Poll: Ubisoft, Incompetent? stupid? Or both?
- Thread starter halisme
- Start date
They are incompetent: Their games are buggy, their ports are notoriously unoptimized, their DRM breaks their games, and Uplay servers often can't handle the traffic.tippy2k2 said:
They are stupid because they try to convince us that they're not incompetent with the most stupid excuses (30 fps is more cinematic). Either they're stupid for thinking we're this stupid, or most of us are this stupid, which makes them not that stupid.
How did they become that big? Back when they were good, they created popular IPs such as Rayman, Splinter Cell, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed.
I do agree about them being greedy.
they made decent games way back in the PS2 days and earlier, cementing themselves as a strong publisher with a strong fanbase and, more importantly, a lot of money in the bank. Now, their notoriety rides itself and they have a strong AC backing from before the series got stale.
If they were starting out now, or a year ago say, and released the same titles in that time period as they do now in the same way I don't think they'd be making anywhere near as much bank.
If they were starting out now, or a year ago say, and released the same titles in that time period as they do now in the same way I don't think they'd be making anywhere near as much bank.
Didn't you guys know that 20 FPS is way more cinematic and emotional and just plain better than 30 FPS? 
Remember when Ubisoft tried out their little "let's release our games with no DRM" experiment?
That didn't go so well for them, sadly, because HAWX was pirated into oblivion. HAWX2 then had draconian always-online DRM.
I'd suggest that HAWX was pirated so heavily largely because nobody wanted to pay actual money for it, though.
That didn't go so well for them, sadly, because HAWX was pirated into oblivion. HAWX2 then had draconian always-online DRM.
I'd suggest that HAWX was pirated so heavily largely because nobody wanted to pay actual money for it, though.
Ya pretty much this. I loved the shit out of Black Flag and played the arse out of it but I bought it in spite of the fact that it was a Ubisoft game with it's stupid as shit online multiplayer option that I never wanted.Adam Jensen said:
I bought Watchdogs but I still haven't finished it I founding supremely...uninspired.
Their bolloky-bill comments on framerate really annoy me since I've bought a brand new gaming laptop and PS4 and I want material that use the technology of these machines to the fullest potential possible. They are basically informing me that I am an idiot for forking out all that money.
So I wont be buying any more games off them until they get their house in order. But I know plenty of people who will be buying the next AC game first day without even reading a preview because AC.
I think it's crazy but sure what ya gonna do?
Honestly, I feel like it's time to shift the blame from the publishers and developers onto the large mass of people who go out every year and pre-order and buy this stuff. Ubi would never get away with this if consumers were more educated, and gave more of a shit. But they move so many copies, and you can't blame them for that, you have to blame the public at that point.Adam Jensen said:
1. Did people buy them? Check.
2. People forgiving them after they apologise, six months later? Check.
3. People defending this shit? Check.
4. ????? Check.
5. Profit? Check.
You see why I no longer listen to anyone's recommendations. Ubisoft might be the scumbags of the universe, but they know their audience and how to capitalise on it. Again, I enjoy watching people do stupid shit.
2. People forgiving them after they apologise, six months later? Check.
3. People defending this shit? Check.
4. ????? Check.
5. Profit? Check.
You see why I no longer listen to anyone's recommendations. Ubisoft might be the scumbags of the universe, but they know their audience and how to capitalise on it. Again, I enjoy watching people do stupid shit.
I would say that Ubisoft is short-sighted and stupid, but not incompetent. Incompetent implies that they have no idea what they are doing and are just throwing the equivalent of Steam Early Access games onto shelves for money. Some of their games (Far Cry 3, Blood Dragon, Rayman)were good games and ran well.
I believe on a dev level there's lots of talent there but its most likely the management and stakeholder\business partner situation is messed up.
