Ubisoft Is A Good Company
- Thread starter martyrdrebel27
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I had no problem with Ubisoft... when I was playing their games on console.
On the PC? Waste of time and money thanks to UPlay. Some games won't even work. At all.
So, they've pretty much lost me as a paying customer for taking money and giving a broken product in return.
The only Ubisoft game I have that doesn't give me /too much/ trouble to play with friends is Rainbow Six Vegas 2. Because it doesn't require UPlay.
I wish I could get a refund on all the games I have that require UPlay. And some sort of warning siren when I open a store page for a game on Steam that requires UPlay.
On the PC? Waste of time and money thanks to UPlay. Some games won't even work. At all.
So, they've pretty much lost me as a paying customer for taking money and giving a broken product in return.
The only Ubisoft game I have that doesn't give me /too much/ trouble to play with friends is Rainbow Six Vegas 2. Because it doesn't require UPlay.
I wish I could get a refund on all the games I have that require UPlay. And some sort of warning siren when I open a store page for a game on Steam that requires UPlay.
Eh, Ubisoft (or "Les Artes Electroniques", as I like to call them) have gradually morphed into THE most ridiculously bloated corporate monster in gaming. Ever sat through the credits of a Ubisoft game? Practically feature length, with all the different studios out of whose disconnected work they stitch their games together, Frankenstein-fashion. Oh, and all the "Senior Deputy Assistant Global Player Experience Management Team End User Manipulation Subdirectorate Team Coordination Facilitators".
The "Totally Not DRM!" Uplay "service" is just another annoying layer of player herding that can (and will) cause problems (such as repeatedly erasing cloud saves etc.) on PC, a platform Ubi never quite manage to hide their dislike for. And the "Rewards" are just another aspect of their increasingly nasty habit of scattering unlockables from their games into the four winds for their customers to chase after. There's also a rich freaking plenitude of various "Collectors' Editions" with "exclusive content", paid DLC, stuff you unlock through wasting time on a mobile and browser "companion apps" and even sponsored deals (case in point, Splinter Cell: Conviction has a whole level for the "Deniable Ops" mode that you could only get through GameSpot and is no longer available there).
And then there's the obvious lack of give-a-damn they have for the quality of their products once they have pushed them out the door. "Us fix bugs? But that game is WEEKS old!" And the fact that they have an entire department that is tasked with homogenizing their various series (that's why the same elements keep cropping up in Ass Creed, Watch Dogs, Far Cry etc.) Their treatment of talent like Patrice Desilets (who they owe a lot to... check out the quality of the Ass Creed series once Desilets and Jade Raymond left it) is disgraceful. And on and on.
I actually like many of their games. Assassin's Creed was excellent until it lost its way around Revelations (yeah, even the first one... some call it "boringly empty", I say it has great use of interstitial space and ambient storytelling). I enjoy Splinter Cell, and Blacklist was by no means terrible, despite certain issues (helps if you don't do MP). The latest two Raymen were delightful. What else? Oh yeah, where's muh Prince of Persia 2008 sequel?! But to pretend they are not an utterly terrible company is not something I am prepared to do.
Ah... that was a cathartic rant.
The "Totally Not DRM!" Uplay "service" is just another annoying layer of player herding that can (and will) cause problems (such as repeatedly erasing cloud saves etc.) on PC, a platform Ubi never quite manage to hide their dislike for. And the "Rewards" are just another aspect of their increasingly nasty habit of scattering unlockables from their games into the four winds for their customers to chase after. There's also a rich freaking plenitude of various "Collectors' Editions" with "exclusive content", paid DLC, stuff you unlock through wasting time on a mobile and browser "companion apps" and even sponsored deals (case in point, Splinter Cell: Conviction has a whole level for the "Deniable Ops" mode that you could only get through GameSpot and is no longer available there).
And then there's the obvious lack of give-a-damn they have for the quality of their products once they have pushed them out the door. "Us fix bugs? But that game is WEEKS old!" And the fact that they have an entire department that is tasked with homogenizing their various series (that's why the same elements keep cropping up in Ass Creed, Watch Dogs, Far Cry etc.) Their treatment of talent like Patrice Desilets (who they owe a lot to... check out the quality of the Ass Creed series once Desilets and Jade Raymond left it) is disgraceful. And on and on.
