Rayman Creator Joins Legends Protest

[Scribblesense]

Adults are allowed to have emotions. I'd even say it's a requirement in any creative industry. If a game designer wasn't passionate about his work and wanting as many people to see it as soon as possible, then he wouldn't be a very good game designer.

Of course. Be frustrated, be passionate. ***** to your significant other or your friends, but accept that this is sometimes the nature of the beast. Again: shit happens. People have worked a lot harder and a lot longer then these guys and gotten way less from it than they will.

I have much more respect from someone who actively tries to change what frustrates them, especially when there is no good reason for it, then someone who believes nothing can be done.

If the Ubisoft higher-ups had the same attitude you support, they would have accepted the Wii U's sub-par sales and released the game anyways, but they did what was in their power and good judgment to change that.

 

[Scribblesense]

LOL, of course this is a "protest" now, while the people back in the day being pissed about Bayonetta 2 were being "childish"

Obviously Nintendo fans, furious over buying what turns out to be a rather useless console couldn't be childish

I completely agree with those disappointed over Bayonetta 2 being exclusive to the Wii U. The fact is, it wouldn't exist if Nintendo hadn't agreed to bankroll it, which is a different scenario altogether.

If Bayonetta 2 was delayed two weeks before launch on the 360 and PS3, to be ported to the Wii U, that would be a reason to be genuinely upset.

 

[Madmanonfire]

Yea, it sucks the game is delayed. You know what doesn't suck though? Not being forced to buy a Wii U in order to play it.

Because nobody has friends IRL anymore. Buying a WiiU is the only way.

 

[Yopaz]

Shit happens. There've been plenty of games have gone through longer crunch time then that and even then never made it to release for one reason or another. You roll with the punches, remember you did a good job and got paid for it, and move on. Being frustrated is one thing, an understandable thing, but all they're doing is appearing childish with this protest.

Sure, this isn't the worst thing to happen, the game is still being released and all that. I am glad it gets multiplatform release since I know how annoying it is to not get the game you want.

However you fail to understand how important this release was right now. This was going to be the 4th Wii U exclusive. Currently there are only 3 games released specifically for Wii U. This game was going to be 25% of the entire library.

How is that insignificant?

Games have had bigger time crunches, sure. Take Duke Nukem Forever, but time crunches should be because the game needs more time. Name one game that has been delayed 6 months after its completion.

Dragon Age: Origins. Alpha Protocol was delayed a lot longer than that, if I recall correctly. Probably tons more. The Wii Library is a problem of the owners of the system, the developers have no business protesting it. It makes them and their entire team look bad.

OK, so I suspect you didn't read my post there. How many games have been delayed 6 months after being finished?

According to EA it was pushed back to be polished a little before release. That is the only thing I can find on why it was pushed back. The same goes for Alpha Protocol.

Yes, it's Nintendo's job to make sure they get games. Explain to me how that makes this less significant, please. How does that take away the right to get annoyed with Ubisoft. It was their decision to delay a finished game they promised would be out last year.

Now the funny thing here is that this is going to hurt Ubisoft quite a bit.

 

[Scribblesense]

Because that's the reality of the job. That's the job they're paid to do. If they don't like it there are proper channels for which to air their grievances. But taking to twitter and facebook and the internet simply makes them look like they're throwing a temper tantrum.

I'm sure they've voiced their complaints to their employers in private. Regardless, speaking out against personal injustice in public channels is an entirely legitimate form of protest, as is refusing to do the job they're paid to do and quitting altogether. They have a personal responsibility to this game that trumps their responsibilities to the publisher. Not only is it their right, but it is a moral obligation to choose not to be taken advantage of like this.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Seriously? This is a thing? Grow up. I mean, seriously, if the game is good why do you care if it's played now or in six months. They should be happy more people get to play their game. Now or six months from now, it doesn't matter.

1. The Wii U version is ready to release now, the developers obviously are upset because they have likely been crunching to get the game ready for a February release only at the last minute to find that all that crunching was not necessary and now they're sitting on a finished game until the ports are done.

