Ubisoft Is A Good Company

[martyrdrebel27]

So, as the title says, I'm here to assert that Ubisoft is actually a good company that doesn't deserve all the hate it receives.

It occurred to me while looking over my achievements how many Ubisoft games I have, and LOVE. So let's breakdown all the things I see Ubisoft do right.

1. UPlay- okay, i'm coming out controversial and strong here, but I don't hate Uplay. now, all of my Ubisoft gaming is done on console, so UPlay on PC is likely far more intrusive from what i've seen in forums, but as far as DRM goes, UPlay is great. One thing that especially Jim Sterling always harped on is that in order for consumers to accept DRM, there has to be something in it for them, and UPlay nails that. not insignificant unlocks to a variety of their games, and a proprietary achivement/unlock system. As far as I'm concerned, if Uplay is the future of DRM, i'd say we're okay. it's not SecuROM. AGAIN THOUGH, this is console perspective. PC people likely have a different view.

2. Willingness to take chances- i look at ubisoft games, console, pc, and mobile, and see one trend, they are not afraid to take some chances. I Am Alive could have tried to be an Assassin's Creed ripoff, Valiant Hearts and Child of Light didn't have to exist, hungry shark evo for mobile, and finally Grow Home on PC, all games that EA wouldn't have touched without some cost/benefit analysis and a panel of corporate minds homogenizing every aspect of the game.

3. Quality of games- Okay, Ubisoft is slipping down a dangerous slope here, with Unity being the trash it was, but up until that, I could look at all my Ubisoft games in a pile or list and say to myself "not a dud on the list." This has been changing in recent years, mostly AC, starting with AC3 which felt like a poorly built, poorly paced, poorly told story. But generally, look at your Ubisoft list and you'll find a long list good times you had.

4. Interesting gameplay elements- So, I think most of us would agree that the best part to come out of AC in recent years is naval warfare. so much so, that i think they should make a non-AC game that uses the elements. Same could be said about Far Cry 4's rock-climbing platforming. I would play an entire game that focused on you conquering a mountain using that climbing and jumping gameplay.

so, there is my list of reasons that Ubisoft shouldn't be treated like EA's only slightly less evil brother. Agree or disagree? Is Uplay on PC worth hating? Why do you think Ubi's been so maligned lately?

 

[snekadid]

Ok.... *cracks knuckles* here we go.

1. UPlay is utter garbage, irredeemable. Why? You mentioned Jim Sterling's statement that the DRM needs to add something. What that does not mean is requiring an extra platform to unlock wallpapers, songs and game content ripped out of the game. It's supposed to be something that comes as a result of the DRM, such as stable and reliable servers, Friendslists, voicechat, reliable updates, etc. Uplay has a friends list.

Their servers are absolute garbage, Farcry 3 was rage inducing trying to play with anyone for a full game, much less 2 games in a row without getting dropped from the server and told that the connections were down. Thier voice chat might as well not be there, its garbled and unreliable. Updates and friendslists, well we already have those from Steam, I've never updated on UPlay, and steam has more than just the limited selection that UPlay has. This makes UPlay a buggy, slow, intrusive program that launches when I hit play game and does nothing but eat resources while being useless.

2. Bear with me here, what exactly was unique or risky about I am Alive(other than releasing it as a buggy and poorly balanced mess that got shat on). Its a single player zombie survival adventure. If you're saying I should give them points for not making ANOTHER AC clone like they did with Watchdogs, which was ass by the way, then I'm starting to get a stockholm syndrome vibe from you. Child of Light was a ok game, not really risky considering its just a very easy turn based RPG but it was good, though it remains the only game to have ever crashed my VITA.

3.You do not want to go there. Trust me.

4. This isn't really so much a point in their favor of not being shit, rather you just saying that you liked those elements and it would be great if they reused them, which is what people said about blackflag and then UBI said "fuck you", and just copy pasted more AC where you walk around a city.