I actually like many of their games. Assassin's Creed was excellent until it lost its way around Revelations (yeah, even the first one... some call it "boringly empty", I say it has great use of interstitial space and ambient storytelling). I enjoy Splinter Cell, and Blacklist was by no means terrible, despite certain issues (helps if you don't do MP). The latest two Raymen were delightful. What else? Oh yeah, where's muh Prince of Persia 2008 sequel?! But to pretend they are not an utterly terrible company is not something I am prepared to do.
Ah... that was a cathartic rant.
Firstly, their 1 game a year format is only for AC, look how many years are between their other franchises like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, etc. Ubisoft so could've put out a shooter every year, even switching between franchises every other year but they didn't, I'm pretty sure there will be more time between Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games than say Destiny and its sequel when Destiny was supposed to last 10 years LMAO. Obviously their 1 game a year format is sustainable for AC. For how long, who knows, but nothing is sustainable forever. Also, you don't have to fucking buy stuff you don't wanna buy. There's plenty of people that buy AC every year and like it, why is Ubisoft evil for selling something there is a demand for? For me, I haven't played an AC game since AC2 because how much that game sucked, the structure completely switched from a Hitman-lite structure to a GTA-like structure which I hated. You're not going to like every game a publisher publishes.Mutant1988 said:
Firstly, graphics aren't everything. The gameplay of Watch Dogs sold me, not the graphics. The gameplay always sells me, what's the point of playing a great looking game when I don't like the gameplay? Secondly, Ubisoft didn't lie about the graphics, they released videos for what the game looked like after the delay. There's even graphics comparison videos of that.Snotnarok said:
It's not that they are bad, malicious or greedy. It's that they are incompetent and hilariously mismanaged.
Whereas EA are basically the polar opposite of that.
Whereas EA are basically the polar opposite of that.
To be fair, I've found more ubisoft games I actually vaguely liked than could be said for most AAA publishers, but that amounts to the whole 'damning with faint praise' thing really.
And to some extent it's just because in the console space they've spent more time being supportive of Nintendo systems than the other major publishers have.
Which... Is really just a quirk of how I play games. (Nintendo console + PC, usually)
They strike me as having a slightly longer list of quirky and weird/interesting games to their name than the likes of EA, but they've made so many obviously boneheaded moves along the way that whatever goodwill comes from this evaporates pretty quickly...
And to some extent it's just because in the console space they've spent more time being supportive of Nintendo systems than the other major publishers have.
Which... Is really just a quirk of how I play games. (Nintendo console + PC, usually)
They strike me as having a slightly longer list of quirky and weird/interesting games to their name than the likes of EA, but they've made so many obviously boneheaded moves along the way that whatever goodwill comes from this evaporates pretty quickly...
and Hitler was a good leader
like rmember how shit DRM made PC download parts of Assassins Creed game off servers instead of being all on disk. Uplay makes things worse and just has no reason to exist. Assassin games stagnating into mediocre crap and every game released after Assassins have exact same mechanics climb stuff to uncover map and some sprinkled missions like Watch Dogs
like rmember how shit DRM made PC download parts of Assassins Creed game off servers instead of being all on disk. Uplay makes things worse and just has no reason to exist. Assassin games stagnating into mediocre crap and every game released after Assassins have exact same mechanics climb stuff to uncover map and some sprinkled missions like Watch Dogs
Maybe they were good, but they've now decided to start Ubisofting© every game they make. They literally stated that they won't make a game unless they can milk it into a franchise. This is why I stopped playing Assassin's Creed (despite absolutely adoring the first game) and never touched Watch_Dogs despite loving what I saw initially (that died as soon as I saw Ubisoft's name).
Not every game needs a cliffhanger ending for the purpose of sequel bait. For Christ's sake Ubisoft, you can make a franchise and still make each game a self contained story. Sonic, Mario, and even Uncharted prove this. You can even continue a story without a cliff hanger ending.
