1. #31
    Keltimus's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    D.C. area
    Posts
    973
    Originally Posted by chazerto Go to original post
    I would love to know what the future of this game has in store for us. There are so many interesting parts in this game that sounds and look promising to no end but all those things seem partially done, missing important elements or there is just a bare minimum available in this game and it kinda confuses me what their goal is for this game.

    All in all i have high hopes of a great future for this game since it feels like something like this can only be made by the Ubisoft Ghost Recon Breakpoint team and nobody else on this planet.
    I recommend reserving your excitement for the next title. I have a hunch there won't be a year 3 based on the lack of content coming for year 2. I think they are already working on the next GR and those still working on BP are just a small group, testing new mechanics with the upcoming updates and keeping BP barely afloat as we wait for what's next.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    Kean_1's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    So. CA
    Posts
    5,751
    Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
    Without intending to dismiss your playtime, which is great by the way, if I was in the studio I think I'd focus more on the players who haven't engaged with the game, but did with Wildlands. Breakpoint has mostly been defined by objections to its design and features and more potential players didn't play the game than did. I'd want to understand the views of those players, Kean here being a great example.
    What got me was that the survey was designed in a way to dismiss fans of the franchise who never bought the game. It was one of the early questions regarding the purchase of the game that would simply end the survey if it was evident that you didn't buy it. I figured in a situation where your game has flopped, wouldn't you want to hear from those people who decided not to buy your game and why? At the very least, it should have continued with another line of questioning.

    Obviously you want to know what current owners of BP think but I would think it would just as important to understand why your game failed to reach the millions of other other potential buyers / fans.

    WL sold over 10 million copies. Being that Breakpoint's sales were "significantly below" their expectations, I would imagine it was quite a bit off from what WL was able to achieve. In either case, I really think a serious revisit of the feedback provided by the WL community is warranted. ....much of which has been echoed here.

    Mike Weeks and I have shared our frustrations and disappointments with Far Cry 5 (which were many). However, we were truly a vocal minority in that case as I believe FC5 turned out to be Ubi's biggest success thus far. The same can't be said for Breakpoint as those who were the most critical turned out to be the better part of their potential customers.

    Some may not understand, agree with and/or even dismiss a lot of the criticism BP received but it's backed up by the poor sales, the surveys and even much of he feedback back when WL was still thriving where it was quite clear what the community wanted in the next game.

    I find it funny that some of the changes and even "new" content in the survey are things that were well received aspects that existed in WL / GW before they removed it in BP. Instead of being expanded upon and improved, they were simply removed.
     5 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
    What got me was that the survey was designed in a way to dismiss fans of the franchise who never bought the game. It was one of the early questions regarding the purchase of the game that would simply end the survey if it was evident that you didn't buy it. I figured in a situation where your game has flopped, wouldn't you want to hear from those people who decided not to buy your game and why? At the very least, it should have continued with another line of questioning.

    Obviously you want to know what current owners of BP think but I would think it would just as important to understand why your game failed to reach the millions of other other potential buyers / fans.

    WL sold over 10 million copies. Being that Breakpoint's sales were "significantly below" their expectations, I would imagine it was quite a bit off from what WL was able to achieve. In either case, I really think a serious revisit of the feedback provided by the WL community is warranted. ....much of which has been echoed here.

    Mike Weeks and I have shared our frustrations and disappointments with Far Cry 5 (which were many). However, we were truly a vocal minority in that case as I believe FC5 turned out to be Ubi's biggest success thus far. The same can't be said for Breakpoint as those who were the most critical turned out to be the better part of their potential customers.

    Some may not understand, agree with and/or even dismiss a lot of the criticism BP received but it's backed up by the poor sales, the surveys and even much of the feedback back when WL was still thriving where it was quite clear what the community wanted in the next game.

    I find it funny that some of the changes and even "new" content in the survey are things that were well received aspects that existed in WL / GW before they removed it in BP. Instead of being expanded upon and improved, they were simply removed.
    I believe you emphasize too much, in like the millions of players who did not buy the Ubisoft game, but the truth is that many, and among them I intuit myself, knew and anticipated the bad practices of Ubisoft and how the game had been too casualized, to the point of discarding good wildland mechanics to turn it into a looter shooter with micropayments and Online experience, which together with the elimination of the AI, "killed" the fame of the franchise among its fans and other players.

    I refer to Amber Sky, because she brought millions of new players who were already part of the community, or veteran part of the saga. In this title I have been playing it since the Deep State (Episode 2) came out, that is why I have a lighter opinion.

    If you are going to ask people who did not buy the game, in the same way that there will be people who bought it and want to turn it into an RE, they would have been minors and wanted to turn it into a Fornite, as Ubi tried to do and failed ( Fortunately).

