140°

Eurogamer: ' Transition to next-gen in 2-3 years' say Ubisoft

Ubisoft reckons we'll see Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo "transition" from the current generation of consoles to the next in two to three years.

"There's absolutely some amazing product coming. The new hardware, if it's not new platforms coming, the things like Move, Kinect, 3DS, these will all reinvigorate the market, and I do see in the next 12 month if not growth then stabilisation before what I assume to be a new transition into new consoles probably in the next two to three years."

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
Forbidden_Darkness5082d ago

I'm still loving my PS3 exclusives, so need to rush for Next Next Gen ;)

xztence5081d ago

Maybe MS and Nintendo will but we wont see next gen from Sony for atleast another 4 years.

TheLeprachaun5081d ago

Microsoft - Mid 2012/Late 2012
Nintendo - Late 2012/Early 2013
Sony - Late 2013/Early 2014

My opinion.

November 9 20045081d ago

no sony ill release a console too,you rally think hey want to fall behind? whoever triggers the next gen everyone is going to retaliate too. in 2-3 years is fine,i think by then we will be ready for a new console.

5081d ago
seij5555081d ago

Geez Walther, did you make a bad investment or something?

5081d ago
randomwiz5081d ago

2014 seems like too late of a release date although i wouldn't rule early 2014 out. In my opinion, Microsoft will be the first to release a console, but they won't make the same mistake as they did with the 360 and rush it out. I believe their pricing will be a last minute thing, because I'm sure they'll base their pricing on what Sony's going to price their console at, but Microsoft won't be able to do this because Sony will release at a later date, and will also be waiting to see what the 720's pricing will be.

I think Nintendo will have a release just in time for the holidays at an overpriced price point(by overpriced, i mean $0-100 more than what their console costs to build). Then they can easily drop the price when demand decreases. I think they banged their heads on the wall after the wii was consistently sold out for many months and went on ebay for upwards of a $1000 because had they known it would be so popular, they would sold it at a higher price.

MS - early 2012
Nintendo - holiday 2012
Sony - holiday 2012 or mid/holiday 2013

Conloles5081d ago

Walther of course there'll be another one, the Xbox takes home the cream for the E+D division

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 5081d ago
ChickeyCantor5081d ago

Lots of people still love their DVD's....
No F it, not even gonna go there.

Spydiggity5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

i agree with you. there are still a lot of really good games that continue to come out. but come on. i'm getting really tired of gamers, especially the ps3 crowd, saying stuff like this.

yes we know...you are elitist and you think you've got the best device in the world and therefore don't need anything else. well i, and most rational thinking people, disagree. better is better...and i'll take better as soon as i can get it. i don't care who does it; sony, ms, nintendo, w/e...just do it. i've been looking at graphics better than console can do since 2007 on pc...this generation was last gen by the time it hit its stride. yes, UC2 looks good compared to other console games, and yeah gow 3 was chaotic and nuts to watch, but why wouldn't you want better?

if you know companies are intentionally witholding progress for the sake of milking creativity and tech, that should piss you off. you shouldn't be showering blind support on a company...let em know...you want more. we should expect more as gamers. companies should be challenging the tech, not be happy as hell to cater to it.

I STILL see games coming out that do nothing to challenge current tech. games that just copy other games, use the same dated looking engines, and are happy to walk away with 500,000 sales. We should demand more. It doesn't matter how long generations have been in the past, the issue is progress. and as far as i can see, we're behind the times. If crysis could achieve what it did in 2007, we should be expecting a lot more 3 years later! Look at the leaps graphics went through from PS1 to PS2...it was pretty massive. But look at the next Leap. PS3 and 360 games are mostly just upscaled versions of the top games last generation. the HD version of stuff we saw on PC for years.

I don't mean to sound like a graphics barron, i realize there's more to it than that. but when you play a game now...tell me you don't already know just about exactly what's going to happen. it's because it's the same stuff we've been seeing for 10 years almost. the same havok physics engine, the same enemy ai, the same set pieces, the same everything. it's time for a change.

