Support NeoGAF

[Triggerhappytel]

And how is that? WB doesn't have a franchise that pull the type of number AC, Far Cry or Watch Dogs do. Batman and MK are on the level of The Crew sale wise.

I mean, this is entirely true, besides the fact that Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat X have sold over 5 million copies, while last we heard The Crew had shipped 2 million units.

 

[Nzyme32]

take risks

Considering the majority of their content is a stagnating prescribed mess of the "AAA" variety, I don't think that any changes resulting in them losing their independence would alter their risk taking abilities in any more of a negative way than now

 

[ViciousDS]

Out of all the big publishers Ubisoft is probably the least risk-averse.
Just look at their Ubiart stuff, you don't see EA or Activision do that. Yes, they pump out AC sequels every year, but come on if they still sell like crazy they would be stupid not to.



Wait what? Rainbow 6 was always about Multiplayer. Yes it had a singleplayer, but multiplayer was what made those old games for me.

Vegas had some of the best companion AI since Republic Commando and had a great singleplayer though. It was one of the reasons I bought Vegas and Vegas 2 was because you didn't have complete idiots for AI companions.

 

[down 2 orth]

You can be sure that it's not going to happen anytime soon.

No, not really.

And which game was "broken" on all system?

Assassin's Creeds 1, 3, and Unity. And drum roll........

Spoiler

Tetris.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I mean, this is entirely true, besides the fact that Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat X have sold over 5 million copies, while last we heard The Crew had shipped 2 million units.

I may have exaggerated a bit but 2 million is closer to 5 million then 10 millions. And all those numbers are shipped, the WSJ makes no mentions of if it's sold through or not.

No, not really.

Oh yes, it's just logical, the report doesn't even account for the holiday season which account for a huge part of gaming sales and where the biggest games are released. Coincidently WB doesn't have any big game to release in this period.

Assassin's Creeds 1, 3, and Unity. And drum roll........

Spoiler

Tetris.

AC 1, 3 were not broken on every system, I argue that Unity was not that bad on PC either (really badly optimized IIRC), I'll give you Tetris though.

 

[Alias03]

Did you even read what I wrote? I am making an entirely different point there.
Farcry and Splinter Cell have following but they didn't get that automatically now did they?
Farcry 2 was Farcry in name, the game type that people associate Farcry began with FC2 not FC1. You have to be kidding yourself to believe that they did nothing new in that game compared to the previous on that was made by Crytek. The entire concept they had for that game was something special which didn't work out in the end. Infact that question I should be asking is how was AC1 (or FC2) not an innovation?

On topic of Splinter Cell, are we to forget how different of a game Conviction was? or how different Blacklist was? Sure they all belong to the same franchise but people talk as if they have been doing nothing but releasing Splinter Cell 1 with a new coat of paint.

I am saying these franchise and "formula" exist because they took risks for something new, and the fact that they capitalise on these franchise once the got successful does not changes the fact that these were risks and innovations.


Innovation and risks does not automatically mean new IP, nor does it automatically mean offbeat gameplay. It's a culmination of many different things and not having one of these things does not exclude it from the category.

This person gets it, you nailed it. Innovations can come from so many different things and a lot of people here love to just focus on gameplay only. Ubisoft is easily the most innovative amoung the top publishers. Its sad some people just see them as copy paste Assassins Creed publisher.

 

[QaaQer]

Clearly they took risks and since they manage to build big franchises they use them as a cash machine (not smart for the long term imo but I'm not the CEO[)... .

It depends on the market you are selling to. There is a lot of chrun in the gaming audience. Yes, if you have been a gamer for 40 years and have played every AC, the next installment will probably be boring and seem more of the same. But look at it from the perspective of a kid getting his first actual console and game, it is amazing. Lets see what has been exciting kids for the last 40 years in videogames.

exciting for kids at christmas in

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

So is Syndicate really a POS game with no worth?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I think people have wildly different ideas of what taking a risk is.

I see someone mentioned SC:Conviction as taking a risk, when I think most people would consider it homogenised splinter cell, an absence of risk by making it appeal to a wider audience. Similarly, Driver wasn't taking a risk, it was attempting to bank a GTA clone, a safe game using an existing franchise, albeit one that hadn't done great for a while.

A risk for a big publisher is an unknown quantity, a game that they cannot strike up numbers for outright, because it isn't safe to do so. I would consider The Crew such a game. New IP, tried to mark it's own spot in the genre, tried different approach to do so, even if it failed, while getting the marketting of any other of their games. It was built not from a franchise they have, but from nothing.

A risk isn't trying something different than usual in a game. It is trying something unknown. Ubisoft do this for sure, EA do this as does SE. Activision is the only pub that doesn't. They cash on brands and licensing only.

