Why doesn't Ubisoft get the level of hate that EA does?

[cdemares]

Because signing into an unnecessary service is not what people hate about EA.
Ubisoft is also smarter, communicates less insultingly, makes fewer excuses that blame consumers.
They also don't ruin their own IPs or shoehorn free-to-play monetization schemes into everything.
I actually like Ubisoft. They're okay. They're not heroes, but they're okay.

Yes, they annualized Assassin's Creed. But the whole purpose of that series is to prevent a hostile takeover by Activision or EA. Seriously, I think that is the entire point of Assassin's Creed, so I'm okay with it for that reason.

 

[Cerebrawl]

this was a bug that was fixed ages ago, you can now go offline at any time, i think the only requirement is having steam installed and have been logged on atleast once in a particular PC in the past, then you can play offline any time you want

I actually ran into this on my last vacation, april 2013. As long as I didn't reboot my computer after the most recent login to steam it lets me go offline mode(I can put the laptop in hibernate and start it up again too, no problem), but if I reboot, then steam specifically tells me that it no longer has my login information and won't let me in, even in offline mode.

well thats weird because i have loged in from my brothers laptop countless times without any internet connection, from college and during a blackout, so yeah, 0 internet access


try loging in without a connection right now

Let's see... laptop is logged into steam. *reboots*.

Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline
Mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam
login information stored on this computer.

You will not be able to use Steam until you can
connect to the Steam network again.

Click here to check the status of the Steam network
(OK)

 

[Ravinoff]

EA are basically the gaming equivalent of those megacorporations like Cerberus Capital (if you know guns, you know what I mean, if not, basically think of a gigantic "investment group" who bought up a shitload of famous brands and totally ruined them). They find quality developers, buy them out (forcefully), and then loot the remains like a raid party on an dungeon boss. They're a bunch of "businessmen" who happen to see making games as profitable.

Ubisoft are more like your clueless underdog. The top-level empty suits make stupid decisions and don't know when to keep their mouths shut, but the rank-and-file devs for the most part just want to make good games.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

this was a bug that was fixed ages ago, you can now go offline at any time, i think the only requirement is having steam installed and have been logged on atleast once in a particular PC in the past, then you can play offline any time you want

I actually ran into this on my last vacation, april 2013. As long as I didn't reboot my computer after the most recent login to steam it lets me go offline mode(I can put the laptop in hibernate and start it up again too, no problem), but if I reboot, then steam specifically tells me that it no longer has my login information and won't let me in, even in offline mode.

well thats weird because i have loged in from my brothers laptop countless times without any internet connection, from college and during a blackout, so yeah, 0 internet access


try loging in without a connection right now

Let's see... laptop is logged into steam. *reboots*.

Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline
Mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam
login information stored on this computer.

You will not be able to use Steam until you can
connect to the Steam network again.

Click here to check the status of the Steam network
(OK)

welp, check that shit out dude, that aint normal, ask support

Because they make awesome games?
Far Cry 3 and AC 4 were some of the best games of last gen.
Rayman Origins and Legends were (for me) the best Jump´n runs since Mario 64.
EA on the other hand destroys every studio it gets in contact with and just puts out sequel (FIFA) after sequel (Battlefield) after sequel (NFS). And even they seem to get worse every new installment (see Dead Space).

So yeah, I really like Ubisoft. Sure they fuck up, once in a while, but that seems to be more the kind of stupid mistake than evil masterplan.
I am looking forward for Valiant Hearts and Child of light.

this, ubisoft is more clueless or dumb than legitimately evil and i could swallow their mistakes more easily as just human error


not EA, they seem to go out of their way to piss off pretty much everyone, devs by closing down studios (rest in peace pandemic, sweet prince) and raping existing franchises beyond recognition (dungeon keeper, syndicate, dead space, sim city), and customers via their intrusive DRM (Origin is in fact arguably the least awful in this regard, remember securom in spore?), sequel annualization (medal of honor/battlefield cycle, their sport titles), pay to win F2P games (all "free" to play battlefield games, dungeon keeper), microtransacions in FULL PRICE RELEASES (Dead Space 3), broken games on release (BF4, Sim City), as well as the usual bullshit like worthless DLC and season passes

then they hide all this asshole behaviour behind some completely disgusting PR lies

arguably the only people these guys arent hell bent on pissing off are their shareholders

 

[Someone Depressing]

Despite the horrible programming, marketing decisions and bullshit EA plays, their games are actually good, if you just shoved all of that shit aside.

