Ubisoft defends $85 day-one DLC after AC Black Flag Resynced gets review-bombed

midian182

Posts: 11,726   +177
Staff member
A hot potato: The highly anticipated Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced launched yesterday. Despite the hype, its Steam user rating debuted as Mostly Negative before moving to Mixed. But apart from several complaints about performance, the biggest issue was the $85 worth of DLC Ubisoft released alongside the game. Now, the company has responded to the outcry.

Black Flag Resynced currently has a Mostly Positive rating on Steam, but the huge amount of launch-day DLC resulted in the game being review-bombed into a Mostly Negative rating, with many noting that buying all the day-one extra content cost more than the game itself.

Also upsetting many players was the fact that the $70 Deluxe version of the game came with only a fraction of the DLC on sale. There were additional complaints about those paid-for items that offered a "paid gameplay advantage," such as a resource pack filled with gold and crafting materials, and a map pack that adds exploration markers to the in-game world.

Also check out: Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced: 50 GPU Benchmark

Ubisoft has long argued that these items merely save time rather than provide gameplay advantages. It once said that the microtransactions offered in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, which let players level up faster or acquire more gold and resources, were designed for those who "value their time." Other companies do the same, too.

Now, Ubisoft has responded to the Black Flag Resynced complaints. It first emphasized that the standard edition of Black Flag Resynced offers the full complete experience, with every mission, island, and part of the story included. It then added that all the additional packs are optional extras for players who want them and are never required.

Few companies stir up controversy over DLC, microtransactions, and season passes quite like Ubisoft. This is, after all, the company that once said microtransactions make the "player experience more fun."

This is far from the first Assassin's Creed game to include microtransactions, of course; the practice dates back to 2017's Origins. And Ubisoft is making a true, if obvious, point that they're optional.

But the flip side is that $85 worth of DLC, more expensive than the game itself, arriving at launch does seem excessive – and it's not like Ubisoft has a good reputation to start with. Maybe if there had been fewer items at launch and the rest had been added over time, people wouldn't have been as angry.

Ubisoft is hardly alone in pushing the limits of what players will pay for. Back in 2018, Activision charged Black Ops 4 players $1 for an "Open Dot" reticle that was, quite literally, a single red dot. The company temporarily discounted it to 50 cents as part of a sale.

Permalink to story:

 
Same thing with assassins creed Odyssey. Launched with a bunch of DLC that can very easily be ignored, people cry about it anyway.
 
If people don’t stop buying DLCs out of protest, watch how quickly the decision to outsource a full game into DLCs ends…
 
I had no real interest in this game to begin with, so maybe I don't count, but whenever I hear about about a game with large amounts of non-content DLC it just suggests to me that the base game must not be very much fun without it and must exist for the primary purpose of selling that DLC. That's an immediate hard pass for me.

Of course the wallets of 100 people like me are probably worth less than a single whale to these companies so the trend will continue.
 
Having played the game, I feel disappointed in it. It's basically a reskin of Odyssey and not much else. Graphic are better but combat feels worse. Everything just feels very clunky, I feel like I'm fighting the the environment just to move around.

But DLC has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the gameplay.
 
I had no real interest in this game to begin with, so maybe I don't count, but whenever I hear about about a game with large amounts of non-content DLC it just suggests to me that the base game must not be very much fun without it and must exist for the primary purpose of selling that DLC. That's an immediate hard pass for me.

Of course the wallets of 100 people like me are probably worth less than a single whale to these companies so the trend will continue.
In my experience it's quite the opposite. Games that have really good gameplay tend to sell content DLCs even better, so the studios spend more time making those DLCs. Bethesda Games for example. The good games got good dlc, Starfield? barely call it a DLC.
 
Back