Slightly less evil brother? IDK..... EA games sold on steam launch from steam and games on origin launch on origin. Ubisoft makes me buy games on steam and then launch their stupid program to pretend I would buy anything from them. Sure EA are massive cowards and snakes, but so is Ubisoft, with the only point in their favor being that they don't have nearly the same power to even succeed at some of the crap that EA does.

 

[Mutant1988]

Ubisoft is a terrible company that makes a habit out of releasing every other game broken and unfinished, perpetuating this scheme with countless exclusive pre-order DLCs and blind purchase season passes.

Even if they deliver something that's poorly done or outright broken - They make a profit.

The way that Ubisoft handles their games is not good. Their 1 game a year format is completely unsustainable and we're the ones being screwed over with lazily rehashed yet inexplicably completely broken games.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

I think they've been so hated lately because "triple A gaming is the devil".

Ubisoft has given me Prince Of Persia, the dozen of Tom Clancy games, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2 onwards, Valiant Hearts and so many other great titles. Unity had some issues and was definitely the weakest of the series so far (aside from Liberation) and while Far Cry 4 was very similar to 3 it was still a fucking blast.

After the whole "sexism" bullshit over Unity last year. In which I heard some of the most fucking retarded arguments I've ever heard. I'll never forget the whole co-op rage. After explaining why it was four Arno's instead of random assassins or assassinettes. The Social Just Wanker brigade resorted to "Well Arno should of just been a woman in the first place, misogynist dogs!".

People love to *****, especially against dem big scary mainstream developers. Nothing new. In 6 months it'll be some other developers people want to see bankrupt.

i think there is some validity in the sexism claims of modern gaming, but I also don't think we should be shoehorning in female characters just to meet some arbitrary quota. i DO find it odd that the only time women have been featured in AC games is in a spin off or supporting role, and thought it was really kinda weird that the first nearly-full AC game starring a woman was also the only game that introduced gameplay where you play dress-up. on the surface, that looks pretty bad. as for unity, i don't think one should have had to be a woman, but having four identical assassins was just lazy.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Ok.... *cracks knuckles* here we go.

1. UPlay is utter garbage, irredeemable. Why? You mentioned Jim Sterling's statement that the DRM needs to add something. What that does not mean is requiring an extra platform to unlock wallpapers, songs and game content ripped out of the game. It's supposed to be something that comes as a result of the DRM, such as stable and reliable servers, Friendslists, voicechat, reliable updates, etc. Uplay has a friends list.

Their servers are absolute garbage, Farcry 3 was rage inducing trying to play with anyone for a full game, much less 2 games in a row without getting dropped from the server and told that the connections were down. Thier voice chat might as well not be there, its garbled and unreliable. Updates and friendslists, well we already have those from Steam, I've never updated on UPlay, and steam has more than just the limited selection that UPlay has. This makes UPlay a buggy, slow, intrusive program that launches when I hit play game and does nothing but eat resources while being useless.

2. Bear with me here, what exactly was unique or risky about I am Alive(other than releasing it as a buggy and poorly balanced mess that got shat on). Its a single player zombie survival adventure. If you're saying I should give them points for not making ANOTHER AC clone like they did with Watchdogs, which was ass by the way, then I'm starting to get a stockholm syndrome vibe from you. Child of Light was a ok game, not really risky considering its just a very easy turn based RPG but it was good, though it remains the only game to have ever crashed my VITA.

3.You do not want to go there. Trust me.

4. This isn't really so much a point in their favor of not being shit, rather you just saying that you liked those elements and it would be great if they reused them, which is what people said about blackflag and then UBI said "fuck you", and just copy pasted more AC where you walk around a city.

