Jimquisition: Ubisoft - A Sad History of PC Failures

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

As I'm hoping people have already pointed out, the Watch_Dogs PC mods make the game run infinitely better. To the point of being criminal. I have a top of the line PC that beats every single one of Ubisoft's 'recommended' requirements for Watch_Dogs, and after dealing with 3 install attempts due to bugs with uPlay, once I got the game going it would frequently bounce between 30fps and 5fps on HIGH settings.

Now that the mod is out, it sets you to Ultra, which my PC is supposed to be able to run, and I think all of 3 times it's dropped below 60fps, each time in a very specific set of conditions. In the fastest car, while it was raining, in the most building dense part of the city. If I don't use that car it literally never happens.

Meanwhile Ubisoft has tried to claim it will break the game, which makes no sense because all the mod does is use the existing patch system to turn on a different set of shaders, DOF filter, and disable the idiotic level of pagefile cache checking the game does. That can't effect gameplay. Again Ubisoft shows absolute disdain and arrogance at the PC user like we're some sort of mindless chaff that takes what they say at face value. Except, you know, the modder made a point to clearly denote what he did, how it worked, and didn't infringe on uPlay's EULA either by using the existing patch file system.

piscian:
It reminds me of Dark Souls in the opposite fashion. From Software basically said "Hey guys we really dont have the talent or resources to make a PC version, but you asked for it so me made it. Sorry for the bugs" and they did a muuuuch better job on part 2, but the difference is they were honest and humble about it. I really don't get why Ubisoft has to be such dicks about everything. Why not simply be nice and garner fan support?

It was also basically the first functional PC game From ever made. And when modders found a way to fix some of the bugs with framerate, in particular Blighttown, From recognized his work and assured that nobody could be banned for using it. And when DS2 got a similar fix (though not as needed) and VAC started redflagging people, From went through and helped undo the bans, making sure only cheaters and dll injectors got bans.

I agree, and I'm not sure what else there is to say. I would like to mention that that Ubisoft's latest update for Watch dogs apparently breaks it's compatibility with the what I will call the "E3 Mod"

Ubisoft is making a whole bunch of reasons for this but I do have a theory of my own. This is pure speculation on my part but do hear me out and let me know what you think.

Also there's no way of saying this without sounding like an elitist so you have been warned.

We already know that companies like Ubisoft don't like PC gaming, but the question is why.

I think the main reason why companies don't like the PC market isn't so much to do with piracy but more to do with control and freedom.

PC gamers have more control and freedom with the PC were as with a console the companies have more control; at least they think they so.

They don't seem to take into account just how easy it is to mod a console or even what a modded console can even do. But even so, the PC still offers more freedom to the consumer. I think this is why companies prefer you to game on a console.

However, Over the past decade PC's have gotten better while consoles have gotten worse. I don't even think this is an opinion I think it's a provable fact in all honesty.

This, I think is the reason Ubisoft dumb downed the graphics. I don't think Sony paid them to do it, I just think they did because they didn't want to show how much better a PC was then a new current gen console.

That's my two cents.

Vault101:
Saits row 2 was THQ wasn't it?

THQ was the publisher. CD Projekt were responsible for handling the port to PC. You can see CD Projekt in the credits for the PC version of Saints Row 2:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/946770-saints-row-2/credit

This rag wouldn't be the same without Jim Sterling. Long may he reign.

JET1971:
Ubi didn't make FC1, It was Crytek that made it and Ubi just published. It was after FC1 that Ubi took over the development of the series leading to Crytek telling them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine and making Crysis with EA as a publisher. Yeah Ubi was so bad a developer told them to go fuck themselves.

Correct. That's exactly why I wouldn't buy it; Ubisoft would get the money for it.

Thanatos2k:

canadamus_prime:

Thanatos2k:

Explain CD Projekt Red and Gog.com then.

GoG is not a publisher, they're a online retailer or digital distribution outlet. As for CD Project Red... jury's still out on them.

Digital distribution platforms is publishing at this point.

