Ubisoft: The next worst thing?

[SonicWaffle]

It's been bombed and counter-bombed on Metacritic a couple times, ergo no one's opinion on it matters in the slightest. Not even yours.

Don't talk crazy talk. Mine is the only opinion that matters.

With that out of the way, you'll have to cite actual things they've done to anger you, not your opinion on the most stupidly controversial-because-controversy-is-fun games of the decade.

I don't really have much beef with Ubisoft, and my original post was sarcastic. However, since you ask, AC3 was one of the biggest let-downs I've ever played. I really loved the franchise, and am one of the few who was glad for the yearly installments because it meant I got to play more of the awesome games. The third game just deviated too far, took me out of my cities, gave me boring characters and storylines, and was generally a struggle to play. That's not even mentioning the rip-off ending we'd been told would definitively end Desmond's story. Ha ha, Ubisoft, yes I know it's technically correct but it was a fucking con. Unlike most people I know, I at least finished the game, but after that I just couldn't be bothered anymore.

So...yeah, does making a poor enough game to push me away from one of my favourite franchises count as a good reason to be annoyed? I'm not an easy guy to push away; I enjoyed Mass Effect 3, I've accepted the extended ending even if I'd have preferred something better, and will still recommend BioWare to anyone looking for quality games. If I enjoy a franchise it takes some serious phoning-it-in to turn me off it.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Eh, besides their terrible treatment of Rayman and their constant cock-teasing over Beyond Good and Evil 2, they aren't too bad.

But then again, I don't get any enjoyment out of hating game companies like you seem too, so maybe you weren't looking for my opinion.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's been bombed and counter-bombed on Metacritic a couple times, ergo no one's opinion on it matters in the slightest. Not even yours.

Don't talk crazy talk. Mine is the only opinion that matters.

With that out of the way, you'll have to cite actual things they've done to anger you, not your opinion on the most stupidly controversial-because-controversy-is-fun games of the decade.

I don't really have much beef with Ubisoft, and my original post was sarcastic. However, since you ask, AC3 was one of the biggest let-downs I've ever played. I really loved the franchise, and am one of the few who was glad for the yearly installments because it meant I got to play more of the awesome games. The third game just deviated too far, took me out of my cities, gave me boring characters and storylines, and was generally a struggle to play. That's not even mentioning the rip-off ending we'd been told would definitively end Desmond's story. Ha ha, Ubisoft, yes I know it's technically correct but it was a fucking con. Unlike most people I know, I at least finished the game, but after that I just couldn't be bothered anymore.

So...yeah, does making a poor enough game to push me away from one of my favourite franchises count as a good reason to be annoyed? I'm not an easy guy to push away; I enjoyed Mass Effect 3, I've accepted the extended ending even if I'd have preferred something better, and will still recommend BioWare to anyone looking for quality games. If I enjoy a franchise it takes some serious phoning-it-in to turn me off it.

That's... really impressive in a bad way, actually.

But it's counterbalanced by a couple of my friends saying it was their GOTY. So... opinions!

 

[Fox12]

Can anyone explain to me why everyone's been hating on Square Enix lately? I admit I haven't played their games in a while, but they always came across as more cripplingly incompetent then actively evil. On the long list of bad companies out there, Square never really registered with me. Have they been doing something I'm unaware of? To put them on a trinity of companies that needs to disappear feels a little harsh. Capcom, Ea, Microsoft, and plenty more seem worse to me.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Eh, besides their terrible treatment of Rayman and their constant cock-teasing over Beyond Good and Evil 2, they aren't too bad.

Rayman: Origins was pretty damn good, and I'm not even really a fan of the franchise.

OT: Ubisoft are kinda dicks, but they still make some fairly great games. Even the done-to-death Assassin's Creed franchise is still one of the better game series out there, excluding AC3 ofcourse. As long as they churn out solid titles I don't see much reason to hate them.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Eh, besides their terrible treatment of Rayman and their constant cock-teasing over Beyond Good and Evil 2, they aren't too bad.

Rayman: Origins was pretty damn good, and I'm not even really a fan of the franchise.

Oh, I definitely agree with that, I loved the hell out of Origins. But they are fucking idiots when it comes to releasing the games. For Origins they decided in their infinite wisdom to release it in the November rush period including games like CoD, and even released it on the same day as their own, much bigger, hitter in Assassin's Creed.

And now what have they decided to do this time for Legends, I hear you ask? Release it within a couple of weeks of GTA V, one of the most anticipated games in recent memory, for most people.

It pains me to see these wonderful games be overlooked because of Ubi's daft decisions when it comes to release dates.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Uplay is tolerable. And that is still better than GFWL and Origin put together.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No, not really, just view all big publishers with a bit of distrust. Singling out one publisher for being more "evil" than the others is quite short-sighted and allows others to get away with the same shit.

That's been my stance for a few years now. Before, I did the usual shitlist. Now, I do my best to keep my purchases away from publishers who support certain platforms and business philosophies entirely. As many games as I've "missed out on", it's saved me much more grief in hindsight.

And I admit, the more naive part of me misses the day where I could judge a publisher based on their merits, instead of what brand of anti-consumer bullshit they're peddling.

 

[SonicWaffle]

It's been bombed and counter-bombed on Metacritic a couple times, ergo no one's opinion on it matters in the slightest. Not even yours.

Don't talk crazy talk. Mine is the only opinion that matters.

With that out of the way, you'll have to cite actual things they've done to anger you, not your opinion on the most stupidly controversial-because-controversy-is-fun games of the decade.

