I'm "OVER" the RAINBOW

[BuddyBear]

As hard as it has been to be vocal and stay constructive over this series, I've realized that this battle will never be won. This game is a product of the times, and so is "almost" every other game out there. I'm so frustrated with this forum for many reasons, and I understand that the forum has to be run/controlled by someone, and I can appreciate that.

I took a week off posting after being scolded for some comments I've made, and I've decided that this outlet/forum has become a controlled site to vent...in an attempt to keep comments; positive or negative, away from the fanboy magazines that make money reviewing free copies of software.

I just purchased another UBISOFT game "Assassins Creed" and AGAIN like RB6, it could be the best of the best, but falls apart in the middle and becomes "average" play for a few weeks, then seems unfinished, repetative,story falls apart and we just have to "deal with it".

I'd like to thank "ALL" of you for contributing. And I really appreciate a few of you that have done some major research and really took the time to contribute real facts, about guns, ammo, spec's, configurations, troubleshooting, Beta-testers basically.

I think we should demand for excellence, however so many of you will settle for a 50 hour title and move on. I'm more about make it something special and over the top great. I'm more dissapointed in UBISOFTS "Terrible" customer service and your updates are not acceptable "In any business". Your lucky that expectations in gaming are at such an all-time low with some. What you forgot is RB6 was "different...Tactical...hard to master...required you to think..and NOT die...lol" You've created an average shooter for the masses. I have No MORE TIME FOR YOU..just as you have no time to update the update "keeping you informed" thread....as you've left your "Fans" in the dark and now it's time for your "fans" to leave you...imo.

[BuddyBear]

As hard as it has been to be vocal and stay constructive over this series, I've realized that this battle will never be won. This game is a product of the times, and so is "almost" every other game out there. I'm so frustrated with this forum for many reasons, and I understand that the forum has to be run/controlled by someone, and I can appreciate that.

I took a week off posting after being scolded for some comments I've made, and I've decided that this outlet/forum has become a controlled site to vent...in an attempt to keep comments; positive or negative, away from the fanboy magazines that make money reviewing free copies of software.

I just purchased another UBISOFT game "Assassins Creed" and AGAIN like RB6, it could be the best of the best, but falls apart in the middle and becomes "average" play for a few weeks, then seems unfinished, repetative,story falls apart and we just have to "deal with it".

I'd like to thank "ALL" of you for contributing. And I really appreciate a few of you that have done some major research and really took the time to contribute real facts, about guns, ammo, spec's, configurations, troubleshooting, Beta-testers basically.

I think we should demand for excellence, however so many of you will settle for a 50 hour title and move on. I'm more about make it something special and over the top great. I'm more dissapointed in UBISOFTS "Terrible" customer service and your updates are not acceptable "In any business". Your lucky that expectations in gaming are at such an all-time low with some. What you forgot is RB6 was "different...Tactical...hard to master...required you to think..and NOT die...lol" You've created an average shooter for the masses. I have No MORE TIME FOR YOU..just as you have no time to update the update "keeping you informed" thread....as you've left your "Fans" in the dark and now it's time for your "fans" to leave you...imo.

[DexLuther]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[goow]

I hear u, I don't want any of the Ubi series of games to turn out like EA's and its already happening... They're fine games but common, bugs and not enough "newness" is whats killing it for me. DANGER: Whenever you hear that they're keeping the "Same formula" RUN and don't come back for the next 2 games. Damn it and now im being put back into a Gears mood cause of this. Damn.. dude.

Edit: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[Legga92]

Well sed buddybear

[Fleety6908]

It's a sad day when a thread like this is actually true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[Want2Snipe]

Dang Bear you are sure into some type of S&M if you went out and bought another UBI game! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Oh well, if not for the fun and to help others, stay just to be a torn in UBI's A$$... that's why I am here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[lceycat]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[NOLIFEDOTCOM]

You people act like the game is unplayable. It works fine for me. There's lag in some rooms, but it's been that way since RS3. It's a sequel to Vegas 1. What changes were you expecting? They added sprint (which is great) and let you join a room during progress. That's a huge bonus for me. Then there's Aces....
The game is better than Vegas. it's not a perfect game, but what game is? I'm sure there will be a patch to fix some issues. Just be patient. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

[Snow_Wolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NOLIFEDOTCOM:
You people act like the game is unplayable. It works fine for me. There's lag in some rooms, but it's been that way since RS3. It's a sequel to Vegas 1. What changes were you expecting? They added sprint (which is great) and let you join a room during progress. That's a huge bonus for me. Then there's Aces....
The game is better than Vegas. it's not a perfect game, but what game is? I'm sure there will be a patch to fix some issues. Just be patient. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats easy to say when your game runs. I spent $50 bucks and can't get past the first load screen.

[Ilpolazzo]

UBI has a response to this within the game itself. In R6V2 go back to the farcry2 booth (i forgot what act/scene) and evesdrop on the soldiers there. its quite funny and true. I dont know if anyone has noticed that dialogue yet hehe

[Shrike_UK]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif good post buddy

[soulreaper09]

Good post bear. Especially the last part.

[Venturai]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuddyBear:
You've created an average shooter for the masses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it yourself mate, right here. What they've created is for the masses, which means a hell of a lot more potential sales. They probably figure they've got two choices; they can release a strictly tactical game and sell maybe a couple hundred thousand, or they could make an arcadey shooter and sell a couple million. You gotta do the math.

That all said, this series really isn't anywhere near as bad as you're making out.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NOLIFEDOTCOM:
What changes were you expecting? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was expecting not to have to deal with glitches and bugs that were in the first one. Is it ok that you get served undercooked vegetables each time you go to a certain restaurant?

