PDA

View Full Version : Genuine questions and feedback for ubisoft.



yoinkster
04-09-2012, 10:39 PM
Dear ubisoft,

I used to love the Assassin's Creed franchise and have spent many a penny on it over the years. Unfortunately, this will now come to an end and I will never spend another penny on these titles or any other of your titles. Why? Well, two reasons.

I'm sure my first point has been covered many times but you can treat this forum post as a complaint not just a comment so a full answer would be appreciated. Why are you attempting to destroy the secondhand market of your titles? The need for a code to play online is ridiculous, I've already given you nearly FORTY POUNDS, why can't I recoup some of this by selling it to a friend who's patient enough to wait until after the initial buzz of the release? I can sell my music CDs, my car, my phone or indeed any asset once I've finished with it and it works the same for the buyer as it did for me. Why do you feel your games are so special? Yes, I know my friend can buy a new code and that you want as much money as possible but that's not the point, if you annoy too many people, you'll be deservedly left with no customers. Gaming used to be a community thing, now it's just man vs world as he tries to eek out as much enjoyment out of a title as possible to make the heavy investment worth it.

My second point when combined with my first complaint manages to create more rage than the two single complaints combined. Congratulations on making me more angry than I should be. So secondly, why do you think it's fair to release an incomplete game, charge full price for it, and then a bit later on release the rest and charge for it? I am of course referring here to your DLC. If it's part of the game, put it in the game. Why should I have to pay you twice to experience the full joy of the game? It's like me building you a house, taking your money and then charging you extra to install the windows and doors. Have you not noticed how these sorts of tricks wind people up? People have got smart to DRM and now the very mention of it makes people put the title down and, god willing, the same will soon happen to DLC. If your game is good enough (which it is for f***s sake!) then it will sell well and you will make a fortune without having to underhandedly as*r*p* YOUR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS!!!!!!

You make me so mad. The worst of it is I love the AC games but you are such a bunch of t*****s that I will now refuse to give you any more of my money. I used to rep your games to all that would listen, now I'll bad mouth you at a slightly-louder-than-inside-voice so that anyone in earshot can hear. I hope your company fails and I for one will gladly spit on its corpse.

yoinkster.

LightRey
04-09-2012, 10:41 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/Sw8S8LrYxBI/AAAAAAAAcLs/nfhRs3RelMs/s1600/RatsAss.jpg
I am not giving this to you. :(

ShaneO7K
04-09-2012, 10:43 PM
http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/13996181.jpg

rileypoole1234
04-09-2012, 10:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL1lfSzgcAw

Grazel69
04-09-2012, 10:43 PM
totally agree

UrDeviant1
04-09-2012, 10:47 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ifHyynCUfP8/TVQVt9vb3GI/AAAAAAAAHdE/tMkaq_F5334/s1600/funny-crying-baby-snot-bubble.jpg

freddie_1897
04-09-2012, 10:58 PM
1. Servers cost money, if it was like catwoman in arkham city i would agree. Also, why would you sell your friend the game just for the MP?

2. If you are referring to ACB then that DLC was made after they finished the game, and it's better to have a DLC you can choose to buy or not than have one at all. In your theory, there wouldn't be any DLC because they cost money. Plus the DLC was great and was definitely worth a tenner, so stop being a cheap skate. Again, if it was day one DLC like ME3 I would agree.

Fine, don't spend any money on AC3 , your loss, none of us really care.

Do you think you could be more specific about what games your talking about?

Also, it kind of sounds like your in a bad mood about something and so you feel you have to go on a childish tantrum about it.


Now I wasn't to just make thing one thing clear, you won't spend any more money on Ubi because the MP is only available if you buy new, and the DLC doesn't come free?
That doesn't seem like a fair enough reason to back up what your saying

mustash
04-09-2012, 10:58 PM
Ignore the trolls, you raise some valid points. However, I'd recommend you contribute to this thread here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/325837-AC-Revelations-Singleplayer-Game-feedback-Do-Not-Post-Spoilers%21)

yoinkster
04-09-2012, 11:04 PM
1. Servers cost money, if it was like catwoman in arkham city i would agree. Also, why would you sell your friend the game just for the MP?

