PDA

View Full Version : Quantity not quality ubisoft?



robert_w88
01-04-2015, 09:17 PM
An AC game every year is a big middle finger to its customers.


To release a huge open world game every year is almost impossible, it has no time to go through quality control, like Unity didn't, to fix all the glitches and bugs, and its just a big F U from ubisoft to its customers tbh.

Ubisoft knew this game was plagued with issues, no way would they deny not seeing the issues before release, there are too many for them not to have spotted them.

Unity needed to be delayed by at least 3 months, it wasn't due to the fact that Ubisoft wanted it out so they could start work on the next AC and make it an annual game to make more $$$$$.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 12:00 AM
An AC game every year is a big middle finger to its customers.


To release a huge open world game every year is almost impossible, it has no time to go through quality control, like Unity didn't, to fix all the glitches and bugs, and its just a big F U from ubisoft to its customers tbh.

Ubisoft knew this game was plagued with issues, no way would they deny not seeing the issues before release, there are too many for them not to have spotted them.

Unity needed to be delayed by at least 3 months, it wasn't due to the fact that Ubisoft wanted it out so they could start work on the next AC and make it an annual game to make more $$$$$.


I actually wonder is the player now the Quality Control tester rather than Ubisoft paying a team to highlight these bugs ?

You are right, there are simply far too many to treat as unforeseen ? I think like any huge corporation the aim is to save money and and triple their returns, which does make me think have they got id of these testers and using us the gamers to hi light these issues ?

Kaschra
01-05-2015, 02:05 AM
[/COLOR]Unity needed to be delayed by at least 3 months, it wasn't due to the fact that Ubisoft wanted it out so they could start work on the next AC and make it an annual game to make more $$$$$.

You do kow that they work longer than one year on a game, right?
They don't just start to work on the next game after the current game is released.

However, I do agree that Unity needed more time.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 02:25 AM
You do kow that they work longer than one year on a game, right?
They don't just start to work on the next game after the current game is released.

However, I do agree that Unity needed more time.

From what I understand 3-4 years development time ?

Kaschra
01-05-2015, 02:33 AM
From what I understand 3-4 years development time ?

For Unity it was, yes.
Then there is Revelations which took 8 or 9 months, but this is the expection.
It's usually longer.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 02:38 AM
For Unity it was, yes.
Then there is Revelations which took 8 or 9 months, but this is the expection.
It's usually longer.

I think AC3 was about the same time as Unity ..

Revelations I think that was set to be DLC at one point .

Assassin_M
01-05-2015, 02:57 AM
To release a huge open world game every year is almost impossible, it has no time to go through quality control, like Unity didn't, to fix all the glitches and bugs, and its just a big F U from ubisoft to its customers tbh.
Not possible, ever. Not these days anyway.


Ubisoft knew this game was plagued with issues, no way would they deny not seeing the issues before release, there are too many for them not to have spotted them.
You must realize that it's not just a simple click of some magic button to debug a complicated piece of software like ACU. That's the problem with people, they assume that EVERYTHING has some sort of magical button that Ubisoft refuses to click, just to spite people. Oooh, mind blowing graphics? **** you, ubisoft, you downgraded the graphics. Oooh, 1080 p? **** you, ubisoft, you want parity. Oooh, 60 FPS? **** you, ubisoft, you did that on purpose. Sure, the customer doesn't know everything but this is different from say movies or cartoons. Games are complicated monsters, especially these days. People right now say "I remember the old days when games were complete and did not need patches after release" That's because games were FAR FAR less complicated than they are now.

Debugging is complicated. There's also not just ONE SINGULAR type of debugging. I wont go through details but it's like trying to contain that boiling water coming out of a big pan of rice. Fixing a problem may cause another more complicated problem somewhere else and that may lead to EVERYTHING else getting effed up. The whole process is tricky and there HAD to be compromises. But had the developers compromised, everybody would quickly pick up their trusty forks and chanted DOWN WITH UBISOFT BECAUSE THEIR GAME IS DOWNGRADED. How dare Ubisoft try to friggin optimize their game?