How is the jury still out on CD Projekt Red?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-2-dev-stops-pursuing-pirates/1100-6348579/

CD Projekt CEO and cofounder Marcin Iwinski has released an open letter to the gaming community revealing that the studio will immediately stop identifying and contacting pirates.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-2-dev-will-never-use-any-drm/1100-6365165/

CEO Marcin Iwinski said it will never again use DRM.
CD Projekt Red thinks DRM doesn't help.

"Every subsequent game, we will never use any DRM anymore. It's just overcomplicating things,"

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/17/cdp-on-free-witcher-dlc-next-gen-drm-concerns/

"But at the end of the day, the game [counts] - and not the money. Because the game will make the money if it's good. Some people think it's the other way around, and in the short run - business-wise - it makes sense. 'I will sell this small thing for three dollars. It will make me $300,000. It's good money. I will show more profit.' But at the end of the day, how many fans have you lost? And that's just a very simple mentality we try to avoid."

They have cared only for gamers for years.

No, no they're not. Not in the same sense that say EA is a publisher at any rate.
And when I said that the jury is still out on CD Project Red, I meant with me personally, not in general because I don't know a lot about them.

Did anyone else expect the "PC" in the video title to be referring to political correctness? Because they're pretty shit at that too.

JET1971:

Ubi didn't make FC1, It was Crytek that made it and Ubi just published. It was after FC1 that Ubi took over the development of the series leading to Crytek telling them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine and making Crysis with EA as a publisher. Yeah Ubi was so bad a developer told them to go fuck themselves.

That's even worse - Ubi were so bad, a developer preferred EA over them. Fucking EA. That says a lot.

canadamus_prime:

No, no they're not. Not in the same sense that say EA is a publisher at any rate.
And when I said that the jury is still out on CD Project Red, I meant with me personally, not in general because I don't know a lot about them.

GOG.com belongs to CD Projekt. As for the good things they did:
The Witcher receiving 2 free DLCs and then an Enhanced Edition with everyone who bought the game earlier being able to upgrade to EE.
The Witcher 2 standard retail edition (not limited, not collectors, bog standard) having a shitton of goodies in it, the game receiving a miriad of free DLC and the whole Enhanced Edition thing happening again.
Everyone being able to activate their copies of the Witcher games on GOG.com and getting all the extra goodeis for no extra cost.
GOG.com in general - totally DRM free, do giveaways every sale, great customer service.

Vault101:
Saints row 2 was THQ wasn't it?

While THQ published the game, and Volition developed the game, it was CD Projekt that actually created the PC port. Its not uncommon for publishers to hire a smaller development company to create a port so that their bigger projects can be attended to by larger studios.

Another example of a studio being hired to do that would be Gearbox, who ported Half-Life to PS2 and ported Halo: Combat Evolved to PC. We know that Valve actually made Half-Life, and that Bungie made Halo: CE. Gearbox just made the game compatible for other platforms.

Thanatos2k:

canadamus_prime:
GoG is not a publisher, they're a online retailer or digital distribution outlet. As for CD Project Red... jury's still out on them.

Digital distribution platforms is publishing at this point.

How is the jury still out on CD Projekt Red?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-2-dev-stops-pursuing-pirates/1100-6348579/

Err, what? You do understand the difference between publishing and distribution, right? Saying GOG publishes games is about as accurate as saying that Gamestop publishes game.

Publishing is, to oversimplify it, when a person or a collective of people (like a company) agree to burden the cost of creating a game being commissioned to a developer studio, and treat the game's development as an investment. Distribution is simply the source that the buyer directly gets it from. This exists quite commonly in the book industry as well.

Gearbox gets paid to develop Borderlands 2.

2K pays for the development.

Gamestop, EB Games, Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Amazon, Steam, Green Man Gaming, are individual outlets where a consumer can get the game.

Sometimes a studio, like Telltale Games, has enough money that they don't need money from a publisher to match the budget of their game, and self-publish. Ever then, its distributed mostly via outlets other than their own website.

Things like Kickstarter use "crowd-funding", where essentially gamers are covering the costs of development by putting down money for games they'd like to see created, mostly on good faith with the developer(s). Even the most Kickstarter games distribute their games through means other than their own, though.

So yeah, don't call GOG a publisher, because calling them a publisher is like calling the cashier at a supermarket a butcher because you're buying ground beef.

