- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
This is going to be one of those “Ubisoft investigates Ubisoft and found that Ubisoft did nothing wrong at Ubisoft”-situations, isn’t it?
You must log in or register to comment.
Finally, let me address some of the polarized comments around Ubisoft lately. I want to reaffirm that we are an entertainment-first company, creating games for the broadest possible audience, and our goal is not to push any specific agenda. We remain committed to creating games for fans and players that everyone can enjoy.”
Creating games for the broadest possible audience is what has made Ubisoft games so lackluster in recent years, and I think players are tired of games not targeting a specific niche. It feels these games are full time jobs in themselves with how much needs to be done to complete/100% it, and I think that formula is now stale.
I’ll be interested to see what results of this investigation. Hopefully better art, but I am cynical
. . . our goal is not to push any specific agenda
This is the part they’re actually getting at. Not that the fundamental game design is for everyone (which, yes, is what they try and fail at), but rather they’re responding to people who think they’re failing because they put a woman as the protagonist in some game or another.
100% is itself a bit of a misleading target.
I think I remember Just Cause 2 had it so the top achievement in the game was only for 70% completion because they knew they had such a ridiculously huge map.
Breath of the Wild aims the same way - they like having you come across a bunch of Korok seeds while traveling, but not scouring the land with a magnifying glass looking for them.
Just Cause 2 was insanely huge.
How about just the completely entitled attitude of the execs that think they can tell us how to enjoy something. Only to then whine that nobody wants to buy their 70 euro no better than mid game
They do damn near 10/10 work when they give a fuck, Thats probably the worst part.
Siege was damn near perfect as a tactical competitive shooter for the first few years. The Division was great, Just Cause was enormous fun and so on.
The problem is they hit a winner, and then milk it and milk it and milk it until we hate it or them.
I’m old enough to remember when Siege was a Rainbow Six game.
Wait, that’s old now?
9 years old is pretty old for a video game. When it first came out, the goofiest thing about it was the guy who could heal you by throwing a syringe at you. Now everyone has goofy super powers and things that would never make sense in the same world as something like a Jack Ryan novel.
My god Siege was good for the first few years. Intoxicatingly good multiplayer. Too bad they fucked it up trying to make it more CoD like. For example, I used to play with a completely hidden hud because it was so immersive and fun. Now it’s like rainbow six and Roblox had a baby and the weird game popped out. I can’t even hide my hud or crosshair any longer
they did a little bit of this to hell let loose. The primary thing that bothered me was how when the game came out there was no hit indicator whatsoever. no visual no sound nothing. it made for some very interesting gameplay. then they added it indicators, even if you’re like 100 yards away from somebody you can hear this bullet go “whap” if it hits them
Yes it was. It was so frigging good.
I love the division 1 and 2 but the first game had some MAJOR bullet soak issues for the first half-year of the game’s lifetime.
Massive always does good work despite Ubisoft, in my opinion.
Massive are the ones that made Star Wars Outlaws - so it seems the world disagrees with you.
I wasn’t so interested in Outlaws, but I’ve sometimes thought the criticism was slightly overblown. It looks a lot better than some other Ubi games.
It seems like a very polarizing game, you either really enjoy it or not at all.
Honestly, Outlaws has flaws, BUUUUT it’s fun as hell. It’s a 7/10 game, but it’s fun. I enjoy my time with it even though I see some glitches here or there, or that the lip sync is a little jank.
It’s a big ass Star Wars game (with no AC towers hooray!) where you get to rub shoulders with scoundrels and play Sabacc and visit honestly cool locations that are visually impressive.
I feel like most of the issues it has is probably a function of “we need this game out by X date” versus the devs’ ability.
I finished the main story last night and I basically agree with you. It’s got plenty of issues, but overall it’s fun. It is neither the 9/10 game of most reviews I saw nor the 4/10 game that people want it to be.