Slightly less evil brother? IDK..... EA games sold on steam launch from steam and games on origin launch on origin. Ubisoft makes me buy games on steam and then launch their stupid program to pretend I would buy anything from them. Sure EA are massive cowards and snakes, but so is Ubisoft, with the only point in their favor being that they don't have nearly the same power to even succeed at some of the crap that EA does.

you made excellent points without being an asshat, i commend you sir.
in response to your responses:

1. you're addressing my one acknowledged blindspot, UPlay on PC. from what you've said, I can see where the PC crowd would hate UPlay, though on console, it's unobtrusive and adds content, which brings me to my next point, and where you fell hardest in my opinion: it is absolutely irresponsible to assume that the "Added content" was just shit stripped from the game. you have no way of knowing that, and that attitude is one of my biggest problems with forum-talk. people see day one dlc as inherently evil, that it was all in the game, and they cut it out because Business! that's generally not the case. THAT BEING SAID... you're not entirely wrong either. i remember, i think it was brotherhood, that one of the uplay rewards was increased throwing knife capacity... literally just making one number larger than it was before. i find that to be deplorable.

2. I Am Alive was risky because it had a gameplay style that could have lent itself to an AC spinoff, but didn't. it could have tried to be more action oriented, but didn't. i guess i'm giving them too much credit for NOT being shitty, instead of praising them for doing good, but that's the state of gaming today i guess haha. Also, I enjoyed Watchdogs, so your assertion that it was objectively crap (not your words, but certainly your subtext) is wrong. Could it have been better? absolutely. so could every game.

3. I do want to go there, it's why i brought it up. Until they went to annualized sequels, the quality of their games was consistently high, in my experience, save for the occasional clipping or physics issue in assassin's creed. this is entirely subjective, i suppose, based on your own experiences, but i've had mostly positive experiences with Ubi games (i skipped Unity)

4. I remember Ubisoft asking if people would like to see a full naval based game, i never heard more about it, but i would have to assume that somewhere in the depths of Ubi, it's being worked on. and this is absolutely a point in their favor... how is good gameplay elements not a point in favor of a game company? it's kinda the only thing they do. they could have looked at the formula and said "yep, chest high walls and regenerating health." but instead added ship-play (that no one asked for or would have predicted in an AC game). and in the case of far cry 4's platforming, yeah, it really is just a well-executed element, but i still really enjoyed it, and it was unique enough in it's execution that it bears mentioning, at least in my opinion. long story short, good gameplay IS a point in favor of game companies.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

I think they've been so hated lately because "triple A gaming is the devil".

Ubisoft has given me Prince Of Persia, the dozen of Tom Clancy games, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2 onwards, Valiant Hearts and so many other great titles. Unity had some issues and was definitely the weakest of the series so far (aside from Liberation) and while Far Cry 4 was very similar to 3 it was still a fucking blast.

After the whole "sexism" bullshit over Unity last year. In which I heard some of the most fucking retarded arguments I've ever heard. I'll never forget the whole co-op rage. After explaining why it was four Arno's instead of random assassins or assassinettes. The Social Just Wanker brigade resorted to "Well Arno should of just been a woman in the first place, misogynist dogs!".

People love to *****, especially against dem big scary mainstream developers. Nothing new. In 6 months it'll be some other developers people want to see bankrupt.

i think there is some validity in the sexism claims of modern gaming, but I also don't think we should be shoehorning in female characters just to meet some arbitrary quota. i DO find it odd that the only time women have been featured in AC games is in a spin off or supporting role, and thought it was really kinda weird that the first nearly-full AC game starring a woman was also the only game that introduced gameplay where you play dress-up. on the surface, that looks pretty bad. as for unity, i don't think one should have had to be a woman, but having four identical assassins was just lazy.

