Ubisoft Apologizes For Assassin's Creed

BarbaraHudson writes in with the latest in the Assassin's Creed Unity debacle. This time it's good news. "As an acknowledgment of the botched launch of Assassin's Creed Unity, Ubisoft has offered free additional content to everyone who purchased the title, cancelled the game's season pass and offered a free game to users who purchased the pass. The anticipation for Assassin's Creed Unity was such that the myriad of bugs and technical issues experienced at launch felt like an even greater slap in the face for gamers. In a blog posted yesterday, Yannis Mallat, CEO of Ubisoft Montreal & Toronto said: 'Unfortunately, at launch, the overall quality of the game was diminished by bugs and unexpected technical issues. I want to sincerely apologize on behalf of Ubisoft and the entire Assassin's Creed team. These problems took away from your enjoyment of the game, and kept many of you from experiencing the game at its fullest potential.'"

Comments

Total War: Rome 2

[Spy Handler]

was like that

Re:Total War: Rome 2

[davester666]

'Unfortunately, at launch, the overall quality of the game was diminished by bugs and unexpected technical issues. I want to sincerely apologize on behalf of Ubisoft and the entire Assassin's Creed team. These problems took away from your enjoyment of the game, and kept many of you from experiencing the game at its fullest potential.'

Has there been ANY 'AAA' title released in the last 10 years that the CEO of the company that published it shouldn't have made this statement after it's release?

Re:Total War: Rome 2

[Delwin]

Dragon Age: Inquisition. Honestly that's the reason this hit so hard - they blew it pretty hard when BioWare nailed it on the head.

Re:Total War: Rome 2

[hairyfeet]

Borderlands was fine, Bioshock 1 and 2 SP (don't know about the MP on #2, I never bothered) was fine, Borderlands 2 I can't remember any real show stoppers there.

So I would say yes, yes there have been triple A titles that weren't unplayable at launch, in fact most of them weren't unplayable like AC:U. Sure they had some bugs but more along the "LOL that ragdoll is stuck on the wall and doing a dance" whereas from what I've seen AC:U is more along the lines of "I jumped off a 2 foot ledge and fell through the world" kinda bugs, totally different ballgame IMHO. In fact the last time I remember a game being shoved out THIS badly broken was Vampire:Bloodlines and that one at least had the excuse of the developer going tits up.

Re:Total War: Rome 2

[SuiteSisterMary]

In fact the last time I remember a game being shoved out THIS badly broken was Vampire:Bloodlines and that one at least had the excuse of the developer going tits up.

There's a bit more to the story, but yeah. And worth noting that they then worked, unpaid, to put out a patch that fixed the worst of it.

Fantastic game, even though.

Re:Total War: Rome 2

[hairyfeet]

Oh I apologize if it sounded like I was calling it a bad game, I wasn't and like Freelancer its a game the community has really built a huge world on top of which IMHO just adds incredible value. No the question was whether triple A titles are always AC:Unity levels of suck and that was the only game I could think of off the top of my head that was as badly broken as AC:Unity OOTB.

The only other I could think of was Max Payne II but that one you had to have certain CPUs (HT enabled P4s) paired with the right GPU (GeForce 5 or 6 midrange cards) to hit the "games will never load past the second level" bug, everybody else could play just fine. But I play a LOT of shooters and frankly most triple A titles? Are actually quite solid on the PC, oh sure you get a few funny graphical glitches (the Borderlands "see what color panties Moxxi wears" bug) but for the most part even the infamously bad like Kane & Lynch II Dog Days ran just fine, in that case the game just sucked.

Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They were unexpected? Testing didn't bring ANY of these issues up?

I could understand a few bugs might slip through the cracks but I would have thought a game publisher would not have these kind of issues after launching many games without major bugs. (I have no citation on this, by I would figure that most of their games aren't this bad on launch day).

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Chrisq]

Really? They were unexpected? Testing didn't bring ANY of these issues up?

You would be surprised at the number of so-called expert testers who ask for the latest, most powerful machines with the latest OS versions etc. as they claim that this will aid their testing. I've seen this in a company where the target machines that actual users were using were known to be older with less powerful graphics cards and some old software for compatibility with some products . I'd imagine the lure of a new machine is eve greater when they don't know what users will be using.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that this was not the cause of the failure to find the raging pile of bugs in the PS4 and XBox One versions, since there isn't much hardware variation among released models.

Much more plausible (if still an example of terrible testing practice) with any bugs in the PC version that can be linked to a specific GPU driver version or the like. Even there, though, PC gamers(of the type interested in new-release action games) may not have the newest hardware; but tend to be fairly good about updating GPU drivers and DirectX runtimes.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Tridus]

Usually, testers find these things and management decides that they can be fixed with a patch later, because missing the ship date would cause marketing problems.

Sometimes they get away with that. Sometimes the problems are worse than management thinks and a debacle like this happens.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Let's put it this way: When a game doesn't suck publishers generally don't embargo reviews until 12 hours after release...

Even games that end up releasing in pretty dubious shape often manage to score fairly positive pre-launch press through some combination of assurances that 'those little issues won't be in the final version, just see the promise!' and the degree to which the reviewer depends on the goodwill of the publisher for future access, so if reviewers aren't allowed to talk about it even after it is on the shelves, you might want to run away. Maybe pick it up for $20 a year from now, if they actually do fix it.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[lennier1]

Unespected?

Their news embargo basically equaled a goddamn GAG ORDER and they really want to convince us that this wasn't because they knew all along what a train wreck they were about to sell and to prevent he media prom warning the customers??? It was fraud, plain and simple and they now want to get people to accept some of their other crap as compensation so they won't be able to join a class-action lawsuit.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be surprised at the number of so-called expert testers who ask for the latest, most powerful machines with the latest OS versions etc.

In the later phases of development the testers should be picked from the target audience - the person managing these play testers should never have to touch any hardware himself and the play testers should not have any kind of authority beyond writing bug reports and identifying game play issues. If not a single one tests the game on older hardware then that hardware cannot be supported.

I'd imagine the lure of a new machine is eve greater when they don't know what users will be using.

That lure should be minimized by making it clear that messing with the release of a triple A title will get the testers access to the hardware and his job permanently revoked.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Alumoi]

Why should they even care to test the game before launch? There are hundrends/thousands of beta testers who are more than willing to pay a bunch only to be among the first to have the new shiny.
Oh, did I say beta testers? I meant users/players.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bullshit. Testers are like Mexican field workers. They turn up at the offices, sit in room playing the game sections over and over, then hit a log button whenever something odd happens.

All of the bugs in AC:U were known by Ubisoft, and probably had thousands of test logs of them, complete with recorded footage. They choose to ship to the launch date rather than delay for fixes. They had review embargos in place until after the launch too. They deliberately sold the consumer a broken product. Someone senior chose to do that. It's time these people were named and it's time companies are prosecuted by the law. Furthermore, it's time the "review" sites stopped socking the cocks of publishers. They're nothing more than advertisers and are part of the corruption within the industry.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[drinkypoo]

Their news embargo basically equaled a goddamn GAG ORDER

No, it didn't. It was sleazy, it was wrong, it was something that we should not tolerate from any gaming company, but it was part of the deal for a review copy up front and every respectable gaming review outlet turned them down. Yeah, you read that right.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[AmiMoJo]

These days it's standard to write the apology before the game even ships. They know that the servers will buckle under the load on day one, they know you will have to download a 1GB+ patch before you can even connect, and they know there are still masses of bugs. A cheap apology posted on their website is far cheaper than actually fixing those problems, and these days total launch failure is so common that in a week all will be forgotten and everyone will be watching other people play the game on YouTube before handing over their cash for a copy.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[BarbaraHudson]

This is bullshit. Testers are like Mexican field workers. They turn up at the offices, sit in room playing the game sections over and over, then hit a log button whenever something odd happens.