Fair cop on CD Projekt though, they've developed good quality games (I don't think they self-publish though.

Zak757:
Did anyone else expect the "PC" in the video title to be referring to political correctness? Because they're pretty shit at that too.

I was expecting Jim to use that to slay two dragons with one bolt.

That is how the saying goes, correct?

MarsAtlas:

I was expecting Jim to use that to slay two dragons with one bolt.

That is how the saying goes, correct?

Lol from now on yes, that is how that saying goes. Way better than two birds.

RealRT:

canadamus_prime:

No, no they're not. Not in the same sense that say EA is a publisher at any rate.
And when I said that the jury is still out on CD Project Red, I meant with me personally, not in general because I don't know a lot about them.

GOG.com belongs to CD Projekt. As for the good things they did:
The Witcher receiving 2 free DLCs and then an Enhanced Edition with everyone who bought the game earlier being able to upgrade to EE.
The Witcher 2 standard retail edition (not limited, not collectors, bog standard) having a shitton of goodies in it, the game receiving a miriad of free DLC and the whole Enhanced Edition thing happening again.
Everyone being able to activate their copies of the Witcher games on GOG.com and getting all the extra goodeis for no extra cost.
GOG.com in general - totally DRM free, do giveaways every sale, great customer service.

GoG is still not a game publisher in the same way that Steam is not a game publisher. Valve is the game publisher that runs Steam.

Ok, MOST game publishers are dicks then.

TheNewGuy:

leviadragon99:
Yeah... it is rather annoying when a publisher blatantly treats PC gamers like second class citizens.

Really? I find it rather annoying when PC gamers treat anyone who isn't a PC gamer as a second class citizen.

Yeah, that is rather stupid when some PC gamers do that, I don't approve of that sort of behaviour.

Darth_Payn:

Damn, Zach, you have some truly iconic zingers today!

And my iconic catchphrases are available as DLC[1] if you pre-order from Gamestop.

Catasros:
this is all a bad joke, right? A bad, tasteless joke? Right? Ubisoft can't possibly be this much a bunch of moronic bastards, right? No?

. . . Is there ANY game publishers out there that we can still trust? At all?

They read as petty and spiteful to me. I know I'm not alone, here, either. I don't know if they actually are, but I don't think they're morons. Image is important, though, and if people see them this way, they might as well be.

Pretty much every time they open their mouths on something, I expect their spokesperson du jour to put on some sunglasses, say "deal with it," and drop a microphone.

I don't hate them, mind, but I do get the strong sent of dickweed from their general direction.

Thanatos2k:

Average PC hardware is better than the "next gen" consoles? YOU DON'T SAY! Gotta keep the stupid people ignorant, or else they might notice something is amiss!

The real question is, would it matter much? The 360 and PS3 were getting sold, and more importantly, people were buying the games for them. Do they really expect people to give a crap? I doubt most people are buying consoles because they think their power rivals that of a decent gaming rig.

Trishbot:
Meanwhile, the ONLY two Ubisoft games I was interested in the past decade, Prince of Persia 2008 and Beyond Good & Evil, STILL have no follow-ups to their cliffhanger finales.

But we've gotten eight Assassin's Creed games in 6 years.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure all the recent PoP games combined sold less (all platforms) than one Ass Creed sequel (on a single platform).

Ubisoft said it wasn't interested in games it couldn't franchise. What I think it meant was it wasn't interested in games it couldn't make ten million sales on annually. And who can blame them? If you can't sell 10 million units, you might as well take your ball and go home. Or blame piracy.

[1] Content may be on-disc but locked away because we feel like it

A more succinct beatdown the world has not seen. Ubisoft is annoying on consoles, but they're utter cunts on PC.

Zak757:
Did anyone else expect the "PC" in the video title to be referring to political correctness? Because they're pretty shit at that too.

we don't say "PC" anymore...we say "not being a jerk" the former is now considered too...."harsh"...it has negative connotations

how's that for being meta?

Magmarock:

Also there's no way of saying this without sounding like an elitist so you have been warned.
.

eh if they want to call you an elitist for being honest thats their problem....