I should have written this as an article....

snp5081d ago

You don't think it'd be smarter to hold off as long as possible, though, Spydiggity and make sure the gap between this and next gen is as distinct as it can be?

I worry if they go too soon, yes there's going to be improvement, but monumental 'easy and obvious to sell' improvement? I'm not so sure.

I think a night and day difference will still need another couple of doublings of graphics tech. Maybe double or triple what an Ati 5970 level tech can do would be about right to get that kinda dramatic 'this is something very new' impression.

KingKiff5081d ago

Very well said and bubbles up for you.

Spydiggity5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

When you consider the cost of hardware as it is right now, and the hardware that is in current gen consoles, you could build a next gen system that is at least 10x the power for under 700 dollars. and that's if i'm building a single unit, at home, buying individual parts (not bulk).

they build the same thing in mass, with optimized specs, they could probably crank out insane 500 dollar systems.

and they'd do it too, if the developers were willing to invest the time and expense into catering to the NEW tech rather than the current tech. but, thanks to marketing, shareholding, and people's willingness to pay, there is no need to encourage progress. when sony said the other companies would be the first to make a move, all they are really saying is "we're willing to milk it for as long as the other guys are." they all think that way. so they are all waiting for developers to say, "we're ready to move on and we'll goto pc if we have to" instead of them telling developers "it's time for you to step up your game, start crankin out the good stuff."

i guess my point is that there is a lax attitude in the industry right now. sony, ms, and nintendo don't wanna push developers, and developers don't wanna be pushed...everyone just wants the profits. so it's up to the gamers (all of us) to demand better with our spending. once we do that, the next generation will be here, and i'll be happy as hell.

snp5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

Oh, i realise the graphics hardware is 'technically' a mile ahead Spydiggity, i'm thinking more the 'perception' that hardware difference creates.

I guess i'm not quite as sure that it's there yet for that night/day difference - esp to sell things to the masses (i personally love tech to, so any jump is nice).

For 'me' - owning consoles and a pretty up spec PC - the gap is nine times out of ten enough to prefer buying the PC version on graphics, but i'm not convinced things are 'quite' there for something that's 'smack in the face obvious' for the masses.

You mentioned Crysis, for instance. That is is a 2007 game, yes, but it's actually only just now that the graphics cards are starting to catch up with it on the PC. At 1920x1200 with fully features enabled, for instance, it'll net you ~46fps on a 5970 Ati (Ati's absolute, and very expensive, top of the line card). That figure would come up to something near 50fps average at a straight 1080p res.

It is very very impressive, but i think it's probably still one gen out from where it needs to be. Get Crysis at full 1080p, without any dips bellow 60fps, and ideally even at something closer to 100fps and i'd say you've got where next gen (which will see us from 2013/14 through near to 2020 hypothetically) needs to be (where PC's will be at the very top end next year, or possibly early year after).

And of course, if things end up going the 3d route - which even if stereoscopic doesn't take, auto-stereoscopic not long after these consoles release likely will - then you'll actually need close to that 'double power' just to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

ECM0NEY5081d ago

If they started coming out with a new console every 2 years for around $500 to $600 I couldnt be happier. I would wait in line for 12 hours to buy the newest console. We should already be on the next xbox. I know im not alone in my thinking. When it comes to passions of mine money is no object.

Chris_TC5081d ago

"Double or triple" what a 5970 can do? A 5970 costs $700. You think in three years the consoles will have a graphics card with "double or triple" the power? That would be one expensive console.

And of course it's not needed. A normal 5970 would be a plentiful upgrade because it exceeds current-gen console hardware by a ridiculous margin (which should be no surprise if you compare the prices).

snp5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

"Double or triple" what a 5970 can do? A 5970 costs $700. You think in three years the consoles will have a graphics card with "double or triple" the power? That would be one expensive console.
------

Consoles have matched or close to matched the top end of the equivalent PC in graphics when they've gone into production the last couple of generations. It's only a year or two later they've fallen behind to any major degree.

