Sup
-
Posts
4,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sup
-
-
Have you never known anyone who works in food service? Much worse stuff has happened to those tongs and that food -- if you're eating out you're at the very least eating food that's fallen on the ground pretty often.
-
Rocky, casual market and MMOs make up a huge percentage of the overall 'game market'.
There is no doubt more money for electronic entertainment on PCs than there is consoles. That said, if you narrow the market to ONLY the types of games you see across both platforms -- 'gamer' games, videogames as we all think of them, consoles are winning by a wide margin at this time. The market is bigger, but the side of the market gaming companies like Ubi, EA, Activision, and Atari target is smaller.
-
pfft. I could list way too many. Some top picks off the top of my head. Varying ages-
Planescape torment.
Fallout.
Dungeon Master.
Xcom.
Ghost recon.
Die by the Sword.
Legacy of kain anything
The ones i'm happy are actually getting remade -
Operation Flashpoint.
Jagged Alliance.
-
Do you not think a more popular title will sell more units? Games like CoD have a particular draw and do it very well. Ubi cannot even clone such success and it shows.
Really? I was pretty sure games like 'GRAW' had the same mass appeal...
Not every big game tops charts, whiteknight77. Ubisoft is a big company that makes a lot of games, and sells a lot of products in a lot of parts of the world. Their business is a bit more complex than 'Farcry 2 only made reasonable profits, instead of ridiculous profits!? oh ######, sell!!!!!!'
-
WK, GRAW had a full dev cycle. Vegas had a full dev cycle. GRAW2/Vegas2 both reused assets and gameplay, and had halved development cycles.
All four games made massive profits.
Just to clarify on some facts. SC:C is getting time because they think it needs it. GRAW/Vegas did not get time becuase ubisoft apparently though they would print ENOUGH money as is. Personally i think the amount of money they made, that being approximately 'ridiculous sums', was plenty? Maybe with some more time they couldve made even more, i dont know, but it seems laughable to question business practices that lead to massive financial growth.
Every game is an individual project.
Ever project must be approached as such. GRAW was not the SC:C team, not the SC:C code, not the SC:C art, and not the SC:C situation.
-
This only looks like the fall of ubisoft if you have a preschool understanding of economics.
If the yearly numbers in six months look bad, yeah, ubisoft should worry. As is? They're doing fine.
-
Wait and see the yearly numbers, alright WK?
-
I defend ubisoft a lot here. Not really because i think they're a great company, just because i think you guys go way overboard, and take things seriously and personally that you shouldn't.
Anyway, more of the same from me, this strikes me as another example of the 'good' from ubisoft. Prince of Persia - Sands of Time was a game that was unique and beloved by fans. It's sequals, Warrior Within and Two Thrones, were 'sold out' in the same way GR was with GRAW. They took a stylish fantasy game and added blood and metal music to try and please the 'dumb gamers' crowd -- and it worked.
However, with this new start for the franchise, ubisoft is actually going back to what made the original game so great to it's fans... Probably not something they'll repeat with R6 or GR, but still, nice to see.
http://www.destructoid.com/interview-princ...11716.phtml#ext
This is an independant blog interviewing him, so they're pretty free with their questions.
I would say that this one is the spritual successor to Sands of Time. Beacuse the thing that Sands of Time did better than the other games, including Two Thrones is it really elicited a sense of wonder and magic and majesty on the part of the player.Really, it was a world that just enveloped you in its mystery and its magic. Yes, Warrior Within had better combat and Two Thrones had better boss battles and all that stuff. But that sense of wonder and magic in Sands of Time was so special and so unique that it really was our intention -- it really was our ambition -- to do justice to that, to be the spiritual successor to it. To follow in those footsteps and create something that tries to recapture some of that magic.
This is the kind of thing we should encourage out of Ubi if we'd like to see any other big franchises return to their roots.
-
Krise, PC games have been coming with CD keys and activation schemes (draconian DRM aside) for as long as i've been playing them. How is it inherently more evil if a console game does?
I cant go to gamestop and buy a used copy of Diablo 2, why can i get a used copy of Halo?
-
Sup, take a walk over to the Ubi FC2 General Discussions forum and see the complaints that are being made. People not getting past a certain percentage of a level (though that may be an intentional bug by Ubi to keep pirates from enjoying the game, I don't know, and was even reported on here by Rocky). Games that wont load is another common complaint.
Naturally, but that's where 80% percents of the complaint are going to be posted. Are they up over 500,000 yet?