 

[Coriolanus]

Did you conveniently leave out the production values? Here's a significant difference between funding a game like Journey and building titles like Grow Home. Last time I checked, games like Grow Hime can be built without informing the CEO as long as it's within a certain budget threshold. I'm not saying Ubi doesn't innovate, they just don't back it up with a higher budget compared to AC/Far Cry.

Innovation is innovation. Ubi doesn't suddenly lose innovator cred because they chose against pumping 50 mill in a new radical ip instead of several smaller titles, nor would they be able to change that cred for anything.

Link

Hahahahah oh wow. Man, that's fucking sad. No wonder they keep milking AC for all it is worth.

 

[nOoblet16]

If Drive SF is GTA clone then every open world game is a GTA clone, since that's all it shares with GTA.

As for SC: Conviction, the risk was alienating the fanbase of an estabilished franchise by doing things in a very drastic fashion. They went for something that might work or might not (there have been instances where going mainstream didn't work for the game and because it alienated the fanbase the game died) even if it meant going mainstream, which isn't a bad thing to do inherently in some situation. Infact, the entire reason why Blacklist exists in the form it does at the moment is because that "risk" with Conviction did not work. These games are what I'd consider minor risks and the reason why I mentioned them was to point out how they are willing to make changes rather than sitting on it for years be it for better or for worse..multiple times even in an established franchise (as seen with splinter cell). Then there are things like AC1, FC2, FC: Primal etc.

I am not saying it was a good risk, but it does not have to be so that something positive comes out of it. Just because something is risky does not mean it is automatically good. My defense was that they try to change things at the risk of alienating new or old fan rather than doing the same thing that the franchise did when it started out years ago.

 

[Tigress]

Alright who is Vivendi and what is his reputation that Ubisoft is acting so threatened? Is he usually good or bad for a company?

 

[Chû Totoro]

It depends on the market you are selling to. There is a lot of chrun in the gaming audience. Yes, if you have been a gamer for 40 years and have played every AC, the next installment will probably be boring and seem more of the same. But look at it from the perspective of a kid getting his first actual console and game, it is amazing. Lets see what has been exciting kids for the last 40 years in videogames.

exciting for kids at christmas in

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

So is Syndicate really a POS game with no worth?

Your example clearly don't go in favor of what you're saying...

Your time frames are 10 years and if you say that there is a lot of churn then 10 years later players are for the biggest part not the same.

Imagine a gamer who started to play when PS3 came out, so in 2006. Next year it'll be 10 years, so he may be one of the numerous people to churn (if he haven't churned before).
During these 10 years he would have seen 8 AC games coming out only on PS3 !!!

So I agree with all this but sadly it proves my point.

Also the funny thing (or not) is that the franchise fatigue may contribute a lot to the big level of churn you're talking about.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

FarCry
Half Life 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Halo 2
Red Faction
Alien Vs Predator

And many, many more. No word of a lie, replay it now. It is linear, shallow and really short as a game. The only thing of note it had was graphics, and they don't hold as great today. The game is average, but is held way above it's place because it was a hyped poster child for PC enthusiasts. The only thing it innovated was needing a new graphics card.

Not even close. This kind of post makes me wonder how much you actually played these games.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

If Drive SF is GTA clone then every open world game is a GTA clone, since that's all it shares with GTA.

As for SC: Conviction, the risk was alienating the fanbase of an estabilished franchise by doing things in a very drastic fashion. They went for something that might work or might not (there have been instances where going mainstream didn't work for the game and because it alienated the fanbase the game died) even if it meant going mainstream, which isn't a bad thing to do inherently in some situation. Infact, the entire reason why Blacklist exists in the form it does at the moment is because that "risk" with Conviction did not work. These games are what I'd consider minor risks and the reason why I mentioned them was to point out how they are willing to make changes rather than sitting on it for years be it for better or for worse..multiple times even in an established franchise (as seen with splinter cell). Then there are things like AC1, FC2, FC: Primal etc.

I am not saying it was a good risk, but it does not have to be so that something positive comes out of it. Just because something is risky does not mean it is automatically good. My defense was that they try to change things at the risk of alienating new or old fan rather than doing the same thing that the franchise did when it started out years ago.

Yeah that's fair, it was a risk of a kind and didn't work out, I just don't consider attempts to make a game more appealing to a larger audience as a risk, because the change is made to be safe, if you get me. To minimise risk is the essence of the change. But yes, it could be perceived as such.

I do very much think that Driver was an attempt as GTA, as was true crime, Saints Row, The getaway and others. Every publisher chases the GTA clone, or did at a time. GTA clone itself is almost a sub genre, and you will hear people describe similar games in this way. Saying the only thing they had in common was open world is disengenuous. The structure of the games is the same. Their driving / shooting core design is the same.

Not even close. This kind of post makes me wonder how much you actually played these games.

You are going to have to define 'plays like crysis' for me then, as we obviously have very different opinions of what playing them entails. Define it fairly and I'll go again, though I see you gave me three of them

 

[inky]

I think people have wildly different ideas of what taking a risk is.