2. If you are referring to ACB then that DLC was made after they finished the game, and it's better to have a DLC you can choose to buy or not than have one at all. In your theory, there wouldn't be any DLC because they cost money. Plus the DLC was great and was definitely worth a tenner, so stop being a cheap skate. Again, if it was day one DLC like ME3 I would agree.

Fine, don't spend any money on AC3 , your loss, none of us really care.

Do you think you could be more specific about what games your talking about?

Also, it kind of sounds like your in a bad mood about something and so you feel you have to go on a childish tantrum about it.


Now I wasn't to just make thing one thing clear, you won't spend any more money on Ubi because the MP is only available if you buy new, and the DLC doesn't come free?
That doesn't seem like a fair enough reason to back up what your saying

I wouldn't sell it just for the MP but when I'm done with it, I can sell it. If I sold someone GTA4, they could play the SP and the MP and that's how it should be. I've chosen to sever my ties with a game because I've got everything out of it I want. that's how it works with every other product out there, why should this be any different? Servers do cost money but the CoD franchise is doing ok, the Halo franchise is doing ok, GTA is pretty popular yet they don't try to fold their customers over a barrel. I wasn't really referring to any specific DLC, I'm just angry that DLC should exist. If the game's not finished, wait. If it's finished, save the new stuff for the next game. It's made worse when the DLC achievements are listed as though they are part of the game. I wanted to find out what the river styx achievement was all about, ended up watching a clip on utoob and was like "err, ok, that wasn't in my game". The achievements at the very least should be clearly labeled "THIS IS ONLY IN THE PART WHERE YOU HAVE TO GIVE US MORE MONEY (LOL SUCKER)"

I know you, as a fan, don't care if I spend money on AC3 but I was somewhat naively hoping that either a) someone from ubisoft would be here or b) fans would have a defense for their game instead of just being morons.

Yes, I'm in a stonking mood because of the aforementioned run in with the DLC on utoob when I expected it to be in the game. The achievement was listed from the day the game came out so they had already decided what the DLC was going to contain and how it was going to work. That's just cheating. Flat out cheating.

I won't spend any more money on ubisoft because it's so obvious they've had a management meeting about "how to screw people out of as much money as possible" and come up with "I know, let's ruin the secondhand market so people will be forced to give us MOAR MONIES!" and "I know, let's make a game but know from the start we'll make an extra part and let's CHARGE FOR THAT TOO!! YEAH ONE FOR THE PRICE OF TWO!!!!"


Ignore the trolls, you raise some valid points. However, I'd recommend you contribute to this thread here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/325837-AC-Revelations-Singleplayer-Game-feedback-Do-Not-Post-Spoilers%21)

Thanks for the link, I saw the thread and assumed it was more for things like "I hate that I couldn't push Y and get a horse." or "The key combination to do $blah was really anoying!" but I shall give it further read.

freddie_1897
04-09-2012, 11:05 PM
Ignore the trolls, you raise some valid points. However, I'd recommend you contribute to this thread here (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/325837-AC-Revelations-Singleplayer-Game-feedback-Do-Not-Post-Spoilers%21)

He raises no good points, the MP is a sideline to the game and the DLC serves no real purpose, he's just being ungrateful because he didn't get a few little extra things

Captain Tomatoz
04-09-2012, 11:28 PM
The reason ubisoft have an online code for online play is a very valid reason. Every time a shop sells a pre owned copy of a game the developers/publishers never get a penny from it. That is a lost sale and is almost as bad if not as bad as piracy. I think if the game shops gave a percentage of the sales cost to the developers/publishers then we wouldn't be in this situation. And its not just ubisoft that is doing it, a lot of game companies are doing the online code system now its nothing special to ubisoft.