Ubisoft, on the other hand... I think Blood dragon was good.. Scott Pilgrim was ok, not as good as Castle Crashers... wait, did CC come out after that... I don't know and honestly I couldn't care much less, um... shit. I don't know. Oh, yeah, Rayman: Origins or whatever was good...

Honestly, it's a case of talent being crushed by executies and CEOs being completely asswipes and releasing the same thing with a tweak here and there (AND A NEW GUN!) again every year.

 

[Rariow]

Because Ubisoft doesn't buy much-beloved developers and run them into the ground, like Bullfrog or BioWare. Their DLC, whilst present in most games, tends to be stuff like the multiplayer mode to Far Cry or Assassin's Creed, not part of the core game experience, and, let's be frank, no one really gives much of a shit about it. Meanwhile, EA gates off story-critical content in BioWare games, makes you pay to add stuff to your city in SimCity that was available in previous games for free, and tacks on a multiplayer component to Dead Space 3 because we all know there's nothing scarier than talking with your mates.

Plus, Ubisoft actually shows some balls when it comes to taking risks. It might be hard to remember now, but Assassin's Creed was a really weird idea at the time the first one came out. Watch Dogs is a really intriguing idea, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon was bonkers, and bringing back Rayman at such a level of quality was a real risk for Ubisoft. Meanwhile, you've got EA making BioWare put an awesome button into Dragon Age 2, making Battlefield more like CoD and less like Battlefield with every installment, and "broadening appeal" for pretty much every bland piece of tosh they put out.

In short, Ubisoft is both less intrusive in their business practices and more interesting in their game-making than EA is.

 

[DoPo]

this was a bug that was fixed ages ago, you can now go offline at any time, i think the only requirement is having steam installed and have been logged on atleast once in a particular PC in the past, then you can play offline any time you want

I actually ran into this on my last vacation, april 2013. As long as I didn't reboot my computer after the most recent login to steam it lets me go offline mode(I can put the laptop in hibernate and start it up again too, no problem), but if I reboot, then steam specifically tells me that it no longer has my login information and won't let me in, even in offline mode.

well thats weird because i have loged in from my brothers laptop countless times without any internet connection, from college and during a blackout, so yeah, 0 internet access


try loging in without a connection right now

Let's see... laptop is logged into steam. *reboots*.

Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline
Mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam
login information stored on this computer.

You will not be able to use Steam until you can
connect to the Steam network again.

Click here to check the status of the Steam network
(OK)

Weird, here is what happened to me

Spoiler: PC boots with no connection

[http://i.imgur.com/eeBcmC9.png]

Steam was logged in and running, I killed the connection, ensured it won't come back on with the OS, then I hit restart

Spoiler: Steam starts and detects no connection

[http://i.imgur.com/UmvUQtH.png]

Spoiler: Clicking "Start in offline mode" works

[http://i.imgur.com/ljhrK2h.png]

And this has happened for a long while.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

So no one is pissed at Warner Bros not fixing a game they put out to instead sell DLC and make more money.

 

[EXos]

I know what I said...

But they will make you rich when they purchase it. So sell your babies and start a new company.

But... I love my babies!!!

So many IP's are wasting away in EA's vaults of EVIL...

Ubisoft isn't evil.. After the server debacle of AC2 they gave out free DLC as an apology.
I had the collector's edition so I already had them so they offered me a free game. I got Hawx which at the time was still a ?30,- game. Case and point.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Because they're nowhere near as bad.

The biggest problem I've seen people have with them is uPlay (and the Watch Dogs debacle, which I don't think is as big a deal as the rest of the internet seems to think and will likely be forgotten soon), but they've apparently decided to stop doing that [http://www.joystiq.com/2013/10/31/ubisoft-cans-uplay-passport-for-all-future-games-starting-with/] and they got rid of their always-online DRM back in 2012 so whatever.

Really, I don't have any problems with them, they might milk Assassin's Creed, but they take more risks (Rayman, Child of Light, Blood Dragon) than most other major publishers so it kinda balances out in the end.

Even though they definitely do milk AC a bit, AC4 was easily the best game of the series to date (in my opinion) and they're still doing unique things with it.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with uplay or origin. Both are a bit inconvenient. I do kind of like that uplay rewards you for getting achievements with in game unlockables. Generally there are enough achievement points in a game to get everything you'd want in that game and have some still left over so you can unlock some cool in game stuff early on if you have a reservoir of them like i do. Kind of makes up for the couple minute hassle it puts you through the first time you start the game and the slightly obnoxious uplay client.

