<em>Ghost Recon</em> goes free-to-play, fails to make case for itself

Status
Not open for further replies.
<em>Ghost Recon Online</em> may be the free-to-play version of a well-loved series, but without a strong hook it may find itself short on players. Details, and our hands-on with the game, inside.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/news/2011/05/ghost-recon-goes-free-to-play-fails-to-make-case-for-itself.ars'>Read the whole story</a>
 

Clovis42

Ars Scholae Palatinae
623
The coverage on PC Gamer has been a bit more positive. I thought it was interesting how the passive abilities of the classes affected nearby teammates. OTOH, if the execution isn't very good I guess it won't matter if they had few good ideas.

I also read a bit where some Ubi-guy said that the micro-payments won't affect gameplay. You just get things like grenades and better armor. Wait, what???
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

renik

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,179
It's free, will give it a shot.
But I'm guessing it'll go the way of Battlefield Heroes and Play4Free. I just end up not caring with much higher quality shooters out there for next to nothing on Steam.
But there could be hope for F2P. LoL is the prime example, but there also isn't nearly as much genre competition in MOBA vs FPS.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

baritz

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
165
Ubisoft will sell premium items, and I was told that they will include guns and items that will make you a more powerful player... although you can also earn all these things by playing the game. Still, it's in the developer's best interest to skew things towards the paying customers.

I remember playing older games that required you to master some skill before getting an item that made things easier. This would increase your abilities while at the same time let you appreciate the time-saving nature of the new item.

With developers charging money for upgrades, I can easily imagine a scenario where a player would need to do do some repetitive, boring task for a long block of time to earn the item, whereas it could be immediately purchased for cash (or some proxy for cash that makes it seem less like money). Bringing money into the equation leads to two things: aggravating the non-payer and allowing the payer to buy their way to success in the game. Both turn me off from gaming altogether.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
variable455":36b62dgh said:
It's clear that Ubisoft doesn't know how to show off a PC game very well: the mice were stock, with ridiculously low DPI, making the controls feel sludgy. The same goes for the slushy keyboards that were less than reactive.

...maybe that's how it plays regardless of the hardware?

I was going to quote the same line, with the same emphasis, but more or less regarding ubisoft's entire PC portfolio. Assassin's Creed comes to recent memory. I just don't think Ubisoft understands the PC market at all.

NOT SAYING that Assassin's Creed is bad, it's just a better experience on the consoles.

I guess Far Cry and HAWX are exceptions... but... even then. That's two in a pretty wide portfolio.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

Donnicton

Ars Scholae Palatinae
964
EtrnL_Frost":1wokjp6h said:
I just don't think Ubisoft understands the PC market at all.

And why would they? All PC gamers are criminals waiting to happen, just like everyone in Australia under the age of 30(per the Australian government). The console people are the trustworthy ones, that's why PC versions have to have DRM like ticks on a dog - everyone knows PC players can't be trusted.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

Eldorito

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,961
Subscriptor
Scott Beckstead":3eg5w7n0 said:
sjmiller85":3eg5w7n0 said:
Watch, they're still going to put archaic broken DRM into the game, even though it's free...

and people will still give the same archaic broken whining about it I see. get over it and just deal.

I take it you never had your connection go down while playing Assassins Creed 2? That said, I think this model is the DRM, it's the same always connected requirement in order to play since there doesn't seem to be a single player.

Personally, I'll pass, as mentioned the much better BC2 is pretty cheap these days and the full experience is there.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
baritz":3m86uqol said:
Ubisoft will sell premium items, and I was told that they will include guns and items that will make you a more powerful player... although you can also earn all these things by playing the game. Still, it's in the developer's best interest to skew things towards the paying customers.

I remember playing older games that required you to master some skill before getting an item that made things easier. This would increase your abilities while at the same time let you appreciate the time-saving nature of the new item.

With developers charging money for upgrades, I can easily imagine a scenario where a player would need to do do some repetitive, boring task for a long block of time to earn the item, whereas it could be immediately purchased for cash (or some proxy for cash that makes it seem less like money). Bringing money into the equation leads to two things: aggravating the non-payer and allowing the payer to buy their way to success in the game. Both turn me off from gaming altogether.


Ironically, you just summed up real-life war very well there. Sure, training gets you a ways, but the guy that can afford to buy the nukes will always aggravate and pwn the guy that's not willing to pay for them. Sort of depressing if you think about it, and I agree with your sentiment exactly. That's why I couldn't stand Magic The Gathering later on. It started as a game of skill, but there were always the whiny little kids buying expensive cards with their parents money to win via brute force / no skill.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
Tundro Walker":3gm74yjr said:
You'd think the military could afford better tailors for their best-of-the-best spec op soldiers, and get the inseam length on those commando pants fixed.

*stares at ridiculously long pants sagging over combat boots*

The pants add to the stealthy nature of the game; no one can follow you because they brush out your tracks!

