Member
Let me preface by saying these are all opinions and conclusions that I have come to after observing the GRW game community for a while. As someone who has enjoyed the Ubisoft experience in other titles such as the Div and R6S, the company has really proven itself to be one of the champions of the live service era. The community engagement with those titles was phenomenal and the continued development have made both titles some of the best on console. So the paradox arises: clearly Ubisoft has the ability to provide fantastic community engagement, continually provide bug fixes, ect. So why are we seeing such a drastically different experience with Wildlands? Thats not to say there hasn't been some good interaction-as I'm sure Blue with criticize me for not pointing out-but the simple reality is that we have drastically different levels of engagement across these titles. Here are my thoughts on possible answers why:
A) Upper management has decided GRW is simply not the a title worth the investment required to provide this content. (I find this answer unsatisfying both for the economics of it along with player/fan base)
B) The team in charge of development is garbage. (I also find this answer unsatisfying, both because they have demonstrated otherwise and I would like to give them benefit of the doubt)
C) Changes would require drastic changes to the game and thus there is a new GR game in the making and most of the suggestions and feedback we are asking is being factored into a new game. This new game would be announced around the end of Year 2 content with one of the last Special operations will be a prelude to the new game. (I find this most likely)
So heres why I find C most plausible.
-GRW was not even mentioned at E3. This tells me that it is not a title they wanted to highlight for a plethora of reasons, a good one would be if they plan to move onto a new game and Demo it next e3.
-In the recent interview with Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot at E3 he was asked(though not directly mentioning GRW), When do you decide to move onto a sequel? He responds: "If we feel the technology we create for the first game is not giving us a chance to give you anything you want, we think it's time to go to the next level so rebuild the engine so we can answer all your needs." Add this together with the year 2 Q&A : "Is there anything in the game that we have been asking for that can't be added?
Some requests would unfortunately require a big overhaul of the game engine, changing our whole approach. For example, a Mission Editor. The same goes for Bloused Boots: if we could simply add it, we would! But it actually requires a huge rework of our Charactersmith, which is also something we can’t envisage right now. But, this doesn’t mean we don’t have a ton of great content coming: our time and effort is being put into something else!"
If simple fixes, obvious modifications to gameplay(bullet speed), along with repeated bugs and horrid connectivity issues, matched with a team who seems extremely casual about patching them, Ghost Recon Wildlands is falling behind the ball when it comes to Ubi titles. Even community managers have said it seems absurd that simple things like half speed bullets are still in the main game, yet fixed in ghost wars. Furthermore actual communication, 2-way communication, and genuine discourse between dev and community has been very poor. I think we will see Year 2 finish out by filling in and refining the PVP, but I see most new PVE experiences destined for a new game. I would say the event that really makes be think this was the splintercell mission. I mean it was so underwhelming...shockingly so. I would like to believe that its lack luster performance was due to engine limitations, because I think we can all agree we know that Ubi is capable of much more.
But let me open this up: How many obvious changes and suggestions have been overlooked since beta or launch? Does it not seem odd if not paradoxical that this is the same company which shares the live service and community engagement of some of the best in the category? Does it seem more than likely that instead of them just butchering the engagement, they are simply making a new game? We have seen rapid continuation of the series with AC and the Div, do you think this is the destiny for GR? I'd like to keep a glass half full approach going here and think that all that effort and money is being put into a new game that will blow us away. But please, I would like to hear other thoughts. I hope this came across clear that I am not bashing ubi, just trying to make sense of something that has been confusing me. Or am I completely wrong and the ubisoft response and development of this game have been A+ and I am completely out of my mind for saying such blasphemy? Or is there a D,E, ect that you think I am missing?
Senior Member
I would pick both A and C.
Hate to admit, but at this point The Division went back from coma into walking tall on earth soil while GRW is pulling its legs carving deeper and deeper into the ground heading towards its own grave. As for R6S, I don't play it, but it seems doing pretty well.
Let's go back and take a look at how The Division started last time. The game received a lot of support from the userbase in the pre-release. It turned out that their end-game plan was a total cancerous grief fest psychotic PvP-feeding experience on top of the insane worthless grind gameplay and bulletsponge enemy. They reached up to the point where PvE players couldn't play anymore and those who wants to play normally can't play worth the time spent. Population dropped, Dark Zone grievers complaining because they have no weak prey (f*cking *ssholes), and Massive announced that they would overhaul the game. It was rough when they came back, but they managed to do it where we can say they succeeded.
Now I don't work for Massive or Ubi Paris. So I don't know what the f*ck is going on with their game engine and development team. But Massive was relatively new by the time The Division came out. They screwed up AND they overhauled the game. On the other side, Ubi Paris was more experienced by the time GRW came out and yet... As we can see, what's the state of the game now compared to The Division's footsteps?
