Will it really be that much difference than Ubisoft's decisions about making money? They way they decided to milk Assassins Creed pumping out game after game and everyone of them getting worse by each iteration, Then we have the dilution of EVERY ubisoft online game, Ghost Recon, Rainbow, Splinter Cell, Hitman weirdly Far Cry 3 was amazing compared to the others but then we got 4 and Primal which went back to the good old Ubisoft ultra milk way. Then we have the Ubisoft PR system that shows off games like Rainbow Six, Watchdogs The Division etc etc and the games are nothing like what they showed off to the public.Originally Posted by StealthTallyFox Go to original post
Honestly saying Vivendi are the bad guys and Ubisoft are the good guys is a bit like saying Bashar al-Assad is a real bad guy compared to Saddam Hussian who actually was pretty decent. Just no.
Hitman is from Square Enix not Ubisoft !
Milk milk hummmm, Ubisoft continue doing new iterations because the fans want it and buy them.
Why does every years people buy NBA2Kx and Fifa x ? I mean there's almost nothing new in those game every years but people buy them because they like soccer and nba.
Just shows you how bad the last Hitman was when i thought it was a Ubisoft gameOriginally Posted by M_Ulukai Go to original post![]()
LmaoOriginally Posted by Flaw3dGenius23 Go to original post![]()
Yep, it shows a lot about the criticism that Ubisoft get from some.
I know it was a humorous comment, but it does show how much work a company has to do if it takes its customers for granted. Much of the debate you see here is about whether or not Ubisoft have changed. There isn't much disagreement that they needed to.
The more things change... the more they stay the same.
Its like an enigma how we have been told that games most evolve and morph into something else to be able to stay alive and sell while other games barely make minimum but necessary changes and they sell like hotcakes, hence, the... the more things change the more they stay the same.