....I'm not entirly sure PC gamers have more control...I mean sure theres mods, which might be your entire point...but were still subject to DRM...even if its freindly faced DRM like Steam

Zachary Amaranth:

Ubisoft said it wasn't interested in games it couldn't franchise. What I think it meant was it wasn't interested in games it couldn't make ten million sales on annually. And who can blame them? If you can't sell 10 million units, you might as well take your ball and go home. Or blame piracy.

as long your game proftits it shouldn't be an issue you don't need to be COD to turn a profit....

Vault101:

Zachary Amaranth:

Ubisoft said it wasn't interested in games it couldn't franchise. What I think it meant was it wasn't interested in games it couldn't make ten million sales on annually. And who can blame them? If you can't sell 10 million units, you might as well take your ball and go home. Or blame piracy.

as long your game proftits it shouldn't be an issue you don't need to be COD to turn a profit....

Sooo... is Ubisoft one of those companies owned by shareholders who've never held a console control in their entire life? You know, the kind whose experience with PC gaming only extends to playing solitaire? Because if it is, it explains the retarded hunt for profits at the expense of the customers good-will.

Grimh:
Have they even shown the pocket watch ingame yet? This is just ridiculous.

Not in-game, but they showed it in the reveal trailer...I think? Swear I remember it being in the trailer. Not the most iconic item if I can't quite remember its presence.

Aiden Pearce's hat is NOT iconic. His jacket is more iconic than his hat. If his hat were a top hat and came with a retractable monocle, then MAYBE it'd be ironic. For me, though, I want the jacket

dragongit:
[quote="SomeGuySomewhereHere" post="6.853460.21118105"]I'll just leave this here.

http://whatifgaming.com/the-division-developer-insider-we-already-downgraded-a-few-things

That is truly one of the saddest thing i have ever read in my life, developers know they can make the game look amazing on PC but they are forced by some idiot in marketing to cripple it intentionally so the console don't look at under powered as they are. Why will this even effect sales in any way ? If someone already has a PS4 or xbone then they will buy a game they want on that console, it wont stop them buying it at all as it looks better on another platform , that's retarded nobody thinks like that, that would be like saying "you know what i need a car, i like the ford fiesta but i am not going to buy that ford fiesta as its not as fast as a bugatti veyron". What next all PC games locked to low settings to run on a Intel HD4000 as people who have this will not buy it if it looks better on quad SLI 780ti.

Its just sad so sad that we have gotten to this point, and the blame rests with the industry over hyping a new generation of consoles that are going to look 1000 times better and be 1000 times faster. well no they are not that powerful so just accept it and make the best game you can on all platforms, its not even going to cost you anything as you are REMOVING COMPLETED FEATURES!

IF i was a dev i would intentionally hide the settings in the code and then make a "unofficial" mod that re-enabled them. Or just put them back in at the end of development, what are they going to do go back in time and un-spend all there money ?

Stumbled upon this somewhere, seems relevant:

I am super glad I opted to wait a month before deciding to buy this game or not. And after seeing all the complaints on it, I passed on it and just watched a let's play. To be honest, the game is a bit of a disappointment. It's just inconsistent in it's storytelling and I thought we'd be able to interact more with the environment and the AI is a combination of smart and dumb. The police were run over each other with their cars in one video and at times help the gang members while the civilians called the police and the police go after the player instead of criminal NPC who fired the gun. Not to say it wasn't a bit hilarious to watch.

I'm thinking there must be some kind of insidious plot being run by both Ubisoft and EA to turn PC players into console gamers by making it as inconvenient as possible to play their games on PC. Someone must investigate! o o

Wait. Ubisoft used the word "iconic" to describe stuff owned by brand new characters? What the actual fuck?

This, and the graphic downgrade practice (which was already linked here, so rock on guys for that), is pretty much exactly why I no longer own a modern console; I'm not getting anything for it.

In the Golden Age, consoles were more powerful (for price) than PCs because they were dedicated. They were easier to produce for and sell for because of this dedication. They wound up losing the graphical edge (when it had it) here and there, losing it almost entirely by the end of the PS2 era, but they were consistently solid products (due to denying games low-level access). There're also the benefits of user-mods, in the 5th-6th gen, though they weren't as widespread, and that was back when *actual* piracy (the *selling* of someone else's content... pirate carts, etc.) was actually a prominent thing.