    You will not read this because you censor everyone who rebuts you, but hey, as long as someone else reads it and at least contributes to the subject.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #34
    By one side Kean is not an "easy ride". On the other hand, he's still hanging around and sticking to his opinion in a pretty much dead constantly down beaten forum of a game he didn't even play in the hopes to bring some light for the franchise. How can one not respect that?
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #35
    Also, I want to point up but (again w/o looking aggressive against anyone opinion), to ask the players who didn't purchase the game BP based on the sales of the previous one WL or another franchise, it is like asking someone who didn't purchase or play the firsts GR and both AW but only purchase COD or Fornite, you gonna get disfavored feedback, that is what Ubi did since Future Soldiers and Wildlands and they decided the "best" idea was to turn GR into GI JOE w/o ninjas... but I give them time to disappoint us.
    Share this post

  6. #36
    FCacGRdvWD's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,844
    @Quimera... No it doesn't or isn't, not even remotely close. The people that didn't buy BP did it because it was not a GR game and not because it wasn't CoD or any other genre.

    I do believe that is the point Kean is trying to make.
     4 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
    There were several sources of community reaction to Breakpoint with the two most significant being the feedback from the OTT/Beta forums and the community survey carried out the month after launch. The link for the survey below.

    https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/g...survey-results

    Although the game may not be where it should be and may never be, you can see the direction taken aligns with that feedback. With the exception of online-only restrictions, which they looked at but then rejected, the state of the game today (bugs/glitches aside) reflects the feedback in the survey and those forums (sorry, I can't write fora, I just can't).

    Without intending to dismiss your playtime, which is great by the way, if I was in the studio I think I'd focus more on the players who haven't engaged with the game, but did with Wildlands. Breakpoint has mostly been defined by objections to its design and features and more potential players didn't play the game than did. I'd want to understand the views of those players, Kean here being a great example.

    As for Delta company selection, I just don't know; of the members of the Breakfast Club who were a relatively small group of players chosen to interact with the Dev team, only 3 of us got to Delta.
    I think Ubisoft should have focused on players who didn't buy Wildlands or Breakpoint, as well as those who bought Wildlands but didn't buy Breakpoint, because Wildlands left a lot of veteran GR players behind as well. They also should've taken to heart the feedback from the OTT.

    Ultimately, the devs need to make an effort to communicate with us - not the community team popping in every month or so, not some random Reddit AMA. The devs, particularly the creative director and lead game designer, need to communicate with the player base regularly. Breakpoint's failure wasn't just a failure to produce a bug-free product that betrayed the series. It was a failure to communicate. When we provided candid feedback regarding the OTT, they didn't communicate. They were silent. When there were challenges to the game's design, they were silent. They continued their marketing strategy instead of readjusting their plans. They chose to reduce their communication instead of increasing it.

    Only through engaging with their community will they understand why players bought Ghost Recon games in the past and what they want to see in Ghost Recon moving forward. Even though the community is made up of different groups with different wishes for Ghost Recon, they can build a game that is satisfactory to most groups if they take the time to communicate with us. It's not enough for the community team to listen to players. The devs have to communicate with players.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #38
    FCacGRdvWD's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,844
    Personally, I couldn't give more of a rat's *** if the CEO would come here to post because it would be like believing what a Politician says. I, personally speaking again, would rather they just make an effort and bring us something solid, not half assed or mediocre (at best), that, to me, would mean more than talking to us while doing something else at the end.

    Besides, why would I want to have a conversation with a guy who thinks is sooooo Cool and Awesome to make a Mythological creature on a Ghost Recon Game? that guy does not belong in here and if the others follow suit, they can stay where they are, which btw, is probably working on some other game and not paying any attention to us anyways.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #39
    MajicNomad's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Sinking Country
    Posts
    172
    Originally Posted by Quimera2-98 Go to original post
    If you are going to ask people who did not buy the game, in the same way that there will be people who bought it and want to turn it into an RE, they would have been minors and wanted to turn it into a Fornite, as Ubi tried to do and failed ( Fortunately).
    If you don't ask people what they think, you won't actually know what they think.

    Assumptions like these are at the heart of what's wrong with Breakpoint, and are clearly a disastrous foundation for a business model.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #40
    AI BLUEFOX's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pacific
    Posts
    6,341
    Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
    I think Ubisoft should have focused on players who didn't buy Wildlands or Breakpoint, as well as those who bought Wildlands but didn't buy Breakpoint, because Wildlands left a lot of veteran GR players behind as well.
    Fair point.

    Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
    It's not enough for the community team to listen to players. The devs have to communicate with players.
    I agree and would go further to make the point to them. They both listen to and communicate to the community technically speaking, but it's not a dialogue. It's like two people having two completely separate conversations, one side saying very little of course which is another issue, all meaning lost. An effective conversation needs confirming feedback and ideas need to be explored iteratively.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post