Unity needed to be delayed by at least 3 months, it wasn't due to the fact that Ubisoft wanted it out so they could start work on the next AC and make it an annual game to make more $$$$$.
And if it was delayed by about 6 months, what would people say? Here: "WTF, UBI? are you going to downgrade it like watch dogs?" "URRRRGHHHHH UBI, i expected it by november, you suck" and even IF ubisoft delays, it'll be because they want to optimize the game obviously. Optimization is what you people call "downgrading". Yes, that's right. Ubi would have been ****ed, no matter what.

They're not the victim, frankly the developers are with the impossible no win situation they're in but these days, gamers are just becoming entitled, snobbish little ignorant brats. Every gamer acts like an expert in programming and the arduous process of making a AAA game just because they know a few fancy terms like "frames per second" "game engine" and "optimization"

Quantity not quality? See how many people would have whined and moaned if the graphics were ANYTHING less than they are now, if Paris was smaller, if the amount of people was less.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 03:01 AM
Not possible, ever. Not these days anyway.

[/COLOR]
You must realize that it's not just a simple click of some magic button to debug a complicated piece of software like ACU. That's the problem with people, they assume that EVERYTHING has some sort of magical button that Ubisoft refuses to click, just to spite people. Oooh, mind blowing graphics? **** you, ubisoft, you downgraded the graphics. Oooh, 1080 p? **** you, ubisoft, you want parity. Oooh, 60 FPS? **** you, ubisoft, you did that on purpose. Sure, the customer doesn't know everything but this is different from say movies or cartoons. Games are complicated monsters, especially these days. People right now say "I remember the old days when games were complete and did not need patches after release" That's because games were FAR FAR less complicated than they are now.

Debugging is complicated. There's also not just ONE SINGULAR type of debugging. I wont go through details but it's like trying to contain that boiling water coming out of a big pan of rice. Fixing a problem may cause another more complicated problem somewhere else and that may lead to EVERYTHING else getting effed up. The whole process is tricky and there HAD to be compromises. But had the developers compromised, everybody would quickly pick up their trusty forks and chanted DOWN WITH UBISOFT BECAUSE THEIR GAME IS DOWNGRADED. How dare Ubisoft try to friggin optimize their game?

[COLOR=#000000]
And if it was delayed by about 6 months, what would people say? Here: "WTF, UBI? are you going to downgrade it like watch dogs?" "URRRRGHHHHH UBI, i expected it by november, you suck" and even IF ubisoft delays, it'll be because they want to optimize the game obviously. Optimization is what you people call "downgrading". Yes, that's right. Ubi would have been ****ed, no matter what.

They're not the victim, frankly the developers are with the impossible no win situation they're in but these days, gamers are just becoming entitled, snobbish little ignorant brats. Every gamer acts like an expert in programming and the arduous process of making a AAA game just because they know a few fancy terms like "frames per second" "game engine" and "optimization"

Well I do think we are entitled to some sort of perfection ? especially a Game of this magnitude .

But I never experienced any issues with AC3 or Black Flag so I am guessing they are warming up to the Next generation Architecture ?

I recently saw an article that SDK for the XBOX ONE developers have only just got access to the 7th core and the X1 has 8 Cores ? so I am guessing they are familiarising themselves with the new hardware ?

Assassin_M
01-05-2015, 03:09 AM
Well I do think we are entitled to some sort of perfection ? especially a Game of this magnitude .

But I never experienced any issues with AC3 or Black Flag so I am guessing they are warming up to the Next generation Architecture ?

I recently saw an article that SDK for the XBOX ONE developers have only just got access to the 7th core ? so I am guessing they are familiarising themselves with the new hardware ?
Not really. Customers are entitled to a stable game and MINIMAL ( preferably NO) game breaking bugs (Then arises the dilemma of "what's a game breaking bug? it's anything that hinders your progress through the game and all its challenges) That's what people are entitled to. That's not perfection and there has never been such a state for any game.
Actually, for a game of THIS magnitude, people need to understand that it's a complicated monster and not some walk in the park. As I said, Ubi is no victim. The higher ups SHOULD give more time for developers.

I don't imagine it'll take developers as long as it had for the last generation for them to familiarize themselves. That's mainly because the PS4 and X-box one are easier to develop on than the PS3 and 360. Of course that's not to say that it's easy. Yes, though. Microsoft finally decided to let go of some of the fluff on their consoles in favor of having the console ACTUALLY do what it was supposed to do: Run games.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 03:17 AM
The higher SHOULD give more time for developers.