I think my main issue is that it wants to have a story about the underworld and how you can’t trust anyone and you’re a huge underdog just trying to survive but it doesn’t want to commit to it. It feels thematically janky in places and ways that feel design-by-committee. It fills the shoes of Shadows of the Empire decently enough, but it feels like it was trying to be 1313 and failed.
I have this feeling that once it starts going on more sales and more people play it the general consensus will be that’s it’s a pretty solid game. I also imagine like a lot of these games there will be a patch in the next month that fixes a litany of issues.
You’re right it’s kind of interesting that the factions don’t really add a lot of meaningful gameplay mechanics, but oh well. At first I was like, “I’m not working with the Pykes AT ALL because I know what happens in your spice mines.” But you end up just being friends with all of them as needed (to get their rewards).
Just having this big coat of Star Wars paint over this otherwise fairly standard action/shooter/open world game really does make it more fun, though. I still have a bit to go in the story, but I’m just basting around cleaning up side quests right now because it’s fun to do.
but it’s third person
Ah yes the “sears” method of going out of business.
- fire all DEI consultants
- get rid of woke writers
- stop making everything live service
- give devs more time to optimize
- don’t overmonetize your games
literally all they need to do. If you make games that people actually want to play, then people will buy them. And if you want to have lgbtq characters, then do it like borderlands 2, that game got it right in 2012.
Every day I grow more and more tired of you braindead idiots.
funny, given that most gamers seem to agree with me, according to sales numbers. Noone wants this shit in games. Perhaps we’re not the problem.
last time i wrote something similar to yours,the left wing nutjobs came rushing in,guns blazing.
god damn wokies.
Yup.
Why would firing DEI consultants improve the work?
And if you want to have lgbtq characters, then do it like borderlands 2, that game got it right in 2012.
In what particular way do they differ?
Because things like black protagonists with hip-hop music in the background make no sense in a feudal japanese setting and people are sick of games being abused as vehicles for morality preaching.
An example from borderlanfs two could be Sir Hammerlock, who was introduced as a normal (for borderlands) character early on and later in a side quest was revealed to be gay in passing. That’s the kind of ‘representation’ you want for lgbtq to be “normalized”. In modern games, his story would be one of struggle against straight white oppressors at the end of which there would be a five minute long cutscene in which everybody turns to the camera and informs the player that being gay is normal and that prejudice is bad and that straight white people are inherently evil. I’m overexagerating (spelling?) of course, but you get the point.
Because things like black protagonists with hip-hop music in the background make no sense in a feudal japanese setting and people are sick of games being abused as vehicles for morality preaching.
But games about dudes in medieval-looking sci-fo power armor stomping around WW1-styled soldiers do?
And that doesn’t preach any morals? But a black guy in a samurai setting does? How come one does, but the other does not?
Also…
An example from borderlanfs two could be Sir Hammerlock, who was introduced as a normal (for borderlands) character early on and later in a side quest was revealed to be gay in passing.
Maybe don’t make it as readily apparent how much you internalized gayness being abnormal. Telling. You wouldn’t write sentences like this if that wasn’t a normal thought process for you, since you did probably not have to actively consider your wording.
Bullshit. Normalization means not making a big deal out of it, which goes contrary to the woke standard of putting it front and center.
But like you say, if you want to normalize it, shouldn’t it be front and center then? Since that’s part of being normal, also being front and center?
It cannot be front and center and normal at the same time. It cannot be the main part of a character’s identity, else it will always be perceived as “special” and “extra”, but not “normal”. Devs can make whatever game with whatever chars they want ofc, but the result is what we’re seeing with ubisoft.
I’m just ranting at this point.
It cannot be front and center and normal at the same time.
Why not? If it’s normal, any possible identity and any possible element will be front and center every so often, no? That’s what normality means after all? Something has to be front and center, and if everything is normal, everything will appear there repeatedly?
deleted by creator
after careful consideration of the management decisions that brought us here, we concluded that 1600 layoffs of low level employees is the solution. those who stay will crunch harder for the same pay to make up for any lost labor so we can keep churning out slop that definitely has nothing to do with our crisis.