I see someone mentioned SC:Conviction as taking a risk, when I think most people would consider it homogenised splinter cell, an absence of risk by making it appeal to a wider audience.

Indeed. Conviction took a stealth game and added more action elements to appeal to a wider audience. Blacklist might have been a return to form or whatever, but the way it was advertised was unlike anything you'd expect from a primarily stealth game (and everyone keeps saying it's exactly that) and more like they took themes and chunks from already massively popular games out there (namely shooters) and cut trailers and gameplay demos to appeal to people who liked those instead.

That's the opposite of taking a risk.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Alright who is Vivendi and what is his reputation that Ubisoft is acting so threatened? Is he usually good or bad for a company?

Vivendi is a french media empire (2nd biggest entertainment company after Disney) who owns Universal Music Group, Dailymotion (since this year), the Canal+ Group and who owned Activision Blizzard until 2013. Activision Blizzard decided to buy themselves back to leave the Vivendi group. They wanted to get rid of Acti Blizzard which is why they sold their shares.

 

[Mysterious]

Alright who is Vivendi and what is his reputation that Ubisoft is acting so threatened? Is he usually good or bad for a company?

They once owned Universal Pictures and Activison-Blizzard. They're a French media conglomerate.

 

[nOoblet16]

Yeah that's fair, it was a risk of a kind and didn't work out, I just don't consider attempts to make a game more appealing to a larger audience as a risk, because the change is made to be safe, if you get me. To minimise risk is the essence of the change. But yes, it could be perceived as such.

I do very much think that Driver was an attempt as GTA, as was true crime, Saints Row, The getaway and others. Every publisher chases the GTA clone, or did at a time. GTA clone itself is almost a sub genre, and you will hear people describe similar games in this way. Saying the only thing they had in common was open world is disengenuous. The structure of the games is the same. Their driving / shooting core design is the same.



You are going to have to define 'plays like crysis' for me then, as we obviously have very different opinions of what playing them entails. Define it fairly and I'll go again, though I see you gave me three of them

Saints Row and True Crime are GTA clone and they even started out as a blatent copy at first...as was the terrible Driver 3. But Drive SF is different...you don't'even get to leave your car. If anything it shares more with the original Driver which launched pre GTA3 than GTA games.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Yeah that's fair, it was a risk of a kind and didn't work out, I just don't consider attempts to make a game more appealing to a larger audience as a risk, because the change is made to be safe, if you get me. To minimise risk is the essence of the change. But yes, it could be perceived as such.

I do very much think that Driver was an attempt as GTA, as was true crime, Saints Row, The getaway and others. Every publisher chases the GTA clone, or did at a time. GTA clone itself is almost a sub genre, and you will hear people describe similar games in this way. Saying the only thing they had in common was open world is disengenuous. The structure of the games is the same. Their driving / shooting core design is the same.



You are going to have to define 'plays like crysis' for me then, as we obviously have very different opinions of what playing them entails. Define it fairly and I'll go again, though I see you gave me three of them

I didn't "give" you anything, I acknowledge that I haven't played the other 3 enough to form a sensible opinion on them. But I have played Red Faction, and I played Halo 2 for years, HL 2 plus episodes inside and out, and Crysis/Warhead/3, and I'm baffled that anyone would would put them in the same boat. Player movement, weapon design and feel, enemy encounters, player health, vehicle interactions, plot presentation...aside from being "good games that take place in the first person" I see way more differences than similarities. This isn't CoD vs Battlefield. Freeman's shitty athleticism necessitates using your brain for most of the physics puzzles in HL2, Chief's ability to throw nades while hip firing (or dual weild) makes mobile combat varied and hectic, Nomad/Psycho's ability to use Super Speed and cloak provides endless hit and run tactics. Vehicles are clumsy and control like shit in HL2 and Crysis, while they are a vital part of the Halo semi-open world. Really only for getting around in HL2. Melee can clear paths in HL2 and Crysis, while it's an amazing bludgeoning tool against nigh-invincible enemies in Halo.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Saints Row and True Crime are GTA clone and they even started out as a blatent copy at first...as was the terrible Driver 3. But Drive SF is different...you don't'even get to leave your car. If anything it shares more with the original Driver which launched pre GTA3 than GTA games.

That is true, and a fair point I hadn't considered. I will confess my patience for D:SF was limited, and by limited I mean I hated it. But no, you are correct, it has more in common with the first game in that regard.

Snip.

You asked me directly to give you examples of games that played like crysis before crysis. You tell me the examples I gave are not good enough, so I ask you, define 'plays like crysis'. Because I define that as a linear shooter with abilities, scifi in nature, and an aesthetic that is designed to hide its linear nature.

