Dont get me wrong i do understand why Ubisoft wants their customers to play their games for a longer period (its why they have a helix store in place).
Apart from that it allows for ppl to get less burnt out when there isnt a new AC title every year.

Many games that offer the games as an live service model are actually free to play and a lot of money is to be made from MTXs.
The big difference however in AC-games and those games is that they actually have constant new content and a endgame thats worth your while
(warframe, wow, diablo3, destiny, devinty, borderlands). Yet in valhalla we have no endgame loop, no gear that has various stages : rare, magic, epic, legendary, unique.
There are no raids, no dungeons, no arenas, no nothing.

Personally i rather play 1 game a few years on end then say 10 different games throughout the year. I get that Ubisoft wants to earn more money, but the structure of valhall just doesnt offer the customers anything.

We had to wait 3 months for some more content, but the game in its base form is absent of end endgame progression, the loot offered has no variables either.

What do you think?

@asgardian02 agree:)

For this reason i think ubisoft should understand what type of game want to do.

If focus is a "game as service" profuct, they has to work on loot, Activity, and progression of pg.

Valhalla is a single player with focus on story, is very far from what Gaas is.

But ubi are doing a mixture of game that has deficit for an online game and for a single player game.

@xx-artorias-xx

they want a game for as many ppl as possible, yet dont seem to realise that different ppl look for different stuff in a game.

They seem to look at other big companies and them doing well, so they want to dabble in that too, in the process it seems their games loose all form of identity though.

@asgardian02 Ubisoft does have experience with "games as a service" outside of what they are attempting to do with Assassin's Creed. Just to name two, The Division and Rainbow Six. Neither of those games are free to play. The difference between those games and the Assassin's Creed franchise is that those games are MMOs and Assassin's Creed is a single player. So, I must agree with you that for Valhalla, or any AC game, this is not a strategy that makes sense.

I, for one, do not buy single player games to have to play the game like it is a job. Having to log in daily to the game to make sure I don't miss any action that is happening is not my idea of a fun single player experience. Single player games should not have any aspect that relies upon the action of other players, avenge quests and Jomsviking recruitment. A Co-op mode would be fine as long as it is not required for someone to be able to complete the game or any achievements. As a single player game there should also be a clear schedule, with specific dates, of when additional content will be released. But, the constant push to get players to play for weeks, months, or even years after launch only makes sense for MMOs, not single player games.