2. From a business point September is going to be a competitive month with GTA V, Wind Waker HD and many others likely This means Rayman is essentially in a David & Goliath type situation sales wise, except this time Goliath uses a pebble to wipe off the remains of David from the sole of his sandals. However if they released the Wii U version now they can essentially get the attention of the entire Wii U market with virtually no competition. Plus if the game is received well then word of mouth about the quality of the game may help the ports garner a few more sales during the difficult September release, which may deliver better sales overall.

They got paid to make the game. They did that. Excluding patching, and potential DLC, their relationship with the game ends there. It's not their job to decide when to release it or when it will be most successful. And I may be mistaken, but since they're an in-house developer, they don't live from one commission to the next, like Obsidian or other independent developers. They gain nothing from this silly little protest.

Just because they got paid for it does not mean they don't have the right to air their grievances and offer feedback to to their employers. And there are legitimate grievances here. The developers are essentially saying why should they work 110% to get a game out there if the whims of those in charge can move the goal post at a moments notice. Granted we don't know all teh facts about when the developers where made aware of Ubisoft's new decision, though given the developer's reactions it can't have been that long before it was made public.

Because that's the reality of the job. That's the job they're paid to do. If they don't like it there are proper channels for which to air their grievances. But taking to twitter and facebook and the internet simply makes them look like they're throwing a temper tantrum.

A little unprofessional? Probably. A temper tantrum? Hardly. It was just a public statement on the devs viewpoint on the matter, which is obviously being used to appeal to Ubisoft rather than to criticise or be derogatory. Furthermore it is likely that this is being used in combination with whatever internal channels Ubisoft has for these types of employee issues.

As for it being a reality of the job, well it will continue to be a reality unless people make attempts to change things. Game developers have no one else to help them with these issues as far as I'm aware. So it's up to the devs themselves to make these little stands.

 

[Scribblesense]

There's a difference between working to change things and pouting. There are channels within Ubisoft to deal with issues with management.

Perhaps Ubisoft felt they would be unable to get away with charging full price when the 360 PS3 releases came about because the WiiU version has already been out for so long. Not a nice reason, but a practical one. And that was just off the top of my head.

That you perceive a public display of dissent as "pouting" is a fatal misunderstanding. They have certainly voiced their complaints with Ubisoft through "legitimate" channels. Now they've taken to vocal protests because it is in their power to change the way their professional relationship works. It is a partnership, and that requires both partners having equal power to influence the design of this product. Otherwise, it isn't employment, but slavery.

What these developers do may not make sense in the business world, but that is but a small part of their society and much less important than personal rights.

 

[Scribblesense]

Shit happens. There've been plenty of games have gone through longer crunch time then that and even then never made it to release for one reason or another. You roll with the punches, remember you did a good job and got paid for it, and move on. Being frustrated is one thing, an understandable thing, but all they're doing is appearing childish with this protest.

They slaved away to make this game. They're passionate about it. They want people to see it. They also want to get money from it. They don't want to sit for 7 months with their creation in the closet.

I know that if I worked on a piece of art (analogy, nothing to do with games as art) and then as soon as I finished it I was told that I had to work on a new piece and wasn't allowed to show it to anyone until I was finished, I would be pretty pissed.

As an in-house developer I don't believe they get paid based on the success of a game. They've already been paid to make the game. That was their job.

A more accurate analogy would be the team hired to build a motorcycle gets paid to make it. The owner then keeps the motorcycle in storage until they feel like riding it, and then hires them to make a different motorcycle.

It's not a perfect metaphor, since there aren't many other businesses that have crunch time, but the fact is they were paid to do a job, and they did it. What the publisher, their boss does with the game after they finish it is none of their concern.

No.

The publisher simply invests in the project and should only have enough control to protect that investment. Likewise, the developer should have enough control to protect their creative endeavors.

This is where they clash, as the publisher sees their investment is in jeopardy, while the developer sees that their creation is in jeopardy because of the publisher's decisions. While the publisher believes the best move is to delay the game to release it to a wider audience and recoup their investment, the developer knows this will only hurt the game and should have every right to protect it and the emotional investment that their fans have made.

Even if it was fully the publisher's decision, they shouldn't be allowed to make it if it were universally seen as a bad move by the developers, the game's audience, the platform holders, and any and all interested parties. By having the best interests of the game at heart, the developer also has the best interests of the publisher at heart, in this specific case.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Because that's the reality of the job. That's the job they're paid to do. If they don't like it there are proper channels for which to air their grievances. But taking to twitter and facebook and the internet simply makes them look like they're throwing a temper tantrum.