It wasn't lazy. It made perfect sense. You can heavily customize your Arno and you can play co-op with 3 mates. Why give such customization if you can't show it off, especially with a brand new feature to your series? It was fun playing with my mate, our Arnos were complete opposites and it was cool to see how different they could be whilst playing the same game as the same guy.

it didn't make perfect sense. not in gameplay, or in the lore. The assassin's are a large order. with customization options already available, they could have made it so that you play as your own assassin, but they couldn't figure out how to make that work in time for the deadline. 4 arno's, no matter how customized, still doesn't make sense. how unity's multiplayer COULD have worked is that you create your own assassin, but still play as arno. when you join someone's game, you join as your custom assassin, with the host playing as arno, and the rest being your team, sorta like in brotherhood. that would have been good gameplay, wouldn't have excluded anybody, would have made sense, and might have saved Unity. they had the skeleton of a good idea, but pushed it out the door before the idea came together.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

I doubt it would of saved Unity. Having all their characters the same guy in co-op was the least of that games problem. It being barely functional was what killed it.

Another thing, can they be done with their social interaction bullshit? "You need to have AC Initiates mobile app for this chest" or "Only level 2 Nomad? Open your phone and try and get this shitty app to work and when you're level 10 then you can get access to it!". In the end the had to unlock the chests through a patch because it didn't work.

i have mixed feelings about that. i actually really like the interconnectedness that we're seeing in gaming these days, as long as NOT using it doesn't detract from the game experience. farcry 4's mobile games are a great example. if you don't have them, you don't lose out on anything, but having them makes certain gameplay elements more malleable in your approach to them. don't wanna grind out the arena? play this arena minigame! i envision a future (and i always think of EVE when i build this hypothetical scenario in my mind) where 5 different types of game are all contributing to the same game world. Eve and Dust are good examples, though poorly executed. imagine a large scale galactic game like Eve, where the people who are into that kind of spread-sheet gameplay are controlling the massive scale, (just like in real life haha) and determine the overall arch of the universe, but down from that, you have the generals, being directed by the Overlords, but they are playing an RTS, directing troops where to go and attack strategies. then you zoom in to the soldier, who is playing an FPS, being directed to capture an enemy base by an RTS general who was directed to take the planet by the Overlords, who focus on the macro scale. and then, the planet has been conquered or colonized, you've got resource management to handle. bring in your boyfriend or girlfriend who doesn't really like gaming like that, but LOVES games like candy crush, match 3 type skinner boxes. And so they're playing a simple mobile game, farming the resources to give to their faction to bolster forces to take planets and systems for the people at the tippy top, playing an EVE-like game.

i envision this future. it's not a matter of "IF" this becomes a reality, but "WHEN" and more importantly "when it will be successful." like i said, i know EVE tried it with Dust, but that was a lackluster attempt, and needed to be FAR more comprehensive. we have all the individual pieces in place, it's just a matter of the right company coming along and putting them all together.

 

[lunavixen]

I disagree with most of this:

1. UPlay is awful, especially on PC, worst of all if you have to go through it despite getting the game on Steam or having a physical copy. I have difficulty with UPlay on Anno 2070 and Farcry 3, it seriously slows my computer down and has caused crashing (and freezing on my PS3), it has no functions other than gating off content that doesn't need to be gated off, its "services" (or should I say service) are a joke, it doesn't offer anything beyond a friends list and its servers are a massive joke, especially if you don't live in the Americas, it can't maintain connection half the time.

2. No recent game coming from Ubisoft has really been "risky", sure, Beyond Good and Evil was a risk, but that came out in 2003. I Am Alive was not a risky venture, it's a zombie survival game, and praising it for "not being an AC spinoff in terms of gameplay" is hardly a feather in its cap. I've not played Child of Light, but it hardly looks "risky", it's a turn based RPG. Watchdogs was not a good game, it was mediocre.

3. Ubisoft isn't just "slipping down the slope" in terms of lowered game quality, it's crashed into the floor and broken both knees. Ubisoft USED to make good games, emphasis on the past tense term, used. They generally don't make good games anymore, nostalgia won't save them, they need to go back to making good games and not treating their customers like idiots.

4. Some of the "unique" mechanics you're touting aren't that unique, naval warfare is not a new concept, yes, AC4 did do it slightly differently by bringing the player closer to the action and giving them direct control of the weapons, but it's not the first game to have those types of mechanics.