So, no. While Ubisoft may not be as bad as EA, Capcom, Konami, or some other studios, I certainly don't like them. I don't have infinite money, and will not be forced to buy a yearly game to get the story.
Not every game needs a cliffhanger ending for the purpose of sequel bait. For Christ's sake Ubisoft, you can make a franchise and still make each game a self contained story. Sonic, Mario, and even Uncharted prove this. You can even continue a story without a cliff hanger ending.
So, no. While Ubisoft may not be as bad as EA, Capcom, Konami, or some other studios, I certainly don't like them. I don't have infinite money, and will not be forced to buy a yearly game to get the story.
I'm with you, kindasorta.
I don't think Ubisoft is in the company of EA or Activision, at least, not yet. Both companies have a good decade of trying to one-up each other as to who can behave most poorly. And far more than Ubisoft, I think both are poisoning the well; not only behaving badly themselves, but moving the lines with regard to the bad behavior that game publishers can get away with and raising the levels of cynicism and contempt that many feel for the industry.
Comparatively, the games I've played from Ubisoft of late, I've quite enjoyed- Valiant Hearts, Grow Home, Far Cry 3, 4, and Blood Dragon, and even the maligned, critically under-whelming Watch_Dogs.
Bu-hu-ut...
I don't tend to play their games online, so I'm more or less immune to criticisms of their multi-player functionality. I have a stack of AC games on Steam I've barely gotten around to touching, so one of their flagship series and the possible deterioration of same has largely passed me by. Unity's release was clearly rushed, to devastating effect, and allowed years of hard work to be compromised. And while I think they've gone quite out of their way to placate people who were angered by AC:Unity, I can't help but notice that there's little indication they haven't continued on their merry way with regard to pre-order bonuses and platform exclusives and massive galloping hordes of DLC and "subscriptions".
So from where I stand, Ubisoft is still more than capable of making good games, has shown a willingness to allow their people to go unusual directions, and doesn't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the "big boys"... But they haven't been entirely resistant to some of the worse foibles of the AAA industry, and they seem to be on the wrong course. I hope they improve.
I don't think Ubisoft is in the company of EA or Activision, at least, not yet. Both companies have a good decade of trying to one-up each other as to who can behave most poorly. And far more than Ubisoft, I think both are poisoning the well; not only behaving badly themselves, but moving the lines with regard to the bad behavior that game publishers can get away with and raising the levels of cynicism and contempt that many feel for the industry.
Comparatively, the games I've played from Ubisoft of late, I've quite enjoyed- Valiant Hearts, Grow Home, Far Cry 3, 4, and Blood Dragon, and even the maligned, critically under-whelming Watch_Dogs.
Bu-hu-ut...
I don't tend to play their games online, so I'm more or less immune to criticisms of their multi-player functionality. I have a stack of AC games on Steam I've barely gotten around to touching, so one of their flagship series and the possible deterioration of same has largely passed me by. Unity's release was clearly rushed, to devastating effect, and allowed years of hard work to be compromised. And while I think they've gone quite out of their way to placate people who were angered by AC:Unity, I can't help but notice that there's little indication they haven't continued on their merry way with regard to pre-order bonuses and platform exclusives and massive galloping hordes of DLC and "subscriptions".
So from where I stand, Ubisoft is still more than capable of making good games, has shown a willingness to allow their people to go unusual directions, and doesn't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the "big boys"... But they haven't been entirely resistant to some of the worse foibles of the AAA industry, and they seem to be on the wrong course. I hope they improve.
1. You know what, OP? I'd probably like Uplay if the fucking thing would launch for me without having to reboot 7-11 times, just once is literally ALL I ask. That alone should give you an idea on what Uplay is like for PC gamers. I'm not an advocate of piracy, but holy shit you're better off buying the game from steam and then pirating a functional copy.
2. Ubisoft? Willing to take chances? Did we step into the Twilight Zone? "Oh it's another open world game where you climb up tall shit to reveal everything on the map. Didn't see that one coming, such daring risks Ubisoft is taking these days, I don't know how they stay profitable!"