Both developers are under Ubi and while requesting user feedback is the current gaming business trend that is loved by gamers because that makes them feel more important and smarter than they actually are, Ubisoft seems to have a typical Standard Operating Procedure-esque attitude for this curiosity over feedback. Though again, feedback DOES NOT mean they have to be followed and DOES NOT mean they are possible to work or run with the current game design and engine. I've seen and consumed games being re-released in powered-up engine or continued as a sequel for sure.
The problem is, again, considering Ubisoft, as a parent company, have envisioned 'games as a service' business model when GRW came out and with all those 'we want your feedback' program, how the hell would GRW developer did not prepare for this just as much as The Division's - or even For Honor's developer had? Or the better question is, what was in the mind of GRW developer when they anticipate the possibility of the feedback and the future content updates or expansion back then? Were they thinking of "Boy, I'm sure our userbase would want more hipster content and whack skin cars and guns"? Because if that was the case, then point B will be the answer and case is closed.
That reason may also be linked to why point A is also a possibility, from my analysis. We all know they are selling fancy stuff. Everything is overpriced and not many people seem to be interested in both the price offer and the content being sold. Perhaps Loot Crate was their last resort as well. A scheme with plan that nets you 3 random items for a cheaper price each when compared to buying from Ghost Pack sets.
So, OP, I think all of your points are possible, with point C takes the primary factor, followed by A as possible secondary factor, and perhaps also B as the root of the problem.
Senior Member
I think I read somewhere, that among the milestones GRW has achieved, one was 10 million subscribers in the first year? -- That is a huge cross-section of people, across a bunch of platforms, around the world.
So, I guess they'd be looking at when the best time to drop content would actually "be" given that each platform is being bombarded with content all the time. -- I would imagine then, that you'd be looking for lulls between the point when subscribers exhaust interest in whatever is pulling them away; and working on content to bring them back, so they are focused on what your content has to offer.
I could be wrong, but generally devs don't look at sequels to their games until they hit a brick wall, attempting to do something the current engine just won't allow them to do. -- When thinking about GRW; it seems to me that it's really been designed to be able to keep adding things to it for a very long time. It could even be the case that the engine still has plenty of room to keep adding elements and even assets. That the surface has barely been scratched.
For all we know, they probably are looking at ways to change their development environment to provide smaller more regular updates. While major content drops are kept quarterly.
But it's like everything: "things take time" and with such a huge first year, it was probably more important to try and keep do many people engaged; and look at changes to their dev environment when that scenario plateaued to some degree.
If you take into account quarterly updates over two three years, the game is likely to be unrecognisable, compared to the year one game.
I'm taking cues from my experiences with Destiny, that 30 of my regular Destiny game friends had bought GRW simply because I bowed out to pick up GRW.
Destiny is also a similar gaming environment to GRW and one of the important details Bungie had related concerning their game, around the time Rise of Iron dropped. Was that they had long since hit the limit of what the engine could do. They had to eck out to continue the game, way beyond it's life-cycle as it was and still managed to add in a racing league, etc.. and if course the Osiris league. -- From what GRW devs have been saying, their engine was designed to avoid those foibles. In the end, Bungie exhausted their content limit with the game. It became a choice of "more of the same" or develop a new engine to offer more; and Destiny 2, was born.
From what the devs are saying about GRW. You're probably looking at 3-4yrs before a new engine drops and it's likely to just update over this one, anyway. Bungie couldn't do that with Destiny because the engine was designed around both 7th & 8th gen. -- The impression I get about GRW is that it's an extremely modern production set of values.
So I wouldn't get caught up in people making threads about leaving etc.. Even if 15 people in a room agree with that sentiment, you're talking 15 people, representative of no one, among 10 million, most of whom already come and go as they please. -- Not saying those 15 people aren't important, but the games no resting on their shoulders either. Y'know?
Member
I think your insight: "When thinking about GRW; it seems to me that it's really been designed to be able to keep adding things to it for a very long time. It could even be the case that the engine still has plenty of room to keep adding elements and even assets. That the surface has barely been scratched." is very interesting. What makes you say that the engine has plenty of room? I don't have the technical expertise to know so if you know something I don't please do tell. That is something I would love to see, though most from a business perspective more live service doesn't include a lot of new assets and elements rather modifications or re-worked areas of the original map. The only thing that makes me skeptical of that is DLC. Even the year 1 fallen ghosts ect were did not see added content to the map, rather a separate cut out of the original we couldn't access via the main map that was simply a re-work of the same terrain. If they have the ability to add more elements and assets to the main game they have yet to show it, specifically speaking to bullet speed, which seems like an obvious one. Even if they change that next update, 2 years to address an issue doesn't sound match up with the strategy they have taken on virtually every other recent game. Also to your point, "So I wouldn't get caught up in people making threads about leaving etc.. Even if 15 people in a room agree with that sentiment, you're talking 15 people, representative of no one, among 10 million, most of whom already come and go as they please. -- Not saying those 15 people aren't important, but the games no resting on their shoulders either. Y'know?" I'm not sure what your referring to in this post. I've expressed that I spend less and less time on this game but I'm not sure how that point connects to the possibility of a new game. I never believed I said or inferred that the game did rest on 15 peoples heads. I hope there was some miscommunication: I believe the strong fanbase makes it makes it more likely to see a new sequel. Also I am a tad confused, how does a decrease in the frequency of updates and patches mean that it will look drastically different? I mean possibly, I certainly hope... but maybe it's just me being pessimistic but nothing that the GRW team has done so far encourages me. I still think with AC, it showed they are not afraid to do gameplay changes on similar engines with a sequel.
