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

[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.

 

[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.

So you think just because in your subjective list of what makes a company evil(burning down rain forests and polluting oceans) that EA somehow does'nt qualify?

Good logic there.

EA doesn't qualify. It just doesn't. They make some shady business decisions, but firstly I'd say that most of those are just stupid rather than deliberately trying to be anti-consumer. Secondly, EA does not have to affect your life, or the greater world. You can easily ignore all the failings of EA. Unlike say BP or JP Morgan, who, whether someone knows it or not, really do affect our world.

It's really not that objective. If you think that putting always online DRM in Sim City is as bad as the gulf oil spill, diamond mining companies who routinely abuse their miners in Africa, or anything of that caliber, your priorities are insanely screwed up.

I'm not saying that EA are a bastion of human kindness with a sensible approach to business, but they are absolutely NOT evil.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

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

prepare yourselves consoles neighbors, you cant escape the madness of uPlay

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/13/ubisofts-uplay-app-coming-to-xbox-one-ps4


i can accept publishers trying to have some level of control over their games on PC due to the glorious and sometimes chaotic freedom of the platform, but on consoles? whats the bloody point?


i wouldnt even call the service good on PC yet, it has potential for sure, id be lying if i said atleast SOME of its features didnt catch my attention, but at this point is just soooo inferior to steam, why not first improve the service to a respectable level before even thinking about exporting it?

 

[Something Amyss]

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

I remember quite a few people being pissed. The thing is, this is one (to my knowledge) case. It's hard to be outraged over a pattern of one. Yes, it was a crappy move. EA has done the same thing with a larger overall pattern.

 

[raeior]

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?

For me both are companies that I don't like. EA for all of their stuff like butchering developers and franchises, adding micro-payment to full price titles, forcing always-on stuff into games etc..

Ubisoft mostly because of what they did to the Settlers series and how they "supported" Anno 2070 with a lot of bugs never getting fixed, especially in the addon.

I never cared for their habit of releasing Assassin's Creed so often. I tend to buy those games when they cost like 5? each and it worked out fine for me. What I can't stand is that their Uplay software often simply doesn't work for me. The number of times I had to reinstall Uplay just to get Anno 2070 running again was ridiculous. Uplay always had funny errors like "The application stopped working" with pages over pages of threads in the Ubisoft forums that never led anywhere, Uplay claiming that I never installed Anno 2070 in the first place and offering me to download the 7 gb something to reinstall it, Uplay not connecting because the servers were down thus disabling important features in Anno 2070 making your savegame go to hell because suddenly you are missing a huge amount of production bonuses. Funny enough if I use Steam to start Uplay games it usually works, only the standalone client is giving me these problems. Also the interface...I just hate it. I want to start a Uplay title via a shortcut but instead of starting the game it just starts Uplay showing the start page. Then I have to navigate to the game in question, find the start button and then start it. I mean...what the hell?

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

From what I've heard, they're more open to criticism. In addition to that, Ubisoft bought some time with AC4, South Park and Rayman.

They're pretty bad in the "EA sense" though not as bad.

 

[Eve Charm]

Ubisoft didn't make the VP of maxis issue an apology and try to spin doctor how always online drm was a thing for Gamer's benefit.

Way to try and displace blame EA http://www.gamespot.com/articles/maxis-simcitys-always-on-drm-for-gamers-benefit/1100-6401896/