Oh I think a lot of the executives and PR guys are to varying degrees both incompetant and stupid or at the very least they act that way so the internet reacts and burns itself out quickly. As for their studios the only one that may be incompetant is Kiev which are the guys that usually handle their PC ports. Kiev has done more bad ports then good or mediocre ones thus far so I do question their competance for my preffered platform (if Kiev wants me to eat those words then the best way is to make amazing ports instead of stripped down ports Im used to seeing not get an executive in an interview to look stupid). As for the rest of the studios I tend to think they suffer from overreaching more then incompetance but who knows
I think the crux of the issue is they arent making games for you and me or any of us on the forums who discuss gaming on a regular basis. Theyre making games for the average joe. The person that doesnt mind dropping $60 on a title he knows almost nothing about, doesnt read reviews, and almost always pre-orders to get the bonuses. In other words, the lowest common denomonator when it comes to gamers. All the big companies target those people. EA, Ubisoft, activision, Microsoft, Bethesda, nintendo, etc. They all target the gamers that arent us. Some do it more then others but they all do it to a degree.
When they say stupid stuff, it usually only comes to us and doesnt get to the people theyre actually targeting. What needs to change is we need to bring these news bits to the people these companies are targeting. We need to convert them into informed individuals rather then the people who just buy something without any information beyond the back of the box. Its easy for us to sit here in our own little echo chamber to discuss these issues but how many of us take the issues off these boards to the gamers who need to hear them the most? My bets on not many
I think the crux of the issue is they arent making games for you and me or any of us on the forums who discuss gaming on a regular basis. Theyre making games for the average joe. The person that doesnt mind dropping $60 on a title he knows almost nothing about, doesnt read reviews, and almost always pre-orders to get the bonuses. In other words, the lowest common denomonator when it comes to gamers. All the big companies target those people. EA, Ubisoft, activision, Microsoft, Bethesda, nintendo, etc. They all target the gamers that arent us. Some do it more then others but they all do it to a degree.
When they say stupid stuff, it usually only comes to us and doesnt get to the people theyre actually targeting. What needs to change is we need to bring these news bits to the people these companies are targeting. We need to convert them into informed individuals rather then the people who just buy something without any information beyond the back of the box. Its easy for us to sit here in our own little echo chamber to discuss these issues but how many of us take the issues off these boards to the gamers who need to hear them the most? My bets on not many
Probably both, plus some more factors. The way I understand it, Ubisoft development is done simultaneously across many sites across the world, as opposed to all in one building, and as a result of this, the credits are super long, and there is a large lack of communication between them because of distance, language and development differences. This was one of the factors that made Assassin's Creed 3 fairly unsuccessful, and I suppose the same problem can be attributed to Watch_Dogs, and now Assassin's Creed: Unity. Also, for some reason Ubisoft's PR department seems to be run by aliens, and they are really scared about delaying a game, thinking that people will just bite into whatever crap they decide to release. The company just needs to be restructured, and the complete disregard for customer satisfaction needs to be reevaluated.
Except what I quoted was a Playstation - Xbox comment so try again, next time with something that actually makes sense please. However the useless barbs you've thrown at me aren't important, what is, is that I asked you a question and you just failed to answer it instead attempting trying to fluster me with a barb (oldest trick in the book) so you didn't have to answer.sataricon said:
I'm inviting you to this time answer the question, but if you don't want to/can't than that is fine. The meaning of such a happening is obvious, I have no need to push it.
Of course not, that was the intention friend.TakerFoxx said:
I'd say they're focusing on one thing too much, everyone's seen them bragging about how many npcs they can have
Ubisoft - "we can have 10000 NPCS IN ONE SCENE SON!!!"
Everyone - "but in can't ever run at a steady framera..." "10000 NPCS *****!!!"
My guess is that the senior designers thought having a ton of npcs would be cool and ignored the AI programmers that said
"but if we do that we'll get bottle necked at the CPU and it won't have time to render at even 30 fps." "I don't even know what that means, just do it."
Ubisoft - "we can have 10000 NPCS IN ONE SCENE SON!!!"
Everyone - "but in can't ever run at a steady framera..." "10000 NPCS *****!!!"
My guess is that the senior designers thought having a ton of npcs would be cool and ignored the AI programmers that said
"but if we do that we'll get bottle necked at the CPU and it won't have time to render at even 30 fps." "I don't even know what that means, just do it."