3. This is entirely subjective. Personally, playing Unity I thought to myself "A lot of love went into making this France, a lot of time and effort went into crafting this world, This Notre Dame Cathedral? It's the best Notre Dame I've ever seen in a video game. That Kiss at the start? Most real looking kiss I've ever seen in a game. Such care and effort went into making this game. It's a crying shame I'm not enjoying it at all." Make of that what you will.
4. Ubisoft, in terms of gameplay, has an annoying habit of taking one half-hearted step in the right direction, then making a hundred yard dash in the complete opposite direction. The Naval Warfare? Fucking brilliant, good stuff. Redefine the core gameplay, shake it up a bit. The next game? Let's stick you in France, why don't we?
2. Ubisoft? Willing to take chances? Did we step into the Twilight Zone? "Oh it's another open world game where you climb up tall shit to reveal everything on the map. Didn't see that one coming, such daring risks Ubisoft is taking these days, I don't know how they stay profitable!"
3. This is entirely subjective. Personally, playing Unity I thought to myself "A lot of love went into making this France, a lot of time and effort went into crafting this world, This Notre Dame Cathedral? It's the best Notre Dame I've ever seen in a video game. That Kiss at the start? Most real looking kiss I've ever seen in a game. Such care and effort went into making this game. It's a crying shame I'm not enjoying it at all." Make of that what you will.
4. Ubisoft, in terms of gameplay, has an annoying habit of taking one half-hearted step in the right direction, then making a hundred yard dash in the complete opposite direction. The Naval Warfare? Fucking brilliant, good stuff. Redefine the core gameplay, shake it up a bit. The next game? Let's stick you in France, why don't we?
Assassins Creed isn't a 1 game a year thing, they've put out two last year and now they're doing three. That's a BIT excessive and I merely point that out because frankly everyone points to EA and even Five Nights at Freddy's and says 'they're bad because they milk their game'. And I agree with you, if you don't like it, don't buy it, and that's exactly what I'm doing with Ubisoft. Thing is, I don't care about the series or the rate they put them out, I more worry for the devs who're being pressured to put out AAA games and it's obvious they're beyond their capacity.Phoenixmgs said:
The reason they probably don't release those games yearly is simple, they don't have the established fanbase anymore, they're trying to get them back up and the first one with them always takes the longest dev time. We'll see how that goes afterward.
Which was the point to begin with, since Unity was so obviously rushed it came out broken, that's the problem they're trying to kick these games out so numerous and fast their games are broken months later, have horrible DLC schemes and their apology in the form of free DLC was even broken. THAT was the point and not the rate of the games coming out.
"Graphics aren't everything" That's not the point, I cannot stand this incredibly strange minded argument. Yes I buy games for gameplay as well because it's not a movie, it's not a photo- but if someone is showing me what I'm going to buy and when I get it the game is cut down then I'm going to feel lied to- and that is exactly what Ubisoft did. They claimed it's actual gameplay footage then the game comes out and it's different- that is a lie. Yes, we can all now look at what we're ACTUALLY getting after people have bought the game and made these videos. The topic is "Ubisoft is a good company" well I don't think many good people never the less companies lie to their customers, or push their devs beyond their limits, or release broken games that don't get fixed for months and broken DLC, and really sub-par ethics on DLC.
Dunno why graphics came up as the point, my points are Ubisoft is a terrible company, and they are.
Coming from someone who has played Ubi games on PC only
1). I don't hate Uplay either but I don't see why it exists either. I bought the game I want to play the game but I have to launch Uplay to do this and if their servers are down or overloaded, which they will be because they are shite, then I can't play the game or can only play the game but with limited capacity. As for the free stuff that it gives you for playing the game... well that's where we fall back to the situation of why do I need to us Uplay to do that? Gmaes of old had unlocks that gave you access to additional content from within the game, they didn't require some online second rate second program to track performance and then issue you the content when you reached a certain point. Like I said I don;t hate it but it really has no purpose in it's current state. Oh and then you also have to remember the way they have treated PC gamers in the past, always on DRM which came, went, came again and right here and right now I am sure they still use some form of this system via Uplay or how about the whole Anno limited install issue. If they just had Uplay as their DRM then yeah it's possible to accept that, it's point less but I can deal with that but it's the fact that you have Uplay and THEN you have some other non sense DRM on top of that.