I was expecting not to have to deal with glitches and bugs that are so blatantly obvious that even a blind monkey can see then, but for some reason weren't fixed before the game's release.

I could probably go on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Venturai:
You said it yourself mate, right here. What they've created is for the masses, which means a hell of a lot more potential sales. They probably figure they've got two choices; they can release a strictly tactical game and sell maybe a couple hundred thousand, or they could make an arcadey shooter and sell a couple million. You gotta do the math.

That all said, this series really isn't anywhere near as bad as you're making out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but selling out for "the increased sales" is total Bullsh*t.

They sold 2 million copies of Rainbow Six 3, and they sold 2 million copies of Halo Six: Vegas 2.

Where's this increase in potential sales you talked about? There isn't any.

I'll tell you one thing. Those 2 million copies Rainbow Six 3 sold meant a lot more than the 2 million Halo Six: Vegas sold.

I think selling 2 million copies of a video game before gaming was all mainstream and a televised 'sport' is pretty good.

By comparison, selling 2 million copies when everyone and their grandmother plays video games seems kinda weak, doesn't it?

Oh and lets not forget that Halo Six: Vegas 2 has barely been out a month, and the player base is already dwindling.

People played Rainbow Six 3 until Black Arrow came out, played that until the next Tom Clancy game came out. The player base remained strong.

I think it's clear what "the masses" want, and it's not Halo Six.

[Venturai]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
They sold 2 million copies of Rainbow Six 3, and they sold 2 million copies of Halo Six: Vegas 2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Rainbow Six 3 came out 5 years ago and has sold 2 million to date.

And Vegas 2 has been out maybe a month on consoles, barely a week on the pc, and has sold the same already? Sounds to me like Ubisoft are laughing all the way to the bank mate.

It's really very simple, they see arcadey FPS's selling like hotcakes, and they want a piece of that pie. You said it yourself, selling the same amount of copies when everyone and their grandmother plays video games ain't gonna cut it.

As I said before anyway, the situation with Vegas 2 isn't nearly as bad as is being made out here. 2 million purchases already, and yet only a handful of complainers, means the veggies must taste just right to the vast majority of consumers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Gypsy816]

Well I am sorry you feel that way and I know you think you are in a struggle to get your voice heard. People are doing their job. It's what we do.

I like your title btw. Very clever. Hope to see you back soon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[snoopyau]

No matter how much REAL feed back
it falls on deaf ears of Ubi and EA

Most games now cater for the lowest skill
'aka casual gamer' and theirs no
decent hard proper tatical games any more
or any decent games that arnt designed
for lower skill gamers in any gene.

GR went c.r.a.p from GRAW1 onwards
R6 went c.r.a.p from lockdown onwards
I doubt either series will ever
be the same decent level as they
were .

Poeple have been asking for more games
with PROPER stand alone dedicated servers
and ubi release these half working games
that have shortcuts or use resources
of the retail game (NOT proper sads)

People have been wanting MORE then
EIGHT players in R6 for a long time
in coop with respawn , what do re get
it reduced from 8 to 4 then from 4 to 2

and company still blaming pirating
for bad sales levels , its the c.r.a.p
that keeps on getting spamed out
in the retail market is the reason
no one wants to support it any more

The only good news Ive heard about
R6 series lately is Vegas 2 is the
LAST Vegas .

FPS games wont improve until they
stop releasing FPS games that support
joystick . FPS games should be Keyboard
and mouse only , if the platform cant
support a USB/PS2 keyboard and mouse
then dont release it on that platform.

Once you support a FPS with joypad
your dumbing down the game play
for low skill gamers and if the game
was a tatical game , its not longer
that any more

[zisouroland17]

snoopy every thing you say is great... but i must say that a decent hardcore tactical shooter can and has been done in consoles.. like rainbow six on (n64)

[BuddyBear]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by snoopyau:
No matter how much REAL feed back
it falls on deaf ears of Ubi and EA

Most games now cater for the lowest skill
'aka casual gamer' and theirs no
decent hard proper tatical games any more
or any decent games that arnt designed
for lower skill gamers in any gene.

GR went c.r.a.p from GRAW1 onwards
R6 went c.r.a.p from lockdown onwards
I doubt either series will ever
be the same decent level as they
were .

Poeple have been asking for more games
with PROPER stand alone dedicated servers
and ubi release these half working games
that have shortcuts or use resources
of the retail game (NOT proper sads)

People have been wanting MORE then
EIGHT players in R6 for a long time
in coop with respawn , what do re get
it reduced from 8 to 4 then from 4 to 2

and company still blaming pirating
for bad sales levels , its the c.r.a.p
that keeps on getting spamed out
in the retail market is the reason
no one wants to support it any more

The only good news Ive heard about
R6 series lately is Vegas 2 is the
LAST Vegas .

FPS games wont improve until they
stop releasing FPS games that support
joystick . FPS games should be Keyboard
and mouse only , if the platform cant
support a USB/PS2 keyboard and mouse
then dont release it on that platform.

Once you support a FPS with joypad
your dumbing down the game play
for low skill gamers and if the game
was a tatical game , its not longer
that any more </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I should get rid of my Atari joystick then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

[bigrexxx]

I played R6 and RS on the playstation, not PS2 or 3, and I was able to do pre-planning and control up to 7 AI in 2-4 teams. So with the advancements in technology, the machines running the game should have been able to handle the same capabilities with added improvements in graphics and AI. But instead, the games have seem to taken a step backwards in some aspects.