Yep, One of my nephews thought it would be cool to become a game tester, so he applied to Ubisoft. He quit after (iirc) a month because it was boring, repetitive, and only paid minimum wage.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[gl4ss]

well it was "unexpected" to the management that the patching team didn't do a miracle in 48 hours prior to launch. if they were even working.

they knew it was buggy, what they technically might have not know was if the thing was going to get patched to good level before stores handing the copies out.

(that they knew was evidenced by the launch day review embargo for people with advance copies, which doesn't happen with all games, rather it seems to happen only on games that are buggy)

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Opportunist]

I was thinking just that. Unexpected? Did QA take a collective day off when the game was to be tested? Not even the "there's just too many configurations" excuse holds any water because the glitches, bugs, freezes and what ever else you have happened not only on the PC version but also on the consoles. And please don't tell me there are too many different PS4 variants out there where it just so happened that you didn't have the one with the CPU/GPU where the game bugs out.

The game was friggin' unfinished. That's all. If you need any proof, just look at its graphical, physical and logical makeup, then look at the minimum (!) requirements of the game and compare the whole mess with other contemporary games. Of course there hasn't been any serious optimization in place. Debugging wasn't even done yet!

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...ever heard of a game called Skyrim? How about Fallout: New Vegas? Daikatana, perhaps? No? How about Dead Island then? Hell, how about the OTHER ASSASSIN'S CREED GAMES?

Nothing slipped through the cracks here. Ubisoft knew that people would pre-order the game based on hype alone. They knew how bad it was. They knew it was so bad that they demanded a "press embargo" on review sites until enough time had passed that they'd lined their pockets with pre-orders. They sold a broken product and the only thing they're really sorry about now is the backlash. They're certainly not sorry about ripping people off, they've already got your money. They knew they could get away with it because as you can see above (with the obvious exception of Daikatana), people are more than willing to buy completely broken, buggy games. They'll even pre-order to make sure that they get said buggy game on the exact day it's released. Sure, they'll come back to complain about it...but again, they already have your money. Unless a class-action lawsuit is filed against them, which I'm guessing they disallow you from filing in an EULA or something similar, it's pretty much a guarantee that if Ubisoft remains afloat after this...they'll continue to release broken, shitty games, because they're making plenty of money off them.

That and the fact they seem to think gifting you DLC for a buggy game, along with another one of their buggy games, is proper compensation for selling a $50-70 turd of a game. The only way to stop this "game" is to stop playing it. Period. The best part of all of it is that people are going to Gamestop et. al. in droves to pick up Far Cry 4 now, they're handing more money to the same company that ripped them off. What possible reason would Ubisoft have to actually _fix_ anything when they can easily, completely legally get away with selling you a game that doesn't work properly?

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

The news embargo is not uncommon at least in my opinion.

However, the actual upfront copies were not shipped in a timely manner and that combined with an embargo virtually guaranteed a delay in reviews. I'm sure they were counting on it.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised at something like this. Having just built a new machine for use at home a week before this game came out, one of the parts came with a free copy of Unity. I installed it on the second day it was out, and have played it off an on since without seeing any bugs (maybe the worst were fixed in the first day). Some of the bugs should have been pretty obvious, but just didn't come up on my system at all, and it ran smoothly. But even if it was bug free for everyone, it would still amount to kind of a boring game compared to previous ones and a bunch of stupid tie-in stuff with the mobile app or paying for other things. While I enjoy the sights of Paris, that novelty quickly wears off and I'm just happy I didn't pay for the game.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

What did he expect it'd be like when he's forced to sit in a room and play buggy Ubisoft games day after day.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[_xeno_]

It was sleazy, it was wrong, it was something that we should not tolerate from any gaming company, but it was part of the deal for a review copy up front and every respectable gaming review outlet turned them down. Yeah, you read that right.

So, none of them?

Honestly asking. I haven't bothered reading any video game specific site in years, primarily because video game sites seemed to either be the corporate "blatantly in bed with the publishers" type (IGN) or "shitty blog not worth anyone's time" type (Kotaku). I'm curious if any gaming review outlet actually turned down the offer and insisted on reviewing a release copy.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[drinkypoo]

So, none of them?

That's my take. I don't know of anyone who did turn it down, because BIG SHINY. (Not just ooh shiny, but BIG SHINY.)

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[antdude]

Hehe. That is like any other testing jobs. Some of jobs are worse!

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't run into anything totally horrible on the PS4, of course by the time I played it (about a week after release) there was already a patch out. Then again I usually do wait a week or two before starting new titles specifically because I've come to expect patches...

Weak framerate, minor visual glitches and two crashes (over 20 hours of playtime with no lost progress).

Newer patch installing now, if they can somewhat improve the framerate that's good enough for me.

Re:Unexpected technical issues

[OldSport]

which I'm guessing they disallow you from filing in an EULA or something similar

For the life of me I can't understand how this is legal. Do companies really do this?

Bugs are DRM

[cfalcon]

The net effect of these ludic-buggy games is that the actual game disk itself is entirely worthless for playing the game. Pretend that while browsing for 8 bit NES games, you finally found a game you wanted- say The Guardian Legend, a truly top-tier title. You grab it for cheap, walk it home... and instead of instantly booting into Miria racing towards Naju, it instead needs an overnight update from a service that hasn't existed in a decade to work properly, or at all.

These bugs are a feature to companies like Ubisoft and EA. The apology is only issued because the launch was truly and shockingly ludicrous- enough to get mocked world wide, in articles such as Cracked's:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-...

That are well outside of the normal area of video game journalism / forums / reviews.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[Trepidity]

A corollary of that is that this style of development is a huge mess for game preservation. Imagine if you had a collection of NES games, but none of them really worked, because the original boxed game was unplayably buggy, and the update servers were discontinued many years ago. Pretty much the only hope for a game like this being playable in 20 years is: 1) the company itself eventually releases a self-contained, all-patches included version that works, or 2) some warez group does so.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[dbIII]

2) is what happened with Dungeon Keeper 2. I've got the original CD and all the patches but had huge problems installing and running it on three systems since. The warez version just worked, it applied the patches and removed the buggy copy protection that was responsible for many crashes.
Awesome narration in that game. "You seem the have a lot of mistresses. There's a word for keepers like you."

Re:Bugs are DRM

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The difference is obviously academic if nobody actually does it; but do the various auto-updaters of today attempt to resist, by some DRMish means, archiving of updates as they are received, such that you could either do an offline 'replay' of each update against a retail copy, or preserve a final working version(depending on whether updates are delivered as replacements or as deltas)?

I assume that consoles do, if only because consoles are extremely touchy by nature about anything going in or out(aside from maybe DLNA streaming and such) without being explicitly blessed; but I don't know about the PC side. Have updaters been sucked in to the wonderful world of DRM, or are they still mostly an honest-if-sometimes-incompetent download and patch utility?

Re:Bugs are DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much the only hope for a game like this being playable in 20 years is: 1) the company itself eventually releases a self-contained, all-patches included version that works, or 2) some warez group does so.

Why not both?
I've got the impression that a lot of the people from different warez groups work at game companies these days.
When you ask for people under 25 years old that have 10 years of experience with your code base to an entry level position the only persons that fits the description are those that have cracked your games since they were 14.
Heck, even some of the founders for major game companies have ties to the game cracking groups. (Just don't tell the publishers.)

Re:Bugs are DRM

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd still be annoyed at having to re-buy it because the CD and all the patches didn't work correctly; but (as someone who lost their CD fair and square, by good old fashioned incompetence and disorganization on my part rather than theirs) I think it's fair to note that GoG thankfully has this one, and it was worth my $6.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[DivineKnight]

Now if only Obsidian by Rocket Science were available...

