty good but it's half a main story and one medium sized hub away from being truly great. If they had simply not included breach mode or MT and stated that a sequel to finish the story was already in development then I think the game would have been received better and if they had finished the whole story it would have been very well received even with MT.

I think that this example does still translate well to the broader discussion here here because despite it's flaws there is a lot to like but the good stuff was overshadowed by the bad in most discussions about it.

Games as a service and other recurring fees is something that all publishers want but it doesn't fit the SP experience and attempts to force it into the genre have not gone well. Successful MMOs have done well with subscriptions fees and/or MT and MP games with MT have done well but there's a finite audience for those types of games and most attempts to enter the market have failed or had limited success. Meanwhile a ton of AAA games are still SP which I think has a lot to do with the fact that people play through them and then move onto the next while people playing MP and MMOs tend to mainly stick to one game and then play them for longer. I do think that some of the new subscription services that offer a good catalog of SP titles could do well but that only appeals to a portion of the market so they won't be able to make it a standard, especially with the inevitable fragmentation due to each major publisher having their own.
 
Ebernanut said:
Meanwhile a ton of AAA games are still SP which I think has a lot to do with the fact that people play through them and then move onto the next while people playing MP and MMOs tend to mainly stick to one game and then play them for longer. I do think that some of the new subscription services that offer a good catalog of SP titles could do well but that only appeals to a portion of the market so they won't be able to make it a standard, especially with the inevitable fragmentation due to each major publisher having their own.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned even that is a money looser for them. They try to push the "live service" aspect to keep people subscribed, but I can't be bothered. I subscribed for 1 month and finished Valhalla within it, then didn't have a subscription until FC6 came out, then subscribed again for 1 month and finished that, and then cancelled again. So instead of making $120 on me, they managed a measly $30 for two games. Fine by me, I very rarely go back to games later, and these are no exceptions, I've had my fill with them.

Heck, I didn't go back to this day to play the trickle fed live service content they added to Odyssey, even though I have access to it because I had the ultimate edition. But after I finish the main campaign in games I'm done with them, and a few measly side missions won't make me go back. They can do a proper campaign expansion if they want me back, like Narco Road or Fallen ghosts for Wildlands. Otherwise, I'm not interested.
 
M76 said:
As far as I'm concerned even that is a money looser for them. They try to push the "live service" aspect to keep people subscribed, but I can't be bothered. I subscribed for 1 month and finished Valhalla within it, then didn't have a subscription until FC6 came out, then subscribed again for 1 month and finished that, and then cancelled again. So instead of making $120 on me, they managed a measly $30 for two games. Fine by me, I very rarely go back to games later, and these are no exceptions, I've had my fill with them.

Heck, I didn't go back to this day to play the trickle fed live service content they added to Odyssey, even though I have access to it because I had the ultimate edition. But after I finish the main campaign in games I'm done with them, and a few measly side missions won't make me go back. They can do a proper campaign expansion if they want me back, like Narco Road or Fallen ghosts for Wildlands. Otherwise, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...
A subscription service that offers access to many titles is different from a live service subscription for a single title. I can get behind an all-you-can-eat pass subscription for the reasons you explain. I cannot abide subscribing to a service to get access to a single game, the model for which will shape games into never-ending soap operas and superficial microtransactions with no real arc or denouement. I liked Odyssey, but it would be a cold day in heck before I pay an ongoing fee for trickle-fed contents -- it's just another way to bleed the consumer.

Developers and publishers will keep pushing down this path, however, like an unwelcome door-to-door salesman.
 
LOL, just played Ghost Recon Breakpoint. They added a new "campaign" to it in the latest patch, but it's just a pathetic attempt to keep people grinding. "No, you are not allowed to do main story missions, until you destroy X amount of enemy vehicles and kill Y amount of enemies, etc" That is where I stop playing before I even actually started, as the first mission was so lame that it literally resolved itself.
 
M76 said:
LOL, just played Ghost Recon Breakpoint. They added a new "campaign" to it in the latest patch, but it's just a pathetic attempt to keep people grinding. "No, you are not allowed to do main story missions, until you destroy X amount of enemy vehicles and kill Y amount of enemies, etc" That is where I stop playing before I even actually started, as the first mission was so lame that it literally resolved itself.
Click to expand...
That! And my thing that irritates me is when my character in a game does something I would not do but it forces it and you get put in a bad situation. In a game where you make choices and they take certain choices away to force the story. ie a special ops soldier after clearing a building walks in some room like a blind schmuck and gets grabbed from behind or whatever.
 
harmattan said:
A subscription service that offers access to many titles is different from a live service subscription for a single title. I can get behind an all-you-can-eat pass subscription for the reasons you explain. I cannot abide subscribing to a service to get access to a single game, the model for which will shape games into never-ending soap operas and superficial microtransactions with no real arc or denouement. I liked Odyssey, but it would be a cold day in heck before I pay an ongoing fee for trickle-fed contents -- it's just another way to bleed the consumer.

Developers and publishers will keep pushing down this path, however, like an unwelcome door-to-door salesman.
Click to expand...

I think they're going for a pay up front, continue paying later model. Example: Base game is $60 still. You then purchase "addons" for $20, or $10, $5 etc. But everything is based around online, timed events. But each addon will be less detailed than a traditional expansion, being made up more of small pieces opposed to larger standalone content. And the game requires a constant internet connection like any multiplayer game. It will have enough online interactions to be considered an "online game". I believe the concept is to avoid any future legislation in a country that may prohibit requiring constant online connection for single player games. They'll simply infuse enough stupid pop ups, events, and activities to say it is on par with say, Battlefield or Counter Strike. Which will hurt the gameplay of course, bad business practices aside.
 
Ubisoft can keep their live agenda pushing services. I'm not touching a ubisoft product again after the atrocities they committed to R6S.
 
RamboZombie said:
Well, thats like saying - that it's better to get kicked in the balls, than headbutted...
Click to expand...
It all depends on what influencers say these days. And for some reason the internet consensus on FC6 is that it's trash this time. Despite being the same game as FC5 basically with some qol improvements.

I give zero credibility to the internet consensus since 2014. I only watch their opinions clickbait for laughs.
 
M76 said:
It all depends on what influencers say these days. And for some reason the internet consensus on FC6 is that it's trash this time. Despite being the same game as FC5 basically with some qol improvements.

I give zero credibility to the internet consensus since 2014. I only watch their opinions clickbait for laughs.
Click to expand...
I just picked it up a few weeks ago and I am enjoying it so far. Yes, it's more of the same but I have always really like the Far Cry series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top