Ubisoft Is A Good Company

[mad825]

As far as I'm concerned, if Uplay is the future of DRM, i'd say we're okay. it's not SecuROM.

Ppffftt. A few problems solved causing many problems. Online DRM has created situations where we can no longer tell whether the program is malicious and with Uplay's "always on-line" you're at the behest of the ISP and Ubisoft server's just to play a single-player game. Hell, lets not even talk about how DRM is stack upon one another these days.

If this is your idea of future DRM then fuck the gaming industry.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I always used to think the reason no one ever gave Ubisoft shit was because unlike EA, they manged to put up some pretty good games, great games even. As far as I know, widespread disdain for Ubisoft only really happened after Watch_Dogs.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

As far as I'm concerned, if Uplay is the future of DRM, i'd say we're okay. it's not SecuROM.

Ppffftt. A few problems solved causing many problems. Online DRM has created situations where we can no longer tell whether the program is malicious and with Uplay's "always on-line" you're at the behest of the ISP and Ubisoft server's just to play a single-player game. Hell, lets not even talk about how DRM is stack upon one another these days.

If this is your idea of future DRM then fuck the gaming industry.

as far as i've been made aware, Uplay on PC is much different beast than Uplay on console. i've conceited that point. and yeah, forcing it to be active even when using steam is terrible, even more so because it's apparently a memory hog.

 

[Zontar]

I'm saying this as a Montrealer (Ubisoft is our big boy of the industry here, dwarfing all others and making the company be a de facto Canadian publisher even if it is officially a French company), Ubisoft is second only to EA and Activision in terms of being the devil of the gaming industry.

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

That's a nice way of saying "they treat us like criminals and actively go out of their way to make us want to pirate their games because the cracked versions are objectively better quality".

 

[Evonisia]

Ubisoft: Good games, terrible practises.

Plus I can't ever fully hate a company that gave me FarCry 1, my favourite game. Can they go back to the logo sequence they had back then, please?

Spoiler

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

I had no problem with Ubisoft... when I was playing their games on console.
On the PC? Waste of time and money thanks to UPlay. Some games won't even work. At all.
So, they've pretty much lost me as a paying customer for taking money and giving a broken product in return.
The only Ubisoft game I have that doesn't give me /too much/ trouble to play with friends is Rainbow Six Vegas 2. Because it doesn't require UPlay.
I wish I could get a refund on all the games I have that require UPlay. And some sort of warning siren when I open a store page for a game on Steam that requires UPlay.

 

[StatusNil]

Eh, Ubisoft (or "Les Artes Electroniques", as I like to call them) have gradually morphed into THE most ridiculously bloated corporate monster in gaming. Ever sat through the credits of a Ubisoft game? Practically feature length, with all the different studios out of whose disconnected work they stitch their games together, Frankenstein-fashion. Oh, and all the "Senior Deputy Assistant Global Player Experience Management Team End User Manipulation Subdirectorate Team Coordination Facilitators".

The "Totally Not DRM!" Uplay "service" is just another annoying layer of player herding that can (and will) cause problems (such as repeatedly erasing cloud saves etc.) on PC, a platform Ubi never quite manage to hide their dislike for. And the "Rewards" are just another aspect of their increasingly nasty habit of scattering unlockables from their games into the four winds for their customers to chase after. There's also a rich freaking plenitude of various "Collectors' Editions" with "exclusive content", paid DLC, stuff you unlock through wasting time on a mobile and browser "companion apps" and even sponsored deals (case in point, Splinter Cell: Conviction has a whole level for the "Deniable Ops" mode that you could only get through GameSpot and is no longer available there).

And then there's the obvious lack of give-a-damn they have for the quality of their products once they have pushed them out the door. "Us fix bugs? But that game is WEEKS old!" And the fact that they have an entire department that is tasked with homogenizing their various series (that's why the same elements keep cropping up in Ass Creed, Watch Dogs, Far Cry etc.) Their treatment of talent like Patrice Desilets (who they owe a lot to... check out the quality of the Ass Creed series once Desilets and Jade Raymond left it) is disgraceful. And on and on.