2). Can't really comment the thing is if they are such a risk taker why is no one else talking about it? Could it be because that the risk taking is far outweighed by the year on year release of games that are buggy, broken, generic, full of little innovation and boring... I dunno but when I hear Ubisoft I don't think risk takers, they are on step behind EA in the gaming publisher who shits out the same annual release with a new skin and one or two new mechanics.
3). Lol, Sorry; Unity, Watchdogs, anyone who has played the Silent Hunter series all of them have been bug messes at launch, some more than others and while some, like the Silent Hunter series have improved with community support and patches to become good games others such as ALL the Ass Creed games and Watchdogs were boring rubbish which never got looked at twice. Ass Creed got boring right after the point that every target would become a context sensitive button mashing affair no matter how much planning and stealth you intended to use, ps a small game called Tenchu did this entire concept way way way better many many years before Ass Creed stole the concept and made an arse of it. Watchdogs on the other hand was bland, boring uninspired and had a lead with so little character or charisma that I couldn't even tell you what his name was, let alone want to wear his 'iconic' cap. Of all my triple AAA titles Watchdogs is one of the least played titles ever managing a grand total of 3 and a half hours.
4). 'that i think they should make a non-AC game that uses the elements.' They did it was called Silent Hunter it's a game based purely on the concepts of naval warfare. All they did is stripped it down, simplified it and then stuck it on to a main stream title as a 'new and innovative gaming concept' I mean you can give them props for tweaking it and making it smoother and making it appeal to the masses but they don't deserve a pat on the back for reusing stuff that appear in other games. Besides that do they really deserve props for coming up with a game mechanic that you just happen to like, I dunno I guess that's a subjective statement.
As far as I can see Ubisoft deserve the hate they get. When I think back at the games, specifically just the games that I've played that came from them I have more hate for the utter mess the games where, the utter borefest that Watchdogs was, the piss poor knock off of Tenchu that Ass Creed was, the hoops I would have had to jump through to play my beloved Silent Hunter series when SH5 launched with always on DRM vs Far Cry 3 and Dark messiah being really very good games. Yeah the bad far outweighs the good, they deserve everything they get.
1). I don't hate Uplay either but I don't see why it exists either. I bought the game I want to play the game but I have to launch Uplay to do this and if their servers are down or overloaded, which they will be because they are shite, then I can't play the game or can only play the game but with limited capacity. As for the free stuff that it gives you for playing the game... well that's where we fall back to the situation of why do I need to us Uplay to do that? Gmaes of old had unlocks that gave you access to additional content from within the game, they didn't require some online second rate second program to track performance and then issue you the content when you reached a certain point. Like I said I don;t hate it but it really has no purpose in it's current state. Oh and then you also have to remember the way they have treated PC gamers in the past, always on DRM which came, went, came again and right here and right now I am sure they still use some form of this system via Uplay or how about the whole Anno limited install issue. If they just had Uplay as their DRM then yeah it's possible to accept that, it's point less but I can deal with that but it's the fact that you have Uplay and THEN you have some other non sense DRM on top of that.
2). Can't really comment the thing is if they are such a risk taker why is no one else talking about it? Could it be because that the risk taking is far outweighed by the year on year release of games that are buggy, broken, generic, full of little innovation and boring... I dunno but when I hear Ubisoft I don't think risk takers, they are on step behind EA in the gaming publisher who shits out the same annual release with a new skin and one or two new mechanics.