Can they come back from all their missteps? Sure, but it's going to take a long time to earn back the trust and rapport they used to have. Is it likely to happen? That I don't know, and the way they're going, I'm not optimistic.

 

[shrekfan246]

That's a pretty good joke.

Oh, wait, you're playing them on consoles?

Okay, yeah, that would make sense then.

Hey, personally, the games aren't what I'm criticizing. They're like EA that way; with the exception of Assassin's Creed I don't really have any problems with the games they're releasing. The problem is that they're not releasing those games in a vacuum. Console guys, hey, it's great that you don't have to deal with being locked out of your single-player games because UPlay servers decided to not work. It's great that you don't have to have it intruding on your system every time you want to play a Ubisoft game, adding a second layer of arbitrary DRM on top of Steam that is really just incredibly inconvenient. It's great that your versions of Ubisoft games are marginally less broken than the ones we get on PC, and you don't get accused of being pirates just because Ubisoft was feeling a bit cranky about their DRM being criticized.

Also, I'm only picking at this because I really enjoy it, but Assassin's Creed has blown straight past "annualized sequels". Being charitable and omitting the mobile-exclusive and browser games, the approaching-eight-years-old franchise currently has:
Assassin's Creed (2007)
Assassin's Creed: Altair's Chronicles (2008)
Assassin's Creed: Bloodlines (2009)
Assassin's Creed II (2009)
Assassin's Creed II: Discovery (2009)
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood (2010)
Assassin's Creed Revelations (2011)
Assassin's Creed III (2012)
Assassin's Creed III: Liberation (2012) (Also re-released on PC.)
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (2013) (Bonus: Freedom Cry was released as a stand-alone thing as well.)
Assassin's Creed Rogue (2014)
Assassin's Creed Unity (2014)
Assassin's Creed Chronicles (Broken up into three parts, first part so far 2015)
With, of course, Assassin's Creed Syndicate having just been announced for release this year as well, coming to the surprise of precisely no one.

This is also ignoring all of the money Ubisoft has poured into licensing Assassin's Creed comics, animated films, a theatrical film, and novels.

EDIT: Edited the first line to not be just laughing, because that would probably be taken more condescendingly than I meant it given that tone is hard to convey over the internet.

 

[lacktheknack]

Hahahahaha.

Oh, wait, you're playing them on consoles?

Okay, yeah, that would make sense then.

Nail'd it.

Ubisoft used to have me as a big fan - they released Myst III and IV, which are two solid entries in my favorite series, after all - but the past is that. The past. Super-stealthy Splinter Cell is old. Myst is old. Beyond Good and Evil is old.

Ever since the absolute smack in the face that was the Assassin's Creed 2 launch, they have done NOTHING to entice me as a customer. Indeed, being a PC player only player, they seem to have done their darndest to actively alienate me.

Nostalgia is for suckers. I'm not inclined to stand by a company who directly told me to "quit bitching" because I'm totes a pirate. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they're a bad company because of that.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I'm a PC gamer, and Ubisoft has a rep for treating us in a less than respectful manner.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I agree. I don't get why Ubisoft gets so much hate. Out of the big/huge publishers/devs out there (like EA & Activision), Ubisoft makes much better games. Ubisoft makes much better open world games than anyone else right now; I'd much rather play FarCry or Watch Dogs over pretty much anything else because the missions usually have an open-ended nature to them vs an instruction following simulator like GTA (AC does the same but it is Ubi's cash cow). The new Rainbow Six game is the best multiplayer shooter footage I've seen in over 5 years, online shooters have been sucking for quite awhile now. The Division looks pretty promising but I'm really not sure about it as it seems like a mostly co-op affair and very light on the competitive aspect I think. But again, with so many devs not understanding TPS mechanics like say Naughty Dog (you can't even change your camera sensitivity in Uncharted or TLOU for example), I hope The Division is good (or the next Metal Gear Online delivers like with MGS4) as there's no good online TPSs to play.

