Ubisoft Responds to AC:U Criticism - Will Change its Review Policies
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Early access for a AAA title made by a gigantic company? They just want to make even more money for an even less finished product. How about NO! How about you devote more time and money to making the game instead of making pretty demos for gaming conventions you useless sacks of shit!
Ubisoft: What you expect us to finish our games before we sell them to the public? That's valuable macrotransaction time we'd be losing!
I will say this to fellow gamers, if you care about any of the shoddy practices overtaking the industry the best thing you can do is STOP PREORDERING GAMES.
Don't let these companies have your money until you know for sure what the actual finished state of the game will be.
I will say this to fellow gamers, if you care about any of the shoddy practices overtaking the industry the best thing you can do is STOP PREORDERING GAMES.
Don't let these companies have your money until you know for sure what the actual finished state of the game will be.
I second this motion. What do you think, Generic French Supporting Character?Imperioratorex Caprae said:
[HEADING=2]"*UNINTELLIGIBLE WOOKIE DIALECT*".[/HEADING]
These poor fellows just can't seem to stay out of the news. Now to see how bad the damage is on Far Cry 4.
They won't, not when their IP pool is so shallow that they can't afford to not release one. This is what happens when you contract in your IPs; all it does is run the risk of burnout.Brian Tams said:
Out of all those this is the only one I can kind of sort of understand. HOWEVER, that being said that worries me even more. Meaning that their production pipeline is so screwed up that they don't allow for that kind of wiggle room. That means they need to seriously reform their own development cycle.RJ 17 said:
In other news, Bioware is happily allowing reviews almost a full week in advance of the launch of Dragon Age:Inquisition.
If a company won't allow reviews at least a day in advance of launch, I NEVER buy the game until well after launch. It shows a lack of confidence in the game itself on the part of the company, so why should I bother taking a chance on it?
If a company won't allow reviews at least a day in advance of launch, I NEVER buy the game until well after launch. It shows a lack of confidence in the game itself on the part of the company, so why should I bother taking a chance on it?
Wait, a company can be sued because said company isn't worth as much when people bought shares?shintakie10 said:
That's all kinds of... *sigh*
As much as I enjoy blaming Ubisoft, (They seriously need to re-hire their QA department) there was an interview I read the other day from a ubi exec where he said shareholders freaked out if "x" game isn't revealed each year... So, I'll blame the whole public-company system...
People that have no idea on how video games work/how the industry runs need to leave... Just saying that another game is coming out in a year won't keep the company alive forever... Let them take their time and build something of worth every 3 years rather than releasing increasingly worse products annually... (Yes, I do know the alleged dev cycle for AC:U was 3 years but with AC4 released last year, and Rogue being worked on at the same time doesn't really make it a full 3 year cycle... Make one AC game every 2-3 years, and release it when it's ready, not because you have to)
I guess this is one of the main reasons I've moved to playing mainly indie games of late...
I am quite sad they are so blinkered to the truth that greed and poor production quality and poor excuses and lack of originality and a total lack of awareness of just being honest with people can help a heap load.
Screw them there name is dirt untill they change there ways and I hope they wake up and at lest try as EA have to win us back, what is enough is a matter of opinion but to be frank I rarely by without a good selection of reviews or previews and i look for the worst and most positive as opionions must varry and say if i find none at one end - say negative... then I know whats going on and pass on it.
Now not to say i won't break the odd rule I went on a leap of faith for Alien Isolation and grabbed that on steam prepurchase as I trust Total Assembely love every total war game as so on(sega/gearbox issues i'm more than aware of but I felt that was a mostly a Gearbox fuck up), but without that trust i'm not spending a penny or dime on the unknown from componies like Ubisoft.(also for the record - screw uplay)
Screw them there name is dirt untill they change there ways and I hope they wake up and at lest try as EA have to win us back, what is enough is a matter of opinion but to be frank I rarely by without a good selection of reviews or previews and i look for the worst and most positive as opionions must varry and say if i find none at one end - say negative... then I know whats going on and pass on it.