The earlier games had various movement speeds based on your stance, and you could go prone, while the newer versions do not. The older games allowed you to control how fast and how far you opened each door, allowing for both dynamic and stealth entries, while the new games just have 1 setting, fast and all the way, regardless of how much it exposes you. The older versions allowed you to outfit your team mates to meet your needs (one loud for distraction, one silent to get into position quietly, and a sniper team to offer cover), while the new games force you to accept whatever your team has. the old games used AI that allowed you to choose your play style, run and gun and they'd know you were coming, but if you went slowly using silenced weapons, you could clear a map without raising an alarm, in fact sometimes it was required, like on one mission where if you were spotted, you only had 30 seconds to get your sniper into position to kill a rebel leader before he escaped, so you had to get as close to the position as possible before being seen. It was frustrating, but once it was completed, you were left feeling satisfied, more so than being given a rank just for playing the game, even if you played poorly. In Vegas, using stealth offers you no tactical edge, the terrorist know where you are at all time when you enter a room that triggers the next wave, and the only terrorist you are able to sneak up on are programmed to be oblivious, slamming open doors 5 feet away and they don't even glance over to check something that would most likely have made noise or be seen in their peripheral vision, heck you could probably jump through the door in a pink tutu and do a waltz with a giant stuffed teddy bear and they wouldn't notice, allowing you to finish your dance and take him out silently to preserve the illusion that you are a highly trained special forces operative.

So all these features could have been capable on the next gen systems, if UBI wanted them to be, and since the new consoles a pretty much the same as PC's, as in they have a comparable processor (or more), they have a dedicated GPU, they use the same internet connections, the only difference is they cannot access the game folders and the control scheme, so there is no logical explanation that these next gen games are lagging on next gen consoles, and on PC by proxy, except for programming and development error and misguided thinking from the ones making the decisions..

[Ilpolazzo]

You guys think that UBI cant spend 10 mins reading the forums? im pretty sure that they know how we are reacting, and they know that their game is rushed, and they know that we will buy it. they probably sat down after reading all of our posts and calculated the extra time/cost it will take to implement all our wants to the money they will make if they rushed it out. most likely they calculated that they would make more money by rushing it out than to spend cash/time making it better.

[Ilpolazzo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by snoopyau:
No matter how much REAL feed back
it falls on deaf ears of Ubi and EA

Most games now cater for the lowest skill
'aka casual gamer' and theirs no
decent hard proper tatical games any more
or any decent games that arnt designed
for lower skill gamers in any gene.

GR went c.r.a.p from GRAW1 onwards
R6 went c.r.a.p from lockdown onwards
I doubt either series will ever
be the same decent level as they
were .

Poeple have been asking for more games
with PROPER stand alone dedicated servers
and ubi release these half working games
that have shortcuts or use resources
of the retail game (NOT proper sads)

People have been wanting MORE then
EIGHT players in R6 for a long time
in coop with respawn , what do re get
it reduced from 8 to 4 then from 4 to 2

and company still blaming pirating
for bad sales levels , its the c.r.a.p
that keeps on getting spamed out
in the retail market is the reason
no one wants to support it any more

The only good news Ive heard about
R6 series lately is Vegas 2 is the
LAST Vegas .

FPS games wont improve until they
stop releasing FPS games that support
joystick . FPS games should be Keyboard
and mouse only , if the platform cant
support a USB/PS2 keyboard and mouse
then dont release it on that platform.

Once you support a FPS with joypad
your dumbing down the game play
for low skill gamers and if the game
was a tatical game , its not longer
that any more </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha thats silly to get rid of tactical shooters on consoles that cant support mouse and keyboard. If there is a market then there is a way. If everyone suddenly started to bring back the old gameboy black and white. i bet ubi is gonna port assassins creed, rainbow six and whatever **** it can throw at it.

you have a good point though, how ubi is making it for casual gamers no more 6 man team "once dead your dead for good" type of thing. all i can think of is that the market for hardcore pc gamers is dwindling. i dont think ubi can spare a loss in market sales because of the tight competition in fps games. so they make their games appealing to the majority.

The people that tend to complain are the ones who are hardcore gamers with their 9800gtx super or whatever because they expect crysis like quality. but most computers are below recomended system rquirements of newer games so developers should make their games more friendly to elderly pc.
im glad that both vegas' runs fine on my 7600gt no lag @1024x768 everything on high and it looks good.

i dont really have any solid documents of what i just said. just my assumption...

[Gummy-Pants]

Indeed, this must seem like Madness (Madness? THIS IS UBI!) for the average gamer. But what would *YOU* do if you were in their shoes? Go for higher sales by making the game playable for the average Joe (casual gamers are rising), or make it playable for a very small, but loyal community, thus not getting the same sales numbers as the former?

Sure, they make two games look identical, but you shouldn't change a winning team anyway. Same happened to Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory and Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent, upgrading the graphics, adding some new moves, leaving the bugs (or in Splinter Cell's case; ADDING bugs). I agree they need to better their efforts in hunting down those persistent bugs, but otherwise I find both the Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six Vegas series very enjoyable to play.

As for tactitians, who knows what the next Rainbow Six game will bring? Isn't the Vegas suffix just a sidetrack, making the game (sometimes over the top) arcady? Maybe the next in line will be more hardcore like the previous ones. All I know is, as long as it sells (and you can never refrain enough people to buy the game, not everyone reads the forums) to make it come to Ubi's attention.

Like I've heard in a developer interview somewhere (not sure if it was Ubi): Game developers needs to know for sure what hits the audiences. They need solid gameplay elements that have proven themselves before. Modders, on the other hand, have the freedom to experiment as they wish, since they are not expected to put down something as big as the "Professionals", and when they do, the mod idea will get assimilated into the game developers circuit.