I agree, they look hip yet lame and entirely out of place.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
D

Deleted member 192806

Guest
Donnicton":9wkfbiz0 said:
EtrnL_Frost":9wkfbiz0 said:
I just don't think Ubisoft understands the PC market at all.

And why would they? All PC gamers are criminals waiting to happen, just like everyone in Australia under the age of 30(per the Australian government). The console people are the trustworthy ones, that's why PC versions have to have DRM like ticks on a dog - everyone knows PC players can't be trusted.

As the old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words".
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

Jasconius

Seniorius Lurkius
26
"Ghost Recon Online takes the best attributes of the Ghost Recon game franchise and brings them online"

I think they meant to say "best attributes of Call of Duty"


The problem here is that to UbiSoft, the "Ghost Recon" franchise spans into all that console bullshit, whereas anyone who actually still cares about Ghost Recon in 2011 probably regards the franchise as having died shortly after the original Ghost Recon.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

ardent

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,466
EtrnL_Frost":3cvvm9bf said:
I guess Far Cry and HAWX are exceptions... but... even then. That's two in a pretty wide portfolio.
No, Ubisoft is primarily a console development company. Which is fine; they're good at and they produce strong games for them.

Far Cry was developed specifically for PC. Which is why it feels like garbage on a console.

Similarly, HAWX is a flight sim, and everyone knows planes have a lot more than six buttons. So yeah, it plays better on a computer.

Assassin's Creed plays fine on PC...particularly if you have a game controller to plug in. ;) It's not designed for mouse and keyboard like Far Cry is, of course.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

hobgoblin

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,070
DragonTHC":1p5ntqk3 said:
hobgoblin":1p5ntqk3 said:
i fear that shooters do not translate as well to micro-payment as a morpg does.


Depends on who's p(l)aying. Pay $2 for an upgraded gun? maybe.

I'll wait for GRFS. I actually think I'm going to replay GRAW 1 and 2 this summer. They were great fun.
Ok, let me expand on my initial entry. What i mean is that in a MMORPG one is mainly paying to offset grind. That is, you can either fork over some cash for the XP booster, or do the extra hours it takes to get the same XP.

Unless the shooters have some kind of rank/license/mastery system for various gun groups i can not see how a similar tradeoff can be put into play without being unbalancing.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

hobgoblin

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,070
Tundro Walker":16yt2ztf said:
You'd think the military could afford better tailors for their best-of-the-best spec op soldiers, and get the inseam length on those commando pants fixed.

*stares at ridiculously long pants sagging over combat boots*
Could be they are wearing camo pattern gaiters.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gaiters

edit: never mind, i blame caffeine withdrawal...
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
One disconnect I see with Ghost Recon at least is that the PC versions before this online deal retain a lot of the "sim" elements. From Advanced Warfighter on the PC version and the console version have had different styles of telling the same story. The PC version is more "simmy" and the console versions are Jerry Bruckheimer movies. I wish Ubi should really embrace this with the PC versions and go full sim like in the old days. I actually love both styles at different times. As awesome as the original full sim games are, The "movie versions" are super fun as well. If they did that, I would likely buy the same game on both platforms.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

hobgoblin

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,070
JosephTheGamer":1ma3st89 said:
One disconnect I see with Ghost Recon at least is that the PC versions before this online deal retain a lot of the "sim" elements. From Advanced Warfighter on the PC version and the console version have had different styles of telling the same story. The PC version is more "simmy" and the console versions are Jerry Bruckheimer movies. I wish Ubi should really embrace this with the PC versions and go full sim like in the old days. I actually love both styles at different times. As awesome as the original full sim games are, The "movie versions" are super fun as well. If they did that, I would likely buy the same game on both platforms.
Likely makes the production more expensive, as well as risk alienating potential customers that are not interested in spending hours drilling proper leap frogging doctrine.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

Mortus

Ars Legatus Legionis
33,218
Moderator
ardent":1s264l6n said:
Similarly, HAWX is a flight sim, and everyone knows planes have a lot more than six buttons. So yeah, it plays better on a computer.

Lol. 2 things. #1, HAWX is about as much a flight sim as Carmageddon was a driving sim. #2, I played the game on the PC using my 360 controller because it worked better. Not to mention that even with all the buttons and triggers on the 360 controller, I only used 3 or 4 of them the entire time.

Plus the fact that HAWX was released on the PS3 and 360 2 weeks before it released on the PC.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)

endothermal

Smack-Fu Master, in training
97
szlevi":3rk8at2q said:
BDoN":3rk8at2q said:
GR has been garbage since they moved away from the oGR formula. Still to this day my favorite shooter. Long live oGR. =)

What is oGR?

FWIW Ubi's last decent tactical shooter was R6 though it wasn't their original (it was Red Storm Entertainment's baby.)


I assume they meant the original Ghost Recon. Which in my mind is still a great game. I still play it to this day. When i was playing Crysis and I was sneaking around forests and fields and what not I had a lot of fun because it specifically reminded me of my days playing Ghost Recon.
 
Upvote
0 (0 / 0)
Status
Not open for further replies.