[QUE] Boycott / mass dynamic things not allowed?

[urfisch]

...why? why are threads, which call for action are shut down?

anyone can decide on his own, wether he follows or not. this is like a democratic proclamation, which must not be censored. as carotio rightfully stated, which signal should we send, instead of not buying the game in the first days?? uhh...hard to answer.

:arrgh!:

please give people, who also ask themselves this question, an answer. i simply do not understand. fear of advocats and lawyers from ubi?...

[Letum]

I would also like to know the reason behind this SSim policy.
The views of forum members are clearly not the views of SSim, so why
the censorship on this issue?

[Webster]

because it is seen as being promoted by subsim if it is allowed to be done here.

its guilt by association thing so we must remain objective and not seen to promote a protest


im sure neal with speak better on this then i can because i am not as well spoken

[urfisch]

because it is seen as being promoted by subsim if it is allowed to be done here.

its guilt by association thing so we must remain objective and not seen to promote a protest


im sure neal with speak better on this then i can because i am not as well spoken

but if you cut these opinions off, you seem to promote the other side...thought about that?

thin line...

[Buddahaid]

Calling for action would seem to be a bit more than a viewpoint expressed. I think SubSim needs to keep impartial toward the vendors in order to have good relations that lead to development updates etc. :yep:

[Letum]

because it is seen as being promoted by subsim if it is allowed to be done here.

its guilt by association thing so we must remain objective and not seen to promote a protest


There are as many opinions on as many topics and protests and calls
for all sorts of different actions as there are members at subsim.
Especially in General Topics!

There is no worry that Subsim will be seen as promoting our political or
religious affiliations and/or griviencies when we mention them, or our
opinions on any other topic.
Why is this different?

Could this be something to do with Subsim not wanting to put game
publishers off giving Subsim things like pre-release access and
interviews etc?
That would be an understandable position, although perhaps of
dubious integrity.

[GoldenRivet]

but if you cut these opinions off, you seem to promote the other side...thought about that?

thin line...

I dont know "Subsims" official position on the matter of Silent Hunter 5, but if it were up to me to come up with an official statement it would go like this.

"Silent Hunter 5 is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of many individuals at Ubisoft, their hard work is appreciated by all of us here at subsim! As we close to release date, we have heard much of the good, the bad and the ugly, some of it has been fact, some of it has been unsubstantiated rumor, but we will reserve our judgments of SH5 for a later date when we are able to officially review the released product.

Furthermore, as Subsim.com is a place for the promotion of submarine simulations and the companies / individuals that develop them, we feel that our forums are not the place for discussion or suggestion of boycott or any other actions which work against the development of present or future submarine simulations."

[Webster]

while i cannot dissagree with your statements, my personal opinion has to be kept seperate from my actions as modderator and i wont presume to speak about neal's policies and guidelines so i sent him a PM asking him to make a statement here about your comments and opinions

[Letum]

actions which work against the development of present or future submarine simulations.

Who says it would work against the interest of submarine simulations?

Would the point be that it would work in the interest of long-term subsim development?

[GoldenRivet]

while i cannot dissagree with your statements i cant speak for neal so i sent him a PM asking him to make a statement here about your comments

I personally think the whole boycott discussion is over the top.

I dont know why most folks cannot reserve their judgements for some sort of official review.

its a shame no matter what side of the argument you sit upon

[Letum]

If Ubi wasn't boycotting Subsim by refusing to provide a review copy
before release, we would already have read that official review you
place so much importance on.

[GoldenRivet]

Who says it would work against the interest of submarine simulations?

Would the point be that it would work in our interest?

thats just what I would say if it were me.

However, when people start talking "boycott" on a product that they have never even gotten hands on, we have a problem.

now if Ubisoft came out and said

"Our game discs will be made of 100% pure crushed eagle beaks and baby seal bones. and the pages of our manuals will be written by child slave labor."

the whole "boycott" argument might have some legs to stand on.

but just because a company tries to protect its own rights by some means that we dont necessarily agree with, or because some content we really wanted didnt make it into the final build... those are some pretty stupid reasons to start picketing Ubisoft HQ

If Ubi wasn't boycotting Subsim by refusing to provide a review copy
before release, we would already have read that official review you
place so much importance on.

and what source do you have that says they wont provide us with one?

we are a month out or more

what source do you have that says they HAVE a review ready copy for subsim?

what makes you think subsim.com is entitled to a review copy??? (no offense to Neal)

[urfisch]

If Ubi wasn't boycotting Subsim by refusing to provide a review copy
before release, we would already have read that official review you
place so much importance on.

not only refusing to provide a copy, also refusing to provide nearly all important kind of information people ask here for since months(!)...

[Letum]

those are some pretty stupid reasons to start picketing Ubisoft HQ


Just because these things are not important to you, doesn't mean that
other peoples grievances are "stupid". :nope:

[GoldenRivet]

Just because these things are not important to you, doesn't mean that
other peoples grievances are "stupid". :nope:

they in fact ARE important to me

I AM rather upset about a lot of it

difference is...

im just being fair and unbiased

[urfisch]

they in fact ARE important to me

I AM rather upset about a lot of it

difference is...

im just being fair and unbiased

FAIR, is a word, that not seems to count very much these days in business...

