With the release of Assassinator's Creed Odyssey, Ubisoft has caused the ongoing give-and-take surrounding microtransactions to flare up once again. The game's extensive shop is filled with all-manner of extra purchases for players to splurge on, but the near enticing are those located in the "Fourth dimension Saver" section. For $10, players can vastly increase their experience gains and skip much of the game's grind. This is what's got some gamers up and artillery; some tearing into the game and others adamantly defending it.

The defence's statement is clear: Assassinator's Creed Odyssey is a fun game that should be judged on its gameplay rather than the presence of microtransactions. The criticism they're fighting against has become a bit muddled in the discourse, so allow's clear that up correct now. Assassin'due south Creed Odyssey'southward gameplay cannot be separated from its microtransactions, because said microtransactions have a tangible impact upon information technology whether one engages with them or non. They exist and that alone is enough to negatively affect everyone's experience. This is why any conversation about the gameplay loop must take microtransactions into account.

Let'south become this out of the way right at present: information technology'south admittedly possible to play and enjoy Assassinator's Creed Odyssey without engaging with its microtransactions. Some players might not even remember about them at all. There are also plenty of players who enjoy doing side content before progressing the story, as Assassin's Creed Odyssey all simply forces ane to practice. That, however, is not going to be the case for everyone. Many do discover the microtransactions; many do feel similar they have to buy the boosters in order to play the way they want to, and many do requite in and buy them fifty-fifty if they think that shouldn't have to. This is a problem, but not the main one. The main consequence with Assassin's Creed Odyssey is that this is washed past design.


Like Assassin's Creed Origins before it, Odyssey's core gameplay loops revolves around leveling upwards one's character. All progression is based around one's level, so much so that ane cannot progress the story until they've leveled-up enough. This wasn't seen equally a problem in Origins considering the only way to level up was to play the game, but that's not the case in Odyssey. Now, players accept the option of spending an additional $10 on height of whatsoever they've already paid in lodge to skip most of the grind; in other words, they can pay to skip the game's core loop.

Ubisoft and their defenders argue that this option is hither in the name of "player choice," something those who don't have time for the grind can buy in club to play through the game unhindered. This statement has a major flaw though equally it begs the question of who it was that implemented a arrangement i would exist willing to pay money to skip, and for that affair why an Assassin's Creed game needs to accept a grind at all.

Assassin's Creed is supposedly a series about exploring diverse places in history and rubbing elbows with notable historical figures. It'due south supposedly a game in which 1 plays as a stealthy assassin who kills apace, makes a clean getaway and goes onto either kill over again or find the secrets of their environment. Every pre-Origins Assassinator's Creed game has this, and both Origins and Odyssey still have the exploration part of the game. Combat has become more important, but otherwise these are functionally the same games they've always been. So where exactly does the grind fit in? How exactly does information technology serve these aspects of the game? The respond is that information technology doesn't.

Assassins Creed Odyssey Header
Leveling up in Assassin'due south Creed Odyssey works in a manner similar to games like Dragon Historic period: Inquisition and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Players must increase their level in order to equip higher-level gear, take on higher-level missions and engage higher-level enemies. Taken in isolation, it'due south fine. Whereas such systems were always nowadays the aforementioned game series, however, it'southward a completely new improver to Assassin's Creed and it'southward 1 that actively undermines the experience by route-blocking progress and powering-down the player character.

In previous games, 1 could go through the story and side missions at their own footstep, taking out enemies through conscientious stealth or quick direct engagements. In Origins and Odyssey, however, one can only go along the story so long as they're at the correct level and instant assassinations simply piece of work if one is a college level than a given enemy. This system isn't nigh "thespian pick" at all. In fact, 1 could say that players take even less option now than they've always had earlier. In short, this is an bogus grind loop inserted into games that do not need it, merely Ubisoft went ahead built the game around it anyhow.

Everything tied to the grind could exist awarded in other ways. Equipment could all be tied to specific missions; so could skills. If the developer wanted players to have a sure skill before advancing the story, they could necktie it to a single mission and accept the thespian practise that get-go. The aforementioned goes for gear. Instead of having stats, gear could just have a perk or ii tied to combat and information technology could then be left up to the player to make up one's mind if they desire whatsoever of it or not; just similar in previous Assassin'south Creed games. Such a system can't be easily monetized, though, so instead nosotros get this unnecessary grind loop then detrimental to the experience that its reduction marks a noticeable improvement. Ubisoft knows this, of course. They're the ones who designed it this manner.


Many critics on YouTube and elsewhere accept come under fire recently for applying terms like "predatory" and "exploitative" to Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Information technology's harsh linguistic communication to be sure, simply non inaccurate. This is a game with a grind annoying and superfluous enough that its publisher is offering players a means to by and large skip it. What'due south more than, Ubisoft is confident that players will be willing to pay for that privilege. That $10 cost tag is not an insignificant amount of coin when compared to the overall toll of the game, yet this company is perfectly comfortable charging it on top of the $60, $fourscore or $110 the player already paid just to play the game. I doesn't charge an extra $10 for something if they're not reasonably sure their players won't be annoyed enough to pay it. Sounds exploitative, doesn't it? And no, they don't need to exist doing this either.

Development costs take gone up over the years, no one is denying this, but that doesn't mean publishers haven't been finding new ways to profit heavily from their products. The traditional $lx cost tag has been nothing more than a basic entry fee for a long fourth dimension at present, with the complete experiences getting offered through various "special" editions and season passes. On top of this, many games like Assassinator's Creed Odyssey now feature product placement, something that publishers charge advertisers for by the style. Big budget "triple-A" games like Odyssey easily brand their money back and then some; the only reason Ubisoft designed the game this way and is nickel and diming their consumer with microtransactions is because gamers let them get abroad with it. This is beside the point, though.

When judging the merits of titles like Assassinator's Creed Odyssey as games, their microtransactions cannot merely be extracted from the experience and ignored. They are an intrinsic part of the game's design, the unabridged reason for its grindy gameplay loop. If a game's combat is bad, then that should be reflected in review, right? If so, so shouldn't some other detrimental arrangement, an unnecessary i at that, as well warrant criticism? And shouldn't that criticism be all the harsher if the game's publisher is charging a premium cost for the power to reduce that organisation'south negative effects? Yes, yes it should.

Microtransactions don't exist in a chimera; they have a tangible effect on how the games employing them are designed and therefore must be taken into critical account. To do otherwise is to turn a blind eye to a real and potentially problematic aspect of whatsoever game.