• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    29 months ago

    That’s fair, I left that very open ended.

    I didn’t mean it in a “This is bad, I think they need a sequel” way. I more meant it in a “This is Ubisoft and committing to 10 years on anything seems impossible” way.

    I definitely like the Siege development team, they consistently have pretty solid updates and balancing choices to address issues in the game.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Gotcha gotcha. I think you have a point, but Ubisoft seems interested in letting their dev teams take enough risks to prove whether players enjoy stuff. Case in point: Ubisoft didn’t pay for dedicated servers for For Honor until players proved resiliently interested in the game. Adding dedicated servers later then increased the playerbase. Furthermore, Operation Health with Siege was a period of time when players were deprived of meaningful content additions but players remained through and the game came out better for it. Fair enough to say that neither of these were a 10-year commitment, but Siege has already proven to be a worthy investment for the past 8 years so maybe it could continue to be for the next 12 ¯_(ツ)_/¯

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        That’s a good take - and I do hope they continue to treat Siege the way they have been in the past.