For me the biggest difference is that EA sells you unfinished shit. Not to say Ubi doesn't have quite a bit of downloadable content but it doesn't feel like they're cutting out pieces of the game or putting pay walls up the way EA does. I played through every Ubisoft game I own without buying any of the DLC (save for blood dragon, which is pretty much its own game) and every single game still felt complete. In EA games right from the get-go you feel like (or are straight up told) part of your game isn't there.

 

[TomWiley]

I'd say it's because that ubisoft puts out less condescending rejections of criticism than EA does. Do they still do that? Yeah, but not nearly as much as EA. That's why EA gets more hate.

It's the same thing with console hardware. Both the ps4 and the xbox one have no backwards compatibility, but the Xbox One got way more bad press because not only did it try always online DRM with the console and check ins and forced kinect, but the marketing bosses got all smug and dismissive towards the customers before the company backed out on the policies anyways.

This excuses nobody, however. Executives really need to stop being such morons.

Well considering the avalanche of shit those executers have to personally deal with whenever the reactive masses of us gamers upsets over something (read daily) it's understandable if they get a little bit dismissive after a while.

Especially if half of the aggressive crap you have to deal with are just people getting angry over misconceptions and things that just aren't, as in the case of the Xbox One shitstorm you mentioned.

There were no misconceptions over the XBONE fiasco.Microsoft were crystal clear and what they had intended.

People thought the Kinect couldn't be turned off which turned out to be false. People claimed that family sharing would just be a gloried demo-service, which was a bullshit story that Microsoft tried repeatedly to debunk. People said that the Xbox One would not support used games, which simply wasn't true.

So yes, I'd say that there were a few misconceptions.

 

[Neonsilver]

this was a bug that was fixed ages ago, you can now go offline at any time, i think the only requirement is having steam installed and have been logged on atleast once in a particular PC in the past, then you can play offline any time you want

I actually ran into this on my last vacation, april 2013. As long as I didn't reboot my computer after the most recent login to steam it lets me go offline mode(I can put the laptop in hibernate and start it up again too, no problem), but if I reboot, then steam specifically tells me that it no longer has my login information and won't let me in, even in offline mode.

well thats weird because i have loged in from my brothers laptop countless times without any internet connection, from college and during a blackout, so yeah, 0 internet access


try loging in without a connection right now

Let's see... laptop is logged into steam. *reboots*.

Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline
Mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam
login information stored on this computer.

You will not be able to use Steam until you can
connect to the Steam network again.

Click here to check the status of the Steam network
(OK)

I think you have to save your password and login on the computer you want to use offline, at least thats what I understand from the error message. It's been a while since I used steam offline and I think that's how I got rid of that message.

 

[Azure23]

It occurs to me that Ubisoft gets away with a lot of bullshit people riot about when EA tries. Assassins Creed and Far Cry are the two that really come to mind at the moment with their "look at this sign in screen and pay us to use the multiplayer feature!" every time you start the games. Far Cry is especially guilty of this as it won't even let you access anything but the story unless you sign in to that fucking uPlay account or whatever. AC is terrible about that as well.

EA does a lot of stupid things, and they get a lot of justifiable hate (ME3, anyone?) but Ubisoft pulls that crap with EVERY GAME THEY RELEASE and no one really says anything about it.

Why is that? Does Ubisoft get some slack because they generally put out above average games? Or is it that they just aren't as visible and big as EA is?

Dude I thought most people liked Uplay? I do, it's a decent crossgame rewards system and adds more achievements, if you're into that. Play game, do the things, get points, redeem for ingame rewards. Not that big a deal. Plus, Blood Dragon. That was a labor of love, people have said it here before but Ubi is foremost a developer, and it shows. I would direct you to a great gameinformer article that explains how difficult it was to pull together but I can't remember what it was called. Oh and Black Flag was really good.

Oh and Ubisoft doesn't do that thing that EA does where they buy out a studio, layoff the development teams, then bring in their own guys to make watered down versions of better franchises. Man fuck EA. (I love you ME3 multiplayer!)

 

[TomWiley]

I'd say it's because that ubisoft puts out less condescending rejections of criticism than EA does. Do they still do that? Yeah, but not nearly as much as EA. That's why EA gets more hate.