The bug is definitely a big one and definitely shouldnt have slipped through, im not defending ubisoft, but you're blowing it way out of proportion. It is not a widespread error, it's happening in a few isolated cases.
You aren't, wk. I am too. That said, the people who have concluded they're a bad company are a very, very small portion of their userbase.
Or in your case, not really a portion at all -- how many recent ubisoft games that you judge so harshly have you played?
-
Vegas 2 had one big bug on console versions, i was lucky and didnt buy it anyway.
Farcry 2 has one big bug but is otherwise fine. What games do you mean when you say almost all recent releases? (not trying to disagree, i just honestly dont play that many games, and only on one platform, lately.)
-
Ubisoft got so wealthy by buying talented developement houses, heavily advertising established franchises and investing in graphics technology. There is no doubt that Ubisoft has been very successful. But not even you Sup can argue that Ubisoft is a publisher of quality games. They prefer Quantity of quality.
I would and i wouldn't. They definitely due prefer quantity to quality as a business plan, and their Wii market is actually most indicative of that. Aside from raving rabbids 1 (a franchise theyve subsequently milked to death) i dont think they've released a single positively reviewed Wii game? They're making tons of money there.
That said, their triple a titles have all been very professionally produced and high quality. Both sales and reviews speak to the quality of Vegas, GRAW, Assasins Creed, Splinter Cell (although it got middling reviews with double agent, which honestly wasnt that good of a game), Farcry 2, Prince of Persia... Ubisoft Shanghai, Ubisoft France, and Ubisoft Montreal are among the most professional quality developers in the world right now -- to have three under one corporate roof is a big deal; not to mention the other companies they've been acquiring, like RSE and recently that RTS developer who's name escapes me.
Do i agree with their fundamental design descisions, as a player? (making GRAW and Vegas into more action heavy shooters, for example?)
Not at all. Can i argue with the quality of the execution? No, these are incredible games, some of the best made action shooters released in the last five years.
-
Whiteknight is right, investing into their fastest growing market is ludicrous, they should instead be trying to fix all of the mistakes that led to those record profits.
but you know those wealthy executives, always got their heads in the sand...
-
Fallout 3 is kindof the GRAW(360/ps3) of the fallout franchise. It lacks the depth of the originals, it sold out for a 'kiddy' console market, any real fallout fan can't really call it a true sequel to the classic, award winning franchise... Yet it's an incredibly good game, and easy to recommend. Keep in mind it's definitely an rpg, not a shooter, even though it controls like one.
-
Still, this is not the first game Ubi has pulled the plug on.
Nor will it be the last, it's simply part of the business.
I guess it's a shame to anyone anticipating this game... But seriously, was anyone anticipating this game? This is one of the first times in a while i haven't been disappointed a big name cancelled a game.
-
Wow. Ubisoft's marketing team seriously needs to hire someone who can recognize terrible writing.
Or maybe just hire a competent writer.
-
I wonder if that is one of those "intentional" bugs Ubi left in for those who pirated the game to find?
Okay, as someone who's ACTUALLY read up on this and knows it's a widespread practice ->
What the ubisoft rep meant by intentional bugs is one very specific issue. 'Random' crashing every couple of minutes. It happens in a lot of games' alpha or pre-beta versions (oftentimes the early versions pirated) if the game fails an authentication/copy protection check. It's a lazy habit, it would be easy to add in an error message that says 'hey, buy the game, ######' but for some reason developers just don't. In a few well known cases (Iron Lore and THQ's Titan Quest, for example) leaked, pirated versions of early code have shown this kind of bugs. Players have heard from pirates the game is buggy and crashes a lot, decided not to buy it... And the game loses a ton of sales just because someone stole a broken version.
A bug like this is a plain q&a failure. An 'intentional' crash bug like that is a real thing, and not really something to mock, Ubisoft does it much less often than some other respectable companies.
-
... Wait.
If you dont have the internet and a PC version you cannot play.
If you do have the 360 version but no internet, you can probably play, and at least play 60% of the game.
????
Console wins again! (seriously, ubisoft requires online activation? That blows)
-
Apparently there's some sort of major league bug at about 65% completion that freezes the game for some X360 users.
Kind reinforces the fact that the old argument about consoles versions being more reliable and "just work" because the developer knows exactly what he is programming for, out of the water.
That old chestnut aside, and assuming Ubisoft put out a fix (assuming one is required and it's not a HW issue), how do unconnected customers not on Xlive get the fix, out of curiosity?
