Original issue is/was clarity. Keeping things simple so they are clear for the consumer and not only that, but also so that the decision doesn't reflect badly back onto the company (that was the witcher 3 original comment from me - i only used witcher 3 as an example).
I don't like biased, singling out of 1 company when many are 'at it' but i needed the example to remain relevant and understandable.

Bad business decisions are just that, bad decisions.
But bad business decisions that make the consumer the one that is punished i find, as a consumer, intolerable.

This industry with bad decision after bad decision, is only making itself look even worse.

I could go into a discussion about the business reasoning behind decisions eg profit but that really is something that goes without saying - they are all in this to make money after all.
You and I both know from all our posts that they are in it for the money - problem is, the art and skill is in making money while not getting it so wrong that your customers smell a rat!

Make money for sure, but just don't do it in ways that are bad for the long term end-game.
A pissed off customer has the real ability to become a non-customer in the future. The company's that do this are just keeping the industry in a state of very poor being and even undoing some of the great work past people have done for the industry of the last few decades.

As for triple A and games staying in early access, it takes (from the very start) a long time to create a game from scratch and if you have a small team or a 1 man/woman setup then it will take even longer as a lot of artistic creation has to happen before a single line of code can be written.
You could look at that a few ways but realistically a few games can explain -

Triple a games eg bf3 and cod modern warfare and black ops
large teams working means quicker progress but if you look at treyarch and infinity ward once both studios made the first game engine and then sequels alternate between the 2 companies the next iteration for each studio is less of a task needing new maps story weapons but the mechanics for the most part ie the engine is the same so that means not as much work each time. It would be huge amount of work if they were doing new engines every year as well as new assets etc.

Indie ambitious games eg interstellar marines
small teams but still striving for huge games - this is where early access is frustrating from a gamer point of view as you really do get to watch as the game is created but a lot of gamers just don't realise how many hours go into it. Progress will seem very slow as before early access gamers had no perception of the 3,5,10 year dev time that goes into some games.

Small games
team size is not really a factor as the games a simplistic by design therefore dont take much work to create eg not many art assets, levels based on the same environment etc etc - think luftrausers or angry birds etc etc. These games really shine in early access for gamers as the pace of creation progress is quicker and gamers get a real
sense of riding along for the journey with the devs.

Early access
Early access is very bad as it shows up which dev teams are really bad at project management. A great example is dayz.

DayZ is not even being created with any thought to the fact that it is in early access and all it has done is serve to put off people who bought the game early and the game is just being developed without any regard for the fact that people actually want to follow the journey. When a gmae is in early access and everyone agrees that a playable version exists (devs and gamers), then bugs that are game breaking need to be held in higher importance than for games not in early access. This is something that is not handled well in dayz early access and is a major detractor from a game that has the potential to be very good when finished.

Early access also has the ability to show mistakes in the way a project is handled and can show up bad design decisions for gamers to see as they happen. You would think early would be an opportunity for dev teams to see the comments from gamers at the early stages and that would serve as a red flag warning so the dev team could act early to make changes so the game is a future success going forward, but some dev teams are not realising the actual benefits Early Access brings and keep running with bad ideas ignoring the gamer communities comments/warning/criticisms.

I guess some dev teams are out of touch.

Well, all AAA developers and publishers are businesses, not charity groups or ideological organizations.
Naturally their aim is to make as much money as possible, anything else would be like refusing a pay raise.

The guy does not actually say that he expects gamers to spend $200 on their next game, what he is saying is that he hopes that gamers will pay money to experience Ubisoft franchises in other entertainment forms: movies, TV-shows and so on. That is how I interpret his last comment: going from being a gamer spending $60 on games, to spending $200 on games, movies, books, clothes and what-not.

This is no different whatsoever from what the Star Wars franchise has become, expanding into games, books etc.
Not to mention franchises like Alien, Star Trek, Lord of The Rings, Spiderman and so on.

'Yes', micro-transactions as a concept is quite offensive to an older gamer, but you can't blame others for your own irresponsible actions if you are an adult.

What I object to is that micro-transactions are mainly targeting the younger demographic, kids who naturally want the same stuff as their friends or older brothers and sisters have - the same exclusive weapons, gear and so on.
The chain reaction is fully predictable, and very easy to take advantage of if you are a publisher.