I actually like many of their games. Assassin's Creed was excellent until it lost its way around Revelations (yeah, even the first one... some call it "boringly empty", I say it has great use of interstitial space and ambient storytelling). I enjoy Splinter Cell, and Blacklist was by no means terrible, despite certain issues (helps if you don't do MP). The latest two Raymen were delightful. What else? Oh yeah, where's muh Prince of Persia 2008 sequel?! But to pretend they are not an utterly terrible company is not something I am prepared to do.

Ah... that was a cathartic rant.

 

[gigastar]

Ubisoft is not without problems, but it is also not without redeeming qualities.

Just too bad that at the moment the bad outwieghs the good.

 

[Foehunter82]

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.

+1

Especially that last part.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

Firstly, their 1 game a year format is only for AC, look how many years are between their other franchises like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, etc. Ubisoft so could've put out a shooter every year, even switching between franchises every other year but they didn't, I'm pretty sure there will be more time between Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games than say Destiny and its sequel when Destiny was supposed to last 10 years LMAO. Obviously their 1 game a year format is sustainable for AC. For how long, who knows, but nothing is sustainable forever. Also, you don't have to fucking buy stuff you don't wanna buy. There's plenty of people that buy AC every year and like it, why is Ubisoft evil for selling something there is a demand for? For me, I haven't played an AC game since AC2 because how much that game sucked, the structure completely switched from a Hitman-lite structure to a GTA-like structure which I hated. You're not going to like every game a publisher publishes.

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?

Firstly, graphics aren't everything. The gameplay of Watch Dogs sold me, not the graphics. The gameplay always sells me, what's the point of playing a great looking game when I don't like the gameplay? Secondly, Ubisoft didn't lie about the graphics, they released videos for what the game looked like after the delay. There's even graphics comparison videos of that.

Spoiler: 2012 vs March 2014

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

It's not that they are bad, malicious or greedy. It's that they are incompetent and hilariously mismanaged.

Whereas EA are basically the polar opposite of that.

 

[CrystalShadow]

To be fair, I've found more ubisoft games I actually vaguely liked than could be said for most AAA publishers, but that amounts to the whole 'damning with faint praise' thing really.

And to some extent it's just because in the console space they've spent more time being supportive of Nintendo systems than the other major publishers have.
Which... Is really just a quirk of how I play games. (Nintendo console + PC, usually)

They strike me as having a slightly longer list of quirky and weird/interesting games to their name than the likes of EA, but they've made so many obviously boneheaded moves along the way that whatever goodwill comes from this evaporates pretty quickly...

 

[asdfen]

and Hitler was a good leader
like rmember how shit DRM made PC download parts of Assassins Creed game off servers instead of being all on disk. Uplay makes things worse and just has no reason to exist. Assassin games stagnating into mediocre crap and every game released after Assassins have exact same mechanics climb stuff to uncover map and some sprinkled missions like Watch Dogs

 

[Saltyk]

Maybe they were good, but they've now decided to start Ubisofting© every game they make. They literally stated that they won't make a game unless they can milk it into a franchise. This is why I stopped playing Assassin's Creed (despite absolutely adoring the first game) and never touched Watch_Dogs despite loving what I saw initially (that died as soon as I saw Ubisoft's name).

Not every game needs a cliffhanger ending for the purpose of sequel bait. For Christ's sake Ubisoft, you can make a franchise and still make each game a self contained story. Sonic, Mario, and even Uncharted prove this. You can even continue a story without a cliff hanger ending.

So, no. While Ubisoft may not be as bad as EA, Capcom, Konami, or some other studios, I certainly don't like them. I don't have infinite money, and will not be forced to buy a yearly game to get the story.

 

[Callate]

I'm with you, kindasorta.

I don't think Ubisoft is in the company of EA or Activision, at least, not yet. Both companies have a good decade of trying to one-up each other as to who can behave most poorly. And far more than Ubisoft, I think both are poisoning the well; not only behaving badly themselves, but moving the lines with regard to the bad behavior that game publishers can get away with and raising the levels of cynicism and contempt that many feel for the industry.

