Assassin's Creed 3 will allow players to buy credits to unlock high level multiplayer items, if an Xbox Live Marketplace product listing snapped by WorthPlaying is any indication.
The "Erudito Credits" in question are available in doses of 20, 50, 155, 380 and 925 - the most expensive pack sets you back 1600 MP, or £13.60ish. They've also been spotted on PlayStation Network (thanks, Eurogamer). "Buying this pack will grant you 925 Erudito Credits in-game, allowing you to acquire some game items, disregarding your current level," notes the Xbox Live marketing copy.
There's nothing to suggest that Erudito Credits will be available in Assassin's Creed 3 single player. Still, the suggestion of such potentially balance-wrecking functionality in multiplayer is bound to raise a bit of heat. We'll tap Ubisoft for comment - in the meantime, let us know your thoughts.
12 comments so far...
thewrongtrousers on 29 Oct '12 said:
So a combination of F2P (freemium) and P2P then? - seems like it to me. Maybe I'm missing something obvious but I can't see how this can be a good thing for competitive MP, ME3 was co-op only so didn't really affect other players. It wouldn't necessarily stop me playing it but if most other players seemed massively overpowered I probably wouldn't go back to it knowing that to get to the same level I have to spend £x amount. Really it depends how effective these credits are and how much time casual players need to get the equivalent. The only real benefit I can see is to those that have the money to spent, but don't have the time to invest in the MP but really do want to play it or to those that pick up the game further down the line for say £25 and are now 50 levels behind everyone else - maybe there will be a delay before these are available. By all accounts the drop off rate for Brotherhood MP was rapid so Ubisoft are probably just maximising revenue, while I can accept them testing a slightly new business model, I would have thought the way forward would have been to improve the MP so there isn't such a drop off.
Personally I am not a big fan of MP where different levels get you new powers / perks / weapons (if too overpowered) as it only benefits those that have the time to put in, fair play if you have / do like it, its just not for me. I much prefer the GoW model with unlocks being skins or characters.
SidTheSloth on 29 Oct '12 said:
>sighs< Not the best news i've ever heard. There's not many games on xbox (that i've seen) that do this as yet, but being one of the five people in the UK who plays the NHL hockey series i've seen a similar approach in all its 'glory' and it does concern me.
For the past few years the NHL games have had the 'be a pro' feature (much like fifa) but each item of kit on your skater has unlockables that you can apply to your skater in the form of boost packs and attribute upgrades. These can all be unlocked through normal play (but require 1-3 playthroughs of various game modes which with the length of hockey seasons takes a loooong time) or you can buy the unlocks at the grand old price of 160 points. The 160points seems cheap, but considering that's 160 x 4 x 3 (Helmet, stick, gloves & skates have 3 boost slots each) and then it's 160 for each and every upgrade like acceleration +5 it soon gets expensive pretty quickly.
Now whilst the option to unlock these via cash for those who don't have the time to play through the offline modes should be welcomed, the fact is it creates a fundamental imbalance in the game for a long time while those who can't/won't pay for these unlocks play catch up, levelling up through playing is a slow grindy affair that is based very much on winning - something thats pretty damn difficult if you and your team of '65 overalls' comes across '90 superstars'. Add to this fact that achievements are tied to the online mode and it just adds a large layer of frustration to the experience.
I can see this scenario being mirrored in AC3 having read this, but the bigger concern is that sports sims are usually supported online for the whole yearly cycle, they don't tend to die off like other MP games so 9 months in the online can at least be palatable. The worry with AC3 is - especially given the fact previous versions were less than amazing - the support for it will drop off long before average joe can catch up to 'mr more money than sense i'll buy all the unlocks thank you please'. It works ok in ME3 purely because - i suspect - it's not PvP, which is when the resentment and frustration of an often (but not always) inferior player beating you comes to the surface...
Plamsa wing on 29 Oct '12 said:
If this is true, it sounds like a pay-to-win model, one which I despise more so than Mass Effect 3's real money random unlock packs.
Even Battlefield: 3 and Bad Company 2 has something similar with their so called "shortcut" packs.
I can understand wanting to make a bit of extra money, but would it kill them just to only have skins and so on, rather than this pay-to-win model? Yes you don't have to buy them, but it ruins the fun and enjoyment of others who have to work for these things and not just spend mum and dads money on digital items, items you can't really own like you do with a good book.
thewrongtrousers on 29 Oct '12 said:
I have no idea yet how the credits will affect the MP in AC3 but if succesfull others will adopt this model and while I happen to agree with you. However what if I get a game 6 months after release, try the MP but get kicked everytime because I'm not good enough or get pounded because I'm so underpowered? - I'm just not going to bother so the MP doesn't get rejuvinated and dies off. Companies don't want this any more than they want preowned.