Ubisoft's PR has a habit of using a poor choice of words to explain something. The whole Watch Dogs graphics thing was so overblown as Ubisoft literally showed you unedited full missions for the freaking game yet people were disappointed when you were shown the exact fucking game that was sold. So what if the graphics got downgraded, graphics don't make the game. Plus, before release, Ubisoft showed current game footage showing you the exact graphics the game released with. Of course, the PR isn't going to say we downgraded the graphics but what does it matter as you can see them with your own eyes, use your own brain. Watch Dogs was exactly what I thought it would be, 3rd-person FarCry with hacking set in a city, because I watched the fucking videos Ubisoft released.

 

[Snotnarok]

Ubisoft is hated for good reason, they don't like their customers,

First they had limited installs where you'd have to call to have your installs increased- and any hardware changes would use an install. Then they had always online DRM for their games, where games would be out for up to 2 weeks and you were at the mercy of their server maintenance. Now it's Uplay and I don't care if you like it, why was it allowed into games that didn't have it previously on steam? If I launched my game with no other DRM besides steam and all of the sudden I'm forced to after they have my money that's dumb and eats more resources for no reason.
The only reason they chanced their stance to Uplay was because of how often they were being hacked, probably causing them more headache and money than they cared for. So I really don't stand by them caring a bit about their customers.

They turned their assassins creed series from a 1 a year thing to what...3 a year now? Straining devs and ontop of all this have ridiculous DLC schemes where you have to use your phone to unlock chests in games. Then their games are broken, Unity was not only broken but their apology was to give away the season pass WHICH WAS BROKEN as well, so what have they done right? Farcry 4 came with my video card and the game was unplayably broken after a month of it being out. It'd crash every time after 1 point despite a reinstall and a file check, I mean imagine how angry someone must have been after dropping $60 and having to wait so long to play their game.

I've no idea what you mean they've taken any chances, Farcry 4 was called Farcry 3's expansion by some and they've milked the Assassins Creed series since 2007 till now where there's been 9 games in the series already. People give EA crap for milking things, well, in comes Ubisoft to do it far harder.

Then they lie, constantly. The visual fidelity of Watch Dogs- which there's no defending "graphics aren't everything" doesn't mean crap when this is their ad to you, they're showing you a game you're buying and you buy it and it's not what you were shown- that's not okay. Yes, devs do bullshots but claiming in game stuff in a video is what we're getting then they drop everything greatly? Colonial Marines got slammed just as hard for lying and it's not too far off. Then they nonsense stance on framerate- which, regardless of opinion framerate and field of view can make it difficult for people to play games getting nauseous or headaches.

So they can claim cinematic all they want but when the truth is they're overextending the hardware to just make it look pretty and causing discomfort to customers because of it? Not a good thing. The publishers really like to boast 30fps is more cinimatic till the Definitive Edition comes out then it's "1080p! 60fps! Even faster gameplay!" so, whatever on that too.

Then the mud they sling is also just amusing, saying what system can't do what then "No more games for Nintendo" blaming the device and not their inept game crafting.

I don't blame the devs, I think they still made some great games like Rayman and even the latest Farcry games but I think their business ethics are the worst of any and I think their respect for customers is insulting and I refuse to buy their stuff anymore after all that.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

They have some very good games up their sleeve, but their questionable policies have weighed them down for a while now.

 

[Gsmoove]

Why do people think giant multi-million corporations need defending!? Trust me no one at ubisoft cares about peoples opionions especially the OP, just keep giving them money for their incomplete games.

 

[Sarge034]

snip

It's less about the games per say, although the quality has been taking a nose dive as time has gone on, and more about the companies' attitude toward their consumers and shitty business practices. I do enjoy the idea of gamerscore being used for something though, I will give them that. But, like you, I only played Ubisoft stuff on console.