DLC is used to lengthen the game experience. You have to pay for it because its developed after the game is made. If your referring to the leaked sound files for TLA DLC then that was only sound clips. They hadn't made the animations or the levels. This was all done after revelations was completed so they have every right to charge for it as they have done extra work and need to be paid.

freddie_1897
04-09-2012, 11:36 PM
^exactly this^

yoinkster
04-09-2012, 11:39 PM
The reason ubisoft have an online code for online play is a very valid reason. Every time a shop sells a pre owned copy of a game the developers/publishers never get a penny from it. That is a lost sale and is almost as bad if not as bad as piracy. I think if the game shops gave a percentage of the sales cost to the developers/publishers then we wouldn't be in this situation. And its not just ubisoft that is doing it, a lot of game companies are doing the online code system now its nothing special to ubisoft.

DLC is used to lengthen the game experience. You have to pay for it because its developed after the game is made. If your referring to the leaked sound files for TLA DLC then that was only sound clips. They hadn't made the animations or the levels. This was all done after revelations was completed so they have every right to charge for it as they have done extra work and need to be paid.

But Ford sell cars. These cars are then either sold to dealers or privately. Ford do not see any more money.
Builders build and sell houses. The house is then sold again. Builders get nothing.

Game companies have made money in the past without this blatant cheating and companies that don't use it today also continue to make money with great titles. Tetris, Mario, Doom, CoD, Halo et al have all sold in massive numbers and made their companies fortunes with no DLC. Are ubisoft just admitting they can't make a world beating game or something?

I'm not wholly against DLC as long as it's a full on after thought and the meeting goes "oh crap, guys, this would've been awesome for the story." but that's not what happened here. They knew from the very start they were going to make ACR as it was and then shove the DLC on the end. That's cheating. No other words for it, flat out gareth bale levels of cheating.

ZombieAttkPlan
04-09-2012, 11:40 PM
Your argument is valid, but it's not just Ubisoft doing this. It's the entire gaming industry! If you're upset now, wait until the new consoles are revealed. Then you will know the true meaning of vitriol. Also to the last couple of posts: We know why Ubisoft does this; as we know why EA, Activision etc does it. That's precisely the point. It's a crap thing to do in many gamers' opinions.

It's just online now, but soon, it will be the ability to play the game at all.

freddie_1897
04-09-2012, 11:44 PM
I wouldn't sell it just for the MP but when I'm done with it, I can sell it. If I sold someone GTA4, they could play the SP and the MP and that's how it should be. I've chosen to sever my ties with a game because I've got everything out of it I want. that's how it works with every other product out there, why should this be any different? Servers do cost money but the CoD franchise is doing ok, the Halo franchise is doing ok, GTA is pretty popular yet they don't try to fold their customers over a barrel. I wasn't really referring to any specific DLC, I'm just angry that DLC should exist. If the game's not finished, wait. If it's finished, save the new stuff for the next game. It's made worse when the DLC achievements are listed as though they are part of the game. I wanted to find out what the river styx achievement was all about, ended up watching a clip on utoob and was like "err, ok, that wasn't in my game". The achievements at the very least should be clearly labeled "THIS IS ONLY IN THE PART WHERE YOU HAVE TO GIVE US MORE MONEY (LOL SUCKER)"

I know you, as a fan, don't care if I spend money on AC3 but I was somewhat naively hoping that either a) someone from ubisoft would be here or b) fans would have a defense for their game instead of just being morons.

Yes, I'm in a stonking mood because of the aforementioned run in with the DLC on utoob when I expected it to be in the game. The achievement was listed from the day the game came out so they
had already decided what the DLC was going to contain and how it was going to work. That's just cheating. Flat out cheating.

I won't spend any more money on ubisoft because it's so obvious they've had a management meeting about "how to screw people out of as much money as possible" and come up with "I know, let's ruin the secondhand market so people will be forced to give us MOAR MONIES!" and "I know, let's make a game but know from the start we'll make an extra part and let's CHARGE FOR THAT TOO!! YEAH ONE FOR THE PRICE OF TWO!!!!'



Thanks for the link, I saw the thread and assumed it was more for things like "I hate that I couldn't push Y and get a horse." or "The key combination to do $blah was really anoying!" but I shall give it further read.
ITS NOT CHEATING! They made it after the game was released as an extra to keep you entertained, maybe they do save a majority if their DLC for the next game, you just don't hear about it!
This is childish, I have no problem with people who dislike a game for it's controls or story but for DLC and MP? Really? Get over it, your complaining over nothing. It would be like me going 'oh, I bought this film, I shouldn't have to pay more for the deleted scenes'

Captain Tomatoz
04-09-2012, 11:45 PM
But Ford sell cars. These cars are then either sold to dealers or privately. Ford do not see any more money.
Builders build and sell houses. The house is then sold again. Builders get nothing.