It's the same thing with console hardware. Both the ps4 and the xbox one have no backwards compatibility, but the Xbox One got way more bad press because not only did it try always online DRM with the console and check ins and forced kinect, but the marketing bosses got all smug and dismissive towards the customers before the company backed out on the policies anyways.

This excuses nobody, however. Executives really need to stop being such morons.

Well considering the avalanche of shit those executers have to personally deal with whenever the reactive masses of us gamers upsets over something (read daily) it's understandable if they get a little bit dismissive after a while.

Especially if half of the aggressive crap you have to deal with are just people getting angry over misconceptions and things that just aren't, as in the case of the Xbox One shitstorm you mentioned.

There were no misconceptions over the XBONE fiasco.Microsoft were crystal clear and what they had intended.

People thought the Kinect couldn't be turned off which turned out to be false. People claimed that family sharing would just be a gloried demo-service, which was a bullshit story that Microsoft tried repeatedly to debunk. People said that the Xbox One would not support used games, which simply wasn't true.

So yes, I'd say that there were a few misconceptions.

Not really since they only changed those things because of massive backlash.Microsoft had full intention of doing the things you dercribed so there are no misconceptions except on Microsoft's part when they thought consumers were dumb enough to let the company go through with it.

No, the complete opposite is true. The only thing they changed was that the Kinect wouldn't have to be plugged in. But there were always options to deactivate each and every feature of the Kinect. Used games were supported from the very start.

See, what you're saying here proves my point exactly. You have no idea of what you even hated about the Xbox One. See, you have this romantic, simplified idea of us consumers standing up to the big bad Microsoft when in reality, this was just one big shitstorm which mostly based on said misconceptions.

It happens in the industry all the time.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Well for me as a primarily console gamer the whole Origin/Uplay thing creates no real ill will for me (don't get me wrong, I refuse to have either on my PC). So ignoring those Ubisoft makes pretty decent games (excellent in many cases) while EA's executive meddling [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExecutiveMeddling] often ruins and usually worsens games.

People thought the Kinect couldn't be turned off which turned out to be false. People claimed that family sharing would just be a gloried demo-service, which was a bullshit story that Microsoft tried repeatedly to debunk. People said that the Xbox One would not support used games, which simply wasn't true.

So yes, I'd say that there were a few misconceptions.

Not really since they only changed those things because of massive backlash.Microsoft had full intention of doing the things you dercribed so there are no misconceptions except on Microsoft's part when they thought consumers were dumb enough to let the company go through with it.

What you're saying is just not true.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

 

[Atmos Duality]

EA has a longer history of fucking over people, for one. (their customers and employees alike)

Second, EA is more openly vocal about the business and what they think, and a lot of what they think is quite anti-consumer. (or worthless PR-speak. very rarely have they ever done something pro-consumer, and even then they've always had an agenda behind it; like the termination of Project 10 Dollar).

Personally, I always felt like I've had to lower my standards when looking at any EA game, though that just might be my experience with "EA Sequels", where they take a reputable developers & franchises and run them face first into the dirt.

But apart from that, Ubisoft is just about as bad.
Like EA and Acti-Blizzard, they only want milkable, generic, overproduced, bland franchises backed by loads of DRM.

Ubisoft is a big proponent of Always-Online DRM, and they only removed such DRM from their games after two years of getting thrashed in the public spotlight, and falling sales. Mark my words, when the largest firms reach that point where they're financially secure enough to endure a major PR hit for Always Online, they *will* reintroduce it without a second thought, because that's the next step towards their endgame.

And it's an endgame that Blizzard, Ubisoft and EA all share a vision for.

 

[Frokane]

Because EA is pure evil. They burn down rainforests, leak oil into the oceans, and I hear they're trying to clone Hitler. And that's why EA are worse than Ubisoft.

Oh look! someone on the internet trying to be funny!
You sure put EA in their place by attempting an over the top comparison to real evil....oh wait, was that satire?
You really are a comedy genius!

 

[razer17]

Because EA is pure evil. They burn down rainforests, leak oil into the oceans, and I hear they're trying to clone Hitler. And that's why EA are worse than Ubisoft.

Oh look! someone on the internet trying to be funny!
You sure put EA in their place by attempting an over the top comparison to real evil....oh wait, was that satire?
You really are a comedy genius!

My satire, funny or not, is much less objectionable than people who actually believe that EA is "evil".

Also, calling me out for being unfunny much in the same way that I was calling out people who say EA is evil, is daft. You can't call someone out for something by doing exactly the same thing.