This.

Remember when piracy was really ramping up and people said "hey you have to adapt to new markets!" Well, companies listened. Make everything an always connected online world and DRM becomes irrelevant, because every game is an online experience anyway.

It's certainly the future. There will certainly be more truly singleplayer games but their numbers will wane.

I'd agree, but what makes you think that's the future? What makes you think the audience is even there for more MMOs/MP games? I'm sure Ubisoft is going with this because they think it's the future, but do you think everyone will go along with it? Most gamers still have pretty conservative views on what a single-player game is, and what a multiplayer game or MMO is.

You seem to have a very pessimistic, even fatalistic view on the matter. If customers don't go along with it, it will fail. Just because a company makes a game with lots of money, that's not a guarantee that everyone will buy it.

I think what's more likely is that Ubisoft will keep smashing their head against the wall with always-online for a couple of years and then come back to the table when they stubbornly admit that single-player games are still wanted. They are trying to force changes which aren't largely wanted.

Maybe not only, but they seem to be headed full steam in that direction. Pay to win and all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v-teUHwEqM

Because despite what internet bitching level is reached people buy the games. If Watchdogs is a massive hit and then Watchdogs 2 is always online people will complain endlessly and then buy it in droves anyway. I have seen it way too many times to have any other opinion on the matter.

I'd love to be surprised, though.

You know, I think I've heard this song before. It's too bad for Ubisoft that I (and lots of other games) have hundreds of better things to do with my time than deal with their inanity. LIke playing games we got from not-Ubisoft.

I don't follow their logic that "open world" requires an internet connection. I understand control, DRM, user stats, adds, and patterns are all "assets" to these companies... but it sounds like they are trying to use the logic that open world is an acceptable "reason" to need a constant connection. Morrowind worked fine without... Oblivion seemed ok... Fallout... Gothic...

Considering that Ubisoft is expecting the game to sell 6.2 million units if it isn't a massive hit it will be killed off.

I think if it wasn't for the huge base of current gen consoles out there that they need to sell on to make their money back, they would have tried always online already for this game.

Everything becomes a social network, nobody can avoid this future. Basically SP dies out.

I don't really like it because it puts far too much control and bargaining power in the hands of the producers, but what can I do. Nobody can resist the trend.

Looking at Assassin's Creed sales numbers I think that's a healthy estimate, actually.

They did, hence the "round 2" in the topic title.

Well activision blizzard was the one that stated they would only do franchises they can get on a yearly model....Ubisoft said they have 3 Assassin Creed games in the pipeline though which is utter BS...

If it sells then I don't see a problem with it. It's not my type of game, so I don't buy and I don't see reason to hate how often they make their games. I actually appreciate it, because it gives them money to make new interesting franchises like Watch Dogs or The Division.

Yeah. Don't hate the company in these cases, hate the consumer. Well don't hate anyone actually, but you get my meaning.

Assassin's Creed sells gangbusters every year. When the general public is as tired of that series as I am they will let Ubisoft know by not buying it.

I figure the reason it still has an audience is because the online pros do get used by players, be it the auction house or little things like achievements or whatever. I play Starcraft 2 with two friends and my brother, so once I finished the campaign, there's really no reason not to play it always online for me.

Publishers DO try to make it seem like it's not DRM and they're doing it to give you a service, but if that were the case, unrestricted offline play should always be on the menu. It never is. You always have to phone home at some point.

Ubisoft with their UPlay, EA is disappointed about MS canceling the always on, Valve with with games that you can buy and play but don't own. Sony director says the future of gaming is always on.
As long as users are giving them money why should they think about changing their way?
There was a shit storm about SimCity always on. But the game is a megaseller (even with endless bugs).
EA said it can't be played offline because the massive resources can only be done with their servers...proofed wrong.
Diablo was announced that i can't be played offline and now its possible with consoles.
I read every game-mag here in Germany. The first look goes to...is there DRM. If so the game is without interest for me.