3). Lol, Sorry; Unity, Watchdogs, anyone who has played the Silent Hunter series all of them have been bug messes at launch, some more than others and while some, like the Silent Hunter series have improved with community support and patches to become good games others such as ALL the Ass Creed games and Watchdogs were boring rubbish which never got looked at twice. Ass Creed got boring right after the point that every target would become a context sensitive button mashing affair no matter how much planning and stealth you intended to use, ps a small game called Tenchu did this entire concept way way way better many many years before Ass Creed stole the concept and made an arse of it. Watchdogs on the other hand was bland, boring uninspired and had a lead with so little character or charisma that I couldn't even tell you what his name was, let alone want to wear his 'iconic' cap. Of all my triple AAA titles Watchdogs is one of the least played titles ever managing a grand total of 3 and a half hours.
4). 'that i think they should make a non-AC game that uses the elements.' They did it was called Silent Hunter it's a game based purely on the concepts of naval warfare. All they did is stripped it down, simplified it and then stuck it on to a main stream title as a 'new and innovative gaming concept' I mean you can give them props for tweaking it and making it smoother and making it appeal to the masses but they don't deserve a pat on the back for reusing stuff that appear in other games. Besides that do they really deserve props for coming up with a game mechanic that you just happen to like, I dunno I guess that's a subjective statement.
As far as I can see Ubisoft deserve the hate they get. When I think back at the games, specifically just the games that I've played that came from them I have more hate for the utter mess the games where, the utter borefest that Watchdogs was, the piss poor knock off of Tenchu that Ass Creed was, the hoops I would have had to jump through to play my beloved Silent Hunter series when SH5 launched with always on DRM vs Far Cry 3 and Dark messiah being really very good games. Yeah the bad far outweighs the good, they deserve everything they get.
Unity actually had over 3 years of development instead of the 1 year cycle most AC games have. No doubt it ended up being rushed at the end for sure, that's so common place that calling Ubisoft bad for doing that is calling practically every publisher a bad company. BF4 was even more broken than Unity I think. Naughty Dog rushed out Uncharted 3, I didn't even buy it until a month later when they fixed the aiming, plus the game wasn't even working on fat PS3s a mere couple weeks before it went gold. I think Unity was the only broken game Ubisoft has released in a long time, that's a much better track record than most publishers.Snotnarok said:
The Watch Dogs comparison video I posted was 2 months before the game released. People did graphical comparisons off of the Ubisoft footage after the delay vs the 2012 footage. That was all available BEFORE the game's release so the consumer should know exactly what they're buying. Has there even been any Witcher 3 console footage yet? Because I think all the footage is from the PC version, how am I supposed to know what that game will look like on PS4? Most companies only show the best version whereas Ubisoft showed us how the other versions looked. I don't think Ubisoft lied about Watch Dogs either, they were trying to get the lighting, effects, etc. working but they just couldn't as those files were still there on the PC version. Obviously an open world game reveal is going to look better than release as devs always think they can get the game looking better than they actually can during early development. Whereas a linear game is much easier to gauge the final graphics. The Witcher 3 is being accused of having a graphical downgrade as well, I guess we'll see when it releases. I don't care if Witcher 3's graphics got downgraded, I don't know if I'll like the gameplay enough which is my concern. It's not like these graphical downgrades are like the game looks so awesome and then it looks like shit when you play it where it's something completely different; Watch Dogs still looked great on PS4 (it was an open world game with graphics better than PS3's best looking linear games).
For me, it's all about the games. The only EA games I've bought since PS3 released were Mirror's Edge, the Mass Effects, and MOH Warfighter (the MP is actually fantastic) and the only Activision game I've bought since PS3 was COD4. Ubisoft is better to me because I've bought and liked way more games they've made vs EA & Activision combined. To me, Ubisoft just shits on the other big publishers in game quality, which is pretty much all I care about in regards to game publishers/developers.
I think a lot of people don't realize that Ubisoft isn't just one company. There's the North American division which focus on their big titles. (Assassin's creed, Far Cry, Splinter cell, etc.) Who love to dick customers out of their money.
And then there's the European division which focus more on smaller, less expensive titles that aren't as time-crunched and/or big-audience oriented. (Rayman, child of light, party games etc.) Which has a better reputation as far as original content is concerned. For example, Rayman legends is 2 years old at this point, and they still have daily challenges and Uplay rewards completely free and zero DLC.
