1. #1

    The Elephant In The Survey...

    The most important question not asked, about the one thing that steered more people clear of ever buying this game, or resulted in most returns -- was whether you preferred Ghost Recon was another RPG, or it was a tactical realism game...

    Of course this survey is way too little too late, most of the people that wish the game had been a part of the original genre defining franchise have left the building, have about as much faith in Ubisoft as they do in government, and probably aren't coming back.

    Of the few curious malingerers (like me) it's interesting to discover that many would have paid (and have the resources to do so) more then Breakpoint and all it's prospective pay content cost, up front, for an 'AAA' quality tactical realism game -- because absent Ghost Recon, there aren't any.

    I guess this really is...

    THE END
     4 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Are you calling me fat!?
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Well.. Ubi has really kicked a lot of people in the baby maker on this one but.. You know as well as I do for us that love tac shooters our options are somewhat limited. So I'm still hanging on to hope at this point but the reality is basically "a wish in one and sht in the other" usually. If they say no to offline after the survey I will officially be done with Ubi and with this forum.
     5 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #4
    I'm equally annoyed at the fact that fixing the technical state of the game is an option among several questions. Do they really need to be told to not release broken games and to fix issues and bugs?
     14 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #5
    MikeWeeks's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    So. Calif.
    Posts
    2,800
    Originally Posted by Church367A Go to original post
    I'm equally annoyed at the fact that fixing the technical state of the game is an option among several questions. Do they really need to be told to not release broken games and to fix issues and bugs?
    Yeah, that was indeed surprising. One would think it's a given that bugs/glitches would be at the top regardless of anything else - especially given the state the game upon release.
     8 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Virtual-Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,783
    Originally Posted by MikeWeeks Go to original post
    Yeah, that was indeed surprising. One would think it's a given that bugs/glitches would be at the top regardless of anything else - especially given the state the game upon release.
    Good point.

    It’s pretty clear from the list of items to fix among the multiple choices that they know precisely what’s wrong with this game. They need to fix all of those things. ASAP.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Bone_Frog's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    2,228
    Originally Posted by Virtual-Chris Go to original post
    Good point.

    It’s pretty clear from the list of items to fix among the multiple choices that they know precisely what’s wrong with this game. They need to fix all of those things. ASAP.
    Well with operating revenue down according to some reports by 93% they are probably trying to figure out what to prioritize. In first aid its called triage. If a guy has a two broken legs, a deep abdominal laceration and his heart isn't beating, all of that needs to be treated, however, some of it is more critical than other things.

    If you remember, way back when they announced PvP and PvE joint progression some of us raised this specter of resource management. A CM politely but firmly told us to mind our own business as we weren't supposed to worry about such things. I guess if this game has been a run away success like GRW Ubisoft wouldn't be worried about such things either.

    However here we are, and they know what needs to be fixed, they just need to figure out the order of the fixing. With operating Revenue so far down they probably don't have thousands of Devs working on this anymore. So they are trying to figure out what are the mortal wounds and what can be allowed to go on bleeding and broken until they can spare the resources to deal with it.
     5 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Bone_Frog Go to original post
    Well with operating revenue down according to some reports by 93% they are probably trying to figure out what to prioritize. In first aid its called triage. If a guy has a two broken legs, a deep abdominal laceration and his heart isn't beating, all of that needs to be treated, however, some of it is more critical than other things.

    If you remember, way back when they announced PvP and PvE joint progression some of us raised this specter of resource management. A CM politely but firmly told us to mind our own business as we weren't supposed to worry about such things. I guess if this game has been a run away success like GRW Ubisoft wouldn't be worried about such things either.

    However here we are, and they know what needs to be fixed, they just need to figure out the order of the fixing. With operating Revenue so far down they probably don't have thousands of Devs working on this anymore. So they are trying to figure out what are the mortal wounds and what can be allowed to go on bleeding and broken until they can spare the resources to deal with it.
    But.... Using your own clinical priority analogy, Breakpoint is Ubisofts asystole, I'd have everything on it.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Bone_Frog Go to original post
    Well with operating revenue down according to some reports by 93% they are probably trying to figure out what to prioritize. In first aid its called triage. If a guy has a two broken legs, a deep abdominal laceration and his heart isn't beating, all of that needs to be treated, however, some of it is more critical than other things.

    If you remember, way back when they announced PvP and PvE joint progression some of us raised this specter of resource management. A CM politely but firmly told us to mind our own business as we weren't supposed to worry about such things. I guess if this game has been a run away success like GRW Ubisoft wouldn't be worried about such things either.

    However here we are, and they know what needs to be fixed, they just need to figure out the order of the fixing. With operating Revenue so far down they probably don't have thousands of Devs working on this anymore. So they are trying to figure out what are the mortal wounds and what can be allowed to go on bleeding and broken until they can spare the resources to deal with it.
    Fair analogy, but take it a little further -- two broken legs, deep abdominal laceration, lots of blood and no vitals, where the only resources for any chance of survival and recovery is one EMT. You don't try to get him up to walk, in fact a situation this severe he might never walk or even keep his legs depending on the circumstances, we don't even have his heart beating yet, with a stopped heart he might be hemorrhaging from a pair of stumps and be beyond resuscitation -- which I think aptly describes Breakpoint.

    Ubisoft is appropriately reshuffling priorities and resources, games have been cancelled, intended release dates moved back or put on indefinite hold -- the company is hemorrhaging out of every orifice now and some would say (and to a limited extend even Ubisoft) on a product design track that is too narrow for what's trending and too exclusive and excluding of audience expectation.

    To merely patch a would be 'AAA' game that has been so broadly and strongly panned in review and by consumers, has clearly profoundly under-performed in sales with an equally astounding level of returns and cancellations --- suggests a more radical approach is in order...

    The numbers emphatically demonstrate Ghost Recon fans do not and never have wanted an RPG game, Wildlands was merely a tolerable middle ground that had enough elements of a STS game to lure some to buy, Breakpoint has clearly taken things too far and deep into the virtual shopping mall.

    More money in on the same design track just 'fixing things' -- is not going to net any appreciable increase in sales or revenue from Breakpoint. If this path is taken it will be a black hole for revenue with no way out...

     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Ironically in this analogy a AAA (game) would be a Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, its a disastrous thing. But totally treatable. If court earlier enough. That aside, haemorrhage stops when the heart does... Ubisoft can not call breakpoint dead, ever. It would be a corporate suicide move. And they have made loads of press about changes they need to make.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last ►►