You know I enjoy these moments. I really do. Those times when a company has done something so bad that they feel the need to address it with a public statement and outline their plans to do better. In one way, it highlights the determination of the development team to not give up, heck, sometimes these posts can be really encouraging to read through. But let's be honest, most of the time they're just PR crap full of misdirections and mis-assumptions as to what they've done wrong. Just look at that 'Apex Legends' debacle earlier this year. (A situation that was eerily similar to Activision's recent controversy with COD Mobile's fixed rate loot boxes.) Expecting a corporate entity to learn from their mistakes and improve is like praying for Christmas snow in England. It already happened once this decade, you ain't getting it again.
I'd like to remind myself for a moment that I do hope for good things to come out of disasters like these. (At least I think I do.) The last thing anyone wants is for the companies in question to go into liquidation and fire all their talented staff and this is especially true in the gaming world. Everytime there is a colossal screw up in gaming, you'll find droves of people detailing exactly how these Devs can go about fixing their issues. Sure, messages tend to be at odd with one another every now and then, but that's why you hire a good Social Media manager to sort out the common points of contention and detail a battle plan for the team. (Huh, looks like I'm doing it now.) But, more often then not, the community's free advice gets wasted and companies are forced to scratch their heads and wonder why people aren't giving them money anymore. (What a mystery.)
With that in mind, let's talk about 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint'. If you read my last blog on this game, you might remember how this game was a failure in almost every respect. The gameplay was neutered in order to serve a levelling system, the thing was riddled with bugs and every little item that one could find in the game could be purchased at a premium in the 'time savers store'. Due to a mistake from Ubisoft, the team accidentally shipped the review and launch copies of the games with all of the aggressive monetisation tactics that they had intended to ambush players with after launch, and as a result the game was met with considerable backlash from reviewers and enthusiast press. (Although in gaming those two groups tend to be one and the same.) Breakpoint did abysmally in the review department and folks like me now know that it's only a matter of weeks before the game is sub £20 on the shelves. (Although at this point I'm wondering if even that is too much.)
Now, usually this wouldn't be information worthy of a follow up. So the game reviewed badly, big whoop. It's still a AAA game made and published by a company who demands respect from the wider gaming community, (inexplicably) so it's probably not going to be too huge of a flop. Right? Wrong, apparently, as Breakpoint is probably going to go down in the books as Ubisoft's worst financial decision of 2019, costing the company in respect, sales and that all important revenue. In a recent financial report, the big man himself, ol' Yves Guillemot, revealed that "The critical reception and sales during the game's first weeks were disappointing." Now, there are no specific numbers there, but you can bet that things are looking rough for Ubisoft right now, especially with other ancillary news that has come out.
Perhaps you've heard of a little title known as Division 2. It is Ubisoft's follow up to their rough first foray in live services and now exists as their flagship representation of the model they want all their franchises to emulate. Assassin's Creed capitulated to this standard in Origins and even more so with Odyssey, and Breakpoint's biggest letdown was that it too fell to the lures of the live service model. (Those lures being the promise of heavy concurrency and a potentially unlimited revenue source.) So it's safe to say that Division 2 is currently Ubisoft's flagship game. But does that relate to strong sales? Well, it's hard to say definitively as Ubisoft seem unsure themselves. In May they complained that the game had not met sales expectations whilst in July they claimed that it was best selling game of the year. (So just what were your sales expectations, Ubisoft?) Now we have reason to believe that this disappointingly successful title was not enough to save Ubisoft from major markdowns to their annual fiscal expectations.
Originally, the fiscal year of 2019-20 was looking decent for Ubisoft with predicted operating profits reaching to 480 millions euros. Now predictions have been amended to somewhere within the range of 20-50 million euros; which is still more money than Sony Pictures made for the first half of this year, but still 'brown trousers' time for the budgeting team. Things didn't look any brighter when, following this report, Ubisoft's stock price fell 20%. (It has since risen back another 10%) Obviously, these are not the sorts of numbers that anyone wants to be seeing, least of all Investors, so the question on everyone's lips right now is; what went wrong? Well quite simply, everything. Breakpoint's failure of a launch actually translated into poor sales, every major Ubisoft release got delayed until the next fiscal year and public brand trust has taken a noticeable nose dive. So where does this leave Ubisoft? In a position where they need to make amends and start bringing players (And wallets) to Breakpoint whilst they wait for their next slate of AAA products to release. (Providing there are no more surprise delays.)
