3 Likes/5 Replies/178 ViewsOriginal poster TheExpCoffee 30 posts
With the launch of Valhalla in the latter portions of 2020, we gained access to Ubisoft's moneymaker, the Season Pass. The pass is meant to introduce a bundle of new playable content for those willing to invest a hefty amount of dime into the game they've (most likely completed), fit with new quests, side missions, storylines, maps weaponry, abilities and so on... Now while this Valhalla version of the Origins-and-onwards frequented pass wasn't anything special, and perhaps lacked some character, I'd like to, for a minute, stray away from that hotly debated issue and instead draw focus onto the upcoming updates for Valhalla and the recent news of the third major DLC expansion -- which sees Eivor supposedly venturing into North Africa, codename "Muspelheim" -- arriving in early 2022.
This DLC was music to my ears. Seriously. It opens up pathways for many more opportunities in Eivor's saga, the one that is being written as we forge our own paths through the game, and it sounds extremely interesting to say the least. Now, if only those sentiments were the pinnacle of my argument. Oh boy no. You see, I can already picture what this DLC entails. Firstly, it is almost set in stone that this new expansion will be exempt from the $60AUD-heavy Season Pass that many of us -- I included -- have invested in. This is a gut kick. Paying that amount for two small DLCs (Wrath of the Druids was extremely small, winding up to about 15hrs) and a small questline like the Legend of Beowulf is just abhorrent for what we've given in terms of money and in time. And yet, Ubisoft -- and no apologies for my frankness -- continue to just, what? Thieve the cash from the hands of few?
The answer would be for this new DLC to be included in the pass. Because I know, for one, that i will not make the same mistake twice and will avoid a third pay strike by avoiding the DLC altogether -- the pass just isn't worth it at this point in time. In fact, I'd wager that for many out there, many reading this, the pass just isn't reasonable enough to even consider at this moment. I'd advise you didn't, but can see reason why some do. Anyway. What else is off-putting with this DLC? Enter the big-bad news. A second Season Pass could be on its way.
Not kidding. I can already imagine -- and, apparently, according to some folk online, I'm not alone -- a second pass making its way to the game, offering 3 separate DLCS -- perhaps two other realms of Yggdrasil, like "Muspelheim" -- for what Ubi will label a 'measly' sum, a reduced price, of, say, $40AUD? Now, don't get me wrong, if that was our offer from the get-go, right now, I would end this here. But whilst this is all purely educated speculation -- base don trends, uncovered data and so forth -- the possibilities of a second pass and, given it, a second paywall for expansive content -- is just overwhelming.
Nevertheless, I can see this post either be taken down for no good reason, web hermits having a rant about it, or a combination of the two. But I wonder... what are your thoughts on this whole thing? Given the fact that we're running full-force into this epoch of microtransactions and gift cards galore, do you question the estimation of my assumptions? What do you think will be the case here? Please bare in mind I hold no loathing for Ubi as a business, just as a provider of certain content in some circumstances. I wholeheartedly understand the motives at play here.
SofaJockey 370 posts
@theexpcoffee There are two ways to cook this aren't there.
- 'Season Pass' means all the extras to follow.
- 'Season Pass' refers to a limited period, i.e. 'Year One'.
That this will have to be a retrospective clarification is unfortunate. I hope it will be #1, but I can see it be #2.
lemmie88 274 posts
I'm almost positive they'll make players pay for a second season pass.
In every game I've bought, "Season Pass" meant all future DLC. BUT Ubisoft is already using terms like Year 1 and Year 2 to describe the new content and reiterating that Valhalla is a live service game (though its totally not).