Re:Bugs are DRM

[dbIII]

Read review 3 as to why I use the warez version despite having a legal copy. That isn't me that wrote it but it may as well have been.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Going by the reviews, it looks like they shot the initial release to hell; but apparently fixed it by the time I noticed and purchased it. Still looks pretty retro on my giant modern pretty-screen; but no less stable now than it was back in the day(which, admittedly, wasn't perfect).

Re:Bugs are DRM

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd certainly only want the ones who appear to have grown out of illicitly releasing games into the underground(or, at very least, agreeing only to release other people's games, not the one that they are working on); but aside from that little issue, "Voluntarily grovelled through game binaries and assets stripping out DRM and poking various things in exchange for nothing more than amusement and possible recognition" sounds like a pretty promising set of qualifications.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[TheRaven64]

I was happy to re-buy DK and DK2 from GOG when they were on special offer for $2 each: for that price, it's worth not having to find the CDs. The fact that they had pre-packaged Mac versions and I didn't have to futz with WINE myself was a bonus.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[dbIII]

Sounds good.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[ultranova]

The difference is obviously academic if nobody actually does it; but do the various auto-updaters of today attempt to resist, by some DRMish means, archiving of updates as they are received, such that you could either do an offline 'replay' of each update against a retail copy, or preserve a final working version(depending on whether updates are delivered as replacements or as deltas)?

The obvious solution to this kind of problem is to store old games as virtual machine snapshots. Unfortunately, these are not currently standardized - at least the emulated 3D card requires new drivers for the guest operating system from version to to version - but if they will be, you simply need to expand the format a little to store a virtual network: a virtual machine running the game and another running whatever online DRM the game needs.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[drinkypoo]

So is the question whether update downloads are encrypted? The ones for the Xbox and 360 aren't. Dunno about the 180. You can download them and unpack them with alternate tools. I would imagine that mostly the ones on the PC aren't either, but I haven't actually checked to see what it looks like when say STO downloads an update.

Once the files are laid down, though, it's only a matter of doing any necessary authentication, if your game has that sort of thing. And in theory, that can be patched out. The game assets are not being stored encrypted in any game I've played yet. You can rummage around the files if you can grok their formats. Again, given the example of STO, the assets are stored in .hogg files (yes, really, because they're pigs) and you need to use an unpacker to get access to the assets. Predictably, when I searched for this information (just now, I haven't modded STO) one of the first hits related to nude patches. Yay internets.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[drinkypoo]

The obvious solution to this kind of problem is to store old games as virtual machine snapshots.

Bah, humbug. If you want to replay the game in the future, download the cracked version that doesn't authenticate to anything. Then you can install it to a virtual machine with working drivers. Just buy it first, and make sure to buy the same SKU that the cracked version is based upon. That might not be an airtight legal defense, but at least it'll be clear that you were trying to do the Right^WLegal Thing(tm)

Re:Bugs are DRM

[Orange Crush]

I don't understand why "patches" are hundreds of megabytes and often multiple gigabytes to download. Isn't the vast majority of a modern game's data the assets? (Textures, images, sound, video,etc.). Actual code should be a tiny fraction... How do mere bug fixes weigh so much?

Re:Bugs are DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fan of Guardian Legend I can't tell you how much I appreciated this analogy. :D

Re:Bugs are DRM

[phorm]

I still play old games which had some fairly severe bugs. For example, the unpatched "C&C Tiberium Wars" (which is still fun to play in a LAN party, after patching) had some terrible de-synchronization issues etc.
There are still sites out there that tended to have patches of these games, or - alternately - I have an old folder with discs of patches and a share on my local server.

Re:Bugs are DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

If a user submits a bug along the lines of "fell through world at x,y while jumping and changing weapons" it's usually better practice to change the content that holds the collision maps, rather that work around the issue in code, since it's localized to that area (and changing the collision code itself has the potential to introduce more bugs in other game areas).

Most of the time a patch will be a culmination of many of these bugs, which brings up the download size, since the actually game data is the problem - not the code.

If the only bug in a game is a crash while loading levels, then certainly just a small code drop will be submitted, since that would be an engine patch rather than a game patch.

What a non excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

'Unfortunately, at launch, the overall quality of the game was diminished by bugs and unexpected technical issues'

No; they were not unexpected the company forced the game to launch without taking the time to properly QA the title. They knew perfectly fine the title wasn't up to standards but they decided to release it anyway because of a release date that should have been pushed back because of the technical issues. Nice try Ubisoft but for once have the balls to tell the truth and reflect on that.

Re:What a non excuse

[Chrisq]

'Unfortunately, at launch, the overall quality of the game was diminished by bugs and unexpected technical issues'

No; they were not unexpected the company forced the game to launch without taking the time to properly QA the title.

This is where the PR and damage limitation departments get in. They will have known that they should have expected bugs, but as each individual bug was unexpected they felt they could make the above claim.

Re:What a non excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw nothing in that post which reflects what you claim.
If you want to go on a posting vendetta against someone, expect to get marked as a Troll because that's what you're doing.
If you want to get legit votes, keep your criticism for his viewpoints in articles related to the subject, or in replies to posts where he brings it up.

Re:What a non excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

'Unfortunately, at launch, the overall quality of the game was diminished by bugs and unexpected technical issues'

No; they were not unexpected the company forced the game to launch without taking the time to properly QA the title. They knew perfectly fine the title wasn't up to standards but they decided to release it anyway because of a release date that should have been pushed back because of the technical issues. Nice try Ubisoft but for once have the balls to tell the truth and reflect on that.

I recall reading some interviews ahead of the launch where they were talking about why the game was not aimed at 60fps. They claimed they decided to target 30fps so that they could have larger crowds of people, a longer view-distance, more stuff oncscreen, etc. I remember being somewhat puzzled at the time, but then when the real reviews came in (as in, not the magazine/game site paid reviews but actual customer reviews) it all made sense.
They knew they were in trouble months ago. I'd bet good money that the programmers were up late checking in rushed last-minute code right up until the deadline, and that the version which launched wasn't nearly as play-tested as you'd think. In addition, I'd bet even more good money that upper management was told that problems reported by testers in the time while they were burning the hard-copies would be easily patched with an at-launch download/update. And I'd bet even MORE money that the initial patch/update again contained code which had little, if ANY, actual QA/playtesting at all.

Re:What a non excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Pointing out a poster's frequent xenophobia is trolling, apparently. Good work, Slashdot horde. What a fine community.

What dave420 counts as xenophobia is criticism of a belief system that degrades women, calls for people outside the group to pay punitive taxes or be killed, forbids other religions from practicing in the open and permits the rape of captive women. Like most Muslims and apologists fro Islam he does not believe in free speech and counts harassing people who criticise the above practices as a fair technique. I'm sure if he knew chrisq's home address he would be sending death threats.

Re:What a non excuse

[dave420]

I'm simply highlighting that what this guy says should be taken with a pinch of salt as he's not even rational enough to understand that a loud minority does not speak for nearly 2 billion people. Thinking about it, I couldn't give a rat's ass about votes. I've got karma to burn, and I can think of no better way to spend it than showing people that muppets like this exist, and that they are drenched in hate to the point they can't even think rationally. Whatevs, yeah?

Re:What a non excuse

[dave420]

You appear to be one of the same. You are confusing fundamentalism with moderatism, and then wrapping that up in a nice generalisation which betrays your utter lack of rationality when it comes to people who look different to you. If you are not simply trolling, you are a terrible human being, and your parents and society failed you. The last line shows that you really do like to substitute empirical fact with your own warped ideas of the world, which explains a lot.

Re:What a non excuse

[markass530]

Citation?

Re:What a non excuse

[markass530]

Muppets? There are Muppets in Assassins creed? Oscar ? Kermit? who? where?