I don't know... maybe it was growing up in MUDs and with tech that gave me respect for gaming and the culture... maybe it was just me and mine. The single argument that art and business don't mix is pretty much the end-all of it, for me... and EA and Ubi sorta show their asses to prove that right.

This "PC vs Console" bullshit has to end, and I think I have a solution. All we need is to strip down irrelevancy/redundancy and construct the console to fit into a standard PC optical bay - many people don't even use them anymore, making it just so much empty space in many casings. Then, develop a secondary OS software that will allow the internal, standardized components to "take over" the primary CPU while active, turning the outside hardware into essentially a fancy, combination HDMI cable and internet connector (with access to certain other key components, of course). This way, one can retain the consistency of a gaming console AND the flexibility of gaming PC's in a single machine.

It wouldn't have to be one-way, either. The same OS software could allow the host computer to utilize this "console card" as a secondary GPU and/or HDRAM when not otherwise in use.

I believe this is the way to go in future. Certainly there could - and should - still be stand-alone machines, but this would bridge a lot of gaps. It opens up game developers to new audiences without the need to "port", as long as they are willing to put in the effort to allow for their software to run on more powerful systems (governed by the secondary OS, not the internal settings from either primary), while at the same time reducing overall production costs for the hardware developers.

Nintendo, of all people, seems to be getting closer and closer to this, with the Wii and WiiU designs, and I have to say, I wouldn't be sorry to see them do it.

and another thing. I do not think it's fair calling Ubisoft the European EA. They are worse. They are the European Activision.

You know what's the real idiocy about all this?

When the first DRM game launched (AC2), yes, it stopped piracy... for about 3 days. 3 days after the launch there was a way around it. How? A server emulator. Granted, it was a bit more tricky than your usual copy-paste cracks, but still, 3 days after the launch, the game was playable by pirates. And a week or two after launch, there was a 'proper' (copy paste) crack out for those few people who play games on a PC but know so little about their computers not to be able to follow simple instructions for setting up the first crack.

After that? Every following title with DRM was pirated one day after release at most. In some countries, that was actually faster than waiting for an actual release (if the US release was 3 days before the EU one for example, people in the EU could play the pirated version 2 days before the release in their own country).

That's how effective DRM is. That's how much it stops piracy. So, hassle to pirates? Few days of waiting on the first game, none or faster on the following ones. Hassle to legitimate customers? Downed servers, bad connections and other things literally preventing them from playing a game they bought. Ubisoft punished their own customers far more so than it did the pirates.

Yes, that list was not exhaustive.
I expect this comment section fill up with stories. Here's mine:
I pre-ordered Heroes of Might & Magic VI in 2010, waited for it until Oktober 2011, got it, didn't work.
I couldn't even install it at first because the key wouldn't register, then, finally installed, the DRM crashed the game or didn't let it start at all.
I once even got in, started a game and after I was through the initial tutorials (boring, long, not skippable) the game crashed and I didn't appear to have an autosave or savegame.
So, I forget all about it through 2012. Seriously, I was so pissed for spending 60€ a year in advance. I kept reading about bugs, bad AI, bad balancing, crashes, errors, etc.
So, here comes the kicker: Not immune to windows resets myself I had to re-install the game. I did this in 2013. I tried.
Despite numerous patches (2.something) the game wouldn't let me advance past the tutorial stage.
Fantastic.
I found no mention of this in the Ubisoft forums or help documentation, but thankfully there are a lot of HOMM fan sites. In one of *their* forums did I find a thread describing the problem.
The answer was "Yeah, Ubisoft has known about this since mid-2012. They haven't fixed it yet. And, oh yeah, don't bother with their forum: The delete those threads asking about HOMM VI because they have discontinued support/patches for that game."
Wat.
Turns out there is an email adress by Ubisoft where you can send a request to unlock your CD-key, which has to be done on a case-by-case basis, for all the thousands of customers who were affected, ever since 2012. A post dating to late 2012 just read "expect a wait period of a week".
Ubisoft won. They already had our money.