I see no reason this will be the generation that changes...

-----
And of course it's not needed. A normal 5970 would be a plentiful upgrade because it exceeds current-gen console hardware by a ridiculous margin (which should be no surprise if you compare the prices).
-----

Each to their own.

Yes, there's a price gap, but that price gap is for manifold reasons - not the least of which is due to PC component being created, and sold at every step, for profit (and at the very top end in fairly small quantities). Console components conversely are created at a mass level by deals between various component makers to significantly bring down costs - eliminate many middle men. Which are then further subsidised, usually, at release for a good part of their early life by the console manufacturers (again unlike PC parts).

Although it should be added, if you have a look at that $700 graphics card this time next year you'll find it'd be lucky to cost half that - it's not because their costs have suddenly fallen by hundreds of dollars, either.

You're welcome to disagree, but i don't think a 2012/2013 console will have mid 2010 PC level graphics. I think it'll be fairly competitive for a brief period (maybe slightly behind) the top or very near to top PC graphics at roughly the time of it's release (might be half a generation behind very top end). If it isn't, it's going to struggle to maintain interest for six years or whatever it's life expectancy is hoped to be (particularly if PC's make the transition to media station type setups).

As to the differentiation... the further out you get, the harder it is to sell on graphics alone (monochrome to 256 colours is bigger than 256 to 16.7 million colours, even though mathematically it's obviously not). Maybe i'm desensitised somewhat owning a PC, but i just don't see upping the fillrate a few times over, pegging a higher res and more consistent frame rate, and having a few times as many polygons is going to cut it. Not in a world where the majority of masses, just as a fact, are choosing the novelty of the Wii over the graphical improvements of either HD system (and i noticed Nintendo is hedging their bets with a new novelty with the 3ds - no doubt thinking 'just' upping the graphics alone a bit, or even a fair bit, wouldn't create or maintain interest).

I think if they are going to play 'graphics' as a/the major transition to encourage everyone to go and buy another new system to last another 3/4/5/6 years, they're better off waiting as long as possible and distinguishing next generation from this generation as much as possible. Again, you're welcome to disagree. Hell, there's a guy two up that wants ten console revisions a decade (though for the life of me i don't know why you wouldn't just buy a PC if you're that way inclined).

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 5081d ago
DTClown5081d ago

The PS3, as it stands now, could very easy take a Nintendo style business move with the PS4 and not use new tech, but instead, re-use the current tech with some minor upgrades.

1) Using a cell chip in the PS4 would be extremely smart due to the fact that developers are now finally comfortable with it. If Sony upgrades to a dual cell processor...way more power for not a big price increase.

2) Same with BluRay...upgrade the optical disc storage by using a newer 300gb (or more) BluRay disc tech.

These two moves coupled with the slimmer form factor, and lower production costs associated with it, would allow Sony to come to market at launch with a $300.00 (or cheaper) PS4 that packs plenty of punch for the next generation of gaming. Add to it a gig of ram, large hard drive, the newest HDMI port...and you're done. Cheap to manufacture PS4 with plenty of power. Backwards compatibility with the PS3 would be a breeze due to the similar hardware and architecture. Developers could get a head start on games for launch since they are very familiar with the specs...for the most part.

Add to this scenario the two tier PSN model, base for free, tricked out w/ cross game chat ect... for pay. This is a win - win - win scenario. Everybody's happy...unless you're Microsoft or Nintendo of course! This could very easy be a system we first hear about at E3 2011...if not sooner!

Imagine developers having 14-20 spu's to work with instead of the current 6!!! Holy crap BatMan!

starchild5081d ago

I bet we'll see a new Xbox and a new Nintendo console by 2012 at the latest. Sony, if they are smart, will release their next console no later than 6 months to a year after their competitors.

