Ubisoft says microtransactions "makes the player experience more fun" — ranking as maybe the worst quote in gaming history

Ubisoft is looking to become the new EA, drawing inspiration from its previous decades of monetization, with this latest mishap in gamer misunderstandings. Hot off the financial press, Ubisoft has come out with a bold claim that gamers have more fun when they can pay even more for the game they already bought!

I'm not one to put words in the mouth of others, so here's the statement directly from Ubisoft's financial report: "The adoption of monetization and engagement policies that respect the player experience and are sustainable in the long term. At Ubisoft, the golden rule when developing premium games is to allow players to enjoy the game in full without having to spend more."

Continuing, they make the boldest of claims, "Our monetization offer within premium games makes the player experience more fun by allowing them to personalize their avatars or progress more quickly; however, this is always optional."

I'm going to assume, for a mere moment, that they're right. Maybe I'm out of touch with what gamers want today; you all want to throw money at digital skins that will disappear once the developer shuts the game down

Now that I've spent a paragraph too long believing something so preposterous, it's time to come back to reality (am I so out of touch?)

Ubisoft is absolutely right about one thing, and that's the fact that people love the ability to customize their avatar. Since I was a kid, unlocking costumes for your character has always been part of my drive to continue playing a game.

Did you catch that part about unlocking? Does that sound the same as buying something? Not really.

Look, I get that player skins are all the rage, thanks to games like Call of Duty, Fortnite, Apex Legends, and even my favorite Ubisoft game, Rainbow Six Siege X. I also understand the need for games to have microtransactions to balance the ever increasing development costs and ongoing expenses associated with keeping online community games running for a decade or more.

What I don't understand is the need to assert that people get enjoyment from swiping their credit card. I'd argue that the skins earned without the assistance of cash are the most impressive. The ones that people love the most are those that were hard-earned.

I'll go to my last example, Rainbow Six Siege X. Reaching a specific rank comes with charms and avatar backgrounds that showcase the achievement. These "achieved" skins bring a level of self-satisfaction no exchange of currency could acquire over a game.

Sure, buying skins can bring some level of enjoyment, but those feelings are intermixed with a whole other list of reasons players buy them. It feels scummy labeling it as a "fun" enhancer when there's so much else behind it.

FOMO (the Fear of Missing Out) is a primary driver of cosmetic purchases. There are legitimate patents behind some of this, showcasing player matchmaking based on driving players to purchase skins.

You see enough players throwing cash at the game, it becomes harder and harder to say no. Humanity drives the feeling of wanting to fit in, thus, FOMO.

With all that said, I can see a reasonable argument to be made that players buying skins provides a certain level of enjoyment. I'm sure everyone has thrown a few bucks at their favorite game; even I have, and in bulk at times for my favorite creations.

The one that legitimately enrages me is the claim that players like credit card-swiping for progress. Are you kidding me?

Seeing microtransactions in a Ubisoft game that provide resources for your single-player campaign is one of the dumbest things I've seen in gaming. One that too many people have become far too comfortable with.

From Elder Scrolls' Horse Armor packs to buying gun locations in Far Cry 6 — what are we doing, people? Buying a $70 game, then spending a series of $5 stacks to buy settlement resources, some form of in-game currency, alongside map sites, is just plain dumb.

I'm starting to take shots at gamers rather than the ones responsible here, Ubisoft. They even reference "the adoption of monetization and engagement policies that respect the player experience," which becomes even more laughable the longer you think about it.

How does quick-skipping to the end game without the need to actually acquire resources through gameplay respect the player experience? If anything, it shortens the players who don't play.

How do we know that these grindy mechanics that have purchasable microtransactions aren't inherently hindered by the development team to push them? The truth is, we don't, and that makes it so much worse.

Ubisoft — I suppose I don't know how other players feel about this, but I'll speak for myself when I raise a proverbial middle finger in calling for shame on whoever decided that statements like these, which take player agency for granted, were okay to make.

Am I alone, or am I one of many? Drop a comment below, vote, or say something on one of our social media accounts. Maybe it isn't the children who are wrong. Maybe I am Principal Skinner.