Re:What a non excuse

[markass530]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What a non excuse

[markass530]

Just searched through the guys last dozen or so comments, Not even 1 instance of the world muslim or islam, soooooo....

Hopefully no AC in 2015

[mentil]

They haven't announced an Assassin's Creed game for next year, yet. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistake, and delay it until fall 2016. That'd give them time to fix up the performance issues and myriad glitches with the updated engine. Maybe at the same time they'll rethink the idea of the microtransaction-unlocked chests.

Re:Hopefully no AC in 2015

[drinkypoo]

Maybe at the same time they'll rethink the idea of the microtransaction-unlocked chests.

Oh, I'm sure they will. Perhaps they'll offer you the option to fill out surveys online to unlock them!

Stop giving these assholes money until they rein it in. They're assholes.

Re:Hopefully no AC in 2015

[Xest]

Ubisoft has 3 teams working on Assassins Creed working in 3 year cycles.

So the 2015 release will have been in development for 2 years already, 3 by the time of release, so a 2015 release will make no odds.

It just seems this particular development team is apparently staffed by complete idiots because the quality was shocking throughout, code, models, animation, gameplay, all completely broken.

Black flag last year was absolutely fine on the Xbox One and PS4, despite being equally developed against new hardware for those respective releases and coming out only a year after the previous AC (which in itself was a whole new game- AC3, the first new AC that wasn't just an AC2 mod in years).

The fact they could get Black Flag so right, and AC: Unity so wrong is demonstrative of the fact that at least one of their dev teams is just completely incompetent, but that doesn't mean that a 2015 release couldn't still be awesome if it's developed by a different team.

Fix it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean they will fix it now? Or does saying sorry mean they can just leave it borked?

Re: Fix it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they fix it when they can laugh all the way to the bank and many consumers will still buy their next game regardless of this fuck up?

Re:Fix it?

[Tridus]

Everyone already bought it, so it's all good as far as Ubi is concerned.

Re:Fix it?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The ghastly plague of pre-orders certainly feeds the cynical pump 'n dump of lousy, unfinished, games; but I'd be interested to know how the incentives for fixing work out:

Can you reverse the plunge of a really buggy launch by fixing it? If so, how quickly and how completely do you have to have a fix in place?

Is a bad launch effectively irreversible; but a solid patching effort can make a substantial difference in 'second-run' sales in the $20-$30 versions and 'Gold' re-release-with-DLC versions?

Is the game effectively tainted permanently; but 'they fucked up; but then they eventually fixed it' a memory more likely to get you to pre-order the sequel than 'they fucked up, then did nothing'?

Ideally, of course, they'd fix it because it's the right thing to do (and some of the humans involved in the game's production might even feel that way); but I doubt that the publisher, as a corporate colony organism, gives a damn about that, so it'd be interesting to know where the money is when it comes to fixing or not fixing a game.

Re:Fix it?

[timmyf2371]

I think a bad launch is probably irreversible. I didn't pre-order the game but planned to buy it on my next payday after release; I ended up not doing so.

If they patch it up and fix the bugs (and it gets good reviews), I'll buy it pre-owned and the money will go to the retailer/person selling the game.

Re:Fix it?

[Tridus]

Depending on the game, it can be reversed, but it's not easy. Diablo 3 is a recent example. Bad launch with major server problems and gameplay issues. The 2.0 patch and expansion basically undid all of that, got rave reviews, and AFAIK did result in a sales bump. That's Blizzard, though.

Assassins Creed usually sells a lot up front, sells some DLC, then moves on. DLC doesn't provide a "reset" to try and win people back over the same way a major expansion launch does. For AC Unity, the damage is done. Fixing it makes sense to try and limit the damage to the brand and because some of those fixes can probably be used in the next game, not because they hope it'll generate more sales.

Typo - here's the patch

[dbIII]

"You seem to have a lot of mistresses. There's a word for keepers like you."

"unexpected technical issues"

[cerberusss]

unexpected technical issues

Is this true? I often get the feeling from the gaming industry that Q&A gets ignored and execs simply launch the game for whatever reasons.

Re:"unexpected technical issues"

[Tridus]

"Unexpected technical issues", as in "we knew there were issues but didn't expect them to become this big of a media story."

You're right. Game company management and PR want to meet the ship date no matter what because of the hype train and various retailer contracts for shelf space. QA isn't that high on the totem pole when it comes to influence, and are routinely ignored if they're saying what management and PR don't want to hear.

Hopefully, Ubi learns something from this.

Re:"unexpected technical issues"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The QA peons can make all the sad mouth-noises they want, to no effect; but "We released the latest iteration of one of our hot franchises and our stock dipped 12%" probably made it up to HQ...

Additional content

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft has offered free additional content to everyone who purchased the title

Would that be the missing faces? ;)

Re: Additional content

[Anonymous Coward]

New content this quick? Maybe some microtransaction beads and mirrors.

Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[Tridus]

There is a reason they want you to buy the game before any reviewers or other users start commenting on it. It's what enables them to sell broken crap like this. They've already got your money.

The hype train, preorder bonuses, review embargoes are all meant to allow them to get away with selling broken crap. That's exactly what they've done. All the complaining in the world won't do a whole lot about that, now.

If you really want to put a stop to companies like EA and Ubi doing this - never preorder a game. Any game worth buying on launch day is still worth buying two weeks later, and you'll save yourself quite a lot of money by avoiding duds.

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But, but, what about the Exclusive Pre Order Bonus Content!?

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Get it off teh torrants.

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should ask about that FuzzyFuzzyFungus.

I've managed to pick up a few games with the pre-order options at wally world more then once.

Every single time it is useless crap. Like the "black range" skin for the shadow of moron. Woohoo, a skin!

 

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[houghi]

If you really want to put a stop to companies (snip) never preorder(snip)(snip) Anything worth buying on launch day is still worth buying two weeks later, and you'll save yourself quite a lot of money by avoiding duds

This also goes for things people sit in tents for outside the sore. Also goes for movies and a LOT of other things.
I even used to be the first one downloading a new distro. Now I wait for that as well. (I can run the Beta anyway if I want to help testing)

Perhaps only if there is a fixed limit on what will be sold, it is worth it and even then (e.g. life concert tickets).

Most things are not that limited and just an extra warning: companies do not tell "what a collecters item will be, history will.

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

And to prove your point .... ... watch how Watchdogs (which was mediocre at best) sells on the Wii U at full price, six months after release on other platforms. It won't. The hype train has left the station! Woo Wooo! :)

Re:Yet again - Preorders are for suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually so few units are sold that you can come in much later and get still buy cases that have the "bonus content" code inside---not to even begin the discussion of how valueless those bonuses are.

QA

[jones_supa]

They seem to be just skimping on Quality Assurance.

Re:QA

[Shados]

These games are made by underpaid studios in Canada and others. They bank on all the poor peanut gallery devs who "OMG MUST WORK IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY!" in those areas. Even by Montreal standards, employees at Ubisoft Montreal are getting ripped off. Everyone knows it.

You know, the stereotype of the teenager who goes in computer science thinking he's going to make the next big game, not realizing its actually hard? Well, some of them actually make it, and they end up there. There's a few bright stars in there, but the vast majority? Not so much.

So you take a bunch of very mediocre, underpaid people who aren't even in the same country as the execs, slap a totally batshit insane schedule on it (that is often set in stone pretty quickly because of all the marketing deals in the back), and they end up having to cut scope. Once they cut everything that can be cut, what gets cut next? QA time.

says it all

[Anonymous Coward]

https://i.imgur.com/rJ9q7Tj.jp...

cheapass

[Anonymous Coward]

apologies are always cheaper than a refund

Why Always the excuses !?

[Kekke]

It's money money money, profit profit, shareholders shareholders...
Period.

It would be interesting to see the percentage of the shareholders who actually play these games.
Yet they are screaming for profit like there was no tomorrow.

