Hey Ubisoft, here are some "necessary improvements" for ya! | Forums

[Acerthorn]

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/...g_says_ubisoft

In typical Ubisoft fashion, Guillemot states that the developer will keep supporting Breakpoint despite its poor start. "As we have done with past titles, we will continue to support the game and listen to the community in order to deliver the necessary improvements," the report reads.

You say you listen to the community? Ok, here's some "necessary improvements" that this game desperately needs:

First, get rid of ALL the microtransactions in the game! Even the cosmetic ones! We pay $60, and we get absolutely EVERYTHING the game has to offer just for that one lump sum!

And don't give me any bullcrap about how these microtransactions are "optional," because you know damn well that is a bunch of malarky! Microtransactions are not optional, and I can prove it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5u92jHoAyM

Second, get rid of the always online requirement. It's consistently proven to inconvenience only the paying customers and does diddly squat to deter game piracy. The fact that game companies continue to use it despite it consistently proving to be ineffective is one of the most baffling things I have ever seen in the game industry!

Third, this game gets ONE FINAL UPDATE. After that, the game is finished and there are no more patches. This means you need to make it count. You can't rely on post-release patches to save your arse!

Fourth, and finally, no more post-release patches for any future games. You release the game, and that's the experience you get for the game, period. If a game releases broken, it stays broken.

That last one may seem rather arbitrary, but it encourages developers to get it right the first time. If you can't do that, the game deserves to be, and stay, a critical and commercial failure (like Superman 64; there are no post-release patches to save that game from the slaughterhouse).

Besides, think about it this way: In today's gaming world, reviews and word of mouth mean absolutely nothing. You can buy a game and have no way of knowing how good or bad it will be tomorrow. Games can be updated and even completely overhauled for good or for ill. Sure, they can improve the game (like No Man's Sky), but they can also make it worse (like adding microtransactions in after launch). You have no way of knowing what games are good because you have no way of knowing what games are going to be good literally just a few minutes after you purchase them. You can't make informed purchasing decisions because the reviews you find online mean didley squat.

That's something that can ONLY be fixed by getting rid of post-release patches altogether.

If you really do "listen to the community," then prove it. Give us these things that we've been demanding for literal YEARS!

[Stomp0nMybaIls]

No, just no, I agree on lose the MTX and the offline mode, but no post release support, and "if the game is broken, it stays broken" is one of the dumbest suggestions possibly made.

[CrockfordCK]

No, just no, I agree on lose the MTX and the offline mode, but no post release support, and "if the game is broken, it stays broken" is one of the dumbest suggestions possibly made.

I think he means it more in the way that the goal should be to make it so the game is nearly perfect at release. And the only patches after that are for things that realistically couldn't have been caught before launch. And in keeping with that philosophy, DLC could still be offered, but it would be good at release. And not be released as "planned to be fixed later".