I guess they shouldn't have given a release date until they knew it was something they could commit to.
^
Should be followed by any publisher. At most they should tell which season a game will be released at (like Summer or Winter).
Is Assassin's Creed: Unity on the verge of a recall?
Débuté par
Lord Raijin
, nov. 24 2014 09:03
#51
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 07:20
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 283 messages
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 07:32
Fidite Nemini
-
- Members
- 5 734 messages
Patches are great and all, but what about the customers that don't have internet or are without internet for a while? It's not fair to them that they get a lesser experience than everyone else who has internet, they'd have paid the same for the game as everyone else in theory and therefore they deserve as stable a product as those of us who would eventually get the patch.
Didn't Ubisoft already establish that they hate people without internet with UPlay?
#53
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 11:16
IllusiveManJr
-
- Members
- 12 265 messages
Not too excited about the upcoming 3 GB patch, mostly because it'll take awhile to download.
#54
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 07:56
SlottsMachine
-
- Members
- 5 529 messages
I'n not sure what's misleading. Stock dropped because a delay was announced.
Well I meant your conclusion that publishers are somehow damned if you do/damned if you don't. You are going to have to provide some more facts before anyone could say that is right or wrong. "Misleading" maybe wasn't the right word for me to use.
#55
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 08:09
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
My answer may come off as childish or sarcastic, but I don't mean it that way:
I guess they shouldn't have given a release date until they knew it was something they could commit to.
I find it odd that Unity has as many problems as it does though. If I recall correctly, it has been in development since Brotherhood was finished in 2010. Not to come across as arrogant or ignorant, but that should have given them enough of a window to go after the bugs or to know that something was up and to not announce the game and a release date for it in 2014.
My guess on how this all went down is that the developers or the publishers thought that they could go ahead and release the game and have the bugs patched in later that way they were getting a return on the investment (product).
Patches are great and all, but what about the customers that don't have internet or are without internet for a while? It's not fair to them that they get a lesser experience than everyone else who has internet, they'd have paid the same for the game as everyone else in theory and therefore they deserve as stable a product as those of us who would eventually get the patch. This is why I believe that developers and publishers should do their best not to use patches/updates as a crutch and should iron out bugs the best they can before launch.
I realize that it is unrealistic to expect them to squash them all, but those bugs are so large in number that it had to have been noticed internally and the game should have been delayed (delayed internally, not even announced to the public yet) because it is an inferior product to what it should be.
You don't sound childish, sarcastic, arrogant, or ignorant.
The problem with your first argument is that that's impossible. It's like a work of art (art meaning any creative endeavor): there's ALWAYS something you can do to improve. And the problem with software is that every piece interacts with every other. It's possible for something that seems entirely unrelated to break a game.
Next, I definitely agree that it makes no sense that they had so many bugs. But I do not believe it was intentional, or known--they're giving away their big game dlc (like tyranny, blood dragon, freedom cry) for free.
The last part I totally agree with you. I use my phone internet and had to download over a gig--one-fifth of my limit--on stupid patches. And one major problem with these download clients is that for some reason they don't release patches independent of the client anymore--I can't go to a cafe and download the patch to a flash drive for example.
#56
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 08:12
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Didn't Ubisoft already establish that they hate people without internet with UPlay?
No, they did not. Uplay's offline mode actually works and doesn't boot you after two weeks. And if a game needs an update, you have the choice to download or play offline--unlike steam which forces the update.
#57
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 08:16
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Well I meant your conclusion that publishers are somehow damned if you do/damned if you don't. You are going to have to provide some more facts before anyone could say that is right or wrong. "Misleading" maybe wasn't the right word for me to use.
What I meant was that the company suffers both if they delay the game or release it with bugs.
#58
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 08:21
Fidite Nemini
-
- Members
- 5 734 messages
No, they did not. Uplay's offline mode actually works and doesn't boot you after two weeks. And if a game needs an update, you have the choice to download or play offline--unlike steam which forces the update.
Ah, seems like they stepped down a couple notches on the stupid-pills then. Back when I was still buying Ubisoft (which was right at the start of the UPlay monstrosity), it required always-online internet connection, or it'd boot you from the game.
#59
Posté 27 novembre 2014 - 08:27
SlottsMachine
-
- Members
- 5 529 messages
But is that even the case though? In the end the game is still going to come out and you'll still get your money, if the game is actually pretty good that is. My initial point was that it is only natural for stocks to drop temporarily if you have nothing to sell for that quarter. And if your stock is taking a 20% hit something else must be going on, no one else is taking a hit that drastic (at least from my research, however lazy it may have been).
#60
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 01 décembre 2014 - 04:15
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Ah, seems like they stepped down a couple notches on the stupid-pills then. Back when I was still buying Ubisoft (which was right at the start of the UPlay monstrosity), it required always-online internet connection, or it'd boot you from the game.
Yup. I refused to buy their stuff when they did that. They fixed it eventually.
But is that even the case though? In the end the game is still going to come out and you'll still get your money, if the game is actually pretty good that is. My initial point was that it is only natural for stocks to drop temporarily if you have nothing to sell for that quarter. And if your stock is taking a 20% hit something else must be going on, no one else is taking a hit that drastic (at least from my research, however lazy it may have been).
...um...the "something else is going on" is "the game was delayed." That's what I'm arguing--that the fact that the game was delayed scared investors and caused a price drop. There's no way to be certain, of course, but there's really no other reason for it that we've seen.
#61
Posté 01 décembre 2014 - 04:24
SlottsMachine
-
- Members
- 5 529 messages
As far as I can tell no other company has taken a 20% hit solely because of a game delay. By other stuff I meant Ubisoft's brutal PR, if investors even pay attention to that.
#62
Posté 01 décembre 2014 - 04:26
Geth Supremacy
-
- Members
- 3 668 messages
i quit buying Ubisoft games years ago for this exact reason. It seems par for the course IMO. I don't see how anybody that is a gamer goes in and buys a Ubisoft game and doesn't expect to be a glorified beta tester. I cannot even entertain the idea that the game will be recalled....they are just a terrible developer and they rush games to get more $$$$
- Eternal Phoenix et Kaiser Arian XVII aiment ceci
#63
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 02 décembre 2014 - 12:36
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
As far as I can tell no other company has taken a 20% hit solely because of a game delay. By other stuff I meant Ubisoft's brutal PR, if investors even pay attention to that.
That's a good point. I can't explain that.
