Junior Member
Seeing as you can't give me a refund, maybe you can explain why you decided to launch such a faulty product? Not only that, your product is sold as a working title (which is mis-selling), with no mention of faults, or even a message reading "working in fixing the issues in the game". Instead you released it, knowing just how faulty it was. Why do this to your fan base?
Member
It is pretty easy: they had to ship the game because of the Modern Warfare release close to 4 weeks later and to meet quarterly financial goals. Breakpoint is not the only game, but "a game" in a long list of failed game-as-a-service-game this year. They always thought that they could "fix it later" (and adding some meaningful content).... well... nope.
Member
What does CoD has to do anything with ****point? Those 2 are totally different games. If they truly rushed the game because of CoD I am wishing some brain for them..Originally Posted by bloody_Dusty Go to original post
Member
These are meant to be AAA-Blockbuster games with a long time to play. Both are targeting the military-power-fantasy in many peoples heads. Obviously these are very different games but they are both military fantasy experiences coming at the same time. Think of last year: Red Dead 2, Black Ops 4 and Battlefield were meant for the same time schedule - very different games - still EA had to delay their Battlefield (even it was not delayed enough). People can only pay a certain amount of money - and have only a certain amount of time to play video games. You simply do not go against CoD or the next Rockstar or CDPR-game. You. do. not. do. this.
Member
Bottom line, they released it like this because they don't care about their fans. We are just $$$ to them, nothing more. Minimum viable Product (MVP) it's a well known business model and they followed it to the letter.
The business model they need to follow is "happy consumers make more profit" Digital Extremes does it and they are rolling in cash on a (free to play game).
Senior Member
@infiniterage88 You have every right to be pissed off about the state of the game at launch but you can bet that Ubisoft does in deed care about customer satisfaction. If they didn't then no game that failed at launch would have made the kind of come back that several Ubisoft titles have. If I had to guess I imagine they knew the state of the game at launch and what kind of reaction it would get but they opted to move forward and weather the storm and then decided after how to proceed because they needed to get this title out the door to bring in some sales even if its less as long as it makes it (launches) in this quarter. There are a lot of behind the scenes contractual agreements that factor into games of this size. Its a shock that they managed to get approval from the board to push back the release of the other games planned for the next 6 months like Watchdogs 3.Originally Posted by InfiniteRage88 Go to original post
If anything Ubisoft has earned the right to be given the chance to turn things around. Unlike EA, and Activision Ubi has a proven track record of fixing their broken games so let's give them a chance to do so before calling in the guillotines. I bet you that by this time next year GRBP will be the tactical shooter that everyone is talking about and recommending.
Many will be making comparisons to the first Division game and Siege talking about how Ubisoft was able to learn from their mistakes and turn things around. Its going to suck for the immediate short term but I have faith they will get this turned around. There is far too much money on the line. You can bet that whoever made the decisions to rip out from Breakpoint the things that worked well in Wildlands and insert want be RPG elements like the gear system are either doing a 180 or have been replaced.
In any event we'll know in 3-6 months if Ubisoft keeps its promise to make good on where it failed its customers with GRBP.
Junior Member
Yeah well said I’m still hoping that they can turn the game around like they did with wildlands as that was granted in a bit of a better state than BP at launch but no where near as good as it was say a year or so after launch.Originally Posted by Legoguru2000 Go to original post
The only things I find really annoying about this game are the want to be RPG elements they have implemented like the tiered loot and weapons system as it’s somewhat ruined what this game franchise was meant to be a good mil-sim/ Tactical shooter game.
Member
I understand your point of view, but stop coddling Ubisoft. Saying it's ok they will fix it. Ubisoft knew darn well that GR vets would hate this tiered loot crap.
I'm not about to sit here and accept this it will be a good game in 5 to 6 months. No! This game launched to soon with the wrong direction.
I payed my money now, and I want the game that was alluded to in it's marketing. Not later, now. I payed for a full complete tactical shooter. Not a BS looter shooter.
Ubisoft doesn't deserve any leniency, they need to be shunned and yelled at. Stop milking the Tom Clancy license and make titles like they used to be.
Member
Senior Member
Again, you have ever right to feel this way and I'm not coddling Ubisoft. They are paying dearly for the mistakes made with GRBP and to a lesser extent THE DIVISION 2. A %90 reduction to expected earnings is a very serious thing. Believe me when I say Ubisoft very much knows how badly they screwed up with GRBP. BP should have been a EASY win for Ubisoft and so should THE DIVISION 2 but in both cases one or more persons tried to re-invent the games systems/mechanics instead of simply taking what was successful and building upon it.Originally Posted by InfiniteRage88 Go to original post
I have over 3k hours in the first DIVISION game and after just a few hundred hours in DIVISION 2 I'm done, at least until episode 3 where I pray the will have course corrected the game. If you had told me this time last year that I would have stopped playing DIVISION 2 after 200 hours and be as unhappy with BREAKPOINT as I am I would have called you a liar. It would have been impossible to imagine Ubisoft could make such huge mistakes with both games sequels to cause me stop playing one and be very unhappy with the other when both needed do little more then provide a new map and story with new characters and if that was it I would have been happy.
Give them a little time to course correct and if they don;t then off with their heads, metaphorically speaking.