Comparatively, the games I've played from Ubisoft of late, I've quite enjoyed- Valiant Hearts, Grow Home, Far Cry 3, 4, and Blood Dragon, and even the maligned, critically under-whelming Watch_Dogs.

Bu-hu-ut...

I don't tend to play their games online, so I'm more or less immune to criticisms of their multi-player functionality. I have a stack of AC games on Steam I've barely gotten around to touching, so one of their flagship series and the possible deterioration of same has largely passed me by. Unity's release was clearly rushed, to devastating effect, and allowed years of hard work to be compromised. And while I think they've gone quite out of their way to placate people who were angered by AC:Unity, I can't help but notice that there's little indication they haven't continued on their merry way with regard to pre-order bonuses and platform exclusives and massive galloping hordes of DLC and "subscriptions".

So from where I stand, Ubisoft is still more than capable of making good games, has shown a willingness to allow their people to go unusual directions, and doesn't deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the "big boys"... But they haven't been entirely resistant to some of the worse foibles of the AAA industry, and they seem to be on the wrong course. I hope they improve.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

1. You know what, OP? I'd probably like Uplay if the fucking thing would launch for me without having to reboot 7-11 times, just once is literally ALL I ask. That alone should give you an idea on what Uplay is like for PC gamers. I'm not an advocate of piracy, but holy shit you're better off buying the game from steam and then pirating a functional copy.

2. Ubisoft? Willing to take chances? Did we step into the Twilight Zone? "Oh it's another open world game where you climb up tall shit to reveal everything on the map. Didn't see that one coming, such daring risks Ubisoft is taking these days, I don't know how they stay profitable!"

3. This is entirely subjective. Personally, playing Unity I thought to myself "A lot of love went into making this France, a lot of time and effort went into crafting this world, This Notre Dame Cathedral? It's the best Notre Dame I've ever seen in a video game. That Kiss at the start? Most real looking kiss I've ever seen in a game. Such care and effort went into making this game. It's a crying shame I'm not enjoying it at all." Make of that what you will.

4. Ubisoft, in terms of gameplay, has an annoying habit of taking one half-hearted step in the right direction, then making a hundred yard dash in the complete opposite direction. The Naval Warfare? Fucking brilliant, good stuff. Redefine the core gameplay, shake it up a bit. The next game? Let's stick you in France, why don't we?

 

[Snotnarok]

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.

Firstly, their 1 game a year format is only for AC, look how many years are between their other franchises like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, etc. Ubisoft so could've put out a shooter every year, even switching between franchises every other year but they didn't, I'm pretty sure there will be more time between Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games than say Destiny and its sequel when Destiny was supposed to last 10 years LMAO. Obviously their 1 game a year format is sustainable for AC. For how long, who knows, but nothing is sustainable forever. Also, you don't have to fucking buy stuff you don't wanna buy. There's plenty of people that buy AC every year and like it, why is Ubisoft evil for selling something there is a demand for? For me, I haven't played an AC game since AC2 because how much that game sucked, the structure completely switched from a Hitman-lite structure to a GTA-like structure which I hated. You're not going to like every game a publisher publishes.

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?

Firstly, graphics aren't everything. The gameplay of Watch Dogs sold me, not the graphics. The gameplay always sells me, what's the point of playing a great looking game when I don't like the gameplay? Secondly, Ubisoft didn't lie about the graphics, they released videos for what the game looked like after the delay. There's even graphics comparison videos of that.

Spoiler: 2012 vs March 2014

Assassins Creed isn't a 1 game a year thing, they've put out two last year and now they're doing three. That's a BIT excessive and I merely point that out because frankly everyone points to EA and even Five Nights at Freddy's and says 'they're bad because they milk their game'. And I agree with you, if you don't like it, don't buy it, and that's exactly what I'm doing with Ubisoft. Thing is, I don't care about the series or the rate they put them out, I more worry for the devs who're being pressured to put out AAA games and it's obvious they're beyond their capacity.
The reason they probably don't release those games yearly is simple, they don't have the established fanbase anymore, they're trying to get them back up and the first one with them always takes the longest dev time. We'll see how that goes afterward.