Arnon5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

>Xbox 360 sells close to 45 million consoles.
>People state there wont be another Xbox to make more profit. $1 billion on RROD = $7 billion.
>Implying Sony hasn't lost more on the PS3 than the entire first 5 years of profit on the PS2's lifespan.

http://media.giantbomb.com/...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5081d ago
Serjikal_Strike5081d ago

360 and wii are nearing the end so yeah...i can see that happening

November 9 20045081d ago

end of what?everyone will release close to each other.

Serjikal_Strike5081d ago

the only thing that might keep the 360 alive for the next couple of years will be Kinect...if it doesnt FAIL!

truth betold

starchild5081d ago

BS! The 360 is just as capable as the PS3 overall. The 360 is better at some things and the PS3 is better at others, but they are both very similar in overall capabilities.

The PS3 is just as outdated as the 360. The only advantage the PS3 has is it's Blu-ray drive and that really only allows you to have more content on a disc. Most PS3 games are no longer than most 360 games, though, so the advantage is not being taken advantage of (probably because game budgets don't really allow for larger games in most cases). The downside to the Blu-ray drive is that it has slower read and seek times. That is why multiplatform games often have faster load times on the 360 than on the PS3.

snp5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

I'd expect the Ps4 to come out last - after all the Ps3 was released a full year and a half later than the 360 in Europe/Oceania etc - but don't think the gap would be quite as big this time round.

Mind you, whatever gap there is between the tech's may well result in a more noticeable differentiation in tech this time round. The PS3's delay and excess cost was largely put into Bluray subsidising i suspect. With Bluray a settled tech - and i presume all next gen will use it - any differentiation (largish release date differences) and cost hikes would be purely about controls and graphics, most likely.

5081d ago
CountDracula5081d ago (Edited 5081d ago )

Fuck Ubisoft and their generic estimate. Any moron could have guessed that.

Why not predict that it's gonna rain in the next 2-3 years too while you're at it UBISOFT!

5081d ago
Show all comments (37)
240°

Why Microsoft Putting Black Ops 6 On Game Pass Is The Ultimate Test

By putting Black Ops 6 on Game Pass, Microsoft plans to gauge its growth, pricing, and monetization changes, at the cost of less game sales.

rlow11d 1h ago

If they have follow up games that are bangers, then this strategy will work. But if it’s Call of Duty followed another dead period then it won’t last.

crazyCoconuts22h ago

From MS financial perspective I think it may be the opposite.
A year of GamePass on PC is less than the price of two full price games. For all the people that would have bought COD for $70 but instead started subbing for GP, MS will get an extra $50/year which is good.
However, for each banger that MS puts out, that's lost potential revenue because the GP sub won't need to buy it.
So it only makes sense where the new GP customers would have otherwise not spent more money with MS... Which is the case if MS puts out low quality shovelware.

rlow120h ago

If you’re looking at the short term you are correct. But if Xbox can have multiple bangers then subscriptions should increase. Which is what they want, recurring revenue.

S2Killinit12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

I think this is more about microtransactions. MS wants to see if the upfront losses will be offset by more people login into the “free” game and buying more microtransactions to justify not selling as much COD games.

I honestly not sure. I feel like everyone who likes COD is already playing/buying it so I’m not sure how much more engagement they can get by putting it on gamepass. On the other hand, I also feel a lot of COD players are casual gamers, and they are the type to click on anything that is “free” ex: mobile gaming style

Sonic188122h ago

I don't see it working if Call of Duty makes less money and profits over time from gamepass 🤔

blackblades21h ago

I dont understand why have it on it when we all know it sells with the name alone. Seems stupid to lose so much sales and $ just to have it on game pass. They basically shooting themselves in the foot with a already injured foot from all the other times they shoot themselves in the foot.

CrashMania20h ago

@blackblades, that's my exact point, even on xbox where most software sells poorly CoD still sells millions, but the thing is, if you don't put it on GP you kinda shatter the whole idea they've build GP up to be, they've dug this hole themselves.