This seems to be a bit of a reinvent of the EA online pass so people that buy it preowned further down the line will need to invest in some online points to be competitive with others who bought it new and are now on a higher level - although its still optional. Personally I don't like the idea of P2W but if this was introduced at a later date (e.g. 3 months) to help those latecomers to a game that wanted it (this season in particular there are so many you have to be pretty loaded to afford them all and probably unemployed to have enough time to play them all
) then I would have far less of a problem with it.
FishyGinger on 29 Oct '12 said:
You won't! No one seems to play after that long. At least that's what I found with the last two which is a shame because I really liked the online component.
This also worries me a tad, as others said it is in other games such as battlefield and if you're good it probably won't affect much as it's not direct confrontation. Battlefield at least was a case where newer guns weren't necessarily better, and perks in the AC games weren't always better for me, I just hope it isn't completely unbalanced.
Still think the worst aspect of the multiplayer will be idiots who think running around at full pelt on the tops of buildings is the way to go. When you've got a full game of people doing that it's rubbish. And you can't just stay stealthy when everyone is running otherwise you'll never catch them.
Thos. on 29 Oct '12 said:
Of course they want multiplayer to die off after six months. So you have to buy the next Big Must Have Title, and pay money to buy items for that instead.
GTRogers on 29 Oct '12 said:
I don't see it as a big deal, battlefield 3 has the same sort of thing and that doesn't affect the MP at all in my opinion. If you want to buy the best stuff then I dont have a problem with that I would just rather play the game and enjoy knowing that I earned everything but not everyone has the time to do that. besides on battlefield the guns don't make that much difference and the first guns you get are normally the best so it still comes down to skill rather than how much money some one has. So it all comes down to how much impact the things you can unlock have. If you can buy a perk from the top level on day one that practically makes you invincible then yeah its gunna be a problem
thewrongtrousers on 29 Oct '12 said:
But it wasn't just AC3 I'm talking about. What if the next COD does it? You could have immediate double overpowered shotgun or something. Thats why it makes more sense to have a delayed release for it. People then have enough time to get the overpowered shotgun without paying and if they don't because they have not had time to play or they bought the game late they won't be so dominated on the servers because they can buy it. It makes a more level playing field, helps casual gamers and those people are more likely to play MP for longer and companies may well then benefit from further DLC. I'm not saying helping casual gamers is right or wrong but it seems to be the direction the industry as a whole is taking at the moment.
thewrongtrousers on 29 Oct '12 said:
No I don't agree, most companies are still releasing DLC 6 months after release date so I really do think they want you to still be playing their game, otherwise DLC is a waste of time - also a lot of big games will be franchises, more often than not a year or more. I think its about maximising the number of people playing so it maximises the revenue from future DLC. If you get bored with MP because the majority have better weapons / perks than you, you simply won't play, so no DLC. If you negate that by having microtransactions then they may well also buy the DLC.
Captain_Chao5 on 30 Oct '12 said:
I don't like strategies like this as it's a money making scheme and gives an advance advantage to those people who cannot afford to 'buy' the skillset, but have to earn it the old fashioned way.
Personally I've no intention of playing AC3 MP so it won't affect me this time. I hope all games do not follow this route.
Thos. on 30 Oct '12 said:
You are wrong - a tiny fraction of games have people still playing multiplayer and releasing DLC after six months, and those are a very specific couple of sports and FPS games. Plus I don't have figures, but I can only imagine that DLC is hugely more profitable in the first couple of weeks of a game's release.
For Assassin's Creed, I imagine they want to wring as much coin out of players in the first month as possible.
thewrongtrousers on 30 Oct '12 said:
It was actually in reference to your "Big Must Have Title" comment, and the companies that produce those titles. They are the ones that mostly produce DLC months after so I'm not really wrong - 6 months was an slight exaggeration, but its often months
. AC3 is a "Big Must Have Title" so I expect them to have quite a few DLC's over the next few months, (maybe not 6 months, but it will be close enough) but I'd be very surprised if one or two of them weren't MP DLC orientated in some way.
Currently you are right and most games companies try to wring as much money from DLC as quickly as possible before they lose the market to another companies Big Title. However I don't think they really want to lose that market to another company they would much rather keep it themselves. The biggest Ubisoft 360 games this year are AC3, Farcry 3 and Just Dance 4 and they are released within 4 weeks of each other, and not all that similar. It will be well into next year before their next Big Title is out so they want to maximise profits for as long as possible and do still want people to be playing and buying DLC further down the line rather than just the first few weeks. They want to be like "some specific couple of sports and FPS games" because there is some serious money to be made there if you have the player base to buy your DLC. With the cost of game development and production going up, they want DLC to be profitable for longer, DLC in comparison costs very, very, little yet at £5/7 which will still be £5/7 when the game itself has been reduced from £40 to £20 is proportionally speaking a much better investment of their time.