Give me your definition instead of telling me differences in the games I listed, and I can answer your question, hopefully to your satisfaction. I'd also add that if you cannot simply define how it plays that is different, then you conciously asked me an impossible question, regardless of how similar any games are or are not.

 

[Alebrije]

Vivendi just got the 6.6% , how can this affect management inside Ubi?

 

[Deleted member 471617]

I love Ubisoft. They're easily and by far my number one developer, publisher, third party and go to company. I have played and completed more Ubisoft games in the last few years than any other publisher and it's not even close.

Black Flag is what got me interested in AC and im picking up Syndicate on Friday because im a fan of the series and want to play it. Far Cry 3 is what got me interested in open world FPS and FPS in general. Loved Conviction and easily prefer it over Blacklist which wasn't anything special in my opinion. Even Watch Dogs and Unity were at the very least a solid 8/10 for me and I enjoyed them for what they were.

People bash Ubisoft for Unity's launch and they deserve it but yet, so many other publishers get away with the same crap. To me, if you're going to bash Ubisoft then you must bash all the other publishers that do the exact same thing. If not, then those people need to shut the fuck up, period.

Look at Telltale Games. They have released games that were broken, had bugs that erased your save files and even had a problem where the PS3 or PS4 version of one of their games had the Xbox controller button prompts in-game yet they get excused for it.

Majority of publishers all do the same shit (and in some cases, worse) than Ubisoft but yet people bash Ubisoft simply because they're an easy target. People bash their "formula" and "setup" in their open world games but I love it and prefer it this way because it's how I want to play an open world game.

What's even worse than Ubisoft or any publisher in general releasing broken, bug and glitch filled games are people who bitch about them all the fucking time but yet, let other publishers get away with the same exact shit. That pisses me off. Not only that but if you hate Ubisoft or any publisher, why even waste your time commenting on them in the first damn place? Don't like them or their games? Don't buy them and ignore them.

I see so many people bash Ubisoft here and I just don't get it because it makes no sense. If you don't like them or their games, go play something you do like. There's a shitload of games that I either hate, have no interest in, think is overrated, overhyped or that should get bashed and called out for various reasons but don't yet I don't waste my time going into those topics just to bitch about them. I simply ignore them and don't buy them, period.

Personally, I have no interest in Halo 5, COD, SW BF and so many others but im not going to waste my time bashing them for no apparent reason especially when I could be spending that time playing games that I actually want to play like Ubisoft games including but not limited to Syndicate.

The amount of Ubisoft bashing here and other forums is fucking ridiculous. Worse part is that instead of bashing a company you dislike/hate, why not go play a game from a company you do like?

I hate EA and have no interest in their games and the last EA game that I purchased and completed was Def Jam Vendetta on PS2 and only because AKI was the developer. But im not going to waste my time going into every EA topic just to bash them. Seriously, what's the fucking point?

There's so many fucking problems with gaming but yet bitching about any of it isn't going to change a damn thing. These companies only care about money so until gamers stop buying games and the companies see their sales and profits decline, nothing is going to change, especially bitching about them.

Back to Ubisoft in particular, I can understand why people bash their formula and setup. I get it. I have my complaints to but none of them are major or serious enough to warrant me bitching about them or their games. Granted, they've been slipping for me in regards to what rating I personally give their games but they're still better than most and give me the games that I actually want to try and play.

As for Uplay, I used it for a few of their games. It doesn't bother me either way. It can stay or go. It's all free content and yeah, yeah, it should already be in the game and I agree but if I have to choose between Uplay and micro-transactions or paid DLC, I would much rather have Uplay.

Sorry for the long rant but the Ubisoft bashing is just fucking ridiculous and I just don't see the point or any positives in doing so. Don't like Ubisoft and/or their games, don't buy them, period. That's it. Move on.

 

[Overside]

Say what you want about the modern Ubisoft but they have a long history of developing and publishing some quality titles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games

Even my dad who stopped playing in the late 90s still remembers Ubisoft and their games

All the more reason to stop desecrating the corpse of past greatness.

 

[SentryDown]

I love Ubisoft. They're easily and by far my number one developer, publisher, third party and go to company. I have played and completed more Ubisoft games in the last few years than any other publisher and it's not even close.

Black Flag is what got me interested in AC and im picking up Syndicate on Friday because im a fan of the series and want to play it. Far Cry 3 is what got me interested in open world FPS and FPS in general. Loved Conviction and easily prefer it over Blacklist which wasn't anything special in my opinion. Even Watch Dogs and Unity were at the very least a solid 8/10 for me and I enjoyed them for what they were.

People bash Ubisoft for Unity's launch and they deserve it but yet, so many other publishers get away with the same crap. To me, if you're going to bash Ubisoft then you must bash all the other publishers that do the exact same thing. If not, then those people need to shut the fuck up, period.

Look at Telltale Games. They have released games that were broken, had bugs that erased your save files and even had a problem where the PS3 or PS4 version of one of their games had the Xbox controller button prompts in-game yet they get excused for it.

