I Am Alive Producer Dismisses "Bitching" PC Gamers
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't really support either side of this really. There are attitudes on both sides that really annoy me. Normally I'd be against antagonizing any particular group outright, but anytime the group starts spouting their own superiority I'm just like okay whatever.
Either way...DRM...is dumb.
Either way...DRM...is dumb.
So this affects me as a PC gamer none. I haven't looked in Ubisoft's direction for sometime due to past fiascos. It has obviously been the correct decision. I guess I will have to not spend my money on their game and instead spend my time playing the games I have already purchased that have plenty of replaybility and content. So i guess I will continue playing Starcraft 2, Valve games, and old Unreal Tournament games. As well as Skyrim after the price drops to $50 or less, I still refuse to pay more then $50 for a single PC game.
I blame Activision and them releasing MW2 and SC2 for $60 at launch raising the entire markets starting prices.
I blame Activision and them releasing MW2 and SC2 for $60 at launch raising the entire markets starting prices.
Actually, I'm kinda disappointed in The Escapist on this one.
You know it's a quote taken out of context. You're not reporting on the interview (which hasn't been published yet) but you're reporting on a snippet of the interview that the website performing the interview is using to get people interested in the full interview.
Now, that's fine. Report.
But when more of the report is the reporters opinion than the actual report itself, you no longer have a report. You have an opinion piece based on a teaser for an interview that hasn't been published yet.
That's not good journalism. It's publishing an editorial based on incomplete information, and that's pretty bad. That's Fox News country. It's propagandism, and that's the sort of thing I really hope The Escapist would be above.
I expect better of you.
You know it's a quote taken out of context. You're not reporting on the interview (which hasn't been published yet) but you're reporting on a snippet of the interview that the website performing the interview is using to get people interested in the full interview.
Now, that's fine. Report.
But when more of the report is the reporters opinion than the actual report itself, you no longer have a report. You have an opinion piece based on a teaser for an interview that hasn't been published yet.
That's not good journalism. It's publishing an editorial based on incomplete information, and that's pretty bad. That's Fox News country. It's propagandism, and that's the sort of thing I really hope The Escapist would be above.
I expect better of you.
I seriously doubt they care one bit about their reputation on PC. Otherwise, this statement might have been more respectful.Jedihunter4 said:
All I feel the need to point out is that people bitching about the final product is no reason to not make it at all. Someone will end up complaining about something no matter good or bad it is. If people are going to complain either way, you're better off looking for other reasons to not make a game.
Yes, I would have bought it. There were 2 games I was looking forward to this year, "Saints Row the Third" and "I Am Alive". In fact I was so looking forward to it that now that it's not coming out on the PC, I'll be adding it to my list of games I want to buy when I get a console, but at the moment I still can't play it.
And I'm not mad or anything. If they don't want to sell it to me, then that's fine. But if I am mad about anything it's that Ubisoft didn't take the time or effort to hire a PR guy to spin this to the public, rather than giving the mike to one of the devs. And if they already have one, I would have liked one on the ball enough to stop someone from their company saying something like this.
After all, they don't exactly have an image they can afford to worsen. It's just bad business, is all. And since they're such a prominent studio that's a real shame too. Please, Ubisoft, hire a PR guy!
And I'm not mad or anything. If they don't want to sell it to me, then that's fine. But if I am mad about anything it's that Ubisoft didn't take the time or effort to hire a PR guy to spin this to the public, rather than giving the mike to one of the devs. And if they already have one, I would have liked one on the ball enough to stop someone from their company saying something like this.
After all, they don't exactly have an image they can afford to worsen. It's just bad business, is all. And since they're such a prominent studio that's a real shame too. Please, Ubisoft, hire a PR guy!
and yet again the first world demands something they have no right to to begin with and then starts bitching about it
that's a-class 4 year old behavior with in this case the companies being the "stupid stupid adults" who won't give the kid what it want
if it's a bad business decision(which is absolutely not clear at this point) it's at least good parenting^^
that's a-class 4 year old behavior with in this case the companies being the "stupid stupid adults" who won't give the kid what it want
if it's a bad business decision(which is absolutely not clear at this point) it's at least good parenting^^
So according to this guy there are 50.000 PC gamers, each of which has on average, 80 minecraft accounts, 100 WoT accounts, 1200 Runescape accounts(50 of which are running premium) and 200 WoW subscriptions. And they all have 3 instances of Skyrim running on their PC right now [http://store.steampowered.com/stats/].Andy Chalk said:
How the fuck could they be possibly not receive any return of investment when selling to these guys?
Oh, right, because their PC games also include magical maps that lead to their island hideout, which enables pirates to pull up some threedeckers next to it and giving them a couple of broadsides before disembarking and raiding their treasury.
Sounds legit.
Bad strawman is bad. Next time you rebut an argument, don't invent things and claim that's what they said. You come off as crazy.Asehujiko said:
He's using a subjunctive example to try to make a point; if only 50,000 people buy it, it's not worth making. He's not claiming that there are 50,000 PC users, or that the game would only be projected to make 50,000 sales; he's just making an example.
This is why we shouldn't make editorials on quotes made out of context. It makes people go crazy on forums.
Yeah, it's unfortunate, but I'll also agree with you, Andy; it isn't worth getting outraged over. Ubisoft doesn't get any of the money this could have entitled them to, and if they're going to dumb the situation down to solely profits and instant gratification, them not getting it is enough, really.
I'm actually on Ubisoft's side for once, just because of the way they said the PC crowd is "bitching". It's that kinda blunt word-play in public statements to turn my decision.
So pick your tissues off the ground, and get a 360, you crybabies.
So pick your tissues off the ground, and get a 360, you crybabies.
Or, you could read what he actually said:
IG: Why is there no PC version?
SM: The decision isn?t official. But making a PC version has a cost associated with it and PC games are all selling so poorly nowadays. We have to make sure that the game will sell on PC before we decide to make it.
We?ve heard loud and clear that PC gamers are bitching about there being no version for them, but are these people just making noise just because there?s no version or because it?s a game they actually want to play? Would they buy it if we made it?
It?s hard because there?s so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it?s not a massive cost but it?s still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it?s not worth it.
First, he's said, straight out, that the decision hasn't been made yet. However, he's also stating there are reasons they might not do it. And his question is valid: Are PC gamers asking because they want to buy it, or just because there's no version? That's an honest question, and one that's been ignored by the thread.
See, you've confused an explanation for an answer for the actual answer. He's not saying that piracy is the reason why they're not making it, or even that they aren't making it. He's saying that they haven't decided yet, and there's reasons why they haven't decided to. That's all.
This is why we read the original article in its entirety before making assumptions.
IG: Why is there no PC version?
SM: The decision isn?t official. But making a PC version has a cost associated with it and PC games are all selling so poorly nowadays. We have to make sure that the game will sell on PC before we decide to make it.
We?ve heard loud and clear that PC gamers are bitching about there being no version for them, but are these people just making noise just because there?s no version or because it?s a game they actually want to play? Would they buy it if we made it?
It?s hard because there?s so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC, it?s not a massive cost but it?s still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game then it?s not worth it.
First, he's said, straight out, that the decision hasn't been made yet. However, he's also stating there are reasons they might not do it. And his question is valid: Are PC gamers asking because they want to buy it, or just because there's no version? That's an honest question, and one that's been ignored by the thread.
See, you've confused an explanation for an answer for the actual answer. He's not saying that piracy is the reason why they're not making it, or even that they aren't making it. He's saying that they haven't decided yet, and there's reasons why they haven't decided to. That's all.
This is why we read the original article in its entirety before making assumptions.
