Brokepoint: The murder of Ghost Recon.

Oh, Looks like I've still got the puns!

Seeing as how misery and hatred fills my existence, it only makes sense that I look upon the face of a game that disappointed me and give out a "You were the chosen one!" type blog. So who has earned my ire today? Be it our old foes over at EA? Or maybe our former heroes in Bethesda? Neither. It was those derivative fools that I always said were not worthy for praise, those whom were only applauded for being the lesser of evils. Well, guess what? Now they've joined the ranks of the greatest of evils, and all I can say is: I told you so! That's right, today we are taking a look at the autopsy of 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint' and building our case against it's likely assailant; Ubisoft.

For those who are unaware, I was extremely excited for this game when it was first announced. The second I saw that Ubisoft had reached out to the incredibly talented Jon Bernthal to star in their game, I practically squee-ed with how perfect the casting was. (I was so excited that I conveniently forgot how genuinely pitiful Ubisoft's character writers are.) The previous entry, Wildlands was a game I picked up late but fell head over heels for, in how simple it was to play. It felt like an incredibly casual tactical stealth experience, and whilst some others (and myself, if I'm being honest) might have preferred something more challenging, I was enthusiastic about the prospect of a game so easy-to-pickup that I could share it with my non-stealth addict friends. (If I had friends.) Or just pick it up whist binging the latest series of Arrow. (God, I'm a shambles.)

Last month I got to take my first look at what Ubisoft had lined up for Breakpoint and my enthusiasm... wavered. On one hand, the Devs had taken advantage of their expanded team and influence to craft a game with slivers of MGS to it. (That's pretty amazing on it's own!) Stalking through the jungle was vastly improved, AI had actually been programmed this time around and gunfights were punishing enough to encourage you to actively avoid them. On the other hand, the game looked to have been primed for becoming a microtransaction cesspit. All of the game's arsenal had been co-opted into pseudo-MMO equipment levelling system, with each gun being beholden to scrap material and currency to 'improve'. Mobile-esque rarities had been haphazardly shoved into the mix, encouraging the endless grind against that most prevalent of modern video game foes: 'The Algorithm'! And even in the Closed Beta we could see that the character menu tabs had one specially reserved tab labelled 'Store'. At the time it only sold access to the pre-order for the main game, but it didn't take a great degree of imagination to imagine the evil it could be used for.

How impressive would it have been for Ubisoft to take all of these concerns and wash them aside by delivering a game so solid that it stood on it's own rights without having to succumb to predatory monetisation. How the crowds would have cheered their name and said "Wow Ubisoft, you guys really are a inspiration to the industry! I mean, your first-party games are often uninspired and derivative of themselves, but at least you aren't trying to wring every last penny from your consumers like Ebenezer Scrooge." As you can imagine, this wouldn't come to be. Last week, Ubisoft dropped their long awaited tactical follow-up and, what do you know, there's monetisation up the wazoo.

"Okay, but how bad are things really?" You may be wondering. Pretty darn bad. Firstly, you'll find that most of the coolest cosmetics in the game (the one's that were simply labelled as 'unavilable' in the Beta) are completely locked behind a paywall. "You want to play dress-up as the game's special units; the Wolves? Pay us more money on top of the £60 that the game cost." Those weapons that need to be supplied with resources in order to be levelled up? Yeah, you can just buy those upgrades. They even repeated some of the most avaricious mistakes from Wildlands (Why wouldn't they?) like charging players for ability to pick up weapon's accessories. Yes, technically you earn these items in game so, if you are an absolute cretin of a human in desperate need of euthanizing, you could call these 'time savers'. However, Ubisoft even managed to push those too far when it comes to skill points. Indeed, one can find themselves buying skill points for the game's skill tree with an little bit of under-the-table bribe action, except, this isn't really under-the-table anymore now is it? If you are confused as to what the issue is here, let me explain. In Breakpoint your character, their skills and their weapons, are carried on through all of the activities in the game. That means everything you earned is shared through the single player, upcoming raids and competitive multiplayer. By allowing some players to buy skillpoints you have given them the chance to forgo playing through activities to earn their new weapons and abilities and allowed them to pay for an advantage. (What is commonly known in the industry as 'pay-to-win')

Even in a world post the release of 'Joker', this is still the most depressing and cynical thing that I have witnessed all year. Ubisoft are actively trying to sell us every aspect of their game on top of the game itself. Essentially allowing consumers to pay for the game again in order to save themselves from the effort of actually having to play through their purchase. (Here's an idea Ubisoft, how about saving as all from that heartache by cancelling the game and just going into liquidation, that way you could even positively effect the industry!) Perhaps I sound a little incensed about this situation, or more-so than usual, and I most certainly am. I have had a pretty crappy past few months, heck, a crappy past couple of years, and all I have to get me through my daily trash is video games. Yeah, you could label that as an unhealthy dependency, but it makes me actually happy so I'll pleasantly ignore such insinuations. Or at least, they used to make me happy. When this avaricious plague starts to infect my spectrum of games, I take it as a personal insult. And I would be happy to spit in the eye of the next insect who crawls out of Ubisoft's dungeon to hiss about "time savers" and "player choice". (I'm not sure if I have to specify how that was a joke. But I will, just to be sure.)