T:k

Brand un-value

[malx]

I am loath to join the general chorus of hate for Ubisoft and EA. Complaining about these companies being too focussed on commercial success and not enough of user-entertainment/"art" seems futile: they are, first and foremost, commercial companies.

Nonetheless, considering it strictly as a commercial proposition, should the senior executives of these companies not be worried that their brand has negative value?

When I see news of a game, knowing that it is going to be published by Ubisoft - or, to a lesser extent, by EA, makes me shy away. I am less likely to buy. I am less likely to follow the hype, for fear of being sucked in by it, because I expect to be disappointed. I am less likely to engage with their product or marketing in any way, because of the poor track record that they have establish, the negative brand value that they have created.

If they bought a small publishers, and published the very same game through that new label, I would be more likely to engage with and buy their product for that reason - as long as I was not aware that Ubisoft (or EA) lay behind it. Knowing that they are there, I expect to be disappointed.. That's negative brand value in action.

This is not just a gamer whinge. I would think that was a customer reaction that ought to concern senior commercial management, and shareholders in these companies.

Re:Brand un-value

[Daniel Hoffmann]

Challenge Everything!

Re:Brand un-value

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism relies on rational actors, with a certain degree of knowledge.
Most people in the real world are either irrational, or lacking knowledge (or both).

This is why the law requires qualified doctors to perform medical operations - we are ill equipped to judge their competence.

People are too interested in the latest and greatest shiny, so the screwing the publisher gave them last time tends to diminish.

Re:Brand un-value

[jareth-0205]

I am loath to join the general chorus of hate for Ubisoft and EA. Complaining about these companies being too focussed on commercial success and not enough of user-entertainment/"art" seems futile: they are, first and foremost, commercial companies.

I'm never quite convinced by this argument. Just because you can do something does not mean you must, and these companies are run be actual people, who can make decisions that aren't only following the dollar. Ultimately if you just want to make money then be a bank, everyone else has a certain amount of duty to provide their service, aswell as to being commercial.

Re:Brand un-value

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It doesn't help now that 'brands' aren't just a sticker on the box. They increasingly (getting to the 'alarmingly frequently' and likely heading toward the dystopian future of 'forever, across every platform!') also tell you what (terrible) online 'service' you'll have to create an account for and what god-awful launcher/store/spyware/'social' clusterfuck you'll be forced to install.

If it were just about the label on the box, I'd be cautious about EA, and really cautious about Ubisoft; but hey, if the reviews end up actually being good, or a friend recommends it, or even if it initially sucked but was patched back to health, I'd be willing to agree that they've done better than usual and give it a try.

Now that everyone wants to have their own distribution platform and monetize the social friendscape and so on, though, that's less of an option. Ubisoft game that looks interesting? Well, "U-Play" sure as hell doesn't. No sale.

Re:Brand un-value

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll help you understand. Not everybody in the world accepts Adam Smith as their lord and saviour and Ayn Rand as his one true prophet.

This may come as a shock to you, but your ideological values do not justify accepting every crap that gets thrown out of the way for the rest of us.

Now for the next apology

[Anonymous Coward]

Dragon Age Inquisition (for PC) - the atrocious camera angles and keyboard mechanics.

When will you apologise for that Ubisoft? you already got millions of dollars from pre-orders and you knew this was an issue prior to release.

Disgusting.

Re:Now for the next apology

[marsu_k]

...you do realize DA:I is made my BioWare and published by EA? Although from what I've heard, yes, the PC controls are atrocious without a controller. It's terrific on a PS4 though.

But OK, yes, Ubisoft should apologize for that too. And for the Nazis. And 9/11.

Re:Now for the next apology

[XAD1975]

Dragon Age Inquisition = Bioware = EA

Re:Now for the next apology

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFC on my new iPhone is incompatible to Android!

When will you apologise for that Ubisoft? you already got millions of dollars from sales and you knew this was an issue prior to release.

Disgusting.

Re:Now for the next apology

[spire3661]

BIoWare has fallen so far.........Dragon Age 1 and everything before it was brilliant, but everything after is shit.

I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[The Real Dr John]

I've put in a few hours of gameplay with it (PC version), and the game definitely has some bugs, but on a decent gaming computer it is the most ambitious game in terms of graphic content on the screen that I have ever seen. The number of rendered objects is crazy, and the number of NPC on the screen at once is astounding. Sure a few NPC pop in and out (before the patch) and some people go through the floor. But that happens in Borderlands the PreSequal just as much if not more, and it is a much less demanding and ambitious game. Ubisoft fucked up with the launch, and should have tested it on older hardware. But it is hard to believe they can get that much stuff on the screen with the lighting effects they have, and still have it run at all. It is not the buggiest game I have ever bought, but it does have the most graphical content by far, and the frame rates are very playable. (Intel i7 3.3 GHz with 12 GB ram and Geforce 7800 GTX)

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Looking at screenshots I don't see anything Serious Sam wasn't doing a decade ago, the only difference is updated graphics.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geforce 7800GTX is a low end video card.

Get something from this Decade please.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft PR guy detected.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[dave420]

Maybe the "updated graphics" has something to do with it... Naaah - your gut instinct and cursory glance would have immediately shown that to be not the case, as they are the most accurate analytical methods known to man.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's an i7 with 12GB RAM. It's obvious that he meant to say a GTX 780.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[The Real Dr John]

Sorry, a typo. It is the GTX 780... I added a zero

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[The Real Dr John]

come on, admit it, you haven't even played the game. You probably haven't even seen it on anyone else's computer. Take a look at the PC version and tell me you've seen that much stuff on the screen at once with that much view distance and all the lighting effects. I said the game was buggy, but I have had more issues with Borderlands the presequal so far.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Point being this isn't some technological leap, it's a high-res pack slapped over an old accomplishment. You want to impress me with a new technology show me Battlefield's destruction engine taken to the next level without performance issues. Show many raytracing that's feasible on normal hardware. Don't show me something from 10 years ago and say "LOOK, MORE POLYGONS!"

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody wants to play your unpolished turd, Mr Ubisoft shill.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[abies]

It has one bug for me. Control lag. It many cases, there is over 0.5 second lag between keyboard and mouse input. Sometimes it works ok (still 100-200ms probably), but soon drops to 0.5-1s. And if I alt-tab out of the game and go back, lag goes up to 10-15 seconds before going down.

Wonderful graphics and animation. Working quest system. Engaging story line. And entire game experience broken because I have to spend 15 seconds trying to jump down from 1-foot tall fence, because of 1 second lag misinterpreting all my controls.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[master_kaos]

why would someone from ubisoft shill an EA game?
I have it on PC, it definitely looks good, I wouldn't say spectacular, but I am also only running it on medium as my aging 560 TI just isn't cutting it anymore for a 1440p res. was hoping for a good deal black friday for a 970 but can't find any.. Oh well hopefully either cyber monday or boxing day.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a way to switch that game into borderless fullscreen mode? I don't know why, but I've found that in recent years fullscreen exclusive mode sometimes causes terrible input lag in games.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Khyber]

" The number of rendered objects is crazy,"

Please. Back in the days of the Voodoo2/3 GPUs we had Kiss: Psycho Circus, with the LithTech engine that could spawn HUNDREDS of actors/NPCs and keep them rolling just fine along with everything else in the game. Back in the days of Serious Sam, same thing.

" But it is hard to believe they can get that much stuff on the screen with the lighting effects they have, and still have it run at all."

You must have never heard of the demoscene. They could get that much shit done on an Amiga in under 128kilobytes of code.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering AC has made the news about how terrible it runs, and no one is talking about bugs in the borderlands pre-sequel, either you are an outlier, or millions of people are lying. Some are lying by omission, and some are doing it outright.