[Ilpolazzo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gummy-Pants:
Indeed, this must seem like Madness (Madness? THIS IS UBI!) for the average gamer. But what would *YOU* do if you were in their shoes? Go for higher sales by making the game playable for the average Joe (casual gamers are rising), or make it playable for a very small, but loyal community, thus not getting the same sales numbers as the former?

Sure, they make two games look identical, but you shouldn't change a winning team anyway. Same happened to Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory and Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent, upgrading the graphics, adding some new moves, leaving the bugs (or in Splinter Cell's case; ADDING bugs). I agree they need to better their efforts in hunting down those persistent bugs, but otherwise I find both the Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six Vegas series very enjoyable to play.

As for tactitians, who knows what the next Rainbow Six game will bring? Isn't the Vegas suffix just a sidetrack, making the game (sometimes over the top) arcady? Maybe the next in line will be more hardcore like the previous ones. All I know is, as long as it sells (and you can never refrain enough people to buy the game, not everyone reads the forums) to make it come to Ubi's attention.

Like I've heard in a developer interview somewhere (not sure if it was Ubi): Game developers needs to know for sure what hits the audiences. They need solid gameplay elements that have proven themselves before. Modders, on the other hand, have the freedom to experiment as they wish, since they are not expected to put down something as big as the "Professionals", and when they do, the mod idea will get assimilated into the game developers circuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
seriously IMHO i believe that the real purpose for any video game ever created is for profit. no video game is ever free IMHO. i would ditch the few thousand die-hard R6 fans for the millions to make more money.

i think its a matter of preference also. i personally didnt like the oldstyle 6 man team eventhough i owned most of the games. I believe that this way is more story oriented and in vegas2 i can even relate to the main char because of the customizations.

There was an article once about how authors are ditching the book medium for videogame medium to tell the story. if i remember correctly one of those authors is tom clancy. so definately vegas 2 is a step up from all tom clancy games out there.

i forgot to mention the market for the diehard fans is already stable. we show ubi that we are able to eat gruel and like it. so if they make a game for the casual gamer, hardcore gamers would buy the game also.

[bigrexxx]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ilpolazzo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gummy-Pants:
Indeed, this must seem like Madness (Madness? THIS IS UBI!) for the average gamer. But what would *YOU* do if you were in their shoes? Go for higher sales by making the game playable for the average Joe (casual gamers are rising), or make it playable for a very small, but loyal community, thus not getting the same sales numbers as the former?

Sure, they make two games look identical, but you shouldn't change a winning team anyway. Same happened to Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory and Splinter Cell 4: Double Agent, upgrading the graphics, adding some new moves, leaving the bugs (or in Splinter Cell's case; ADDING bugs). I agree they need to better their efforts in hunting down those persistent bugs, but otherwise I find both the Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six Vegas series very enjoyable to play.

As for tactitians, who knows what the next Rainbow Six game will bring? Isn't the Vegas suffix just a sidetrack, making the game (sometimes over the top) arcady? Maybe the next in line will be more hardcore like the previous ones. All I know is, as long as it sells (and you can never refrain enough people to buy the game, not everyone reads the forums) to make it come to Ubi's attention.

Like I've heard in a developer interview somewhere (not sure if it was Ubi): Game developers needs to know for sure what hits the audiences. They need solid gameplay elements that have proven themselves before. Modders, on the other hand, have the freedom to experiment as they wish, since they are not expected to put down something as big as the "Professionals", and when they do, the mod idea will get assimilated into the game developers circuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
seriously IMHO i believe that the real purpose for any video game ever created is for profit. no video game is ever free IMHO. i would ditch the few thousand die-hard R6 fans for the millions to make more money.

i think its a matter of preference also. i personally didnt like the oldstyle 6 man team eventhough i owned most of the games. I believe that this way is more story oriented and in vegas2 i can even relate to the main char because of the customizations.

There was an article once about how authors are ditching the book medium for videogame medium to tell the story. if i remember correctly one of those authors is tom clancy. so definately vegas 2 is a step up from all tom clancy games out there.

i forgot to mention the market for the diehard fans is already stable. we show ubi that we are able to eat gruel and like it. so if they make a game for the casual gamer, hardcore gamers would buy the game also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well for one thing, Tom Clancy had nothing to do with Vegas other than UBI exploiting his name, now if you had said the "Mack Bolan" writer was involved, I would have believed you. You say you didn't like the old games, they were the complete opposite of vegas, they were a video game with a story involved, told through the briefings, while Vegas is a story with a video game involved.

And we've also said that all audiences could have the game they want if the devs would just put in some options, like turning off regen health, turning off 3rd person cover mode, open up the maps, add more than 4 people in coop. By completely ignoring their fan base and leaving these features out, they have said that their opinion is the only ones that matter when it comes to the product they want us to buy, and they did it based on the popularity of games like HALO, COD, Doom3 and Half life, which were always story driven, then they took elements from GRAW, BF2, GOW and now COD4 (ACES) to add to it, though it's funny, the one game that they didn't take any elements for the game was Rainbow Six.

[amazingmarkbert]

it had been quite some time since someone posted a "what happened to my rainbow six 3 game play?!?!" rant. you know, the one that features bemoaning the game's current arcade-y-ness, how the "true" fan base was being ignored and condemning the encroaching evil that is the casual gamer.

good to see that the r6v forum's vineyards can still produce a vintage whine.

all bashing aside, from what i can tell, the argument always kinda goes like this:

Q: why did they ruin raibow six?
A: they didn't. they just changed it.

