I read the comments made by Mr. Guillemot and the only conclusion I can come to is that he has drawn the wrong conclusions about why Breakpoint failed. I'd like to refer to some of his comments to make my case.
At one point he said "However, to win over players, these innovations need to be perfectly implemented in order to offer an optimal experience. This has not yet been sufficiently the case with Ghost Recon Breakpoint." The assumption behind this statement is that if you offer a perfectly optimized experience people will want it. That is simply not the case. I don't care if the dill pickle and raw squid on moldy rye sandwich you hand me is perfect; I don't want it. Perfection does not in any way guarantee a positive reception.
Later on he said "Finally, Ghost Recon Breakpoint did not come in with enough differentiation factors, which prevented the game’s intrinsic qualities from standing out." The assumption here is that people were unable to look at the game's features and differentiate it from Far Cry: New Dawn, or The Division 2 or Anthem or Borderlaands 3 or whatever. That may be the case, but it's not the only, or even the important differentiation people made. Players could easily differentiate Ghost Recon: Breakpoint from Ghost Recon: Wildlands or any of the other Ghost Recon games; and when they did, they didn't like what they saw.
I don't know why Mr. Guillemot has come to the conclusions he did, but they are fundamentally flawed. Here is a lesson he should have and still could learn. Listen to your customer base. Well before the game was released potential customers were openly saying "This is not what I want from a Ghost Recon game and I won't buy it." Listen to your customers and give them what they ask for.
Yes, you are right, several people have pointed this out in other threads. Yvves and Ubisoft in general have been ignoring fans for over twenty yeas, all they pay attention to is what they can sell you by any means possible -- this is not an ethical company that cares about anything but looking like an ethical company so it can rip people off.
He is referring to the state of the basic game not being up to standard in reference to its unfinished and bug infested condition on release. If you are saying that this is acceptable as long as you get a pure Ghost Recon game, I can't agree with you, games released in a buggy and unfinished condition has been a growing problem with video games from Ubisoft and other publishers/devs in recent years. What is the point of getting a game that is spot on but full of problems that you have to wait for two years to be ironed out?Originally Posted by Bobo2067 Go to original post
Well, the game is hemorrhaging money, this will only get worse, you probably won't have to worry too much about it being around in two years for fixes...Originally Posted by F.i.x.e.r Go to original post
The guy is an idiot. He refuses to accept the truth. Deep down he knows the main reasons for the failure of this game are the MTX, online only, countless bugs and looter shooter elements but he still tries to find ways to shove these down our throats. Well Mr. Guillemot or whatever your name is, doing this won't change anything. The only way to see change is by listening to the fans and removing the online only and looter shooter elements, properly polishing the game and scaling down the mtx. Otherwise I'm afraid there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
Saw headline of Mr. Guillemot's reaction to Breakpoint, made me happy.
Read article detailing the specifics of his reaction, went back to being sad.
I'll probably still buy Breakpoint once the price drops (I actually had fun with the beta despite... everything), but this was the only Tom Clancy series of games left whose sequel hadn't greatly disappointed me. Until now.
At least the industry has noticed the same things us fans have, and other company's seem eager to fill in the tactical shooter void the Tom Clancy games are leaving in their disconcerting wake.
Originally Posted by RaulO4 Go to original post
This.
Of course Ubisoft knows what's wrong. They just think they will make so much more money if they can trick us into accepting their business model. Let's hope we, the consumers from whom their money actually come, aren't that gullible.