Majority of publishers all do the same shit (and in some cases, worse) than Ubisoft but yet people bash Ubisoft simply because they're an easy target. People bash their "formula" and "setup" in their open world games but I love it and prefer it this way because it's how I want to play an open world game.

What's even worse than Ubisoft or any publisher in general releasing broken, bug and glitch filled games are people who bitch about them all the fucking time but yet, let other publishers get away with the same exact shit. That pisses me off. Not only that but if you hate Ubisoft or any publisher, why even waste your time commenting on them in the first damn place? Don't like them or their games? Don't buy them and ignore them.

I see so many people bash Ubisoft here and I just don't get it because it makes no sense. If you don't like them or their games, go play something you do like. There's a shitload of games that I either hate, have no interest in, think is overrated, overhyped or that should get bashed and called out for various reasons but don't yet I don't waste my time going into those topics just to bitch about them. I simply ignore them and don't buy them, period.

Personally, I have no interest in Halo 5, COD, SW BF and so many others but im not going to waste my time bashing them for no apparent reason especially when I could be spending that time playing games that I actually want to play like Ubisoft games including but not limited to Syndicate.

The amount of Ubisoft bashing here and other forums is fucking ridiculous. Worse part is that instead of bashing a company you dislike/hate, why not go play a game from a company you do like?

I hate EA and have no interest in their games and the last EA game that I purchased and completed was Def Jam Vendetta on PS2 and only because AKI was the developer. But im not going to waste my time going into every EA topic just to bash them. Seriously, what's the fucking point?

There's so many fucking problems with gaming but yet bitching about any of it isn't going to change a damn thing. These companies only care about money so until gamers stop buying games and the companies see their sales and profits decline, nothing is going to change, especially bitching about them.

Back to Ubisoft in particular, I can understand why people bash their formula and setup. I get it. I have my complaints to but none of them are major or serious enough to warrant me bitching about them or their games. Granted, they've been slipping for me in regards to what rating I personally give their games but they're still better than most and give me the games that I actually want to try and play.

As for Uplay, I used it for a few of their games. It doesn't bother me either way. It can stay or go. It's all free content and yeah, yeah, it should already be in the game and I agree but if I have to choose between Uplay and micro-transactions or paid DLC, I would much rather have Uplay.

Sorry for the long rant but the Ubisoft bashing is just fucking ridiculous and I just don't see the point or any positives in doing so. Don't like Ubisoft and/or their games, don't buy them, period. That's it. Move on.

Well said.

 

[CambriaRising]

I love Ubisoft.

Sorry for the long rant but the Ubisoft bashing is just fucking ridiculous and I just don't see the point or any positives in doing so. Don't like Ubisoft and/or their games, don't buy them, period. That's it. Move on.

Nah, I think I'll continue to point out their fuck ups so they have the opportunity to get better and make me a customer again.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Hopefully Ubisoft can battle this one out, I'm a fan of their games (BRING BACK DESTRUCTION DERBY!).

 

[charsace]

Vivendi got out years ago and now they are trying to get back in? Weird.

 

[shinobi602]

I love Ubisoft. They're easily and by far my number one developer, publisher, third party and go to company. I have played and completed more Ubisoft games in the last few years than any other publisher and it's not even close.

Black Flag is what got me interested in AC and im picking up Syndicate on Friday because im a fan of the series and want to play it. Far Cry 3 is what got me interested in open world FPS and FPS in general. Loved Conviction and easily prefer it over Blacklist which wasn't anything special in my opinion. Even Watch Dogs and Unity were at the very least a solid 8/10 for me and I enjoyed them for what they were.

People bash Ubisoft for Unity's launch and they deserve it but yet, so many other publishers get away with the same crap. To me, if you're going to bash Ubisoft then you must bash all the other publishers that do the exact same thing. If not, then those people need to shut the fuck up, period.

Look at Telltale Games. They have released games that were broken, had bugs that erased your save files and even had a problem where the PS3 or PS4 version of one of their games had the Xbox controller button prompts in-game yet they get excused for it.

Majority of publishers all do the same shit (and in some cases, worse) than Ubisoft but yet people bash Ubisoft simply because they're an easy target. People bash their "formula" and "setup" in their open world games but I love it and prefer it this way because it's how I want to play an open world game.

What's even worse than Ubisoft or any publisher in general releasing broken, bug and glitch filled games are people who bitch about them all the fucking time but yet, let other publishers get away with the same exact shit. That pisses me off. Not only that but if you hate Ubisoft or any publisher, why even waste your time commenting on them in the first damn place? Don't like them or their games? Don't buy them and ignore them.