Q: but they eliminated or minimized everything that made it great.
A: no, they just eliminated or minimized aspects of the game that you, yourself, enjoyed. these are personal preferences, not universal criterion of what is good and what is not.

Q: but there are a lot of other people who loved the old rainbow six. that's proof!
A: to a certain extent, yes, it shows that there's a base for this kind of game. that being said, it's not certain how the feelings of its long-time fan base are indicative of the sales today.

Q: but casual gamers and halo 'tards are ruining it!
A: i don't know if i'd go that far but the influx of new gamers and the game play of other titles are, indeed, influencing how companies are making games. now be honest, you KNOW it would be stupid not to. after all, ubi is a business and it's their aim to make profits.
further, the casual gamer as much right to expect titles aimed towards them as the hardcore gamer does. they plop down their hard-earned cash just like we do and deserve attention on that basis. expectations that companies should cater only towards long-time supporters is not only financially impractical but it's also unfair and more than a touch elitist.

Q: but i know a ton of people who feel the same as i do. we're dissatisfied with the changes to the game. won't that effect their precious sales?
A: to a certain extent, yes, it will. but apparently, ubi and their marketing research department are convinced that these moves will bring in more sales than sticking to the old formula.

Q: but they're alienating us! we're the ones that formed the backbone of r6:3 sales, and that was a successful game.
A: remember that it's been some five years since r6:3 (a very long time in the world of video games) and the market, along the expectations of consumers, have probably changed a great deal.
also, to put it bluntly, it seems that in they're eyes, such losses are acceptable. as the game changes, the core constituency changes. ubi seems to think that the alterations will allow them to expand this while still retaining a segment of the old guard. after all, no matter how much the game has been simplified, it's still a thousand times more tactical than halo or COD4.

Q: but they're selling out!
A: yep. that's sort of their job.

Q: they're selling us out too.
A: yep. you wanted more realism in the game, well, there it is: that's reality. loyalty is for consumers. producers worry about sales.

Q: what can we do?
A: unfortunately, short of starting your own company and just making the game you want, all you can do is complain and hope someone at ubi or another company thinks there's profit in your words. try starting a petition, maybe. if there's enough support, it might make a difference. it worked for bringing back "kim possible" for another season and disney is one of the more inflexible corporations in america. other than that, there isn't a whole lot to do but just wait.

Q: umm, didn't you just flame us for complaining?
A: yeah, well, i'm not saying you don't have the right to complain; in fact, i support it. at the same time, i do find it hard to actually listen to so in turn i complain about all the complaining. it's a vicious cycle.

Q: ubi sucks
A: in a lot of way, yes. but they make r6 and it's still a lot better than playing halo. now tell me all about how the guns need to be more realistic!

Q: really?
A: sure.

[malte0004]

How can anyone expect the big publishers to cater for a small hardcore audience? Their goal is to make money. That means selling games that are accessible to as large an audience as possible. If you want a game that fits into a niche, then explore indie developers. Put your idea to them. Most indie developers want a foot in the door, and as such, if you can offer them a loyal fanbase for a product they can make and sell to you, they will. Also this will then be pc only, meaning that console probs wont get a conversion...keeping all you pc "elitists" happy.

None of the big publishers are going to cater for a minority hardcore market...they need to make the cut at the end of the fiscal year, otherwise one of the other big publishers will swallow them.

I hate to say it (I like hardcore tactical games, and would love them on a console http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but the casual games fad drives the industry at the moment. Most indie devs are trying to make "clever" casual games in order to get recognition, when in reality they should concentrate on the hardcore market, as casual games are only a fad, and that market is saturated. Unfortunately, this leaves the hardcore gamer out in the cold. It cannot be blamed on UBI alone tho, as they are catering for a percieved market.

I say percieved, because, the market takes what it is given, what will happen if the market is given something a little different? Maybe the market has to take its share of the blame, as everyone points the finger at the devs and publishers, who are only doing what they feel they need to to make money. Catering for a small, but loyal hardcore is a risk.

The problem is that the big publisher dont want to, or cannot, take that risk. Indie devs should be taking that risk, but they are also working to that market, without realising that they cannot hope to compete. In that situation they can only hope for a buyout, putting them back to square one.

Maybe one day an indie developer will wake up and cater for all of us who want something different. Or hopefully, one of the big ones will try something different, that appeals to the hardcore. (It may actually work in the mainstream, it has not really been tried). In the current climate, it looks like we will have to wait. The games market will stagnate at some point, and then they will cater for the hardcore...if they have not found something else.

That's my two cents. The rainbow series evolved to what it is now, driven by the current market. Do not just blame UBI, look around, every one of us has a part to play (unless the only games you have played were original R6 games[but then you would not be here])

[zisouroland17]

capitalism sucks...

[Ilpolazzo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by malte0004:
How can anyone expect the big publishers to cater for a small hardcore audience? Their goal is to make money. That means selling games that are accessible to as large an audience as possible. If you want a game that fits into a niche, then explore indie developers. Put your idea to them. Most indie developers want a foot in the door, and as such, if you can offer them a loyal fanbase for a product they can make and sell to you, they will. Also this will then be pc only, meaning that console probs wont get a conversion...keeping all you pc "elitists" happy.

None of the big publishers are going to cater for a minority hardcore market...they need to make the cut at the end of the fiscal year, otherwise one of the other big publishers will swallow them.

