Jimquisition: Ubisoft - A Sad History of PC Failures
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, no they're not. Not in the same sense that say EA is a publisher at any rate.Thanatos2k said:
And when I said that the jury is still out on CD Project Red, I meant with me personally, not in general because I don't know a lot about them.
GOG.com belongs to CD Projekt. As for the good things they did:canadamus_prime said:
The Witcher receiving 2 free DLCs and then an Enhanced Edition with everyone who bought the game earlier being able to upgrade to EE.
The Witcher 2 standard retail edition (not limited, not collectors, bog standard) having a shitton of goodies in it, the game receiving a miriad of free DLC and the whole Enhanced Edition thing happening again.
Everyone being able to activate their copies of the Witcher games on GOG.com and getting all the extra goodeis for no extra cost.
GOG.com in general - totally DRM free, do giveaways every sale, great customer service.
GoG is still not a game publisher in the same way that Steam is not a game publisher. Valve is the game publisher that runs Steam.RealRT said:
Ok, MOST game publishers are dicks then.
Yeah, that is rather stupid when some PC gamers do that, I don't approve of that sort of behaviour.TheNewGuy said:
And my iconic catchphrases are available as DLC[footnote]Content may be on-disc but locked away because we feel like it[/footnote] if you pre-order from Gamestop.Darth_Payn said:
They read as petty and spiteful to me. I know I'm not alone, here, either. I don't know if they actually are, but I don't think they're morons. Image is important, though, and if people see them this way, they might as well be.Catasros said:
Pretty much every time they open their mouths on something, I expect their spokesperson du jour to put on some sunglasses, say "deal with it," and drop a microphone.
I don't hate them, mind, but I do get the strong sent of dickweed from their general direction.
The real question is, would it matter much? The 360 and PS3 were getting sold, and more importantly, people were buying the games for them. Do they really expect people to give a crap? I doubt most people are buying consoles because they think their power rivals that of a decent gaming rig.Thanatos2k said:
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure all the recent PoP games combined sold less (all platforms) than one Ass Creed sequel (on a single platform).Trishbot said:
Ubisoft said it wasn't interested in games it couldn't franchise. What I think it meant was it wasn't interested in games it couldn't make ten million sales on annually. And who can blame them? If you can't sell 10 million units, you might as well take your ball and go home. Or blame piracy.
A more succinct beatdown the world has not seen. Ubisoft is annoying on consoles, but they're utter cunts on PC.
we don't say "PC" anymore...we say "not being a jerk" the former is now considered too...."harsh"...it has negative connotationsZak757 said:
[sub/]how's that for being meta?[/sub]
eh if they want to call you an elitist for being honest thats their problem....Magmarock said:
....I'm not entirly sure PC gamers have more control...I mean sure theres mods, which might be your entire point...but were still subject to DRM...even if its freindly faced DRM like Steam
as long your game proftits it shouldn't be an issue you don't need to be COD to turn a profit....Zachary Amaranth said:
Sooo... is Ubisoft one of those companies owned by shareholders who've never held a console control in their entire life? You know, the kind whose experience with PC gaming only extends to playing solitaire? Because if it is, it explains the retarded hunt for profits at the expense of the customers good-will.Vault101 said:
Not in-game, but they showed it in the reveal trailer...I think? Swear I remember it being in the trailer. Not the most iconic item if I can't quite remember its presence.Grimh said:
Aiden Pearce's hat is NOT iconic. His jacket is more iconic than his hat. If his hat were a top hat and came with a retractable monocle, then MAYBE it'd be ironic. For me, though, I want the jacket
I am super glad I opted to wait a month before deciding to buy this game or not. And after seeing all the complaints on it, I passed on it and just watched a let's play. To be honest, the game is a bit of a disappointment. It's just inconsistent in it's storytelling and I thought we'd be able to interact more with the environment and the AI is a combination of smart and dumb. The police were run over each other with their cars in one video and at times help the gang members while the civilians called the police and the police go after the player instead of criminal NPC who fired the gun. Not to say it wasn't a bit hilarious to watch.
Wait. Ubisoft used the word "iconic" to describe stuff owned by brand new characters? What the actual fuck?
This, and the graphic downgrade practice (which was already linked here, so rock on guys for that), is pretty much exactly why I no longer own a modern console; I'm not getting anything for it.
In the Golden Age, consoles were more powerful (for price) than PCs because they were dedicated. They were easier to produce for and sell for because of this dedication. They wound up losing the graphical edge (when it had it) here and there, losing it almost entirely by the end of the PS2 era, but they were consistently solid products (due to denying games low-level access). There're also the benefits of user-mods, in the 5th-6th gen, though they weren't as widespread, and that was back when *actual* piracy (the *selling* of someone else's content... pirate carts, etc.) was actually a prominent thing.
I don't know... maybe it was growing up in MUDs and with tech that gave me respect for gaming and the culture... maybe it was just me and mine. The single argument that art and business don't mix is pretty much the end-all of it, for me... and EA and Ubi sorta show their asses to prove that right.
In the Golden Age, consoles were more powerful (for price) than PCs because they were dedicated. They were easier to produce for and sell for because of this dedication. They wound up losing the graphical edge (when it had it) here and there, losing it almost entirely by the end of the PS2 era, but they were consistently solid products (due to denying games low-level access). There're also the benefits of user-mods, in the 5th-6th gen, though they weren't as widespread, and that was back when *actual* piracy (the *selling* of someone else's content... pirate carts, etc.) was actually a prominent thing.
I don't know... maybe it was growing up in MUDs and with tech that gave me respect for gaming and the culture... maybe it was just me and mine. The single argument that art and business don't mix is pretty much the end-all of it, for me... and EA and Ubi sorta show their asses to prove that right.
This "PC vs Console" bullshit has to end, and I think I have a solution. All we need is to strip down irrelevancy/redundancy and construct the console to fit into a standard PC optical bay - many people don't even use them anymore, making it just so much empty space in many casings. Then, develop a secondary OS software that will allow the internal, standardized components to "take over" the primary CPU while active, turning the outside hardware into essentially a fancy, combination HDMI cable and internet connector (with access to certain other key components, of course). This way, one can retain the consistency of a gaming console AND the flexibility of gaming PC's in a single machine.
It wouldn't have to be one-way, either. The same OS software could allow the host computer to utilize this "console card" as a secondary GPU and/or HDRAM when not otherwise in use.
I believe this is the way to go in future. Certainly there could - and should - still be stand-alone machines, but this would bridge a lot of gaps. It opens up game developers to new audiences without the need to "port", as long as they are willing to put in the effort to allow for their software to run on more powerful systems (governed by the secondary OS, not the internal settings from either primary), while at the same time reducing overall production costs for the hardware developers.
Nintendo, of all people, seems to be getting closer and closer to this, with the Wii and WiiU designs, and I have to say, I wouldn't be sorry to see them do it.
It wouldn't have to be one-way, either. The same OS software could allow the host computer to utilize this "console card" as a secondary GPU and/or HDRAM when not otherwise in use.
I believe this is the way to go in future. Certainly there could - and should - still be stand-alone machines, but this would bridge a lot of gaps. It opens up game developers to new audiences without the need to "port", as long as they are willing to put in the effort to allow for their software to run on more powerful systems (governed by the secondary OS, not the internal settings from either primary), while at the same time reducing overall production costs for the hardware developers.
Nintendo, of all people, seems to be getting closer and closer to this, with the Wii and WiiU designs, and I have to say, I wouldn't be sorry to see them do it.
and another thing. I do not think it's fair calling Ubisoft the European EA. They are worse. They are the European Activision.