And The only time the different divisions work together is when they're working on something big, or when a lot of work is sent off to the Asian studio for completion.
And then there's the European division which focus more on smaller, less expensive titles that aren't as time-crunched and/or big-audience oriented. (Rayman, child of light, party games etc.) Which has a better reputation as far as original content is concerned. For example, Rayman legends is 2 years old at this point, and they still have daily challenges and Uplay rewards completely free and zero DLC.
And The only time the different divisions work together is when they're working on something big, or when a lot of work is sent off to the Asian studio for completion.
I've enjoyed more EA's games than not recently, Deadspace 1 & 2 are great, loved Mass Effect 1-3, Dragon Age is good (yes I'm aware they're studios under EA) even Battlefield BC2 - 4 was really fun. Though , as you said there were some issues but I was always playing the smaller pop maps so I didn't see it as much I guess. . I wasn't aware of any issues on uncharted 3, when I played it froze on me once but otherwise worked perfectly fine. (I'm sure that it's patched and whatever)Phoenixmgs said:
I've not had a lot of favorable time with Ubisoft, I loved their Rayman games as of recently and Farcry 3 was great, Farcry 4 didn't even work for me *came with my video card) so hopefully by now they've fixed it but I'm in no rush to even bother.
I'm not saying Watch Dogs is bad because it was downgraded, I'm just mad they lied, just like other devs with bullshots (see Epic games for their incredible bullshot crap). I get it if it's early in dev and they put something out showing their progress, but it's weird to say "this is gameplay" then the actual game looks very different. It's like fast food burgers in commercials vs bought, the only thing is you say it's fast food what do you expect when you're paying 5-10 bucks vs 60+whatever DLC crap they're trying to harass. I played Watch Dogs and I wasn't wowed but I wasn't as angry as others with gameplay, I'm honestly just not buying Ubisoft games because I don't like their business practices. Their DRM history is enough where I'd avoid. If you enjoy 'em? That's totally fine, I'm not trying to sway minds on games. As I said, love me some Rayman but, bloody annoyed with Uplay and previous drm nonsense.
Even if I actually bought any of their games these days, I'd still pirate a copy these days just so I don't have to deal with the bullshit
When Ubisoft forces a conflict ridden broken DRM platform into every game they sell all it does is make me want to pirate their game so I don't have to deal with it.
When Ubisoft's aforementioned software can't handle player traffic and won't let a legal purchase be activated, all it does is make me want to pirate the game.
When Ubisoft releases a buggy, unpolished, unfinished, and flat out broken piece of software (AC:Unity) all it does is make me want to pirate their game so I don't have to take the risk.
When Ubisoft gives 12 retailer specific pre-order bonuses all it does is make me want to pirate the game so I can actually experience all of the content.
When Ubisoft downgrades the PC versions graphics of a game for console parity (Watch Dogs) all it does is make me want to pirate their games.
When Ubisofts's downgrades on PC cause the game to run WORSE (Watch Dogs) then it would with all of the original options and features enabled it just makes me want to pirate their games.
(yes, I have proof here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b43ZlqPvBDs&ab_channel=TotalBiscuit,TheCynicalBrit )
When everything Ubisoft does makes me want to pirate their games instead of dealing with their bullshit, then they're a bad company.
I hate piracy. It disgusts me, I think its morally wrong, and I really think that 99% of pirates are nothing better than thieves despite the law saying they are infringing content. BUT, when I see Ubisoft pull the amount of bullshit they have been, I have some sympathy for pirates and find myself contemplating the very act I despise.
Only way to beat piracy is to make people WANT to pay. Make customers feel valued friends instead of thieves, make games that work, make games that are feature complete, make games that don't come with conflict ridden, system crashing, game breaking DRM, make games that don't feel like they've cut half the content out to sell later, actually RESPECT your customers, and maybe I'll start giving their games another chance.