Given the two choices, I would say you are an outlier, or possibly an outright liar except for good will's necessity. You would be wise to apply some rationality here instead of relying on your experience being the same as the masses.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

" The number of rendered objects is crazy,"

Please. Back in the days of the Voodoo2/3 GPUs we had Kiss: Psycho Circus, with the LithTech engine that could spawn HUNDREDS of actors/NPCs and keep them rolling just fine along with everything else in the game. Back in the days of Serious Sam, same thing.

" But it is hard to believe they can get that much stuff on the screen with the lighting effects they have, and still have it run at all."

You must have never heard of the demoscene. They could get that much shit done on an Amiga in under 128kilobytes of code.

Wow...you're a moron. Please, stop talking.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[PPalmgren]

I have it, and I have a really good computer with two GTX 770's in SLI. Regardless of whether I play the game in single or SLI mode, no matter what the settings are, there is a game-crippling bug that pops up randomly and forces you to restart the game to make it playable. Its every 4-5 seconds you get a masssive quarter-second stutter and your vision flips if you play with a mouse. People with low end hardware, high end hardware, low and high settings all have this problem. If you encounter it and try to play through it its the most unbearable existence in gaming ever.

This is on top of the light flickering issue, the stuck issues (I experienced one last night after the recent patch), and everything else. It is completely unacceptable that I'm having to play the game on low just to make it functional and have to restart it every hour or two if the stutterbug pops up. It is, without a doubt, the buggiest game I've ever bought.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not play many games, then, assuming you only play the ones that impress you.

Technological leaps are rare in every field. There is no shame in pushing more polygons than before - there are a cost effective way to render scenes. If ray tracing was more efficient, then we'd switch to that; but that doesn't make ray tracing intrinsically better. It's not the be-all and end-all of rendering algorithms.

(Bear in mind if it ever happens, you'll probably have to thank the electrical engineers, not the game developers, for making it possible.)

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[thegarbz]

I wouldn't use borderlands the pre sequel as a sunny example. Of wait actually I would. It also had site stopping bugs with muffins individually because some object fell through the map, of the map, or refused to spawn at all. My other favourite is when two NPCs ran into each other and just did there starring. Unfortunately the mission was to follow one of them. Fortunately I fixed it by jumping off a cliff which seemed to shuffle the positions of the NPCs somewhat. Both games are examples of what not to release without testing and the only reason borderlands escaped abuse is because it took a while to find rare bugs. Assasdins Creed is orders of magnitude worse.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[The Real Dr John]

So far that hasn't happened on my system, even with settings pretty much maxed out. But I do get big lag whenever I am being pursued and I turn a corner and leave the ghost image behind indicating the last place I was seen. It is at least a half second delay. Try setting everything to max, and then turn one thing down at a time and see if there is one specific setting that is causing the issue.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[PPalmgren]

One anecdote does not make it a random bug, multiple reviewers have mentioned the bug as well and it is considered a serious issue for the PC platform by many, not just me. Some people seem to think it has to do with the physics calculations in the game or a problem with the game's lighting engine (which changes daytime based on the length the game has been open). It happens regardless of settings, you can play at high/high with everything else on and it happens, or medium/low with everything off (what I'm running at now) and it happens. VRAM usage has been ruled out too, one tester got the settings lower than the card's VRAM and still got the bug while staring up at the sky and even in the menus. It only starts up after a fast travel or cutscene, so it can be mitigated (for a while) by restarting the game and hoping it doesn't pop up again. Sometimes it shows up again after one cutscene, other times it doesn't show up for 5 hours.

This bug is the result of garbage QA, and ubisoft should be ashamed for the crap they released. I feel dirty for even buying it.

Re:I wonder if anyone here has actually played it?

[Xest]

You must've been playing a different AC to me because yes I played it, and not it's not as trivial as you're making out.

There are numerous bugs, odd framerate drops that don't even correlate with busy scenes, it can be working on a busy scene just fine, then switch to something simple with bugger all AI about and not much in the scene and framerate just plummets. There are also severe bugs like getting stuck in haycarts which have been in the patchnotes so are kind of hard to deny the existence of.

But even outside the outright bugs, some of it is just bad. The animations of the kids in the prologue were just plain weird. Their eyes weren't right, their eyes kept wandering off in odd directions. Even the voice acting felt lower quality than past ACs. It all just looked very unnatural and strange. I felt like I was playing a YouTube spoof of weird animation glitches, but no it was actually the game itself.

Is the art good? Yes, but it's been animated and coded by a team of absolute amateurs, and it shows. Last year's AC, Black Flag, was really quite good. How adding in some more NPCs and improving the shaders and texture quality made it descend into this I've no idea.

Ooohh, "unexpected"....

[Ecuador]

I thought I read that this game had a review embargo until the release day, isn't that right? So they knew and they just tried to hide it. I don't see an apology to that.

Actually

[Alarash]

The free game is a trick to get you on UPlay.

We need to abolish the "idiot defense"

[Shadow of Eternity]

Admitting to this degree of incompetence should be considered negligence, not a defense.

What he left unsaid ...

[MyNicknameSucks]

OMG, the review embargo actually worked! Totally dodged a bullet there. I wonder how many more times we can pull that one off?

Timing is everything!

[MyNicknameSucks]

The apology is released right before American Thanksgiving when, more or less guaranteed, the story will be buried almost immediately beneath a pile of stories about travel, Black Friday, football, and recipes.

Better than EA....

[Lumpy]

EA did the exact same mess with Battlefield 4 and simply told customers " STFU you were stupid to buy an EA title!"

Free game?! FREE?!

[silviuc]

How exactly is that game free? They paid for a season pass. This a a crap publisher trying to hold on to money that does not belong to them while trying to spin it as a win for the suckers that got uh... suckered.

The way of the dodo

[LordWabbit2]

Just like video stores, and music shops are slowly dying out, big publishing houses like UbiSoft and EA will slowly lose ground to indie games and people publishing their games via steam. I say good riddance.

Re:The way of the dodo

[Anonymous Coward]

Valve IS a big publisher.

Re:The way of the dodo

[Anonymous Coward]

Valve IS a big publisher.

Naah, Valve is just a baby. A big publisher would be able to f&^@(&% count to three!!!

Re:The way of the dodo

[Anonymous Coward]

You are conflating the stores with the publishers. Video stores and music shops died out because of the ubiquity of online access and availability to those mediums. If you were to be accurate in your simile, you would need to compare big movie companies to big game companies. Big movie and music labels are making more profit than ever before, because digital distribution is great for them. It's great for games too and it isn't something that can kill EA like you imply. In fact, EA has its own digital distribution system for its games; I would say it's given them a boost in revenue.

There will always be a place for AAA game developers, the culture will just have to shift back to quality.

Maybe it's catching up with them now, though?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Given what they are offering to customers as compensation this time, I wonder whether a substantial backlash against this kind of substandard quality has finally started, perhaps even among the serious gaming community. It certainly seems like Ubisoft might actually be getting concerned about their reputation and future profits now. It's not as if they haven't had launch disasters before, but presumably you only get so many before people stop pre-ordering your next "must have" game, even if the limit is high in this business.

Re:Maybe it's catching up with them now, though?

[Opportunist]

It was by no stretch the first blunder on their side. UBIsoft is already pretty much synonymous with "the company that can't really release anything right". Their reputation among gamers is even worse than EA. And that's quite a feat in some twisted sort of way.

Of course people who enjoy a certain franchise (aka fanboys) will continue to buy their favorite line of games. But only so long. I don't really see much of a preorder potential for the next Sim City game after the blunder with the most recent one. Granted, it was not only a release problem, the game was atrocious too. Way to burn a much beloved title, EA. But I ramble. I cannot really speak for the quality of AC from a gameplay point of view, i.e. whether the game would be a diamond or a turd if it wasn't for the glitches, bugs, crashes and whatnot, because I already dodged that bullet. Mostly due to recent experiences with UBIsoft and not wanting to preorder with them anymore.