I hate to say it (I like hardcore tactical games, and would love them on a console http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but the casual games fad drives the industry at the moment. Most indie devs are trying to make "clever" casual games in order to get recognition, when in reality they should concentrate on the hardcore market, as casual games are only a fad, and that market is saturated. Unfortunately, this leaves the hardcore gamer out in the cold. It cannot be blamed on UBI alone tho, as they are catering for a percieved market.

I say percieved, because, the market takes what it is given, what will happen if the market is given something a little different? Maybe the market has to take its share of the blame, as everyone points the finger at the devs and publishers, who are only doing what they feel they need to to make money. Catering for a small, but loyal hardcore is a risk.

The problem is that the big publisher dont want to, or cannot, take that risk. Indie devs should be taking that risk, but they are also working to that market, without realising that they cannot hope to compete. In that situation they can only hope for a buyout, putting them back to square one.

Maybe one day an indie developer will wake up and cater for all of us who want something different. Or hopefully, one of the big ones will try something different, that appeals to the hardcore. (It may actually work in the mainstream, it has not really been tried). In the current climate, it looks like we will have to wait. The games market will stagnate at some point, and then they will cater for the hardcore...if they have not found something else.

That's my two cents. The rainbow series evolved to what it is now, driven by the current market. Do not just blame UBI, look around, every one of us has a part to play (unless the only games you have played were original R6 games[but then you would not be here]) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[AntiPersonnel]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> further, the casual gamer as much right to expect titles aimed towards them as the hardcore gamer does. they plop down their hard-earned cash just like we do and deserve attention on that basis. expectations that companies should cater only towards long-time supporters is not only financially impractical but it's also unfair and more than a touch elitist.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How can anyone expect the big publishers to cater for a small hardcore audience? Their goal is to make money. That means selling games that are accessible to as large an audience as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the above are examples of shallow thinking. i seriously do not understand why it has to be EITHER OR. sure, there are a lot of people who would want nothing short of an original R6 clone. but i for one would want a game that is truly ACCESSIBLE TO ALL AUDIENCES.

as of now the game is only accessible to casual gamers. there is nothing in the game that is appealing to long time fans. ALL THEY HAD TO DO was to incorporate a way to play the game with multiple options, rather than force-feed it down your throat "dev's way or the highway". currently the "dev's way" is that of the low-skilled, low-intelligence casual gamer (which IMO isnt even "representative" of the majority gamer)

if they truly want to expand the series and cater to ALL INTERESTS, they would have at least had the courtesy to include a hardcore mode in multiplayer like COD4 did. but it is clear they do not want to EXPAND their audience, they only want to EXCHANGE it for a newer dumber crowd.

why are they seeking a dumber audience? i dont know. i guess they want to divide by the LOWEST common denominator. but, seeking out the dumbest consumer is NOT always the most profitable, because the "average" consumer is not exactly a dumb one. sure it may seem that way sometimes, but the truth is the average consumer is really just a "sheep" and will buy what is given to them (im not saying this in a bad way). that doesnt mean they are dumb, it just means they accept the lack of choices in titles and "roll with it".

the devs do not release a full-fledged game because they feel they DO NOT HAVE TO. if they released a Raven Shield type game in todays market, given the same press and hype that Vegas2 got i have no doubt in my mind that it would easily sell 2 million copies in the same amount of time.

i dont know if youve ever played Raven Shield, its not exactly a "genius exclusive" game. i wouldnt even consider it really all that hardcore of a game. none of the R6 games are. sure, they are definitely MORE hardcore and realistic than current FPS's, but that doesnt mean the average gamer cant handle them.

devs do not want to have to put in the extra time to polish their game and make it a worthwhile experience that is flixible and able to incorporate ALL difficulty types (casual AND hardcore), because they feel they can reap enough profit by half-assing it. thats the bottom line, its the DEVS fault. blaming the "market" is a cop-out excuse to make a lazy game.

[bigrexxx]

Well thought out post there, looks like you've been saving that one up, but whatever Ubi does to increase their market is fine as long as they allow for options, which they have not. They don't care whether the people that buy the game actually enjoy the product, and that mentality will eventually catch up with them. It wouldn't have cost much more to allow the game to disable certain options to accommodate the original fanbase, while catering to the wider, CS halo-esque crowd they have been trying to woo. And by blatantly disregarding these options and ignoring all the community feedback, WRT game play and bugs, many in the community, old and new school fans see that as a slap in the face.
Ubi could have called these games anything else, still using the Clancy brand, and it would have sold well, but without the numerous R6 fans denouncing it. but lets face it, UBI was cashing in on the legacy of the franchise, having been a past winner of GOTY, without putting forth a product that is truly worthy of that legacy, as no game should be considered for GOTY if it only performs well on 1 out of the 3 platforms it was released on. You may agree with their tactics, but many do not. What ever happened putting the customer first?

[bharlan2002]

I am starting to dislike UBI for the way the present their products. They almost NEVER run TV trailors with footage taken from the game, always CGI scenes that are never even in the game. They never to any public betas. They never acknowledge the bugs in their games and those bugs are become far bigger and more abundant with games of late.

The next Splinter Cell will probably get repetitive like Assassins Creed got. Its story will probably fall apart at the halfway point like AC... grrrrrrr I just wish companies cared about making amazing games and stopped caring simply about pushing products out the door and cookie cutting their way through the next few half arsed sequals...

I'm frustrated that my favorite franchises, Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six are being *****d out an abused. They have potential but UBI keeps drugging them up and locking them in the basement of corperate greed.

[silentstriderm]

I'll admit that I have enjoyed every rainbow six game to date. I really do hate that they have taken out the pre-mission planning, multiple teams, and made the story more like an action movie.