I've read Plotinus, I've bit into Heidegger... You have issues with clarity HERE?
"Give money, get game". It's as simple as that. That's all the customer really has to understand. Nobody's getting "pushined" by the price differences between Steam and GOG. People can pay or refuse to do so. Even better - they have a choice.

Exactly. I see nothing wrong with this approach. "If people love your stuff and want to buy it, make more stuff for them to buy". It's painfully obvious business advice. The hardest part is actually making stuff people WILL appreciate, adore, covet.
"Love the Warcraft universe? Here - have a Warcraft movie... and a warcraft book... and a plush faerie dragon..."
If people didn't want such things, they would simply ignore them, companies would stop making them. The only thing that I can see as potentially problematic would be excessively invasive and disruptive DLC, but that's something we rarely (if ever) see.
* * *
As for Ubisoft - I will be preordering Heroes 7, thank you very much. I want the franchise to endure, more games to be made. In the end - that's what matters to me.

Want to hear a story of excellence in everything EXCEPT marketing and money-making? Here, check this one out.

Regarding Witcher 3 - I thought not Gog nor Cd Project (Red?) can choose the price - it's up to the Distributors.
Meaning the Brick and Mortar stores and the ones responsible for delivering them set the trend, then the Digital usually follow.
I'm pretty sure Gog can't even choose how much to ask for in terms of Base price, Not to mention CDP set a price on Steam.
What Gog can do, is offer a stiff discount, maybe more during sales, and may grant other staff such as another game, loyalty benefits (that are actually virtually for anyone - you get W2 for free and pay under 2$ for the first and get full discount on W3) and freebies (and store credit via Fair price). Otherwise it would be a breach of contract and they may get sued.

guys, you do realize CDPR said the free DLCs are going to be free for **everyone** who buys witcher 3 - not only preorder, not only on GOG, but EVERYONE, right??

yeah, I know it's a marketing move. but, seriously. did any of you expect them caring only for us and not for money? ... did anyone expect ANY game developer to not want to make money?

WE as users are the ones who have to decide if we want to let them grab our cash or not. I myself am happy to support GOG and some other companies that make games that I like. but if you aren't... well, just don't buy their games!!

I think the big AAA studios need to go back to looking at indie devs for ideas. Take the guy who created Banished. He set up a small website to promote his game and offer early previews, he didn't bother with demos or early access, just snippets of video and pics to get people interested. Then when release time came, he put out both a DRM-free version at GOG, as well as a Steam version. Everything else was just free media attention via social networking. His release was stable and the game is a lot of fun. Simple and effective.

What's the big difference between these small indie releases and big AAA behemoths? Well just for starters there's over priced DLC, disturbing amount of release version glitches and bugs, region/DRM locks, client dependence, day 1 patches, online-only network problems (such as the recent Sim City) and a sad reliance on celebrity/product endorsement to get brand hype going.

Those things don't necessarily have to kill a brand, but they certainly don't add to the fun of a game... or anything really. These are symptoms of a market that is over-confident and in need of economic correction. And again, the only way that's going to happen is if they start feeling push back from consumers; financial action by consumers who dictate their desires and wants through economic activity. If people bitch about companies like EA and Ubisoft, yet continue to buy their products, there will never be any incentive for those companies to do anything different.

I think you better be careful when you say AAA studios looking at Indie devs for Ideas, they might take inspiration from the wrong Indie studio.

Like the Devs who made Guise of the Wolf. Day One. Garry's incident, and Slaughtering Grounds who could not handle the bad reviews their game got that they silence video reviews with False DMCA claims.

..so is Nintendo still intent on taking down user content (gameplay, lets play etc) from 'tube? I think they very much wanted that while ago.

Nintendo's reasoning is because they are old school. They think youtbe is just sanctioned piracy by a big corporation (Google)

These indie guys want to DMCA reivews of their game because they want to silence any criticism because they can't handle the fact that their game sucks and is broken and want uninformed people to buy their broken game.

anyhow, i label both under "gakking fethheds" (now try to place that phrase somewhere). DMCA claims in both cases are just laughable.

Not to mention for Nintendo it limits exposure of their games and system. Wii-U has had so much trouble trying to build a user base, while the PS4/XBone have soared so quickly to those numbers. Being able to see the game and gameplay is probably a large factor to determining if you're interested in the game.

But regardless, Nintendo doing it is less douchey (but only slightly) than an indie studio censoring specific videos/opinions.