![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So let me see if I have this straight here. Ubisoft releases a shitty, buggy, broken game which gets reviewed rather poorly, and what Ubisoft takes away from this is that there's something broken about the reviews process rather than their shitty, buggy, broken game? Sounds like a blast of hot, vacuous air to me. (Or, wait, maybe it's all just AMD's fault. Riiiiight.)
Anyway, in any case, why should anyone have expected Ubisoft to release a new game in working order, when they haven't even bothered to fix the game-breaking bugs in their old shit yet? Needless to say, Assassin's Creed Unity is definitely not a game that I bought or will buy, but that won't stop me from ranting about it, even so.
Granted, it's not like game reviewers are entitled to advance copies of games (and the fact that some of them seem to feel that they are entitled to such and whine like babies when they don't get it is a big part of what's wrong with the video game journalism industry these days), nor is a game company obligated to provide advance copies for this purpose. It's nice when they do, sure, but they certainly aren't required to do so. But, on the other side of the coin, neither am I obligated to buy games on launch, which is why I no longer do so, partially for just this very reason: I like to avoid wasting money on shitty, buggy, broken games, especially at the full launch-time MSRP (which admittedly I will likely never pay anymore, regardless of how good or bug-free a game may be, at least if the MSRP continues to sit at the $60+ point).
Anyway, in any case, why should anyone have expected Ubisoft to release a new game in working order, when they haven't even bothered to fix the game-breaking bugs in their old shit yet? Needless to say, Assassin's Creed Unity is definitely not a game that I bought or will buy, but that won't stop me from ranting about it, even so.
Granted, it's not like game reviewers are entitled to advance copies of games (and the fact that some of them seem to feel that they are entitled to such and whine like babies when they don't get it is a big part of what's wrong with the video game journalism industry these days), nor is a game company obligated to provide advance copies for this purpose. It's nice when they do, sure, but they certainly aren't required to do so. But, on the other side of the coin, neither am I obligated to buy games on launch, which is why I no longer do so, partially for just this very reason: I like to avoid wasting money on shitty, buggy, broken games, especially at the full launch-time MSRP (which admittedly I will likely never pay anymore, regardless of how good or bug-free a game may be, at least if the MSRP continues to sit at the $60+ point).