I can only imagine that they now noticed a serious dip in preorders, and that's really something studios do NOT enjoy. Preorders are, from a studio's point of view, golden sales. Not only can you 100% predict them (because you already HAVE not only the data but also usually the money), they are essentially a free loan, they are completely independent of eventual reviews (that may or may not be favorable), in other words, preorders are what you want. It's like subscriptions for newspapers, they're also beloved and treasured (and hence usually either discounted or bundled with some nice gifts). Considering what newspapers have to do to sweeten the deal, studios get off VERY cheaply for their preorders. Usually, if you get anything at all, it's some additional graphics to look at or some other stuff that doesn't really cost them a dime, while at the same time people pay (in advance) at least release time prices.

People will only do that, though, if they have a reasonable expectation to get what they want. If you drop the ball once too often (as UBIsoft, IMO, did with AC), people will stop trusting you to deliver. And they will instead only buy after they see some facts that your product is satisfactory, and given the "unbiased" way major reviewers work, today most people will actually wait for reviews from their peers or people they trust before buying a game they aren't so sure about.

And by then not only could they have waited for the price to drop, they could also have seen something else they want and bought that instead!

Re:Maybe it's catching up with them now, though?

[Thanatiel]

I would not say Ubisoft is worse than EA.
EA buy good games companies and destroy their soul.
Origin Systems, Bullfrog, Westwood, Maxis, ... What became of their games?

Ubisoft made lots of bad decisions but it's hard to top EA's damage.

Re:Maybe it's catching up with them now, though?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really, really isn't worse than EA. Among dumbass pseudo-gamers, PC especially, who have no business commenting? Sure.

EA releases games that literally do not work, for a year straight.

Ac4 - which was allegedly also glitchy - was fixed within weeks. AC3 was fixed within weeks.

Re:Maybe it's catching up with them now, though?

[Opportunist]

Can we agree that they BOTH make horrible decisions when it comes to game quality? Both companies are guilty of buying out good studios with a well established franchise and then milk it 'til the cow's dead.

Frankly I don't care which of them is worse, NEITHER of them sees a dime of my money until I have very good reason to believe something changed for the better.

Follow the money...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What is missing in this industry that others often have is clear consumer protection laws and an awareness among consumers that they can enforce their rights. A game's entire value is normally in the entertainment it provides. If it simply doesn't work properly, and as a result that entertainment value is dramatically reduced, then it isn't fit for purpose.

The situation is complicated because these laws vary widely with jurisdiction and over time. For example, here in the UK, there have been several relevant changes to consumer protection laws this year specifically to close gaps and clarify rights in the context of digital content. The bottom line, though, is that like any other purchase, you are entitled to get something of satisfactory quality for your money, and if you don't then the vendor who takes that money will normally have some obligations to replace/repair/refund to fix the problem. (Don't assume you can just go in and demand a 100% refund every time without giving them any other chance to fix things first, though; I don't know any jurisdiction where the law is that one-sided.)

Of course with software there is always a question of what constitutes a reasonable quality since there will inevitably be bugs, but a lot of these games ship with such obvious and sometimes entirely game-destroying howlers that I don't see how the vendors have a leg to stand on.

If someone orchestrated a mass campaign where a significant proportion of the customers of one of these games did actually assert their consumer rights and claim a reasonable fix-or-refund remedy, even just once, I expect the shockwaves through the AAA game business would be felt for a long time.

Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen, and next year the same hard core group will probably pre-order the next destined-to-fail-at-launch edition of each big franchise, thus further confirming to the games companies that their current practices are commercially acceptable. :-(

Re:Follow the money...

[uniquegeek]

You don't have the "right" to be entertained. Protection from going into gamer rage isn't a fricken UN-charter human right.

Should they do due diligence and adhere to better QA? Yes - putting out something that's that buggy is an embarrassment. It's a product - there are better products, and crappier ones. A buggy game isn't going to kill or maim you. If it does deep psychological damage, then you have bigger problems. Get over the ridiculous entitlement complex. This is not an issue that should be lawyer-ized. Do your due-diligence, and then vote with your wallet. It's not a difficult situation.

Re:Follow the money...

[alvinrod]

There is certainly to be some expectation that the game won't be a bug-filled mess or that it will be capable of working. It would be one thing if Ubisoft made fully aware that the game would not work with certain GPUs, or that the frame rate would be crap (even on consoles) but they didn't. One could even point to the advertisements that don't seem to indicate these problems and suggest that they were being deceptive. If someone wanted a refund, that's pretty understandable. You might not have a right to be entertained (hell, some games are more entertaining simply because they are so badly broken) but you do have a right to a functional product that works as advertised.

Re:Follow the money...

[spire3661]

Yes, entertainment is damn close to a right. It comes right after survival needs. Humans NEED entertainment, its why we are so prolific at it.

Re:Follow the money...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Nothing you wrote there about physical harm is even slightly relevant to this discussion.

When you buy a product, you have a clear legal right (at least in my country, which is explicitly where I was talking about) to a product of satisfactory quality in return for your money. This has nothing to do with what kind of product it is or whether anyone died as a result of a glitch. It's just a basic principle of our consumer protection laws, and there's nothing "ridiculous" or "entitled" about enforcing your basic rights under the law if necessary.

In this scenario, a few people boycotting a game that already made a fortune on preorders does not appear to be an effective incentive for the games companies to produce stuff that actually works properly at launch. So, I am suggesting that a more co-ordinated and therefore expensive action, by a significant number of customers who already paid for the game including those who preordered, that effectively yanks that money back because the game quality wasn't good enough, would be a much more effective strategy. Sure, it would probably be a big hassle to organise and that's why I doubt it will happen, but like throwing the elbow, it's something you probably only have to do once.

uPlay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the excuse for that shit?

marketing and reputation

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually, testers find these things and management decides that they can be fixed with a patch later, because missing the ship date would cause marketing problems.

I would think that the marketing problems would be caused by the opposite.

No one remembers if a product shipped in July or September, but once something has a reputation as being "crappy" it's very difficult to get rid of.

Re:marketing and reputation

[Tridus]

When you have the hype machine going a year in advance aimed at a certain date, promotion contracts with Gamestop and such for a certain date, and even something simple like shelf space at Walmart for a certain date, changing that date is not without consequences.

Digital distribution tends to make this easier, but this is predominantly a console game and so retail matters.

The Crew

[ArcadeMan]

Will they also apologize for The Crew not really being "the size of the USA"? I've seen someone play the beta on Xbox One yesterday and he was able to drive through four states in under 30 minutes.

Re:The Crew

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played the betas and drove around most of the USA already.. it is definitely NOT the size of the USA, not even close if you compare to real life.... but it is HUGE and impressive from a game environment perspective. And so much variation and attention to detail.. the betas sold me already. Also, the cities are not 1:1 representations, more of greatly scaled down ideas of each city. Still awesome.

What we really need is Google to create the ultimate driving/cruising game using their street view data.

Re:The Crew

[ArcadeMan]

As amazing as it is, it's still not what they said it would be. It's gross mis-representation, wrongful marketing, etc.

In other words, the usual bullshit.

Re:The Crew

[ihtoit]

is it as big as Need For Speed: The Run?

Re:The Crew

[neminem]

I could technically drive through 4 states in way under 30 minutes, in real life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Actually, even if you require "through" to mean in roughly the same direction rather than a circle for no reason, there are probably at least a few places on the east coast you could do that. :p

If only EA would be this apologetic!

[irreverant]

It makes me wonder when certain game companies can be honest enough with the gamer and themselves to apologize; should ALL game companies be this way? The answer is YES! Especially EA! I wish there was a way to directly contact EA and their botched game BF4; it was awful but I played anyways cause what else was I going to do! Maybe a slashdot reader can help me organize and create a website where we can really get our voices heard to get game companies to listen!