But on the other hand I like the cover system, I think it is a pretty cool thing. That being said, I don't like that you can pop and shoot from cover so easily. I remember your cover mechanics thread AntiPersonnel (with the GI Joe) and I thought it was brilliant!

I personally would like to see a return towards Rainbow's realistic roots, but to keep some of the new features, like the cover system, if it was implemented like in your thread, i.e. making sense for a CT operative to use.

Oh, and fewer bugs that, when found, will get fixed.

[AntiPersonnel]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm frustrated that my favorite franchises, Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six are being *****d out an abused. They have potential but UBI keeps drugging them up and locking them in the basement of corperate greed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats the problem, they dont have to do this, they CHOOSE to do this. there have been plenty of franchises that have stayed true to core that sell out in millions each time they are released (which is actually not that often because they take time in making them).

take for example one of the more really HARDCORE franchises that is aimed at and is actually SUCCESSFUL in a mainstream market: Gran Turismo.

in a sea of cr-appy arcade titles, Polyphony CHOOSES to make a unique game that stands out in the market and keep it as a semi-realistic hardcore simulator rather than sell out and make another run-or-the-mill lame import-drifter-arcade title. yet they still seem to sell millions of copies and retain their crown as "the best" each time.

to put this into perspective, if GT was the equivalent of the "Rainbow Six" of racing games (semi realistic simulator), then Vegas would be the same thing if Polyphony turned Granturismo into a Need For Speed or Ridge Racer clone. with less tracks and less cars all with noob physics that let you take corners at 200 mph and cars with "jet packs". would the game still sell? just like vegas of course it would, but the Devs have enough integrity to keep their game on the same track (pun intended) that have earned them their legacy. and guess what, it STILL SELLS with the original core gameplay.

[shabazz5th]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[W4CGunner]

Where have you been hiding, this is the same for support from EA, Activision, THQ, and Ubi, they get your money and could care less about support in the game. Activision messed its peeps over with CoD4 PC, by putting out new maps just for the consoles, but not for PC. You can't tell me it would have taken that much to add them to PC! Consoles titles is where the money is at (Greed), so when it comes to PC you're going to get hung out to dry every time!

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Venturai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
They sold 2 million copies of Rainbow Six 3, and they sold 2 million copies of Halo Six: Vegas 2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Rainbow Six 3 came out 5 years ago and has sold 2 million to date.

And Vegas 2 has been out maybe a month on consoles, barely a week on the pc, and has sold the same already? Sounds to me like Ubisoft are laughing all the way to the bank mate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yeah that's exactly I said... Not.

What makes you think 75% of the copies R6:3 sold "to date" weren't in the first month after it's release?

Anyways, Halo Six: Vegas might have sold 2 million copies, but what good is that when they're being returned or simply not played?

[AntiPersonnel]

^^ another thing that is not taken into consideration comparing RS3 to RSV sales is:

1. the size of the video gaming industry from 2004 to 2007 (it has increased a HUGE amount since then). what sells 1 million copies in 2004 would have sold multiple times that amount if you consider the market in 2007. you have to look at the numbers relatively.

2. the amount of press, hype and advertising. Vegas 2 was pumped and hyped like nobodys business. if RS3 had that amount of hype and press, dont you think it would have sold as many?



its not about what kind of game it is. so long as there is a game to begin with.

be it Vegas or Raven Shield, if either game type was released today with the same amount of hype and advertising, both would probably sell a very similar amount of copies REGARDLESS. i think most players just want to PLAY THE GAME, be it a arcade game, or a semi-realistic tac-sim that has an arcade difficulty setting. just because a game is easier by default and more "accessible" (BS marketing word BTW) does not mean it will automatically sell more copies.

[TW_Night_Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Halo Six: Vegas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not cool. AS IF Vegas could be anywhere near as good a game as Halo. Last time I checked Halo's custom game options allowed me to make it as "accessible" as I want it. I can't tell you how fun it is to play CTF with no shields, high gravity, and all the weapons set to 300% damage. It's a helluva lot more tactical and realistic than Vegas is. Not to mention all of the other features. Halo wipes the floor with Vegas, there's no competition, the devs need to realize that and just make their own damn game.

[Venturai]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yeah that's exactly I said... Not.

What makes you think 75% of the copies R6:3 sold "to date" weren't in the first month after it's release?

Anyways, Halo Six: Vegas might have sold 2 million copies, but what good is that when they're being returned or simply not played? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're making assumptions.

The point I made, which wasn't corrected, was that it's pretty good going for a game to sell as many copies in about a month as a predecessor has in it's lifetime. There's absolutely no disputing that.

You don't like it, I understand. Your constant (and tiring) references to it being Halo Six rather than Rainbow Six are proof of that. But if you think for a moment the decision they've made weren't made to make more money, you need to think again.

[pnr32]

U agree, both vegas and assasins creed could have been the best of the best, but its all the little stuff they choose not to do that makes them just average.

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by malte0004:
Maybe one day an indie developer will wake up and cater for all of us who want something different. snip.. (unless the only games you have played were original R6 games[but then you would not be here]) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A former RSE/Ubi dev is creating a game to fill the void that Ubi has created. They are advancing the R6/GR model and creating a completely new game from the ground up. They are not saying: "let's use these mechanics and build a game around it," but they are designing the game then adding the machanics.

As far as FPS games go, the only other FPS I played was CoD and it was only once. RSE developed the only FPS games I ever played and was the whole reason for me buying a computer to begin with. I have never played Doom or Quake or even more than 10 minutes of Halo (it came free with a sound card). I rather enjoy sims like Flight Simulator, iL2 Sturmovik (the entire franchise) and a few RTS games like Silent Hunter 2/Destroyer Command/SH3 and I just picked up Dangerous Waters. I happen to enjoy cerebral games and find them great fun.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Venturai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yeah that's exactly I said... Not.