Always suprised when I remember that WatchDogs 2 is from Ubisoft. Such a well made game, i played the crap out of it twice
I wanted to like Steep but the Controller experience, even on the Steam deck is so horrible I didn’t last a full hour
I know there are some changes you can do in settings. I mostly did snowboarding and since I snowboard irl I found the controls were close to how you’d control your feet on an actual board. So that probably helped ^ ^
But rider’s republic mixed it all up so I get what you mean
Did we play the same game?
Maybe they fixed it? I didn’t play day 1 so I’m not sure how it was then (played maybe 2-3 years after it’s release)
I just found it soul less and unbalanced. But then again I was going into it early when they where still calling it the “GTA killer”.
Ubisoft isn’t making money. That’s something wrong as far as the board is concerned.
Maybe they should try not making crap games. All that money and they can’t get decent voice actors or writers.
Nah, this is about money. They’ll definitely find a group of underpaid employees to fire.
They’ll fire the developers that implemented the unpopular features (that they didn’t want to build in the first place but were forced upon them from executives, who, by the way, are due for their end of year bonuses!!)
I can’t name you a single Ubisoft game that i’ve had any interest in buying, in the last decade
Prince of Persia came out this year and I would say that it’s one of the best metroidvania games ever made
I missed even there weren’t so focused on development and more publishing focused. They published some bangers in the late 90s/early 2000s. Grandia comes to mind and a ton of Dreamcast games.
All of the big publishers from 20 years ago doubled down on a couple of key franchises that make the most money and appeal to the widest demographic, rather than the old strategy of having a diverse portfolio across most genres.
The last Ubisoft game I bought was Far Cry 3 in 2012. None of their games since then have even remotely interested me.
Also unpopular opinion incoming; Far Cry 1 was the best Far Cry game in the series and it was made by Crytek, the makers of Crysis.
I don’t recall the name but there was a farcry game on original Xbox that came with a map maker for couch PvP. It literally let you shape the topography and place any asset in the game, easily the best map maker I ever used.
That’s not an unpopular opinion, that’s just a well known fact.
Far Cry 3 loses all its steam the moment Vaas is out of the picture.
Which shows exactly why it was good: Michael Mando.
I actually really enjoyed Far Cry 3. But Far Cry 1 just holds a special place in my heart. It’s just such a good game and still holds up today.
I want to reaffirm that we are an entertainment-first company, creating games for the broadest possible audience, and our goal is not to push any specific agenda.
Press X to doubt
What agenda is that referencing? I’m out of the loop.
Oh look. Unpaid internships.
First of all, discriminatory hiring.
second of all,
With more people playing video games than ever before, it is important for us to help build an inclusive entertainment industry that reflects the diversity of our players.
Sounds like an agenda to me.
I suspect you and I have different appreciations of reality and I’d prefer to avoid further conversation.
It’s important to have a diverse workforce, especially in entertainment, because people with different backgrounds will have different ideas. Ideas are the lifeblood of how we improve things, and especially creativity. You people who can’t see this are destined to fail. If you think this is evil rather than smart business to ensure you have the greatest strengths through differences of opinion are really blind. All of history has pretty much shown that diversity breeds creativity and growth. Hegemony breeds stagnation.
Nope. It’s important to have a skilled workforce in gamedev. Hiring based on gender and sexuality means you purposefully pick lower skilled workers in order to fill a diversity quota. Being in gamedev and having lead a team of juniors I can say this with confidence. Skill and motivation is everything, and their genders and sexuality mean zero. In fact, you shouldn’t even see their genders or sexuality. Every worker regardless of background has a unique view, and can provide creative solutions without having to be reduced to their genders, sexuality, skin color.
Hiring based on gender and sexuality is discrimination, and illegal for a reason (and these companies get around it by using unpaid internships). It breeds hate and extremism.
Also, going to need to ask for some source of that claim of yours because historically the most creative and successful games have been made by entirely asian male teams or entirely white male teams, and games with diverse teams have been failing miserably.