I see so many people bash Ubisoft here and I just don't get it because it makes no sense. If you don't like them or their games, go play something you do like. There's a shitload of games that I either hate, have no interest in, think is overrated, overhyped or that should get bashed and called out for various reasons but don't yet I don't waste my time going into those topics just to bitch about them. I simply ignore them and don't buy them, period.

Personally, I have no interest in Halo 5, COD, SW BF and so many others but im not going to waste my time bashing them for no apparent reason especially when I could be spending that time playing games that I actually want to play like Ubisoft games including but not limited to Syndicate.

The amount of Ubisoft bashing here and other forums is fucking ridiculous. Worse part is that instead of bashing a company you dislike/hate, why not go play a game from a company you do like?

I hate EA and have no interest in their games and the last EA game that I purchased and completed was Def Jam Vendetta on PS2 and only because AKI was the developer. But im not going to waste my time going into every EA topic just to bash them. Seriously, what's the fucking point?

There's so many fucking problems with gaming but yet bitching about any of it isn't going to change a damn thing. These companies only care about money so until gamers stop buying games and the companies see their sales and profits decline, nothing is going to change, especially bitching about them.

Back to Ubisoft in particular, I can understand why people bash their formula and setup. I get it. I have my complaints to but none of them are major or serious enough to warrant me bitching about them or their games. Granted, they've been slipping for me in regards to what rating I personally give their games but they're still better than most and give me the games that I actually want to try and play.

As for Uplay, I used it for a few of their games. It doesn't bother me either way. It can stay or go. It's all free content and yeah, yeah, it should already be in the game and I agree but if I have to choose between Uplay and micro-transactions or paid DLC, I would much rather have Uplay.

Sorry for the long rant but the Ubisoft bashing is just fucking ridiculous and I just don't see the point or any positives in doing so. Don't like Ubisoft and/or their games, don't buy them, period. That's it. Move on.

I generally like Ubisoft games for the most part but to cut a long point short, this is a game discussion forum...I mean, people are going to discuss them, positively or negatively. I'm a very lenient person overall and I think a lot of criticism gets thrown around for nothing but, again, it's a games discussion forum lol...

 

[Hip Hop]

They've taken risks in the past, and will do so for the future by making games other AAA companies won't. I don't see how they are wrong by saying that.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Sony is a publisher that owns studios which are developing some of the games you mentioned...and then some of them are not even Sony games there.
Ubisoft is a bit different in that they are a publisher and a developer both.

It might seem as semantics as first but there is a bit of difference here. It mainly comes from the fact that when a publisher owns a studio like Activision owning, Bungie, EA owning DICE, Sony owning GG...it's the studio that gets the recognition (or infamy) for the game and not the publisher. In case of Ubisoft it's the publisher who is wholly responsible for everything in the eyes of the people.

For instance you don't see people blaming Sony for the shit/terrible games their first party studios might create, but you will most certainly see people blaming Ubisoft for the bad games that comes out of their company.

What are you even talking about... Activision don't own Bungie?! The reason why people refer too (aka criticise) Ubisoft as a whole is because many if not most of their studios have to have the name Ubisoft in their studio title - i.e. Ubisoft Reflections, Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft RedLynx, Ubisoft Montpellier, etc. They are homogenous in their identity so it's little wonder people identify the publisher as a whole.

Plus, Sony Computer Entertainment was established with their Japan Studio, so they're as much of a developer/publisher as Ubisoft is. They also built Santa Monica Studios from nothing, as well as London Studio (formerly known as Team Soho) and Guerrilla Cambridge (formerly SCE Cambridge). There may be others too which I'm forgetting.

 

[bud23]

taking risks and Ubisoft

Ubisoft and taking risks

fucking hell

if you really think Ubisoft® is original or creative or innovative or whatever....pls look up the definition for those words, because you obviously have no idea what they mean.

thanks.

 

[Hip Hop]

taking risks and Ubisoft

Ubisoft and taking risks

fucking hell

if you really think Ubisoft® is original or creative or innovative or whatever....pls look up the definition for those words, because you obviously have no idea what they mean.

thanks.

The Ubisoft hate is real.

 

[Magwik]

The Ubisoft hate is real.

I still have no idea where it comes from. It's probably as equally as bad as the vitriol people toss and Destiny still.

 

[nOoblet16]

What are you even talking about... Activision don't own Bungie?! The reason why people refer too (aka criticise) Ubisoft as a whole is because many if not most of their studios have to have the name Ubisoft in their studio title - i.e. Ubisoft Reflections, Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft RedLynx, Ubisoft Montpellier, etc. They are homogenous in their identity so it's little wonder people identify the publisher as a whole.

Plus, Sony Computer Entertainment was established with their Japan Studio, so they're as much of a developer/publisher as Ubisoft is. They also built Santa Monica Studios from nothing, as well as London Studio (formerly known as Team Soho) and Guerrilla Cambridge (formerly SCE Cambridge). There may be others too which I'm forgetting.