But I bet you that if they could find a way to get some money out of it they would. Its just good business and there isn't anything wrong with that. Ubisoft weren't the first to do this. I think EA (could be wrong) were the first 'big' company to do this and others followed. Almost the whole PC market now is based on the idea of no preowned sales. Digital downloads cannot be sold on so the game companies get money for every sale, like it should be. They make the games and they deserve the success (or failure) that comes with it.

ZombieAttkPlan
04-09-2012, 11:48 PM
It's smart business, but not good business. Not by my subjective morality, anyway. Though if I were a game company I can't say I wouldn't see the benefit of it. So basically there is indeed two ways to skin a cat, but only one shows compassion to your consumers. With that said, I love Ubisoft games enough anyway to where I simply buy them new with no real qualms about it, but that just speaks to the quality of their games. EA and Activision are FAR more guilty of this because it can be argued that their content is not always the best it could be.

freddie_1897
04-09-2012, 11:53 PM
I don't like companies that have Day one DLC, your problem seems to be with the revelations DLC, if your going to stop buying games because of one DLC then fine, because they haven't done that before.

Besides, DLC you either buy, or don't buy, I didn't buy the revelations DLC, but I'm not complaining that they should give it free

Captain Tomatoz
04-09-2012, 11:55 PM
It's smart business, but not good business. Not by my subjective morality, anyway. Though if I were a game company I can't say I wouldn't see the benefit of it. So basically there is indeed two ways to skin a cat, but only one shows compassion to your consumers.

I understand why people see it as morally wrong to have this online pass system but buying preownded games is hurting the games industry as a whole. More and more preowned sales happen every year and this means less money is going to the games companies and instead to the games distributors. The online pass system allows game companies to get at least a little money from a preowned sale. By buying a preowned game, you may not feel this way, but its the like you've pirated the game from a premium piracy shop.

yoinkster
04-09-2012, 11:56 PM
ITS NOT CHEATING! They made it after the game was released as an extra to keep you entertained, maybe they do save a majority if their DLC for the next game, you just don't hear about it!
This is childish, I have no problem with people who dislike a game for it's controls or story but for DLC and MP? Really? Get over it, your complaining over nothing. It would be like me going 'oh, I bought this film, I shouldn't have to pay more for the deleted scenes'

It is cheating because the DLC was conceived before the game was released. It was even conceived while the game was in development. If it was a true after thought then they'd deserve credit for extending an otherwise enjoyable game. But It wasn't. And they deserve to be flamed for it.

And AFAIK, if there are deleted scenes and they are going to be made available they are generally put on the DVD that one would buy :P I know what you mean though and it's ^^ that part of the DLC that I'm against.


But I bet you that if they could find a way to get some money out of it they would. Its just good business and there isn't anything wrong with that. Ubisoft weren't the first to do this. I think EA (could be wrong) were the first 'big' company to do this and others followed. Almost the whole PC market now is based on the idea of no preowned sales. Digital downloads cannot be sold on so the game companies get money for every sale, like it should be. They make the games and they deserve the success (or failure) that comes with it.

If there was a way and they tried it, with a big enough market, enough people would tell them to shove it and rightly so. The gamer market unfortunately is too small and is easily pissed on by publishers. I'm aware that EA tried it on with Spore DRM (only 3 installs allowed - the pirated version was actually better for the consumer than the bought product) but the backlash was so bad that that idea is rarely used any more. I'm not a big enough gamer myself to know what else EA may have done with DLC and one-use MP codes however. Their games obviously suck compared to AC, so imho, AC shouldn't have it ;)

smengler
04-10-2012, 12:01 AM
I do not find your point about the DLC valid, since when you buy the game, you're paying for what you buy. Not for future releases. DLC should complement the story, which it does. If they brought you to the end of the game, then told you that you had to pay $9.99 for the ending, that would be wrong. You pay for the story that they're selling you, not more.