MarsAtlas:

Thanatos2k:

canadamus_prime:
GoG is not a publisher, they're a online retailer or digital distribution outlet. As for CD Project Red... jury's still out on them.

Digital distribution platforms is publishing at this point.

How is the jury still out on CD Projekt Red?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-2-dev-stops-pursuing-pirates/1100-6348579/

Err, what? You do understand the difference between publishing and distribution, right? Saying GOG publishes games is about as accurate as saying that Gamestop publishes game.

Publishing is, to oversimplify it, when a person or a collective of people (like a company) agree to burden the cost of creating a game being commissioned to a developer studio, and treat the game's development as an investment. Distribution is simply the source that the buyer directly gets it from. This exists quite commonly in the book industry as well.

Not quite. You're describing one of the traditional ways games get made, but that is not how all do. There are many, many instances of games that the developer completes, and THEN a publisher comes on board to handle distribution and marketing in exchange for a cut of the revenue. (One recent example is Pillars of Eternity, where Obsidian has more than enough money to complete the game on their own, but brought Paradox on board as a publisher to handle marketing and promotion.) In the case of digital distribution, the platform basically is serving the role of the publisher in those cases. Look at Steam. They obviously are handling the distribution, and can also market the game by featuring it on the store page or sales pages and so on. And Steam takes their cut of the revenue, like any publisher.

But they make GOOD GAMES, dammit! Or at least, they take over studios who have people who do!

Ugh, if only I could get Far Cry 3 without UPlay...

Saltyk:

lukesparow:
"We won't make it if we can't milk it to death!" (make a franchise out of it).
Is anyone honestly still expecting anything good from Ubisoft?

Yeah, that was one thing that has bugged me about Ubisoft. They only want to make games that they can make franchises out of. I loved Assassin's Creed, but after hearing them claim that they only want to make franchises, I haven't picked up any of the games past the second (which I didn't even finish).

Hell, I have next to no interest in Watch Dogs. The entire reason is that I knew from Day One that it was gonna force some sort of cliff hanger ending so that it could be milked into a franchise.

Not every game needs to be a franchise! Sometimes, a good game can be made simply by making it a good stand alone game. And sometimes you can make a franchise that doesn't require a guide to the whole thing, like with Mario or Final Fantasy. You can pick up any game in the series (I'm not counting the direct FF spin offs) and be fine.

Honestly, that whole attitude makes me wary of Ubisoft franchises. Never mind the DRM and other such nonsense. EA is kinda worse on that front since even consoles need to connect to EA servers to play DLC, not that I'm defending Ubisoft.

That's my problem exactly.

The best franchises are those that have serious thought put into every entry.
I think Kojima does it best. He doesn't go about trying to make a franchise, just an amazing game.
When that closes up he might eventually start considering a sequel.

That way every game turns out great, because every single one is going to wrap up a story.

This is why I only buy Ubisoft games when they're in the bargain bin for $5. That's what they're worth to me.

Truth be told, all of their PC games are terrible console ports anyway.

Oh yeah, Uplay is trash. They should just use Steam for everything. Origin is very annoying but it does work most of the time.

Don't worry tho, it will still be GOTY right?

I've gotta say... hearing about Ubisoft's past does not make me feel very comfortable about some of the Triple A developers.

Even moreso when you realize that their trends are very unlikely to stop heading in said... very discouraging direction.

Therumancer:
I hate Ubisoft for their business practices, and have for a long time. Everything Jim says is 100% true. That said I personally have to wonder if this sudden criticism is largely connected to them not including a playable female character in the upcoming Assassin's Creed sequel. A complaint which largely seems to stem from a sense of entitlement, which in turn stems from Ubisoft creating a female lead for "Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation", and of course non-white protagonists in both "Freedom Cry" and the original "Assassin's Creed". An issue which amounts to biting the hand that feeds you, as it's kind of ridiculous to basically attack a company for exercising creative freedom when it doesn't happen to match your particular political agenda, while otherwise praising it when it does. Ubisoft's defense of it's choices was fairly reasonable when you actually think about it (it's not just a matter of re-skinning a model to do it right, you pretty much need to animate it seperatly and adjust the entire play environment to match those animations... a few proportional inches in character height can make a huge difference, and we've seen this in other games like the problems with fitting both gender models onto vehicles in "The Old Republic Online"). At the end of the day though, no justification would have been accepted by those leading the attack.