This is a good point rather than race to get something out for the Holiday season ? I do understand that the development team are at the mercy of Ubi's corporate big wigs ( who probably know next to nothing about programming) at gaming even that .

The developers are very talented and Have would have been given a time scale and budget ( Its business )

Which I am also guessing thats the reason why Watch Dogs suffered ?

All to please the share holder which was very ironic because Ubi's stock price suffered when Unity Launched ?

Thus saying i did enjoy watch dogs but the quality was not how it was marketed .

Assassin_M
01-05-2015, 03:24 AM
This is a good point rather than race to get something out for the Holiday season ? I do understand that the development team are at the mercy of Ubi's corporate big wigs ( who probably know next to nothing about programming) at gaming even that .
Indeed. I wouldn't say they don't know anything about games, though. Of course they do. To run a company, you have to know it's workings, you just can't run a company without knowing what the heck is going on with your products.


Which I am also guessing thats the reason why Watch Dogs suffered ?

I have no idea what happened with Watch Dogs. I don't know if it was parity. It could be but there's too many variables to consider.

MasterAssasin84
01-05-2015, 03:31 AM
Indeed. I wouldn't say they don't know anything about games, though. Of course they do. To run a company, you have to know it's workings, you just can't run a company without knowing what the heck is going on with your products.


I have no idea what happened with Watch Dogs. I don't know if it was parity. It could be but there's too many variables to consider.

Well to be honest if you have a good head in Business then you could pretty much make a success of any type of company ... its all about knowing your numbers and your market and having a good team around you .

You speak to most directors and CEO'S they could pretty much tell you the Business side of things but in terms of the product yes a basic understanding is needed but thats were a highly experienced team comes in to handle those elements .

I enjoyed watch dogs but the quality was not how it was marketed which again was probably down to time scale and budget .

God I hope we are not going to see Anti Capitalist protests in the gaming industry lol !!

Eduard413
01-06-2015, 05:10 AM
Not possible, ever. Not these days anyway.


You must realize that it's not just a simple click of some magic button to debug a complicated piece of software like ACU. That's the problem with people, they assume that EVERYTHING has some sort of magical button that Ubisoft refuses to click, just to spite people. Oooh, mind blowing graphics? **** you, ubisoft, you downgraded the graphics. Oooh, 1080 p? **** you, ubisoft, you want parity. Oooh, 60 FPS? **** you, ubisoft, you did that on purpose. Sure, the customer doesn't know everything but this is different from say movies or cartoons. Games are complicated monsters, especially these days. People right now say "I remember the old days when games were complete and did not need patches after release" That's because games were FAR FAR less complicated than they are now.

Debugging is complicated. There's also not just ONE SINGULAR type of debugging. I wont go through details but it's like trying to contain that boiling water coming out of a big pan of rice. Fixing a problem may cause another more complicated problem somewhere else and that may lead to EVERYTHING else getting effed up. The whole process is tricky and there HAD to be compromises. But had the developers compromised, everybody would quickly pick up their trusty forks and chanted DOWN WITH UBISOFT BECAUSE THEIR GAME IS DOWNGRADED. How dare Ubisoft try to friggin optimize their game?


And if it was delayed by about 6 months, what would people say? Here: "WTF, UBI? are you going to downgrade it like watch dogs?" "URRRRGHHHHH UBI, i expected it by november, you suck" and even IF ubisoft delays, it'll be because they want to optimize the game obviously. Optimization is what you people call "downgrading". Yes, that's right. Ubi would have been ****ed, no matter what.

They're not the victim, frankly the developers are with the impossible no win situation they're in but these days, gamers are just becoming entitled, snobbish little ignorant brats. Every gamer acts like an expert in programming and the arduous process of making a AAA game just because they know a few fancy terms like "frames per second" "game engine" and "optimization"

Quantity not quality? See how many people would have whined and moaned if the graphics were ANYTHING less than they are now, if Paris was smaller, if the amount of people was less.