I think it might tick up subscribers a bit, but warzone is already free and gets millions of players regardless of GP. But where will those extra subs come from? Xbox sales are dropping like a rock, PC gamers are very firmly rooted in Steam and will just buy it there.

Tacoboto19h ago

@black

If they don't include it on Game Pass, they lose the claim of First-Party Day-One on Game Pass, and thus would begin the slippery slope of what's-ok-to-not-include and the devaluing of the service, and further sinking Microsoft/Xbox's already tarnished reputation.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place and this move buys them time to work out more future-math.

crazyCoconuts19h ago

I still expect a price increase in GP to compensate but who knows. With all the factors in play like COD points there are too many variables for someone on the outside to predict what will happen. I assume they have a forecast model where this all looks peachy.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 19h ago
Garethvk1d ago

When the game does not hit 1 Billion in revenue in under two weeks they will wonder why and the next thing you know; Season Updates will no longer be free.

Noskypeno23h ago

Yup, the CEO needs a new yacht and private jet

Abear2120h ago

Yeah I expect paid DLC and season pass in your face, now you are buying for a game you are renting

neomahi7h ago

That's where they're relying on PC and PlayStation gamers to pick up the slack. They know their business model isn't lasting so in order to give it away "free" for Xbox, they're banking on PC and PS5 customers to make up for the sales loss on Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pull this off like they want to. Xbots don't see it but, it's their gaming brethren that'll keep their console manufacturer afloat a little longer because the service they hold so dear isn't viable anymore. So, it's by the good graces of their fellow gamers they live to fight another day.

Consumers don't understand how Xbox Game Pass really works. It's not about the volume, and maybe Xbox doesn't want them to know. It's not about how many games you play. Developers don't make money by how many people play their game, it's HOW LONG you play. How many hours to put in.

Customers like David Jaffe that only like to sample don't help the service succed. Jaffe is a cheapskate stoner who spends all his money on Diet Coke, Jolly Ranchers, and weed to fry his brains (it's medically proven, sorry to disappoint) but Jaffe wants as much as he can get for as little so, he's not much of an advocate. But he also plays games for a little while and then gives up, it's just his personality, maybe A.D.D. or something, but Game Pass is dependent on how long a gamer sinks hours in. Why do you think Phil Spencer wants Helldivers 2? Because gamers don't put it down. Hellblade II, they'll play the campaign and then be done. Games like that sink to the bottom of the pile, they disappear. Xbox LIKES Games as a Service business models because it sells their service, but that model doesn't work for Sony, Helldivers was a stroke a luck, lightning that won't hit twice because PS fans don't want that. But that's how Xbox keeps it's games at the top of the list and on their service. The longer you play a single game, that's how devs make money

purple10122h ago

subscribers go up, execs celebrate win, get bonus, price goes up, subscribers go down,

execs dont care, got their bonus,

MrDead22h ago

If it works CEOs and shareholders get a payday and if it doesn't even more studios get closed by MS so CEOs and shareholders get a payday.

Elda21h ago

It will sell on PC & PS but as long as COD is for rent on Gamepass it will not sell well on the XB platform. Most folks such as myself that like COD just for the campaign would rather rent it for that month instead of paying $70 plus tax for the game.

IAMRealHooman21h ago

Your smart.
its 70 for base plus 10 to 20 for a season pass plus another 30 for there better season pass,

darthv7220h ago

...now you are finally getting how to use GP. No commitments, just play what is offered. if you like it so much and want to keep a copy for yourself... you can buy it when you want to. I used to buy games based on if they looked appealing and have been burned many times on things. With this, I can try before I buy. And I have actually bought several games after having rented them in the service. It literally is like the old days of renting only you get the whole store instead of pay per rental.

Elda20h ago

I've been knowing how to use Gamepass. I sub the service yearly & I play games on the service that I don't have to pay the full price for such as Persona 3:Reload. I mostly play & pay for games on my PS5 but if a game lands on GP that I'm interested in playing & I don't have to buy a copy for the PS5 I'll definitely play it on Gamepass.