Yea my mistake about Bungie, but it's just a difference in example. You can replace that with any other studio that Activision owns and my point will still stand.

The point being that the entire reason Ubisoft gets the hate it does is because of the homogenous identity (Ubi the publisher gets flak for Ubi the developer and vice versa) and as such it makes them different to someone like Sony which is a publisher owning various studios with different name, and hence they never take any flak for their developers and their publishing policy is top notch so no problem there.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

taking risks and Ubisoft

Ubisoft and taking risks

fucking hell

if you really think Ubisoft® is original or creative or innovative or whatever....pls look up the definition for those words, because you obviously have no idea what they mean.

thanks.

And your argument is?

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Well said.

Thank you.

Nah, I think I'll continue to point out their fuck ups so they have the opportunity to get better and make me a customer again.

Maybe I should have been clearer. There's a difference between those who like and still play the franchise or those like you who want to become a fan again and those who don't care about the series or Ubisoft yet bash them for anything and everything.

I have my complaints with Unity and im sure I'll have some with Syndicate but im not going to bash Ubisoft just for the hell of it. I could easily do that with many companies and games but what's the point? Me bitching isn't going to make the company or game(s) better or the way I want them or it to be.

I generally like Ubisoft games for the most part but to cut a long point short, this is a game discussion forum...I mean, people are going to discuss them, positively or negatively. I'm a very lenient person overall and I think a lot of criticism gets thrown around for nothing but, again, it's a games discussion forum lol...

True and I agree but there's a difference between discussing a game that you're playing and bashing a game that you're not playing. So many people who bash Ubisoft say that they're not buying or playing Syndicate or in general, aren't fans of Ubisoft yet they still come into the Ubisoft topics or AC topics just to bitch for the hell of it.

Seriously, I think that MGSV is very overrated and overhyped and I have my complaints with the game and when I owned the game and was playing it, I posted those complaints but I no longer have the game and highly unlikely that I buy the game again so why would I waste my time bitching about the game? It just makes no sense to me. Gamers should stop bitching and just move on to their next game.

 

[Alebrije]

Indie Ubi is the best Ubi.

Far cry and AC are more like FiFa , just small changes. Black Flag is nice for the pirate setting and sea fights. Hope Ubi can be more creative for the next Far Cry , instead of tons of repetitive missions focus on a great story and side quests.

This Vivendi drama is good ,sometimes we need and external motivation to move from our comfort zone.

 

[Roshin]

Vivendi just really wants them to kill Uplay, that's what it's all about. They heard about Ubisoft Club earlier than the rest of us and were like "time to put a stop to this."

Go Vivendi. Put the boot in.

 

[JCX]

Ubisoft is my favorite of the big third party western publishers. Of course they have their big annualized, safe bet franchises, which I dislike, but they balance with great smaller games (Valiant Hearts, Grow Home, Child of Light).

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Indie Ubi is the best Ubi.

Far cry and AC are more like FiFa , just small changes. Black Flag is nice for the pirate setting and sea fights. Hope Ubi can be more creative for the next Far Cry , instead of tons of repetitive missions focus on a great story and side quests.

This Vivendi drama is good ,sometimes we need and external motivation to move from our comfort zone.

How many AC games did you played?

 

[Z3M0G]

Again, Ubisoft's output is not limited to the last 5 years. The innovations they have made in the industry have allowed them to create a template for huge selling games.

Exactly. They innovated so that they no longer need to innovate.

Spoiler

i have no idea what i'm talking about

 

[GavinUK86]

Far Cry, Stalker, Boiling Point.

All crysis did was add the power suit, really. Which is no great step, since crytek had already done far cry.

Nope, nope and nope. Try again. You can't just ignore one of the core game mechanics to try to force your point across.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

True and I agree but there's a difference between discussing a game that you're playing and bashing a game that you're not playing. So many people who bash Ubisoft say that they're not buying or playing Syndicate or in general, aren't fans of Ubisoft yet they still come into the Ubisoft topics or AC topics just to bitch for the hell of it.

To this I would say perhaps the reason people bash a game they don't play, is because their reason for not buying it is the thing they are complaining about. Perhaps those people wanted to play the game, but their distaste for their complaint prevents them from doing so. I have done this myself. More than once. Not to bash for the hell of it, but to leave my complaint noted. Is that unreasonable?

 

[sflufan]

Does anyone know if EA still retains its 5% stake in Ubisoft? I know they acquired about 20% in 2004, but sold 15% of that in 2010.

 

[Nokterian]

 

[TheRedSnifit]

FarCry
Half Life 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Halo 2
Red Faction
Alien Vs Predator

And many, many more. No word of a lie, replay it now. It is linear, shallow and really short as a game. The only thing of note it had was graphics, and they don't hold as great today. The game is average, but is held way above it's place because it was a hyped poster child for PC enthusiasts. The only thing it innovated was needing a new graphics card.

