What do you do when you throw one Assassin’s Creed game, include the option for your customers to pay $ 10 to level up faster, generate all sorts of negative reactions (many of them suspicious, suspicious), and launch a new one. Assassin’s Creed two years later? Want to get back on track with this controversial pay-per-view? Not exactly. If you’re an Ubisoft publisher, first set aside your $ 10 XP boost (hurray) and then add it a month after release (hmmm).
Yesterday, Assassin’s Creed ValhallaTwo premium boosters were added to the online store. For $ 10, players can permanently exceed their character’s experience point gain by 50%. They can pay another $ 10 to do the same for the amount of coin they win in the game or buy a $ 15 package that allows them to do both.
Getting XP in Valhalla it allows players to earn points they can spend on improving their character’s offensive and defensive stats, as well as on advantages that make their character more powerful.
Two years ago, Assassin’s Creed Odysseydesigners denied that boosters influenced the design of your game, saying they didn’t accelerate the speed at which your character became stronger to drive people to buy the booster.
Today, an Ubisoft representative said the same Valhallareinforcement: “XP boosters did not influence game design.”
G / O Media may receive a commission
It is plausible ValhallaThe designers calculated how quickly the characters would improve in the game without considering any pay reinforcement. Character advance a Valhalla it’s constant as players climb hundreds of levels from mission to mission.
It was also plausible for Odyssey, as it was possible for players to comfortably improve their character without paying for reinforcements by playing the game with an omnivorous appetite for main missions and side missions. If the players focused more on the main missions, the power surge was much harder.
Odysseydevelopers it had try at least the appearance of potentially strangled progression, because this $ 10 booster was sold at the same time as the $ 60 game. Who could completely rule out the idea that the game was sold at a hidden cost, as a supposedly free mobile game that moves too slowly unless you pay?
Last spring, Kotaku asked the creative director of Valhalla on the potential for an increase in XP. HHe dodged, saying he and the team had reconsidered the progression in the next game to keep players from feeling that the areas they wanted to explore were inaccessible to them. Then came the launch and there was no reinforcement. Lesson learned?
Well, it looks like a kind of lesson was learned. There has been regularly another major publisher, Activision adding microtransactions a Call of Duty games after release, passed when their games are revieget married. Valhalla it was launched with some microtransactions — for special suits and useful maps — but these notorious drivers have held back so far.
The fact that people have advanced happily Valhalla for a month he supports the idea that the game was not designed to make people feel they needed it XP reinforcement. There haven’t been many complaints about the game being too cumbersome to move forward, because it leaves your player character too weak. The complaint, if any, is that there are so many things to do in your world that the game may be too big, which is a different problem.
However, the presence of any microtransaction is always a question mark. They suspect even if it can’t be justified and in that sense they make the creators of a game do a bad service that should be part of the equation, along with the comfort it can offer richer players and the benefits that the company will report. Is it worth it?