PDA

View Full Version : Now if Ubisoft follows this example....



Wolfehunter
09-13-2008, 10:02 PM
Wouldn't the games be better for the clients buying them? Maybe for SH5 in the future? Hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink...

http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095

fizilbert
09-14-2008, 07:38 AM
Amen to that

Foehammer-1
09-14-2008, 09:20 AM
Like that will ever happen...

Especially with ubisoft, sigh

K_Freddie
09-14-2008, 03:10 PM
Remember the 'Good Ole Days' when deveopers were individuals with more talent than todays dev teams put together. They would spend months developing a game, and it WORKED when you played it. These guys knew how to program stuff, and they did it for self satisfaction (and $$ of course).

A far cry from today's wannbees...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wolfehunter
09-16-2008, 12:58 PM
yes I remember those days. Todays excuse is well the scripting and programing is more complicated now than then.

Scripting was new then and it new now with all the new codes etc.

Anyhow today its about money and control.

WhiteKnight77
09-17-2008, 12:28 AM
It was asked on another forum I visit about why games limit Coop to 4 or fewer players nowadays. The consensus is that developers are lazy.

I find many of the excuses developers and publishers use to be laughable honestly. Games created even 10 years ago were more forward thinking and offered more compared to what is offered today with stronger/faster computers compared to what was available then. This even goes for console games.

madsarmy
09-19-2008, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Remember the 'Good Ole Days' when deveopers were individuals with more talent than todays dev teams put together. They would spend months developing a game, and it WORKED when you played it. These guys knew how to program stuff, and they did it for self satisfaction (and $$ of course).

A far cry from today's wannbees...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think your looking through rose tinted glasses. Games have always been released with bugs, release dates have always been delayed. Back in the days before the internet you had to wait for a patch to be released through game magazine. If it ever was released. It was no better 10,15 or 20 years ago.

Foehammer-1
09-19-2008, 05:18 AM
think your looking through rose tinted glasses. Games have always been released with bugs, release dates have always been delayed. Back in the days before the internet you had to wait for a patch to be released through game magazine. If it ever was released. It was no better 10,15 or 20 years ago.

In that case, what about console games for consoles that can't use internet? Those games were made well the first time around, most of the time. What does that tell us? PC-game programmers are either:
a)Useless
b)Lazy
c)Have a dumb boss

Realjambo
09-19-2008, 05:44 AM
What does that tell us? PC-game programmers are either:
a)Useless
b)Lazy
c)Have a dumb boss

This has been thrashed out many times here before. Ultimately, the blame usually lays with the game publishers, who set a fixed amount of investment and dictate often unrealistic (read: rushed) launch schedules.

The developers want to do more, and are capable of doing so but aren't given the opportunity to.

Mittelwaechter
09-19-2008, 07:40 AM
Enjoy the current situation!
These are the days we will look back in ten years and talk about the good old times...

It's all a matter of mismanagement and stupid customers.
Give the developers a fair share per sold unit and they will try to create a perfect product as fast as possible. The sooner they're finished the faster they get good money, the publisher is happy as the customer is satisfied.

We are the ones who buy 'software to mature in customers hands'.

VikingGrandad
09-20-2008, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Wolfehunter:
Wouldn't the games be better for the clients buying them? Maybe for SH5 in the future? Hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink...

http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095

Great to see a game company taking the initiative like that. Some of those promises won't cost a lot to stick to either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I hope other game companies try to do something similar, but I don't expect it because, all too often, the game publishers don't care about quality as much as players and developers do.

Publishers want to make more profits, developers want to make better games, players want to play better games. With big budget mainstream games that sell in big numbers, there's no excuse for poor quality. But when it comes to 'niche' games - like simulators, which have lots of complex features to get right - we've seen time and time again that the end product cannot be delivered (to the desired levels of quality) for the normal retail price of a mainstream game. So, we gamers have to somehow convince the game publishers that we will pay more for a simulation game - in return for more features, more content and better software quality. Paying more for games like this makes sense, because niche games like sims represent better value for a higher price, and we simmers will play the game for many years. I think most simmers tend to belong an older generation of gamers, who can typically afford a higher price tag.