Re:If only EA would be this apologetic!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about. This apology is PR speak designed to lessen the chances of a full scale Class Action against them and to trick people onto their Uplay platform with "free games".

They did everything they could to hide all these issues from players, including embargoing anyone who could have given advance notice of the unplayable nature of the game until 12 hours after release of the game simply to get your money.

If they want to impress me they can damned well stop letting management and marketing decide the release schedule and instead actually finish their damned game.

Here`s the minutes of the go/no go meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft Manager: Are we ready to release?
Ubisoft Test Manager: Hell no!
Ubisoft Project Leader: Are you f*** crazy? Nooooooooooo!
Ubisoft Financial Officer: Yes, release the f**er! We need the cash.
Ubisoft Manager: So, it`s a go! Good job guys.

Now, will EA apologise for Dragon Age Inquisition?

[Thanatiel]

Or are they still following religiously the Caveat Emptor principle ?

Guy I used to know did that with Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

He got in on xbox testing (I forgot if it was original xbox or 360). Lasted either two weeks or a month and quit for the same complaints. Difference was: He was making 2-3 bucks over minimum wage at the time and it was keeping him from having to work a blue collar job instead, but it still wasn't enough for him apparently.

Honestly boring and repetitive sounds like the majority of games out there for more than one playthrough, so it really surprises me more gamers can't tolerate playtesting.

Re:Guy I used to know did that with Microsoft.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I haven't had the pleasure personally; but I suspect that the difference(aside from whatever call-center-like workplace hell policies they have) is that productive testing means focusing most intensely on the parts that are broken or suck, while ignoring or skimming through as fast as possible the good and working stuff; while repetitive gaming (while often inscrutable to those less interested) focuses on the most pleasurable parts of the game, while speeding through or skipping the boring ones(in games with mod support this is especially evident if you look at the various mods that skip certain sections of the game or speed up crafting or leveling or the like, the distribution and popularity of these tell you a lot about what parts of the game people want to avoid on replay).

how is this news anymore?

[Stan92057]

Wow! a game released and it had tons of bugs, how is this news anymore? I stopped buying first release games about 5 years ago. Just not worth the aggravation and I get them on sale. What's funny is gamers keep buying games they KNOW will be buggy. Talk with you cash boys,it doesn't work when 20 or so guys stop buying like me.

Define AAA

[tepples]

Has there been ANY 'AAA' title released in the last 10 years that the CEO of the company that published it shouldn't have made [an apology like this] after it's release?

The answer to that question depends on whether you consider first-party Wii and Wii U games to be "AAA". Without defining AAA, we'll just talk past each other.

Re:Fuck this entitled gamer culture

[tompaulco]

> The anticipation for Assassin's Creed Unity was such that the myriad of bugs and technical issues experienced at launch felt like an *even greater* slap in the face for gamers

Even greater? So the release of an anticipated game itself is a slap in the face apparently.

I'm so annoyed by this entitled gamer culture, that speaks of "slaps in the face" when a game doesn't work 100% flawless at launch. These "gamers" generally don't know anything about programming, they have no respect for the incredibly complex kind of applications these "games" are. The developers always have to up all the graphical and AI capabilities, plus they have to support every platform, console and PC, under the sun. This amount to a gargantuan programming task under very tight deadlines, all because the "gamers" are waiting for their preorders, and then when launch day comes they speak of "slaps in the face".

Fuck off entitled gamers and your dumb "community", write your own games, I bet you you couldn't even program a tetris.

Wah! Poor developers. It is too much to expect them to be able to deliver a bug free product. Hmm, back in the days before internet or even BBSs, there was no possibility of "bug fixes". Many games were cartridge based. It just had to work. Period. Even into the 90's games had to be production ready before they could be released because updating was not possible. Now that most of the world is connected, we think it is okay to have buggy software because it can be fixed byt downloading a patch. Call me old fashioned, but I don't accept that.

Re:Now, will EA apologise for Dragon Age Inquisiti

[Anonymous Coward]

Just finished Dragon Age Inquistion play-through and apart from a few glitches, I have no major gripes. The game is awesome! No apologizes needed for this one.

What about Watchdogs on Wii U?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft has been making very strange decisions. Launching the mediocre (based on ratings/player reviews) Watchdogs at full price, 6 months after other platforms (so Watchdogs was a known quantity), without full DLC, in the midst of Smash Bros. makes ZERO sense.

Talk about knifing the baby ....

At least they are apologizing for Unity - first sensible thing I've seen them do in a while.

Unexpected technical issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft PR routinely lies, straight up. If logic suggests their statement is false, it almost certainly is.

If the game's so bad that it deserves an apology,

[PJ6]

could someone please explain to me then why reviews like these aren't a major scandal all by themselves?

never mind Assassin's Creed

[ihtoit]

I'm still waiting for Canada's apology for Celine Dion.

Re:never mind Assassin's Creed

[Tukz]

And Bieber.

Re:If the game's so bad that it deserves an apolog

[Tukz]

Let's for one second imagine the game wasn't filled with bugs, the game is still fucking horrible.
They went backwards. The game is boring as hell, story bland, nothing new of value added to gameplay, they managed to make combat worse that previous iterations.

That review is either a massive fan boy or paid for.

more compensation.

[Anonymous Coward]

ubiloft should pay more for their errors.

The Lumdy Blog Review|Nicki Minaj wants to have a family

The Lumdy Blog Review|Selena Gomez Dating David Henrie to make Justin Bieber Jealous

The Lumdy Blog Review|Mary J. Blige: Music industry hates ''strong and independent women''

The Lumdy Blog Review|Kesha's producer [Lukasz Gottwald] wants allegations dismissed

The Lumdy Blog Review|Amy Adams had a Meltdown @ 40

The Lumdy Blog Review|Kendall Jenner says she is not dating Justin Bieber

The Lumdy Blog Review|Jennifer Lawrence wearing a classy cream-colored Dior dress at the ‘Mockingjay Part 1' premiere

The Lumdy Blog Review|Taylor Swift : Why i gave up on men

The Lumdy Blog Review|Melissa McCarthy sheds 45 pounds of weight

The Lumdy Blog Review|Nicki Minaj has apologized For 'Only' Music Video

Full refund

[OldSport]

The apology of a company willing to engage in such shitty business practices means nothing to me. You're so greedy for the holiday cash that you rush an unfinished game out the door with full knowledge it's unfinished, banking on pre-orders and preventing people from publishing reviews until everyone has already bought the broken game? And you expect that an offer for *more* of your shitty products is going to make amends?

Hey Ubisoft: Fuck. You.

You want to make amends? Give everyone who bought the game a full refund. Can't afford to do that? Then you can't afford to pull the kind of BS you pulled with this release.

Assassin's Greed

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon people, it's Ubisoft. When are you going to learn to just say "No!"

Why?

[StrayEddy]

They are losing money, They are a dying business. Why? Why are they dying even though they are "greedy"? Is it because they are not asking enough money for the effort they put into making those games? Is it because we don't want to buy a game more than a 100$ dollars because we don't feel it is good enough? But we love the graphics, we love realism as it emerges us into a very special visual experience, right? If you are not ready to pay the price for the work that is done, don't complain about the quality, but by buying cheaper games, and hoping for cheaper games, YOU are as well defining the quality of the next generation of games done by that company. WE are putting them hostage of the fact that they have to produce better looking, more difficult to produce games for a very cheap price. I do not know the situation of those companies, but I want to believe that they want to sell us games we like. But what we want is just very difficult to have at that price :( Why do we love more and more indie games? Maybe because it focuses on gaming logic more than on graphics, therefor they can put more effort/money into a FUN game, not just a VISUALLY BEAUTIFUL game.