I'm sure they've voiced their complaints to their employers in private. Regardless, speaking out against personal injustice in public channels is an entirely legitimate form of protest, as is refusing to do the job they're paid to do and quitting altogether. They have a personal responsibility to this game that trumps their responsibilities to the publisher. Not only is it their right, but it is a moral obligation to choose not to be taken advantage of like this.

They have every right to do it, but I certainly dont think they have much of a case, and it's my right to call them out on whining.

OK, so I suspect you didn't read my post there. How many games have been delayed 6 months after being finished?

According to EA it was pushed back to be polished a little before release. That is the only thing I can find on why it was pushed back. The same goes for Alpha Protocol.

Yes, it's Nintendo's job to make sure they get games. Explain to me how that makes this less significant, please. How does that take away the right to get annoyed with Ubisoft. It was their decision to delay a finished game they promised would be out last year.

Now the funny thing here is that this is going to hurt Ubisoft quite a bit.

I admit it's been a while since I've looked at the material, but I seem to recall the PC version being finished for quite some time while the Devs worked on the Xbox/PS3 versions of the game. With Alpha Protocol, Sega simply sat on the code and outright refused to let Obsidian work on it while the release date clock ran out.

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset, but the Devs have already been paid. When the game is released is none of their concern.

And it's possible it might hurt Ubisoft, but I imagine there's someone on the payroll who's job it is to determine risk-reward data.

A little unprofessional? Probably. A temper tantrum? Hardly. It was just a public statement on the devs viewpoint on the matter, which is obviously being used to appeal to Ubisoft rather than to criticise or be derogatory. Furthermore it is likely that this is being used in combination with whatever internal channels Ubisoft has for these types of employee issues.

As for it being a reality of the job, well it will continue to be a reality unless people make attempts to change things. Game developers have no one else to help them with these issues as far as I'm aware. So it's up to the devs themselves to make these little stands.

Fair enough. They just don't have much of a case here. They aren't protesting their work conditions, they're upset that it wasn't released when they were told it would. It sucks, that's it.

I'd have to agree that their protest is unlikely to change Ubisoft's mind, it'd be be nice if it did. At least they can say they did everything they could to get the game out.

 

[felbot]

oh god not even the devs agree with ubisoft, this is glorious.

 

[Yopaz]

I admit it's been a while since I've looked at the material, but I seem to recall the PC version being finished for quite some time while the Devs worked on the Xbox/PS3 versions of the game. With Alpha Protocol, Sega simply sat on the code and outright refused to let Obsidian work on it while the release date clock ran out.

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset, but the Devs have already been paid. When the game is released is none of their concern.

And it's possible it might hurt Ubisoft, but I imagine there's someone on the payroll who's job it is to determine risk-reward data.

I checked it up before I posted. That might not be true, but that's what they claim.

The devs have already been paid and it's none of their concern? What happens to the devs if the game doesn't sell enough to warrant their services again? Their services will no longer be needed, they wont have a job anymore.

Now this brings me over to this coming back to hurt Ubisoft. Now Ubisoft was going to release their game for a brand new console. Now judging by the popularity of Mario games I'd say platformers are quite popular among Nintendo fans. Now they could have managed to be 25% of the market on Wii U and with a game in a popular genre to boot.

Now they delayed the game in order to release it on two different consoles. Now their game will be competing against such games as GTA V and Splinter Cell which are also released around this time of the year. No don't worry, Nintendo fans aren't going to be upset about a 10 month delay at this point. It's not like they have anything better coming up, such as a new generation of Pokemon.

Also funny you should say this:

And I didn't mean Nintendo, I meant the people who bought a WiiU. It's understandable they'd be upset

How is the games being released the responsibility of the consumer? How is it our responsibility that companies stay on time? Also you say it's understandable that they get upset? That is the opposite of what you originally said.

Seriously? This is a thing? Grow up. I mean, seriously, if the game is good why do you care if it's played now or in six months. They should be happy more people get to play their game. Now or six months from now, it doesn't matter.

Please, make up your mind.