![[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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-15 11:12 am (UTC)From:If it wasn't running for a couple people, well, it could be blamed on your computer. But if the majority of consumers were having the same issues it'd show that the company wasn't delivering a working product.
That can generally be taken to court if refunds weren't honored.
But this assumes your country has consumer protection laws. If it doesn't, that's where the people have to apply pressure - to get some.
Even if developers have no say in the deadline, the publisher certainly would (As they would be the one dictating their arbitrary deadline on the developer). This is why I blame them both equally. Otherwise they'll just point the finger at each other to endlessly shift the blame back and forth until the next game is released and we can do it all over again.
I should really try to start posting game review/rants on my website. >_>