I really can't understeand why everybody hates Watch Dogs... I finally got Watch Dogs for my XBOX360 and I must say it's a masterpiece, graphics, story, gameplay, everything... I understeand it's not an easy thing to develope a video game, but still I believe they could done a much better job with Unity - actually I don't care about the bugs anymore, I care about the story and then the gameplay, they should just release AC Rogue in 2014 which was a perfect game for me ( I Would give it Metascore 95 ) and Release AC Unity in january 2015
I can understeand the developers having problems with fixing glitches, that's ok - I CARE MORE ABOUT THE STORY which in Unity was ok but really, the worst

SOLIDSOUTHCENTRA
01-06-2015, 07:17 AM
You guy are some ungrateful people. OK the game had some problems at launch, so they gave some of us Farcry 4 completely free and we all got a 10 to 15 dollar piece of DLC for FREE. All this griping over Arno and the story and all this talk over Dead Desmond and Ezio that got 3 games all to himself. Every Assassin isn't interesting but AC Unity is by far the best one in the franchise. Can you tell me this... What is so special about the Arkham Asylum games?? Or Splintercell?? Nothing what so ever. If you don't like it DONT BUY VICTORY. AC Unity is using a BRAND NEW ENGINE and Watchdogs will improve.

RuNfAtBoYrUn740
01-06-2015, 10:32 AM
You guy are some ungrateful people. OK the game had some problems at launch, so they gave some of us Farcry 4 completely free and we all got a 10 to 15 dollar piece of DLC for FREE. All this griping over Arno and the story and all this talk over Dead Desmond and Ezio that got 3 games all to himself. Every Assassin isn't interesting but AC Unity is by far the best one in the franchise. Can you tell me this... What is so special about the Arkham Asylum games?? Or Splintercell?? Nothing what so ever. If you don't like it DONT BUY VICTORY. AC Unity is using a BRAND NEW ENGINE and Watchdogs will improve.

The Season Pass game wasn't free. You still had to pay the Season's Pass $ worth to get it. If it was completely free you would have gotten your money back for your season pass.
The problem isn't that the games suck (almost everyone here would agree that AC is a good franchise), it's just that there were a lot of problems in Unity that could have easily been prevented. Had they taken the extra two months to polish the game it would have been a much better experience (compare ACU now to release). Instead Ubi wanted to beat Christmas and make some extra bucks and decided to release the game early. They would have completely known the game was buggy, and performed poorly but they still released it anyway. It just shows a lack of respect to paying customers. Some people paid hundreds of dollars for this game, and some of them couldn't even get the game to work (mainly PC). This game definitely needed another month or two.

Also the story did deserve some criticism. Not sure if the writer(s) wasn't motivated, didn't have the skill or was just rushed, but a lot of potential in the story was missed.

Also there is a noticeably growing trend of greed in the series. There is a lot of transmedia (more than any other game I've heard/seen tbh) and the transmedia didn't even work for the first month or so for some people. Legendary gear was completely locked away until a week or so ago... 1.5 months after release. Stuff like this just frankly unacceptable. This stuff needs to be brought to their attention loud and clear, otherwise they will just keep doing it. If no one speaks out against corporate greed nothing is going to change. Microtransactions, transmedia, shoddy releases... corporate greed is growing and it's not going to get any better unless people speak out against it. So that's why people are complaining :) They have a right to as well, because these are valid complaints.

On a side note I actually think ACU is a really good game. It's just disappointing how many missed opportunities there were, and how a lot of these problems could have easily been removed with an extra month or two of development.

RuNfAtBoYrUn740
01-06-2015, 10:51 AM
Not possible, ever. Not these days anyway.


You must realize that it's not just a simple click of some magic button to debug a complicated piece of software like ACU. That's the problem with people, they assume that EVERYTHING has some sort of magical button that Ubisoft refuses to click, just to spite people. Oooh, mind blowing graphics? **** you, ubisoft, you downgraded the graphics. Oooh, 1080 p? **** you, ubisoft, you want parity. Oooh, 60 FPS? **** you, ubisoft, you did that on purpose. Sure, the customer doesn't know everything but this is different from say movies or cartoons. Games are complicated monsters, especially these days. People right now say "I remember the old days when games were complete and did not need patches after release" That's because games were FAR FAR less complicated than they are now.