That brings us to Ubisoft's recent blog post entitled "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint: moving forward". (Hmm, invoking the spirit of 'Anthem' with that blog title probably isn't the best first touch there, Ubi.) In this post Ubisoft sought to reassure the community that they have a plan of action and shouldn't abandon the game in droves for better offers. (Like 'The Outer Worlds'. Which is great, by the by.) Thankfully, the team saw fit to divide the game into sections so it's easy for me to disseminate. (Oh will the wonders of coherent formatting never cease?)
Firstly, the team addressed the one issue that can be freely discussed without admitting to any corrupt influences on their end; technical difficulties. There isn't a great deal here to read into besides the fact that their scheduled title updates appear to be tackling issues in small chunks in order to get out sooner. A decent tactic in reassuring the players that the game is still alive, although it does make it appear like these fixes will be going on for the next few months before the game is decently playable for anyone without a super computer wrapped in ladybugs. (I made that reference off the cuff and now that I've realized why I said it, I'm too tickled to remove it. I pray to god you don't get it and if you do, don't judge me!)
Secondly the team spoke on post launch content, a very interesting topic of contention. When 'Anthem' was undergoing similar growing pains, the post launch was the first thing to get gutted as the team completely reprioritized to bug fixing and rebalancing. Ubisoft have confirmed that they are still right on track with their Raid and 'Terminator: The Dark Fate' cross-over event, so it seems they don't want to fall into the trap of appearing lackadaisical to the player base, however dwindling they may be. Although the quality and appeal of said content will be questionable since many of people's key concerns have been the way that the franchise was bastardized in order to accommodate for things like Raids and timed events.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the blog addressed the In-game economy. And, rather predictably, it is the shortest section here. All the team would commit to saying is that they have "Heard the criticism regarding the in-game economy." Oh, have you guys? Well, congratulations! Someone in the team posses the ability to access Reddit, what an accomplishment! The team explained that they are planning to make 'adjustments' in the next few weeks and then moved swiftly on before anyone could ask anything pertinent like: "What adjustments?" More likely than not the team will just shift some prices down and call it a day, actual change would require the team to admit their initial wrongdoings and have the integrity to try and do better. But gods knows nobody in the AAA landscape cares that much about their games. (At least, nobody with any actual power.)
The rest of the blog is mostly unimportant stuff about their delayed plans to introduce AI teammates (Which should never have been cut out from the game to start with) and their comments on people's reaction to the game design. Now you may think that latter point is of some significant relevance as they discuss the limitations of their current design and a desire in introduce a 'radical and immersive' version of the main game in the coming months. But I've seen enough of Ubisoft's machinations that I recognize them like I would an old friend. (If I actually had any friends, that is) So trust me when I say, nothing that Ubisoft plan to do with this game will fix the fundamental issues with it. It's just too lucrative not to rely on the store. Even if they do rework everything and remove those annoying pointless levels, it'll be in a tacked-on extra mode with enough severe restrictions slapped on that you are forced to return to the main game grind. (My predictions are that they will bar you from Online content and raids in such a mode.)
As dismissive as I have been, and am being, to Ubisoft and their words, I do appreciate that the team took the effort to talk to the community. A lot of other companies in similar positions would simply shut down and ignore any and all criticism, (See: Bethesda.) but at least Ubisoft had the courage to acknowledge and respond. Of course, being a progeny from a long line of career cynics, I don't believe these words will translate to substantial action (That is to say: action that will achieve positive change to the game) but I'll never turn my nose to an opportunity for some inoffensive lip service. I'm not sure if any of this will be enough to bring people back to Ubisoft as they slug it out through this difficult financial time, but I know that the company will still find a way to manage even if it doesn't. That Yves is a fighter, afterall, he wouldn't let the company sink on his watch. (Would he?)
P.s. Of course he wouldn't. Heck, I don't even think the monetary situation is that dire, truth be told. But it makes for fun reading. wait, did I just say that the potential financial downturn of a company is "fun"? Poor choice of words. 'Interesting'? Nah. 'Facinating'? Hmm...
No comments:
Post a Comment