I mean sure, by all means attack Ubisoft for it's business practices, but let's be honest, most of this is a giant re-hash/reminder of things Ubisoft has done wrong in the past, timed in accordance with a perceived political slight.

My basic attitude is that for all it's failings Ubisoft was one of the companies doing the right thing here. It was doing female and "minority" leads occasionally, when the writers felt it fit. A movement pushing for occasional variation should be lionizing Ubisoft's design choices, showing that you can see these things done every once in a while, without it basically changing all games. In short occasional variation won't "take the games you like away from you" so to speak. The problem here of course is that things are becoming exactly the kind of problem that these issues were not supposed to be. Having created something like this in the past, it's becoming viewed as a right that it be inserted into every game, and taken as an offense when it is not.

Perhaps the biggest irony of this entire sequence of events, is that gamers talk about how they want to keep corporate panels away from video game design and let creators have a free hand. On the other hand a lot of the people making these same claims are of demanding those panels insert political correctness (playable female options, minorities, homosexual relationships) into these games, and pretty much take the creative freedom away from the writers. I mean if the writers are straight for example and decide to write only hetero romance options and straight characters that's not all that unusual or weird. Demanding this guy re-write and re-characterize everything so it could all "go gay" seamlessly is exactly the kind of thing we're supposed to be getting away from. Ditto for inserting token characters, or trying to write everything in a gender-neutral fashion. The idea is to give writers the freedom to do what they want, and not have corporations quash people for saying want to write minority or female leads, not to force creators into a narrow alley of political correctness. Given that Ubisoft was the company that did a game featuring an Arab protagonist killing white guys during one of the most controversial periods of West-Middle East conflict (I myself commented on it), one can't exactly accuse them of cow-towing to some kind of mainstream demand. Heck at the time Franco-Muslim relations were in the gutter domestically (in their own country) as well.

Who knows, maybe I'm reading into this too much. The bottom line is that the timing of this week's Jimquisition and it's subject matter is uncanny. Everything said here is fair, and a separate episode does sort or present it as a separate set of issues, but basically if you decide to drag a company through the mud every time they do something you don't care for politically or socially, due to a feeling of entitlement. It discourages companies to want to work with you, and hurts what your supposed to be standing for.

Now, I do understand the whole issue with the "hidden E3" settings, however right now this seems like a "Jihad" against Ubisoft without enough information. Yes, there were things edited out in the game, but as modders will tell you, you find a lot of things like this with games all the time which is why modders dig. This news is comparatively speaking 15 minutes old, Ubisoft might be being honest. How many people have heavily played Watch Dogs with these settings (say doing all quests and playing the full game) and of course what kinds of computers were they using? All told these settings might work good with certain PCs, but not so well with others, and might actually do some damage under prolonged usage. It's possible that with certain PC configurations you might do damage after dozens of hours of play
or whatever.

I *HATE* defending Ubisoft of all companies (do not get this wrong), but honestly I think more information is needed here. This includes coming from Ubisoft itself which seems to be holding it's cards close to it's chest as much as it is lying (a problem with the gaming industry in general, it's hard to tell what is a lie when they generally won't tell you anything of substance). I can't help but wonder if anyone would be so... assertive... about this with so little information if it wasn't for these other issues.

In all likelihood Ubisoft is probably lying, but at the same time, at this stage in the game does anyone really know enough about the long term effects of these settings across a wide-range of PC types to be able to tell? Of course at the same time one can question Ubisoft's policies of showing what they knew were damaging graphics levels during E3 as a demo with a throw-away PC (or one perfectly tuned for it), but that's a slightly different flavor of slime, and is of course dependent on them knowing about this at the time they did the demos.

I am still wondering what kind of shitstorm would happen on the internet if you were suddenly able to play as a furry in the next assassin's creed.

I am still wondering though what Ubi Soft's early PC output looked like. They used to only develop for the Amstrad CPC in their very first year as a company.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here