Debugging is complicated. There's also not just ONE SINGULAR type of debugging. I wont go through details but it's like trying to contain that boiling water coming out of a big pan of rice. Fixing a problem may cause another more complicated problem somewhere else and that may lead to EVERYTHING else getting effed up. The whole process is tricky and there HAD to be compromises. But had the developers compromised, everybody would quickly pick up their trusty forks and chanted DOWN WITH UBISOFT BECAUSE THEIR GAME IS DOWNGRADED. How dare Ubisoft try to friggin optimize their game?


And if it was delayed by about 6 months, what would people say? Here: "WTF, UBI? are you going to downgrade it like watch dogs?" "URRRRGHHHHH UBI, i expected it by november, you suck" and even IF ubisoft delays, it'll be because they want to optimize the game obviously. Optimization is what you people call "downgrading". Yes, that's right. Ubi would have been ****ed, no matter what.

They're not the victim, frankly the developers are with the impossible no win situation they're in but these days, gamers are just becoming entitled, snobbish little ignorant brats. Every gamer acts like an expert in programming and the arduous process of making a AAA game just because they know a few fancy terms like "frames per second" "game engine" and "optimization"

Quantity not quality? See how many people would have whined and moaned if the graphics were ANYTHING less than they are now, if Paris was smaller, if the amount of people was less.


Obviously de-bugging a game is difficult. But they proved they could do it. Look at the state of the game now compared to release. It's a much better experience. Most of the glitches and bugs are gone, and the performance is yards better. They proved with these patches that they have the capacity and skill to fix these games, but it's pretty obvious corporate greed came first.

I actually feel sorry for the developers. I can't imagine what trouble they had to go through to delay the game for two weeks. I'm sure they would have liked to delay the game a bit longer, but the higher ups wanted to beat Christmas.

People do have a right to complain though. These are valid complaints. As you said it's not like there is some magic button that removes bugs etc, but they have proven they have the capabilities to as such with these patches.

I will agree with you that it's getting a little tiring hearing people constantly hate on Ubisoft, especially when they do make consumer friendly moves. However this year in terms of PR was a complete utter disaster for them. Again though I believe a lot of these complaints are valid. The W_D downgrade is something that needs to be addressed, otherwise they'd keep doing it. It's almost false advertising. The product shown at E3 is not the same as the game people got, plain and simple. It makes it more puzzling though that people can actually obtain those E3 graphics on PC, yet it wasn't do-able in game. You had to do a bunch of out-game stuff. Not trying to hate on W_D either (I'd give the game 6.5-7/10), but there was some shady stuff happening in the background.

In regards to quantity not quality, it's not in terms of the map size, but it's to do with side content mainly (I think so anyway). This is a lot of Ubisoft games in general, but they give you lots of content, but it feels repetitive. In Unity you have lots of content. 70+ Paris Stories, 11 MM, 400 collectibles, 20 viewpoints and 20+ co-op missions. Thing is a lot of it ends up feeling the same. All the viewpoints behave the same. A lot of the Paris Stories behave the same. A lot of the MM behave the same. An example of quality over quantity would be GTAV heists. They could have given us 10 heists which still would have been cool, but there'd be more similarity between them. Instead they gave us 5, but made them all unique (different approaches, customisation, preperation etc). It makes them more memorable.

ACU was a bit of a gem for me. I really appreciated the return to the series' roots in terms of gameplay (story has a bit to go though), but that doesn't mean Unity and Ubisoft should be immune to a lot of the criticism. I enjoyed Unity a lot, but I can understand and even agree with many peoples' complaints.

TLDR; it is annoying listening to people constantly bash Ubisoft, but I can understand where they're coming from. Ever year there are increasingly more questionable decisions made (W_D downgrade, Unity Parity, shoddy release, transmedia and microtransactions, outright lying on behalf of some Ubi developers)

Mathias_Borealis
01-06-2015, 12:34 PM
If ubisoft has so much manpower to release a 4 year developing game each year (this is what they claim with every ac title, at least 3-4 years of development), then they seriously need to invest on some writers and start a new IP. AC is an open world game focused on stealth mechanics, and since combat will never be fixed because every main character is definitely op, it shoul have a solid story, with a real final objective in it, not this mess. Is it so insane to ask, this is the only open world that has a new release every year, AC IV Black Flag itself could have been a new solid IP if they didn't put assassins and templars in it. That game demonstrated that people enjoy action/adventure games that provide an immersion in another age and place, not that putting ac in front of every damn title will assure ubisoft money.