MrDead3h ago

And there you have it, it's like you actively want to destroy the industry. Just rent the games and then buy them, knowing that doesn't happen and the actual cost of pushing a rental service is studios closures and firings.

So far MS has done nothing with Bethesda and Activision except limit where they sell, close successful studies, fire thousands and mass industry consolidation. No new games are being made that weren't already coming and some like Tangos future titles that they were working on we will never get to see now because of MS and their greed.

Massive industry consultation benefits only the company doing it, consumers and the workforce always lose out because of it. What MS is doing leads to cuts and a lesser end product. If MS had spent the money on making games instead of taking them away we would have a far healthier industry, instead we have the same games but with restrictions and a service that has cannibalised sales.

Garethvk1h ago

PC Games are also on Gamepass.

Show all comments (37)
200°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf5d ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic5d ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv725d ago (Edited 5d ago )

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop5d ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv725d ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19725d ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty5d ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5d ago
shinoff21835d ago (Edited 5d ago )

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv725d ago (Edited 5d ago )

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje5d ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils5d ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick5d ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz5d ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1255d ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff5d ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

Garethvk6d ago

We can hope. Especially if the rumors of Cillian Murphy and Alaska are true.

RaidenBlack6d ago

That'd be too good if true.
But Henderson also leaked that next Far Cry setting was targeting some asian island.

jznrpg5d ago (Edited 5d ago )

With their shitty practices I really don’t care what Ubisoft announces until they reverse their course

Relientk776d ago

Assassin's Creed Hexe is what I wanna hear about most. Yes I wanna play as a witch with magic during the 16 century witch trials in Germany (as per rumors). Sign me up

Huey_My_D_Long6d ago

Yeah, Hex sounds amazing to me as well, and I've been playing since AC 1. I'm real curious how are they gonna fit the magic into the game, maybe in similar way the dlc introduced gods and god abilities. but I love that I've heard its gonna have a horror vibe.

Garethvk6d ago

Hopefully it is full of good stuff.

RaidenBlack6d ago

The studio just completed Avatar and busy with Outlaws and also got their F2P Heartland cancelled ... IMO, Division 3 will surely come but it'll take more time.
I'd be most thrilled if Ubisoft greenlits a sequel or at least a remake of the studio's first game i.e World in Conflict

anast6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

I would get hyped about Hexe. If the rumors are true, UBI might get a gold edition purchase out of me.

Demetrius6d ago

Hopefully gameplay of ac shadows or star wars outlaws, if they finally announce the new far cry I'm definitely getting that, far cry still fun af and gorgeous games, yeah ubisoft has their faults but atleast they're not copying souls like games their titles still have identity

neutralgamer19926d ago

We will definitely see gameplay for star wars and AC. Farcry let's see

OtterX6d ago (Edited 6d ago )

I'm going to be an outlier amongst the rest of these comments.... give us something NEW! I'm pretty burnt out on Ubisoft franchises, unless you're giving us a new Rayman game!

*Edit - imagine what they could do with a Rayman 3D game in this day and age. I say now is the time to revisit the series.

RaidenBlack6d ago

Would love a AAA PoP too or a back to roots Ghost Recon (none of the open world stuff)

MeatyUrologist6d ago

Hell yes! Ghost recon in the style of the originals with real consequences, permanent and all!

jznrpg5d ago

I love Rayman, played it a ton with my kids years ago. But Ubisoft puts dumb crap in their games. MTs , paid tiers , always online requirement for single player games and as they stand now I could see them doing that to Rayman

OtterX5d ago

Yea unfortunately, you're right. :'(

Garethvk6d ago

Beyond Good and Evil 2: It is coming really; we promise.

OtterX6d ago

Their microtransaction monetization scheme on it will lie somewhere between good and evil!

Haha JK.... it'll be completely evil. 🙃

Show all comments (21)