Your other point about the multiplayer is a valid one. Pirating PS3 games is virtually non-existent, so that cannot be the issue for them. They want to extra money, along with every other developer who is also doing this. We are lucky at the moment that they are not locking down the SP as well, but it looks like everyone will be doing this in the future. This will become an even bigger problem when all games are bought online, such as Apple's app store. We will not be able to share games with family members, etc. To us consumers, it is not "right" for them to do this, but for the company, they can do whatever they want. I agree that I will not buy many games once this happens. What can we do though, other than vote with our wallets?

Edit: For people arguing that buying used games is hurting the industry, it is not. They want you to think that, so don't let them.

UrDeviant1
04-10-2012, 12:03 AM
DLC Is a separate product. You have the assumption you're entitled to every last bit of small content that developers churn out, but guess what? you're not.

And as for online passes, do you blame a company for wanting to make more money? Isn't that what companies DO? The pre-owned buyer Is an untapped source of revenue for game developers and the more money they make, the higher the quality of games will be.

Edit: I don't totally disagree. I'm sure there are more shady studios out there who are making day 1 DLC, marketing It as a separate product when It's clearly not, and could have been part of the main game on disc.

LightRey
04-10-2012, 12:12 AM
DLC Is a separate product. You have the assumption you're entitled to every last bit of small content that developers churn out, but guess what? you're not.

And as for online passes, do you blame a company for wanting to make more money? Isn't that what companies DO? The pre-owned buyer Is an untapped source of revenue for game developers and the more money they make, the higher the quality of games will be.

Edit: I don't totally disagree. I'm sure there are more shady studios out there who are making day 1 DLC, marketing It as a separate product when It's clearly not, and could have been part of the main game on disc.
Indeed. Let's not forget what happened during the North American Video Game Crash of 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983). One of the primary causes was a serious drop in the quality of Atari video games, severely damaging the reputation of the industry.

smengler
04-10-2012, 12:16 AM
And as for online passes, do you blame a company for wanting to make more money? Isn't that what companies DO? The pre-owned buyer Is an untapped source of revenue for game developers and the more money they make, the higher the quality of games will be.

I agree that companies will always try to make more money, but I don't agree that the quality of games will be improved. This money will go straight into the owners pocket, not into future games. Companies will not create better products just because they're nice. They'll build their products in the cheapest way possible, then pocket any extra money.

freddie_1897
04-10-2012, 12:18 AM
It is cheating because the DLC was conceived before the game was released. It was even conceived while the game was in development. If it was a true after thought then they'd deserve credit for extending an otherwise enjoyable game. But It wasn't. And they deserve to be flamed for it.

And AFAIK, if there are deleted scenes and they are going to be made available they are generally put on the DVD that one would buy :P I know what you mean though and it's ^^ that part of the DLC that I'm against.
What DLC had they come up with during the making of the game?
If so do you have any proof?
And even if you do, I don't see it as a very good reason to leave the AC franchise forever

UrDeviant1
04-10-2012, 12:21 AM
Indeed. Let's not forget what happened during the North American Video Game Crash of 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983). One of the primary causes was a serious drop in the quality of Atari video games, severely damaging the reputation of the industry.

Exactly. We don't want to see game companies go under, and some are really relying on DLC/cutting the sale of pre-owned, just to keep their head above water, take THQ for example(even though I'm not their biggest fan).

LightRey
04-10-2012, 12:23 AM
I agree that companies will always try to make more money, but I don't agree that the quality of games will be improved. This money will go straight into the owners pocket, not into future games. Companies will not create better products just because they're nice. They'll build their products in the cheapest way possible, then pocket any extra money.
This is not entirely true. Most of the profits companies make go into improving and expanding the company. In the case of game developers that generally means it goes into the budget of new games. The more successful a game series, the more money will be invested in its next installment.

It did happen once that game companies thought they could get away with publishing low quality games (often based on movies and the like) thanks to their reputation and apparent monopoly, but that resulted in the above mentioned crash. Trust me, most of the money Ubi makes on AC goes right back into the development of the next AC game.

