Might as well take my shots.
Chris Early said:
"There was no resistance...Maybe there were 12 guys somewhere who said something, but whatever. As a whole, there wasn't a problem."
I seriously doubt that. Some actual numbers like DLC sales proportional to games sold would give this statement meaning. As it stands, it sounds like Ubisoft is just here to thumb their noses back at the dissenters who rightly reject these sickening "convenience tax" DLC schemes.
It goes to show how much the industry has changed in recent years. Early acknowledged the change in player attitudes of late, and chalked it up (in part) to the increasing amount of communication on and discussion of monetization in the industry.
Discussion and communication? Between WHO? And what discussion is driving DLC sales? It sure isn't among the actual gamers discussing your DLC policies; most of what I see on the subject isn't as rosy as you want us to think.
"I think there are some models that are accepted now. DLC is pretty much accepted," Early said. "Season pass is pretty much accepted. Now it's interesting when you start to think of Season Pass as a Service Pass. For our Season Pass holders, I know we hold events for them specifically, so it's little bit more than just DLC content. So there's an evolution going on there."
Events? Fine. Season pass? It can be done well (Borderlands 2's season pass was an excellent deal) though in concept it is a still quite risky since nothing definitively offered. Just "We promise some DLC in the future. Pay us." about it.
"Service Pass"? Now I'm getting concerned, because that is pushing the line further towards service-centric gaming; aka, the envisioned future Hell where games are always online eternal rentals. A Hell I've already had a taste of, and even that was more than I could stomach.
They should feel like their purchases enhance the game rather than fill in the gaps for an incomplete experience.
Quite true...in principle.
In practice, this would have meaning if AAA didn't regularly withhold content for Day 1 DLC or "On Disc Content". Y'know, the exact situation where a company deliberately creates a situation where the player must buy DLC to fill in the gaps for the complete experience.
"I know people who've spent five digits or more of money in Clash of Clans, spending in the tens of thousands of dollars," Early said. "Who would think of that? But nobody's really angry about that. That's how that guy chooses to play, and he's playing against other people of the same calibre, whether they got there through spending hundreds of hours playing the game or tens of thousands of dollars. Good design, that's what it comes down to."
Seriously?!
No, that isn't "good design", and it's definitely not just a matter of "how that guy chooses to play".
Spending five figures on one game is not "good design" because it's NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
That's behavior akin to gambling addiction.
Frankly, it's disgusting and I do hate it because it promotes the worst possible behavior in gaming and game design; where your wallet and/or wasted time dictates who wins, not who has the best skill. Not that you would care, I mean, from your perspective that's strong revenue. Why is it the deeper this business goes, the more it "evolves", the more it resembles drug dealers peddling to their stable of addicts?
"We can bring a bigger breadth of games to players, a creative breath of fresh air to our designers, and we approach all of it the same way. We look at all of these as opportunities to bring entertainment and at the same time provide a good return to our shareholders."
Yes, a creative breath of fresh air...as long as it resides in one of your three milkable franchises and conforms to the safe, predictable, market-proven specifications of design.
Just like Henry Ford:
"You can have any colour as long as it's black."