But the story doesn't end there. You see, we have since received an official response from Ubisoft through their professional patsy; the community manager. On the 4th, on the official Ubisoft forums, a fellow called UbiBorghal decided to offer himself up as the sacrificial lamb in front of the Internet. The post started with a detailing of the core philosophies of the Breakpoint team, and this is worth a giggle at, if nothing else:

From the beginning, two key factors stood out as extremely important for the team.

1. That Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint doesn’t include any pay-to-win elements.
2. To make sure that players not choosing to engage with in-game purchases do not see their experience affected. Players will be able to unlock skills and get access to plenty of varied loot & items by simply playing the game.

From the outset this seems like a very heartfelt affirmation for the community to take solace in, however, perhaps this message may have held a little more weight before the game released. You know, before we could see all the ways in which both of those 'important factors' were disregarded and violated. Firstly, the pretense that the game should not include any pay-to-win elements is so laughable that I can't even be bothered to refute it. (Besides, I sort-of already did.) As for the 'player's should not see their experience effected.' I'll remind you of the several cosmetic unlocks that the game dangles in front of the player only to slap them in the face with a hard paywall. Then there is the fact that the main hub-area for the game is a social-online space that you are unable to opt-out of. This means that everytime you go back to craft new weapons or accept story critical missions, you have to mingle with other players, and I'll bet that the matchmaking will go out of it's way to shack up non-spenders with heavy spenders. (Although Ubisoft will never out and admit it, cockroaches that they are.) That way people will forever be seeing content that they are unavailable to access and be encouraged to pony up. All that isn't even taking into account the fact that players could end up getting steamrolled, in the competitive online, by other players who buy all the skillpoint packs and weapon upgrades.

UbiBorgal then explained that the systems would be removed. Apparently their implementation in the first place was a mistake that only became known due to the 'early access' period of the game. Another lie from Ubisoft, on two fronts. First, the game wasn't 'early access' you just released it on the actual shipping date for those that paid £30 extra and delayed it 3 days for everyone else. Secondly, these microtransactions were 100% intentional. The team just misjudged how much backlash they would receive from the systems and decided to backtrack. If you don't believe me, then how about you take a look at the team's own words; "some Time-Savers items (Skill Point bundles, XP Boosters, parts bundles for advanced weapon upgrades) were available for purchase for a few hours in our Store- These items were designed as an optional way for players arriving later to the game (Post-Launch) to catch up with those who have been playing for longer" Yep, not only are Ubisoft entirely unrepentant for their transgressions, they straight-up admitted that these pay-to-win mechanics are still on the slate to be released later on. That means, even if you believe their half-assed excuses (Which I don't) then they've admitted to attempting to circumvent review criticism by unveiling their worst monetisation attacks after the initial release (and the bulk of reviews) have passed. Once again, we are left with a situation in which the team's only defence is "We weren't lying guys, we're just incompetent. Oh sure, we intended to lie, but we were too stupid to pull it off." Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

I am very proud to announce, however, that this time these pathetic corporate antics have come around to slap these companies in the face, and boy do they deserve it. Perhaps it comes from the active (failed) attempt to deceive them, but reviewers are refusing to give this game a break on terms of score. Look up 'Breakpoint review' on Google and the first three scores that you are presented with (The three most influential scores on the Internet right now) read thusly; PC Gamer: 40%, Games Radar: 2.5/5 and Gamespot 4/10. Ouch. Dive deeper and you'll find other reviewers like Eurogamer, very much wearing their hearts on their sleeve as they entitle their review "A limp lifeless spin on the Ubisoft formula." Huh, it's almost like everything that I've been saying since Far Cry 4 has started to dawn on the rest of the gaming community... I'm not calling all of Ubisoft hacks, but those in charge most certainly are, and it looks like their bad decisions are finally starting to catch up to them. Do you think this trend of harsh reviews will end with Breakpoint? Remember that every Ubisoft game is essentially the same game with one new mechanic. (and world-class environment designers who really deserve better.) Now that the community has drawn blood they aren't going to rest until Ubisoft really start dedicating their considerable resources and manpower to truly change things up. (Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Ubisoft's higher-ups can't even remember how to pull that off anymore.)

For a long time now I was seriously considering picking up this game fresh and have it become by new go-to game. (I've been missing out on one for a year now) But, needless to say, that won't be happening now. At this point, my money is going elsewhere, (Likely towards 'The Outer Worlds', so I may have a review of that impending.) and I doubt I'm the only one who has come to the same conclusion. It may seem like a small act of defiance to opt-out of engagement, but this is the only statement of power that we have as consumers, and if enough of us act it has a real chance to change things. Insider rumors suggest that Activision, of all people, held a conference after the backlash over their exclusive Modern Warfare mode led to a rash of cancelled pre-orders. I'm not saying that anything will come from that meeting, or that something similar will happen at Ubisoft, just that things 'could' happen, and that's worth a little abstinence on behalf of consumers, isn't it? We'll see if management end up learning anything from this nonsense, but, personally, I don't hold high hopes. As I wrap up I have nothing more to say except: Get your bloody house in order, Guillemot!
The shreds of my conscience tell me to add;  I do not, and would never. condone any harm being acted upon those at Ubisoft. They may have killed this game, but let their punishment be a punch in the only place that it matters; their wallet.