Captain Tomatoz
04-10-2012, 12:25 AM
What DLC had they come up with during the making of the game?
If so do you have any proof?
And even if you do, I don't see it as a very good reason to leave the AC franchise forever

They definitely came up with it while making AC:R because they recorded all the sound clips. But as I said earlier, they made the animations and the game areas after development of the game.

LightRey
04-10-2012, 12:28 AM
They definitely came up with it while making AC:R because they recorded all the sound clips. But as I said earlier, they made the animations and the game areas after development of the game.
True. A huge part of the audio of TLA was already on the disc.

freddie_1897
04-10-2012, 12:28 AM
They definitely came up with it while making AC:R because they recorded all the sound clips. But as I said earlier, they made the animations and the game areas after development of the game.

Okay, that's not great of them, but would you stop playing AC because of that?


Oh, and OP, I am certain that you will buy AC3, absolutely certain

LightRey
04-10-2012, 12:29 AM
Okay, that's not great of them, but would you stop playing AC because of that?


Oh, and OP, I am certain that you will buy AC3, absolutely certain
Tbh, I disagree with him. Being angry at Ubi for this is like being angry at Apple for not selling their iPhones/iPods/iPads unlocked.

Captain Tomatoz
04-10-2012, 12:31 AM
Okay, that's not great of them, but would you stop playing AC because of that?


Why would I? Its a perfectly legitimate way of making DLC. A game cannot just simply add DLC without planning it before hand. The game will need a special code to allow DLC to work among other things.

smengler
04-10-2012, 12:39 AM
This is not entirely true. Most of the profits companies make go into improving and expanding the company. In the case of game developers that generally means it goes into the budget of new games. The more successful a game series, the more money will be invested in its next installment.

It did happen once that game companies thought they could get away with publishing low quality games (often based on movies and the like) thanks to their reputation and apparent monopoly, but that resulted in the above mentioned crash. Trust me, most of the money Ubi makes on AC goes right back into the development of the next AC game.

I see what you're saying, but the company will only put more money into a game if they think it will increase profit. This will happen regardless of how much money they make. I do not believe that any company will put more money into a game to increase the quality if they don't expect any increase in profit. An example would be Activision (my personal opinion), who makes a whole lot of low quality games, but they still don't put more money back into future games. They continue to make low quality games and keep the profit.

rileypoole1234
04-10-2012, 12:42 AM
Why would I? Its a perfectly legitimate way of making DLC. A game cannot just simply add DLC without planning it before hand. The game will need a special code to allow DLC to work among other things.

Agreed. It's not like DLC is a thought that pops into someone's head after the game is released.

LightRey
04-10-2012, 12:48 AM
I see what you're saying, but the company will only put more money into a game if they think it will increase profit. This will happen regardless of how much money they make. I do not believe that any company will put more money into a game to increase the quality if they don't expect any increase in profit. An example would be Activision (my personal opinion), who makes a whole lot of low quality games, but they still don't put more money back into future games. They continue to make low quality games and keep the profit.
That is true. However, I see no reason for Ubisoft to expect fewer profits from upcoming AC titles and I think ACIII is evidence that they're looking at it in the same manner.

smengler
04-10-2012, 01:48 AM
That is true. However, I see no reason for Ubisoft to expect fewer profits from upcoming AC titles and I think ACIII is evidence that they're looking at it in the same manner.

Yes, that's true. I was thinking about games in general, not just AC, but yeah I agree with you that AC3 has a lot more money and work being put into it. With the little bit we've seen, I'm sure it will live up to expectations.

jmk1999
04-10-2012, 01:53 AM
@ yoinkster (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/1272183-yoinkster):
please don't bypass the censors. they're set in place for a reason, so don't use those words. also, curb your rage. i understand you're upset, but all your swearing and rage-filled comments do is provoke trolling.

morpheusPrime08
04-10-2012, 05:49 AM
Yoinksters got a point, I know I was pissed when ACR came out because it diffinitely didnt feel like a $60 game(which im glad I chose to rent) it felt like AC was turning into call of duty, which is why ubi decided to add multiplayer and to justify an online pass. But after doing my research on AC3 Ubi has redeemed themselves in my eyes.