Senior Member
I really liked reading your Theories here.
I personally think it's, as everywhere, just a financial Aspect.
For me GRW looks like it was designed for way more Content than it actually has. Think of all those great Landscapes and beautiful Places beyond the Mission Areas.
Maybe they wanted to add lots of Stuff, but that one Guy in Charge of Money at a certain point decided the financial Win/Loss Ratio does not allow any further Work on any more "big" Stuff like FG.
Of course I may be wrong, but I just can't find any other Explanation for such a waste of Potential.
Senior Member
Can't really say about that landscape outside mission area. Those are the map bleed. They are there just so you don't see the dead edges of the map and they are large in portion because this game allows you to fly high and see afar.
Project Manager definitely also takes a huge role in the decisions.
Senior Member
Member
I certainly hope so! I've always thought that the map seemed to have a fairly low density of assets and thought it was too big of a map with not enough to do. To me that means there is space to grow like you said, or alternatively this was the best the engine could do. Idk I as I mentioned before I don't have technical knowledge on this sort of this so anyone into game design knowledge please chime in.
Banned
I think you're right OP, it's mostly C, but I would add that I feel it's more than just an engine overhaul being the reason. I also feel this engine has some breathing room as Paladinrja surmised. Reason being the game has a pretty large and well detailed world, and a fair amount of inventory the current engine handles pretty smoothly. Sure it might perform a bit hitchy the first minute or two after launching the game, but then it smooths out. The asset caching and loading is one thing they could tweak a bit, I just don't think the engine needs a major overhaul.
Now this next part may draw disapproval, but so be it, I speak from the gut. I also feel what Paladinrja said about 15 or so voices here vs 10 million subscribers coming and going speaks volumes. By that I mean they have to consider how well the game is received overall, not just how well it's received by those whom voice their opinions on the official forum. What some are put off by, others are OK with. Not everyone that plays the game is going to notice or be annoyed by the unrealistically slow bullet speed. For all we know the reason it was addressed in Ghost War and not in the campaign may be they felt Ghost War has more hardcore players that demand realism, whereas the campaign might have more players that are less critical of such things. We only tend to see what those of us here say. Sure, there are many of us here that feel such slow bullet speed is not acceptable, and that changing it in GW but not in the campaign is inconsistent to the franchise and disingenuous to solo players, but there could be millions of campaign players out there that are OK with it.
I feel we can't really compare what happened with The Division because as mentioned, in that game they made some major screw ups, so it needed a major overhaul. GRW by comparison just has a lot of little things that are mostly complained about by hardcore players. Mostly because the GR franchise targets a less arcade audience than does The Division.
At any rate, I feel you are right OP that they are saving most of the feedback for GRW to put into the next GR. However I think they'll use the same engine and just tweak vs overhaul it. I wouldn't be worried too much about it, because as we know GRW has plenty of potential, but it's also a good ways into it's life. It's just that it's potential will likely live on in another title.
Keep in mind installments that drastically change the formula of a franchise are often used as stepping stones. An elaborate test of what the fanbase really wants. If anything it makes me excited for what the next one will be like. Most developers don't check all the boxes of what the fanbase wants on the first try of such a major change, yet Ubi did pretty well with GRW when you consider how badly it could have went. It was a big risk, but mostly it paid off.
I would describe GRW if anything more as a diamond in the rough, than a harsh truth. We have yet to see it shine as brightly as it can, but it may be via a sequel or a new GR with similar but revamped formula.
Senior Member
Honestly the only real issue GRW has now is the lack of end game content in the main game. And that is easily sorted by adding repeatable missions to capture, kill or fetch. You can even have new buchons to take down. It's highly unlikely that the positions would be left vacant for long in a real organisation.
We've been told that new PvE content is coming, and it isn't challenges. So there is still hope. It looks like a lot of dev work went into year 1. Like a big ship it can take time to turn around the go in another direction.