What makes you think 75% of the copies R6:3 sold "to date" weren't in the first month after it's release?

Anyways, Halo Six: Vegas might have sold 2 million copies, but what good is that when they're being returned or simply not played? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're making assumptions.

The point I made, which wasn't corrected, was that it's pretty good going for a game to sell as many copies in about a month as a predecessor has in it's lifetime. There's absolutely no disputing that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, You're also making assumptions that the predecessor didn't sell just as many copies as Vegas 2 did in the same time frame.

Then there's the point about how Vegas 2 might has sold 2 million copies in about a month, but what good bragging about those numbers when a high percentage of those sales have been returned, traded in, or otherwise shelved? Evidence of this is the rather low player base found playing the game at the end of that month (observations from playing online on Xbox 360).

Oh and I refer to Vegas 2 as Halo Six: Vegas because it plays more like a Halo game than it does a Rainbow Six one.

[Venturai]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
Again, You're also making assumptions that the predecessor didn't sell just as many copies as Vegas 2 did in the same time frame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never claimed to have any of the stats mate, I'm going on what you said which was that both games have sold 2 million copies. Since Rainbox Six 3 was released in early 2003 and Vegas barely a month ago, Vegas having matched Rainbow Six 3's sales already can only be a good thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
Evidence of this is the rather low player base found playing the game at the end of that month (observations from playing online on Xbox 360).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be willing to bet a comparison between the number of gamers playing online on the 360 network to the total number of copies sold is about normal. In any case, you need to quote facts to prove or disprove this assumption.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
Oh and I refer to Vegas 2 as Halo Six: Vegas because it plays more like a Halo game than it does a Rainbow Six one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is no doubt by design, since Ubisoft would very much indeed like for this to sell like Halo does.

[DonRSD]

you guys act like girls

who cares if one or 2 bad seeds dont like the game

i LOVE it, yet i never play offline.

if you dont like it return it, his is the reason i only own apf2k8, nba2k8 & rsv2.

why buy games if you dont know

and never trust the reviewers article, everyone has different tastes.
i know what i like and im not changing

ive been this way since atari 2600

[DeimosWilliams]

What if Ubisoft IS making the game they want to make.

We're assuming that deep down they secretly want to make a realistic shooter but, don't because of money.

What if that isn't the case at all.

What if they had/have the option to make the game the majority of us on the boards want but, that's not the game they personally want to make?

Unfortunately, we expect to much from these games because they are apart of the Rainbow Six franchise.

If this was just some random game called VEGAS then we wouldn't be so critical and we wouldn't expect the game play to change.

[Cons72]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuddyBear:
You've created an average shooter for the masses.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "masses" also don't tend to bother complaining when they purchase poor quality products, which plays well into Ubi's business model.

Look at how many people actually defend the problems with the game ("no worse than any other game," etc...), rather than admit to themselves that they settle for bad products. It really is testament to the mass consumption mentality that corporations have been able to get the average consumer to deem acceptable.

[Want2Snipe]

Shipping 2 Millions copies to Retailers is not the same as Selling 2 Million copies to Consumers... Pffttt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Where do you people get your stats from? Ubi Marketing Dept? Do you also believe that the game is as playable as they presented it on the TV commercials? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[BuddyBear]

Another Thread: Why is it soooo hard to comment?

DirtyBkrsDozen Posted Mon April 21 2008 10:06
Dear Ubi - it's been a while since the last post on the variety of issues. (Ubi.LevelUp's "Featured TopicMultiplayer, Rank, & Achievement Issues - Keeping you informed." last post on April 2nd).

Are these issues still being investigated, or is this as good as it's going to get.

Thanks.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Wed October 24 2007

[Cons72]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuddyBear:
Another Thread: Why is it soooo hard to comment?

DirtyBkrsDozen Posted Mon April 21 2008 10:06
Dear Ubi - it's been a while since the last post on the variety of issues. (Ubi.LevelUp's "Featured TopicMultiplayer, Rank, & Achievement Issues - Keeping you informed." last post on April 2nd).

Are these issues still being investigated, or is this as good as it's going to get.

Thanks.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Wed October 24 2007 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has only been a little over 2.5 weeks since the last status update from Ubi. In the Ubiverse time, that is like a day, so you have to be patient with them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

After all, this is the company that defines "soon" as approximately 3 months. &lt;--- that is true, based on history.

[xoops]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cons72:
After all, this is the company that defines "soon" as approximately 3 months. &lt;--- that is true, based on history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a UBI developer running close to the speed of light has a local clock ticking slower than the clock of a customer that is standing idle.

That might explain things?

Another more realistic explanation however is that the brain of the developer might be ticking slower than the customer, but I won't go further into that hypothesis...

[Dr__Cube]

Fantastic well worded post, BuddyBear. I agree with everything you said.

Somewhere over the rainbow? You bet I am.

[sls1aw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Venturai:
As I said before anyway, the situation with Vegas 2 isn't nearly as bad as is being made out here. 2 million purchases already, and yet only a handful of complainers, means the veggies must taste just right to the vast majority of consumers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Worse part of UBI games, they have no shelf life.. Those 2 million gamers must all be single player gamers. And you have got to wonder if it's more like 1.8 million console sales rest PC.

It appears to me, UBI are trying to convert the RB6 series into a singleplayer Splinter cell type of game. Completely removing MP mode

The online community is non-existent..