Alien vs Predator? Halo? Half Life 2? Thanks for confirming you haven't played Crysis.

I'm 90% sure that most of this bizarre Crysis hate is nothing more than bitter console warriors trashing on what was seen as the PC poster child.

You asked me directly to give you examples of games that played like crysis before crysis. You tell me the examples I gave are not good enough, so I ask you, define 'plays like crysis'. Because I define that as a linear shooter with abilities, scifi in nature, and an aesthetic that is designed to hide its linear nature.

Give me your definition instead of telling me differences in the games I listed, and I can answer your question, hopefully to your satisfaction. I'd also add that if you cannot simply define how it plays that is different, then you conciously asked me an impossible question, regardless of how similar any games are or are not.

Lol. It's the best Predator simulator ever made. You've got a set of tools, multiple objectives, and its up to you to figure out how to do them. A real sandbox that doesn't hold the players hands. Destructible environments where you can pick up and throw every object. It got right what open-world games failed and still fail with in their mission design.

 

[yurinka]

Sure Ubisoft, making the same game every year is certainly a kind of risk. I don't know about original though.

If I don't mistake AC and Just Dance are the 2 best selling IPs of Ubisoft ever and both were created last gen. AC is the best selling new IP of last gen (counting all its games) and Watchdogs was the best selling new IP launch ever until a few months after Destiny took this achievement.

They also made a bet for several small games including some experimental new IPs with good results like Valiant Hearts, Grow Home or Child of Light. They also have been investing recently in new IPs including Watchdogs or the upcoming For Honor or The Division, and The Crew debuted with very good numbers considering it's a racing IP.

They also modernized/ubisofted Far Cry turning it into a big, milkable AAA IP and seems that they are doing the same with Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. They also succeded with kid-friendly games like last gen Rayman titles and the (also one of their best selling IPs) Rabbids.

Their PC F2P/digital/mobile games portion is growing and making a good job and growing every year, being now around 30% of the company revenue. The overal company financially is steady and profitable according to their financial numbers.

In addition to that they have good IPs like Splinter Cell or Prince of Persia ready to be resurrected when needed, in addition to smaller ones like Might & Magic or Trackmania to fill catalog.

More or less recently they created a division to make movies, another to make small innovative games and a studio just for CS and CM. Company has like 30 or 40 studios and around 10K people with no news of important layoffs.

Some recent games had many flaws like unpolishment or the downgrade issues, but other than that they are taking many risks for being a top 5 AAA publisher, and being successful. Something that isn't pretty common.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Alien vs Predator? Halo? Half Life 2? Thanks for confirming you haven't played Crysis.

Ok then.

 

[SURGEdude]

I'm fine with Vivendi absorbing them if it comes to that. They are exempting Konami the worst major publisher by a country mile. When EA makes you look bad you done fucked up.

With the exception of the UbiArt titles and a few legacy PC franchises their output is more derivative and samey than even Activision's.

 

[LeFAIS]

If I don't mistake AC and Just Dance are the 2 best selling IPs of Ubisoft ever and both were created last gen. AC is the best selling new IP of last gen (counting all its games) and Watchdogs was the best selling new IP launch ever until a few months after Destiny took this achievement.

They also made a bet for several small games including some experimental new IPs with good results like Valiant Hearts, Grow Home or Child of Light. They also have been investing recently in new IPs including Watchdogs or the upcoming For Honor or The Division, and The Crew debuted with very good numbers considering it's a racing IP.

They also modernized/ubisofted Far Cry turning it into a big, milkable AAA IP and seems that they are doing the same with Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. They also succeded with kid-friendly games like last gen Rayman titles and the (also one of their best selling IPs) Rabbids.

Their PC F2P/digital/mobile games portion is growing and making a good job and growing every year, being now around 30% of the company revenue. The overal company financially is steady and profitable according to their financial numbers.

In addition to that they have good IPs like Splinter Cell or Prince of Persia ready to be resurrected when needed, in addition to smaller ones like Might & Magic or Trackmania to fill catalog.

More or less recently they created a division to make movies, another to make small innovative games and a studio just for CS and CM. Company has like 30 or 40 studios and around 10K people with no news of important layoffs.

Some recent games had many flaws like unpolishment or the downgrade issues, but other than that they are taking many risks for being a top 5 AAA publisher, and being successful. Something that isn't pretty common.

A part of me doesn't understand all the hate it gets, every company has its flaws and makes mistake. Sony, Microsoft, EA, they've all been there.

Whatever happens to Ubisoft, don't let it be a coup or something like that, for all we know Vivendi could ruin Ubisoft.

Maybe I'm a bit prejudice, Ubisoft is my favorite independent developer/publisher and I have enjoyed many of there games, still do to this day.

If they mess up, then let them fix it themselves, just like Sony did with the PS3 and Microsoft did with the Xbox One.