What do you do when you start one? Assassin’s Creed The game offers your customers the option to pay $ 10 to level up faster, generate all sorts of negative reactions – many of them suspicious, cautious – and then start a new one Assassin’s Creed two years later? Starting again with this controversial paid booster? Not quite. If you’re a Ubisoft publisher, skip your $ 10 XP booster for now (hooray!) And then add it a month after it’s released (hmmm)
Yesterday, Assassin’s Creed ValhallaTwo premium boosters have been added to the online shop. For $ 10, players can permanently increase their character’s experience point gain by 50%. They can pay another $ 10 to do the same for the amount of their in-game currency, or buy a $ 15 bundle that allows them to do both.
Get XP Valhalla Allows players to accumulate points that they can spend on improving their character’s offensive and defensive stats, as well as perks that make their character stronger.
Two years ago, Assassin’s Creed OdysseyDesigner refused that the boosters influenced the design of their game and said they didn’t throttle the rate at which your character got stronger in order to get people to buy the booster.
A Ubisoft representative said the same thing today ValhallaBooster: “The XP boosters had no influence on the design of the game.”
That’s plausible ValhallaThe designers calculated the speed at which the characters would improve in the game without considering paid boosters. Character development in Valhalla is constant as players climb hundreds of levels in quest after quest.
It was plausible for too Odyssey, It was possible for players to comfortably upgrade their characters without paying for boosters by playing the game with an omnivorous appetite for main and side quests. When the players were more focused on main quests, the power increase was far more difficult.
Odysseydeveloper would have at least to treat the occurrence of a potentially slowed progressionbecause that $ 10 booster went on sale at the same time as the $ 60 game. Who could rule out the idea entirely that the game was sold with a hidden cost, like a supposedly free Mobile game that moves too slowly if you don’t pay?
Last spring Kotaku asked the creative director of Valhalla about the potential for an XP booster. H.He dodged, saying he and the team would have reconsidered progress in the next game to keep players from feeling like areas they wanted to explore were inaccessible to them. Then came the start and no booster. Lesson learned?
Well, it seems some kind of a lesson has been learned. Another major publisher, Activision, was a regular Adding microtransactions to call of Duty
The fact that people got on happily Valhalla for a month endorsed the idea that the game was not designed to make people feel they need one XP booster. There haven’t been many complaints that the game is too troublesome to get through and that it leaves its player character too weak. The complaint, if any, is that there is so much to do in his world that the game may be too big, which is another problem.
However, the presence of a microtransaction is always a cause for amazement. They raise suspicion even when it may not be justified, and in that regard are doing a disservice to the developers of a game that must be part of the equation, along with the convenience it can provide to wealthier players and the winnings, that it will bring to the company. Is it worth it?