I don't really have much beef with Ubisoft, and my original post was sarcastic. However, since you ask, AC3 was one of the biggest let-downs I've ever played. I really loved the franchise, and am one of the few who was glad for the yearly installments because it meant I got to play more of the awesome games. The third game just deviated too far, took me out of my cities, gave me boring characters and storylines, and was generally a struggle to play. That's not even mentioning the rip-off ending we'd been told would definitively end Desmond's story. Ha ha, Ubisoft, yes I know it's technically correct but it was a fucking con. Unlike most people I know, I at least finished the game, but after that I just couldn't be bothered anymore.

So...yeah, does making a poor enough game to push me away from one of my favourite franchises count as a good reason to be annoyed? I'm not an easy guy to push away; I enjoyed Mass Effect 3, I've accepted the extended ending even if I'd have preferred something better, and will still recommend BioWare to anyone looking for quality games. If I enjoy a franchise it takes some serious phoning-it-in to turn me off it.

That's... really impressive in a bad way, actually.

Ha, which part?

 

[lacktheknack]

That's... really impressive in a bad way, actually.

Ha, which part?

Managing to make you unfavorite a franchise. Huh.

 

[SonicWaffle]

That's... really impressive in a bad way, actually.

Ha, which part?

Managing to make you unfavorite a franchise. Huh.

Ah, that part. Yeah, I'm none too pleased about it myself. My loyalty is hard to win but once you've got it, you've really got it. This sort of thing very rarely happens to me, because if I enjoy something that much then I'm generally willing to overlook any amount of small flaws, but I guess AC3 was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were just too many problems to overlook, the main one being that it didn't really feel like a continuation of a favourite franchise at all.

Even now, I don't particularly bear any ill will towards Ubisoft as a company. I'll still play their games without much complaint. I just won't be returning to that particular franchise unless someone gifts me a copy and I'm super-duper bored one day.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Eh, besides their terrible treatment of Rayman and their constant cock-teasing over Beyond Good and Evil 2, they aren't too bad.

Rayman: Origins was pretty damn good, and I'm not even really a fan of the franchise.

Oh, I definitely agree with that, I loved the hell out of Origins. But they are fucking idiots when it comes to releasing the games. For Origins they decided in their infinite wisdom to release it in the November rush period including games like CoD, and even released it on the same day as their own, much bigger, hitter in Assassin's Creed.

And now what have they decided to do this time for Legends, I hear you ask? Release it within a couple of weeks of GTA V, one of the most anticipated games in recent memory, for most people.

It pains me to see these wonderful games be overlooked because of Ubi's daft decisions when it comes to release dates.

Yeah, I heard about that. You'd think Ubisoft wouldn't want to take any more risk when already releasing a 2D platformer at full price. A worthy price, obviously, but not one most people would probably want to spend on what they see as a "retro game".

 

[rasputin0009]

As a longtime PC gamer, Ubisoft is probably the worst publisher. Even EA and their useless Origin thing is better than Ubisofts penchant for ridiculous DRM, which really is a terrible shame since Ubisoft also happens to publish quite a few excellent PC franchise like Settlers, Heroes of Might & Magic, and the ANNO series. None of which I've played the newest games of thanks to Ubisoft.

...

Actually no, Microsoft is the worst. Games for Windows Live is horrendous, and they've butchered quite a few excellent developer over the years. So Ubisoft is second worst after Microsoft, EA would come third in my mind.

Go, erm, good for you EA? Congrats on not being worst at something for once.

Ya, this. Very appropriate ranking. If you're gonna put your games on Steam, why the need for UPlay? Double-DRM is pretty disgusting. And GFWL is self-explanatory. Origin is just not as bad as the other two.

The only thing I can commend Ubisoft for lately is Blood Dragon. Wasn't much of a risk for them, but still wasn't a half-assed money grab like most DLC.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Next?

Ubisoft is already the worst publisher by a long mile and has been for years.

 

[MammothBlade]

No, not really, just view all big publishers with a bit of distrust. Singling out one publisher for being more "evil" than the others is quite short-sighted and allows others to get away with the same shit.

That's been my stance for a few years now. Before, I did the usual shitlist. Now, I do my best to keep my purchases away from publishers who support certain platforms and business philosophies entirely. As many games as I've "missed out on", it's saved me much more grief in hindsight.

And I admit, the more naive part of me misses the day where I could judge a publisher based on their merits, instead of what brand of anti-consumer bullshit they're peddling.

I don't refuse to buy anything by big publishers, I just look at them with more caution than I usually would...

 

[MCerberus]

Ubisoft seems to at least level with people. Eventually they came down off their SecuROM high horse and admitted it was a mistake. When people complained about too many AC sequels, they remarked how they use the franchise money to make new stuff (and then Mic-dropped Watch Dogs on us). They still have derp moments, but Ubi doesn't seem as hostile as other companies.

Also this thread made me think of ponies

Spoiler

 

[00slash00]

I'm indifferent. Their statement about only doing franchises was shitty but didn't really affect my opinion of them too much. Assassins Creed is a series I lost interest in halfway through the second game, so they can release a new one every 6 months and it wouldn't bother me. I'm not worried about them destroying a series that I don't care about. Honestly, my only problems with Ubisoft are that their E3 press conference was hard to watch because their attempts to be funny were painfully awkward, and I'm sick to death of hearing about watch dogs. Aside from that they're just whatever to me. Not a company I'm impressed with, and not a company that bothers me at all.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I used to hate Ubisoft back when they had their draconic DRM, but as time passed they started to realize that the heavy DRM was hurting their customers more than actually protecting their product from pirates.

Nowadays I value them as a company compared to the other big publishers, because they actually do care about bringing their games to PC. I would take Uplay over Origin and GFWL any day of the week.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't refuse to buy anything by big publishers, I just look at them with more caution than I usually would...

Don't get me wrong, I still buy games from big publishers, but if I were to make a list of those I trust at face value, it wouldn't be terribly long at this point.