Hiring based on gender and sexuality means you purposefully pick lower skilled workers in order to fill a diversity quota.
Incorrect. It means that you pick the best candidate, and when they’re equal you don’t just choose the white man like we always have in the past.
I’m a straight white man. I have no issue with diversity because it makes everyone better.
Every worker regardless of background has a unique view, and can provide creative solutions without having to be reduced to their genders, sexuality, skin color.
Sure, that’s true because everyone has a different background. However, a straight white Christian man would likely never think of some of the things a gay Muslim would think of, because they have faced different issues and been taught different things.
For example, there’s an issue with IQ testing, where the tests were designed for typical western education. However, different cultures can be better or worse at certain questions just by how they’re phrased. Some cultures may think of something geometrically. For example, all math by the ancient Greeks were done with shapes, not numbers. They would solve math problems in totally different and unique ways than a typical modern day western educated person would. They aren’t less smart for it. Their brains were just wired differently because of the way they were educated.
Not every person thinks the same. Cultures, education, oppression, trauma, pleasures, and everything else effect how you think and you you’ll think of. Diversity in thought allows us to take advantage of this as much as possible.
Clearly what they need is more management layers and SCRUM masters to streamline the game creation process.
And of course, the preferred way is to do it at the office, 5 days a week.
How else do we foster a sense of team if all the devs are not in the office 5 days a week?
Also to promote a sense of community and close cooperation we’re moving to an open office plan. (I.e. packed in like sardines to glorified picnic tables with hot seating and noise everywhere.)
We will be installing clackball tables every 20 feet
and a dozen more external contractors will def make their games better
Don’t forget AGILE. That should solve all of their problems, right?
They’re going lean so they’re firing half their workforce so the rest can produce more work. Don’t worry though middle management is safe
they can start by just making games as gamers want it,not inserting lame ass political agendas in their games or hire politically correct nutjobs to determine how games should be inclusive.
What you mean is making games how you want them to be, not the overwhelming majority of gamers. Stop thinking everything is an agenda designed to limit your freedom.
ubisoft stock price plummeting,black myth wukong having more players than star wars franchise,game with DEI rubbish tanking or having little to no players,yea majority have spoken alright.
I just need you to say the word woke now, and I’ll have completed my incel bingo card.
lol,cope and seethe.
Absolutely not. When the board is looking into it, it’s because they are not returning shareholder value and they are pissed about it. This will likely end with the C-suite being butchered.
Ah yes, I hate being butchered that way, too. It sucks hard to be paid to leave before you get paid extra to start your next job elsewhere.
And don’t get me wrong, if the C-suites actually ever had to take actual responsibility for their fuck-ups, I’d be all for those board investigations. But they don’t. They get paid enough to not care about interims between jobs - just look at the CEO who said people can just spend a year on the beach or so if they’ve been laid off - plus they get paid extra both on the leaving and on the re-hiring.
If they had to pay all non-salary money back on fucking up, even retroactively, no matter how many Porsches they’d have to liquidate to get the money from X years of fucking up the company back, sure. Do it. But that’s just sadly not the case. For a C-suite, this just means changing what name is written under your name, and moving on to the next place you can grift.
“The Board has investigated itself and found no evidence of incompetence.”
Nah in this case this is real. The board is investigating the executive leadership, two separate entities. It’s like corporate investigating stores management, in a way. This could mean executives getting fired
Good fuck em
They’ll get payouts which is more money than you and I will ever make combined. I’m hungry. When do we eat?
I bet they will find embezzlement, possibly funnelled through consultancies.
“Ubisoft investigates Ubisoft and found that Ubisoft did nothing wrong at Ubisoft”-situations, isn’t it?
“The consumers are wrong, it’s those damn Millenials again”
Followed by continuing to change nothing and fading into obscurity like Atari or Commodore. (hopefully)
It needs to happen to all the big developers.
I bet at first it seems like multiple consultancies, but the more they investigate, the more they realize it’s just minor variations on one consultancy copy-pasted around the map, and at a certain point, investigating each one just feels same-y and boring.