They've lost my trust, they've lost my faith as a customer, and they can go out of business for all I care with their actions the last couple of years. Yes they may still have studios making some decent games, but when the game comes out broken, downgraded, and with ridiculous DRM bolted onto it, I want nothing to do with them.
When Ubisoft forces a conflict ridden broken DRM platform into every game they sell all it does is make me want to pirate their game so I don't have to deal with it.
When Ubisoft's aforementioned software can't handle player traffic and won't let a legal purchase be activated, all it does is make me want to pirate the game.
When Ubisoft releases a buggy, unpolished, unfinished, and flat out broken piece of software (AC:Unity) all it does is make me want to pirate their game so I don't have to take the risk.
When Ubisoft gives 12 retailer specific pre-order bonuses all it does is make me want to pirate the game so I can actually experience all of the content.
When Ubisoft downgrades the PC versions graphics of a game for console parity (Watch Dogs) all it does is make me want to pirate their games.
When Ubisofts's downgrades on PC cause the game to run WORSE (Watch Dogs) then it would with all of the original options and features enabled it just makes me want to pirate their games.
(yes, I have proof here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b43ZlqPvBDs&ab_channel=TotalBiscuit,TheCynicalBrit )
When everything Ubisoft does makes me want to pirate their games instead of dealing with their bullshit, then they're a bad company.
I hate piracy. It disgusts me, I think its morally wrong, and I really think that 99% of pirates are nothing better than thieves despite the law saying they are infringing content. BUT, when I see Ubisoft pull the amount of bullshit they have been, I have some sympathy for pirates and find myself contemplating the very act I despise.
Only way to beat piracy is to make people WANT to pay. Make customers feel valued friends instead of thieves, make games that work, make games that are feature complete, make games that don't come with conflict ridden, system crashing, game breaking DRM, make games that don't feel like they've cut half the content out to sell later, actually RESPECT your customers, and maybe I'll start giving their games another chance.
They've lost my trust, they've lost my faith as a customer, and they can go out of business for all I care with their actions the last couple of years. Yes they may still have studios making some decent games, but when the game comes out broken, downgraded, and with ridiculous DRM bolted onto it, I want nothing to do with them.
Ubisoft used to be good, now I find them just as bad as EA and Activision.
I mean, look at the shit they've given us recently. Unity, the crew, watchdogs.
Not even their 'good' games have been particularly good. The lazy Farcry 4 which tried (and failed) to be exactly like Farcry 3, Rogue was decent but nowhere near as good as some of the previous entries into the franchise.
They just strike me as the ultimate 'quick cash-in' company operating at the moment. Assassin's Creed does not need to be a yearly franchise, and the amount of spin-offs on every platform dating back to the Nokia 3315 that they release every few months is just overboard, why they continue to think having forty thousand different studios (across several different countries) developing one game is a good thing is something that I will never be able to understand, and it strikes me as the company simply being run by 'game development no nothing' bigwigs who's only care is profits.
Ubisoft has almost no PR skills to speak of, they have no sense of time it seems, almost every single game of theirs gets delayed several times, they are serial 'announce 2 years too early' -ers, often their efforts seem outright lazy, they aren't above lying to save face. I think the amount of hate they get is well justified.
I mean, look at the shit they've given us recently. Unity, the crew, watchdogs.
Not even their 'good' games have been particularly good. The lazy Farcry 4 which tried (and failed) to be exactly like Farcry 3, Rogue was decent but nowhere near as good as some of the previous entries into the franchise.
They just strike me as the ultimate 'quick cash-in' company operating at the moment. Assassin's Creed does not need to be a yearly franchise, and the amount of spin-offs on every platform dating back to the Nokia 3315 that they release every few months is just overboard, why they continue to think having forty thousand different studios (across several different countries) developing one game is a good thing is something that I will never be able to understand, and it strikes me as the company simply being run by 'game development no nothing' bigwigs who's only care is profits.
Ubisoft has almost no PR skills to speak of, they have no sense of time it seems, almost every single game of theirs gets delayed several times, they are serial 'announce 2 years too early' -ers, often their efforts seem outright lazy, they aren't above lying to save face. I think the amount of hate they get is well justified.