How do PC users without the internet get the fix?
It sucks, but they don't.
Also, the 'it just works' has never really had anything to do with bugs or glitches, that's up to q&a.
To illustrate where it's a good thing:
A friend of mine with a somewhat dated pc has been playing farcry 2. Every time he's near fire in the game his framerate drops to 1-2. Some shader or draw call or something really doesn't agree with his hardware. So he can't use molotovs and has to avoid explosions at all costs. His computer runs fallout3, another modern game, just fine.
I got it on xbox, framerate never moves. Fixed hardware platforms are a wonderful thing.
That said, if ubisoft q&a let a game breaking bug slip through, we're both equally screwed. And if he had the money on a great PC he could run the game on higher settings. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages.
-
Watch all the dev diarys of the devs travelling to africa to make sure the game was as realistic as possible.
I think you're misunderstanding (and perhaps the marketing department is misleading, although i sincerely think they weren't trying to deceive) what they meant by 'realistic'. believable, sure -- realistic artwork, realistic cause and effect in combat, etc etc -- realistic in the sense an action movie can be.
But have you seen a single gameplay video since it was announced? it's an action shooter, it always has been.
Edit: I guess to elaborate what i'm trying to say is that the average gamer is getting what they want when people say fc2 is 'realistic'. In fact i've heard people (individuals, not advertisers) call it just that. The guns look real, they make gun sounds, it's believable and they can forget their stress and have fun. That's what most people want.
Marketing aims for that average audience. Obviously if you're a very specific or niche crowd you shouldn't take it quite as seriously.
Like, when a dishwasher soap is advertised as 'all the cleaning power you need!' do people working in chemical plants get up in arms? Not all games are like ghost recon 1. In fact very few are.
Really few people make turn based strategy games anymore either, but you don't see people buying RTSes and then moaning on forums that they're a letdown because everything happens at once, do you? If you dont like action shooters, quit buying action shooters. If enough people feel your way maybe somebody with a budget will finally make a big budget tactical shooter.
If you dont know what kind of game something is, watch some videos online. Being confused about fc2 is pretty hard considering the wealth of videos and press releases to draw from.
-
WK, in 06-07 ubisoft saw 24% growth. In 07-08 they saw 50+%. So far this fiscal year, halfway through, they're already showing 38% growth (as reported on the front page here).
Their business model works. Criticize the quality of their games all you like -- that's subjective. When you say they need to wake up and smell the coffee you're abandoning logic or reason.
-
Well honestly i never saw the game advertised as realistic.
They said it would be immersive and kindof 'movie realistic' -- stuff would look real, there'd be tons of cause and effect (fire spreading, the wounds system, etc) but never once did i get the impression it was anything but an action shooter.
I definitely think a tactical shooter in a huge, open area would be a good idea, Operation Flashpoint remains my favorite game of all time. I just had no such expectations from FC2 -- that said, i didn't follow the hype all too closely, did they explicitly advertise realistic/tactical gameplay and me miss it?
-
meh, your post moderation always weeds out my fun posts.
Palidin; or anyone, really -- What is wrong with 5-8 bullets to kill someone?
Like, we all know what's right with 1hitkill games, considering we're all fans of GR, but how exactly is it a flaw if the game is different?
Like, i dont play racing games and say 'damn, i wish you could sneak up on the other drivers and shoot them!'
why do you play farcry 2 and wish enemies died in one it? it's just not that kind of game. I'm not trolling or anything, this is a serious question.
-
God do i hate it when games appeal to a majority of people. Nothing is a bigger letdown than seeing good reviews, great sales, and a lot of people happy to play it.
Gonna go plot to ruin christmas, anyway, later guys.
Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!
in GR:FS (PC) - General Discussion
Posted
First of all, i think your thread is incredibly well written and you bring up a lot of good points.
That said, to begin my cliche'd role as counterpoint to all of your guys' GR babbling...
GRAW took the themes we all loved in ghost recon (smart tactics, teamwork, realistic military setting) and made them accessable to the masses. They made a VERY high quality action shooter that retained the thematic spirit of ghost recon.
Isn't that what a sequel should do? Take the original idea and grow it into something that is 'better' (if we quantify better as being enjoyed by more people?)
I definitely miss the classical tactical shooter. I still play [GR], i love armed assault, i play Hidden and Dangerous and thought long and hard about putting down money for an old copy of Seal Team.
But does our small niche market really have any entitlement to RSE/Ubisoft taking their game backwards just to please our bizarre tastes?