Now not to say i won't break the odd rule I went on a leap of faith for Alien Isolation and grabbed that on steam prepurchase as I trust Total Assembely love every total war game as so on(sega/gearbox issues i'm more than aware of but I felt that was a mostly a Gearbox fuck up), but without that trust i'm not spending a penny or dime on the unknown from componies like Ubisoft.(also for the record - screw uplay)
I suppose that does explain all the relatively positive reviews this got from critics in spite of all the problems us peasants had to contend with. This makes it especially funny when game journalists have the nerve to be offended when we suggest that they're too cozy with publishers.Shamanic Rhythm said:
Like I said on YouTube, Ubisoft is putting the a-s-s in Assassin's Creed, again.RJ 17 said:
p.s. Here's another one, "No, really, it isn't ridiculous for a French character in a game set during the French Revolution,made by a French developer, to have a British accent."
Hmmm. Kind of. Long post - my apologies in advance. It's dubious enough a prospect to make generalizations about something as complex as any element of corporate law even WITH working knowledge of it, let alone with out any working knowledge.not_you said:
Shareholders can, and do, sue. Yes. But the impetus for action has to be severe for them to bother doing so. And they don't generally go after their own company, as an entity, in which they have a stake (they usually will want to protect their investment). Instead, they go after the board of directors and the executives. Examples of activity that frequently results in suits from shareholders include: the directors and executives intentionally mislead shareholders; withhold material investment information from shareholders; act against the corporate entity's best interests in a material way; act in a manner that results in dramatic losses in share value beyond the margin of what normal market fluctuations would reflect, had those actions been responsible. *Note that all of these reasons and the vast majority of others I can think off the top of my head indicate an impetus to act for compensation as a result of damage to shareholders -- not damage to consumers.
In the case with Ubisoft, an admission of being overly restrictive with review policies, unrealistic with release schedules, and poor with PR is not enough of an impetus to leave them wide open for legal action all around from pitchfork weilding shareholders. Consider product recalls for example, particulary those in the auto industry. An auto maker has a poorly engineered car, and under the right conditions this car can catch fire (I'm just using an example, but things like this are real - this has happened). The company admits the mistake, has a recall, does a lot of damage control, mitigates it's losses, settles claims with injured parties, and goes right on about its business without ever worying about mass lawsuits from shareholders. And that's for serious mistakes - mistakes that can hurt people. They do recalls all the time for little things that don't hurt anyone, and it's business as usual. Engineering teams get fired, maybe a few corporate heads roll, but their operations don't skip a beat. Owning up to a mistake is actually pretty ok. An admission would not hurt Ubisoft in the slightest.
For that matter, when stock prices rebound as a result of owning up, making corrections, and restoring customer faith and relationships - admitting to a mistake can actually be VERY ok!
The world of corporate fiduciary duty between the corporate entity, the board of directors, and the shareholders has nothing to do with, and is absolutely nothing like the world of medical malpractice (or any other malpractice) to which the person your are quoting compares it (and I'm not even going to bother addressing that one).
OT: Why doesn't Ubisoft just wait until they make their game not shit? Then they can be proud of it, smile everytime they send out a review copy, and have a great time interacting with their consumer base. Wouldn't you rather do that, Ubisoft? Doesn't that sound like a lot more fun?
I'm much in agreement with Yahtzee when he says if a game can't stand up on single-player, then it isn't good. If multiplayer is what you play games for, fine. But I don't, so when a game (like AssCreed Unity) has a whole selling point around the drop-in-drop-out co-op that is keeping reviewers from being able to actually tell us if the core game itself (barring the co-op bullshit) is any good... then, yeah, I don't care. I'm not going to waste money on a game you, Ubisoft, don't have faith in to hold up on its own without the added and unnecessary co-op features for a game in a series that's primarily been about the single player stealthy assassinations.
They're not that bad really, they've got some dodgy writers, but usually their games have pretty good mechanics. I stopped playing years ago, but honestly if one game being bugged is recently one of their bigger crimes, they're not so bad. There are worse companies.Paradox SuXcess said:
You'd be surprised. One of the interesting lessons I've learnt playing Mafia is that a lie doesn't need to be credible to be effective. If the lie merely causes enough confusion to stop people presenting a united front against you until after Far Cry 4 is released, it has done its job.RJ 17 said:
What the hell is that thing anyway? Jesus christ, it's like something right out of a creepypasta.Barbas said:I second this motion. What do you think, Generic French Supporting Character?Imperioratorex Caprae said:
[HEADING=2]"*UNINTELLIGIBLE WOOKIE DIALECT*".[/HEADING]
These poor fellows just can't seem to stay out of the news. Now to see how bad the damage is on Far Cry 4.