AC unity instead had the right setting for another european ac, but the hurry messed it up totally. Also you can defend the developers till the end of days but i'll remember forever the state in which this game has been released and this just means that ubisoft has become a company that doesn't mind anymore about the plot and just wants to milk it until it's possible to do so. I for sure will not pre order the game anymore because it's litterally converting your money in something that the moment it's released will be worth way less. People say that ubisoft did a good move giving for free the dlc and retiring season pass, while i see that as an obliged move that kinda saved AC U from a deeper doom. The game is so short that it was my first platinum trophy in my PS carreer, except the graphics is nothing special compared to other titles sold for 39 euros, 29 euros etc, and ubisoft should realize that there are other games released every year, and their quality AND LONGEVITY guys, LONGEVITY i still can't understand why people here is ok with 12 sequences which are not even 7 hrs of game, are waaaay higher. I just put here an example of what i mean: if you had only 70 euros to spend this year, you would spend them on AC Victory, Uncharted 4, Bloodborne, or KH3? If i didn't already play GTA V on PS3 today i would hate myself for not having preferred it over ac unity this november. This quantity approach is just good for PC users that can crack games and play 20-30 of those a year, but a NORMAL user that will pay real money that permitted your company to grow will have to make a choice, so with all the love i can have for this serie i already understood that it finished long ago. I hope ubi will release this ac unity english doppelganger and change their approach after this.

D.I.D.
01-06-2015, 01:25 PM
I really can't understeand why everybody hates Watch Dogs... I finally got Watch Dogs for my XBOX360 and I must say it's a masterpiece, graphics, story, gameplay, everything... I understeand it's not an easy thing to develope a video game, but still I believe they could done a much better job with Unity - actually I don't care about the bugs anymore, I care about the story and then the gameplay, they should just release AC Rogue in 2014 which was a perfect game for me ( I Would give it Metascore 95 ) and Release AC Unity in january 2015
I can understeand the developers having problems with fixing glitches, that's ok - I CARE MORE ABOUT THE STORY which in Unity was ok but really, the worst

I don't hate Watch Dogs, but I understand why people were mad.

I didn't like the story or the characters at all, and I felt very much like the company was trying to pander to who it imagined the players are - like it was a patchwork of little references and power fantasies, rather than a distinct thing. The gameplay did a lot of really nice things, particularly if you tried hard to kill as few people as possible, but the shooting side of it was remarkably well done for a game of its type.

As for why so many people were furious about the game we got rather than the game we were first shown, I think it's partly down to graphics but it's also not quite as simple as graphics alone. Some of the reaction was unfair; Ubisoft was attempting to predict the likely final specs of the (then) next gen systems long before they were set in stone. Sony and MS were weirdly conservative in the end, and the boxes we have now couldn't possibly have run the kind of game that was demonstrated at E3 2012 even though a decent PC could. I think there's a broader thing that isn't as simple as graphics, but the promise of the entire new gen concept which ended up looking like a betrayal. Watch Dogs looked like an enormous leap in every way, but most of all stylistically. It looked like a high quality TV drama or a film, and the character we saw seemed like he might have been a complete break from the kinds of heroes we're used to seeing. In the end, Watch Dogs was fundamentally very similar to the games we'd been playing for years, and its tone was the same, and the character was even more dull than others from the same cookie cutter.

On top of all that, despite the promise that this would be the thinking person's GTA, in practise it was even more ugly and exploitative than Rockstar's games. We expect GTA to be puerile and offensive, and it never pretends to be anything else. Watch Dogs did this awful Frank Miller-esque thing, where it took the topic of sex trafficking and played it in the most two-faced of ways. "Oh, look how awful this is," it said. "No, really. Look at these miserable, naked, hot women paraded like cattle. Stare for as long you like. Isn't that dreadful? Aren't the men who did this awful? When you fancy tearing yourself away, you're welcome to punish them in gruesome ways for being such terrible people and making you watch that. They're bad men, and you're a good guy." This was tawdry, masturbatory stuff on both ends of the issue: both the parading of the women, and the violence against the perpetrators. There was nothing sophisticated about the discomfort here.