Which was the point to begin with, since Unity was so obviously rushed it came out broken, that's the problem they're trying to kick these games out so numerous and fast their games are broken months later, have horrible DLC schemes and their apology in the form of free DLC was even broken. THAT was the point and not the rate of the games coming out.


"Graphics aren't everything" That's not the point, I cannot stand this incredibly strange minded argument. Yes I buy games for gameplay as well because it's not a movie, it's not a photo- but if someone is showing me what I'm going to buy and when I get it the game is cut down then I'm going to feel lied to- and that is exactly what Ubisoft did. They claimed it's actual gameplay footage then the game comes out and it's different- that is a lie. Yes, we can all now look at what we're ACTUALLY getting after people have bought the game and made these videos. The topic is "Ubisoft is a good company" well I don't think many good people never the less companies lie to their customers, or push their devs beyond their limits, or release broken games that don't get fixed for months and broken DLC, and really sub-par ethics on DLC.

Dunno why graphics came up as the point, my points are Ubisoft is a terrible company, and they are.

 

[Laughing Man]

Coming from someone who has played Ubi games on PC only

1). I don't hate Uplay either but I don't see why it exists either. I bought the game I want to play the game but I have to launch Uplay to do this and if their servers are down or overloaded, which they will be because they are shite, then I can't play the game or can only play the game but with limited capacity. As for the free stuff that it gives you for playing the game... well that's where we fall back to the situation of why do I need to us Uplay to do that? Gmaes of old had unlocks that gave you access to additional content from within the game, they didn't require some online second rate second program to track performance and then issue you the content when you reached a certain point. Like I said I don;t hate it but it really has no purpose in it's current state. Oh and then you also have to remember the way they have treated PC gamers in the past, always on DRM which came, went, came again and right here and right now I am sure they still use some form of this system via Uplay or how about the whole Anno limited install issue. If they just had Uplay as their DRM then yeah it's possible to accept that, it's point less but I can deal with that but it's the fact that you have Uplay and THEN you have some other non sense DRM on top of that.

2). Can't really comment the thing is if they are such a risk taker why is no one else talking about it? Could it be because that the risk taking is far outweighed by the year on year release of games that are buggy, broken, generic, full of little innovation and boring... I dunno but when I hear Ubisoft I don't think risk takers, they are on step behind EA in the gaming publisher who shits out the same annual release with a new skin and one or two new mechanics.

3). Lol, Sorry; Unity, Watchdogs, anyone who has played the Silent Hunter series all of them have been bug messes at launch, some more than others and while some, like the Silent Hunter series have improved with community support and patches to become good games others such as ALL the Ass Creed games and Watchdogs were boring rubbish which never got looked at twice. Ass Creed got boring right after the point that every target would become a context sensitive button mashing affair no matter how much planning and stealth you intended to use, ps a small game called Tenchu did this entire concept way way way better many many years before Ass Creed stole the concept and made an arse of it. Watchdogs on the other hand was bland, boring uninspired and had a lead with so little character or charisma that I couldn't even tell you what his name was, let alone want to wear his 'iconic' cap. Of all my triple AAA titles Watchdogs is one of the least played titles ever managing a grand total of 3 and a half hours.

4). 'that i think they should make a non-AC game that uses the elements.' They did it was called Silent Hunter it's a game based purely on the concepts of naval warfare. All they did is stripped it down, simplified it and then stuck it on to a main stream title as a 'new and innovative gaming concept' I mean you can give them props for tweaking it and making it smoother and making it appeal to the masses but they don't deserve a pat on the back for reusing stuff that appear in other games. Besides that do they really deserve props for coming up with a game mechanic that you just happen to like, I dunno I guess that's a subjective statement.

As far as I can see Ubisoft deserve the hate they get. When I think back at the games, specifically just the games that I've played that came from them I have more hate for the utter mess the games where, the utter borefest that Watchdogs was, the piss poor knock off of Tenchu that Ass Creed was, the hoops I would have had to jump through to play my beloved Silent Hunter series when SH5 launched with always on DRM vs Far Cry 3 and Dark messiah being really very good games. Yeah the bad far outweighs the good, they deserve everything they get.

 

[3asytarg3t]

OP taking on the role of corporate apologist, that's certainly time well spent.