:cry:

[IanC]

It's not so complicated. Subsim.com wants to keep good relations with Ubisoft. So you can't use subsim.com as a vehicle to inflict any financial damage to Ubisoft.

[GoldenRivet]

FAIR, is a word, that not seems to count very much these days in business...

:cry:

true, but I learned very young in life that you dont always get what you want.... nor do you always get exactly what you thought you were going to get.

All im saying is walking into the SH5 forum is like walking into an out of control kindergarten class room.

Some of the kids are merrily playing with the building blocks or coloring, the rest are crying and stomping up and down because of a hundred different reasons.

it only takes five seconds to sit up straight and tall, and say to yourself "Im going to be a grown man about this and reserve my judgements until all of the evidence is available."

sadly, thats WAY too much for some folks to do.

[Safe-Keeper]

Wow. Over-reacting much?

I can perfectly well understand why Subsim is shutting down stupid "boycott" threads, and Subsim is a private forum, free to be run as it pleases the owner.

[Gilbou]

Calling for Boycott is too much.
Not buying the game, buying it and not being happy about some of its limitations (or seen as such) or delaying the buy until there's a Subsim review is a matter of personnal choice.

Calling for boycott is like.. trying to impose what you think is right to others, which I do think is wrong. Let each person choose and that's it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Calling for a boycott and telling someone to boycott a game are two different things. I don't recall reading any post telling (aka demanding) people to boycott SH5.

[GoldenRivet]

Calling for a boycott and telling someone to boycott a game are two different things. I don't recall reading any post telling (aka demanding) people to boycott SH5.

I simply point you here

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1247330&postcount=17

[Letum]

Under that logic Subsim could never give a negative game review.

[GoldenRivet]

Under that logic Subsim could never give a negative game review.

an honest in depth review is one thing.

a full on boycott war is a total other issue:salute:

[Letum]

an honest in depth review is one thing.

a full on boycott war is a total other issue:salute:


But SubSim wouldn't be waging such a war.

No more than subsim is waging a war against 'political party x' when
someone in General Topics says people shouldn't vote for them.

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160798

This discussion ends here for me.

with respect,

~GR

[ETR3(SS)]

I simply point you here

It's not so complicated. Subsim.com wants to keep good relations with Ubisoft. So you can't use subsim.com as a vehicle to inflict any financial damage to Ubisoft. I'm sorry but I fail to see how a personal opinion of a subsim member applies to my comment. Also IMHO it seems pretty obvious at times what Ubisoft marketing thinks of their "good relations" with subsim.com

[Onkel Neal]

Furthermore, as Subsim.com is a place for the promotion of submarine simulations and the companies / individuals that develop them, we feel that our forums are not the place for discussion or suggestion of boycott or any other actions which work against the development of present or future submarine simulations."

Wow, you wanna job? :up:

Simply this, guys: boycotts are the nuclear weapon of community activism. People as individuals can determine for themselves if they want to buy a game or not.

But SubSim wouldn't be waging such a war.

No more than subsim is waging a war against 'political party x' when
someone in General Topics says people shouldn't vote for them.

You are right, but the core mission statement for Subsim has always been, to support sub game developers and the people who play subsims. Politics and sub games are apples and oranges.

[Letum]

People as individuals can determine for themselves if they want to buy a game or not.


Exactly....so why the need for censorship?

[Dowly]

Subsim is Ubisoft's bitch. :DL

[longam]

Exactly....so why the need for censorship?

See Post #28

[Onkel Neal]

Exactly....so why the need for censorship?

Editorial stance.

Subsim is Ubisoft's bitch. :yep:

Ha ha.

[goldorak]

Subsim is Ubisoft's bitch. :DL

Shhhhhhhhhhh you might get censored for telling the truth. :rotfl2:

[GoldenRivet]

See Post #28

because the buck stops at Neal's desk:salute:

thats the reason

;)

[Onkel Neal]

Shhhhhhhhhhh you might get censored for telling the truth. :rotfl2:

Hmmm... cheap shots now, Golderak?

[kemeri]

I don't see any significant reason to boycott the game.
I'll buy it :sunny:

[Takeda Shingen]

You know, the site owner has given his explaination. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but snide remarks and childish behavior demean us all. I like to believe that we are all above that here.

[martes86]

My full support to Neal's decisions. I know they're being specially tough regarding the latest conversations around here. :up:

[JU_88]

Maybe its because boycotts of this kind simply dont work anyway.

Look at it though Ubis eyes.

There have been calls to 'boycott' just about every new release on every forum of every sucessful game franchise where expectations are high. Whats going on here with SHV is no different.

Even if a Publisher the size of Ubi really wanted to pay attention to our little niche (0.1% of the market) corner of the web, a boycott would be unlikely to phase them.
If someone is not going to buy a product then they will not be staging a protest to see improvements made to it.
Boycott threats just means you care, it even demonstrates you are fanatical, which probabaly means you are still going to buy it anyway.
And even if you dont... the other 99.9% will so its no big deal.

IMHO, Indifference and non-intreast would scare a Large Publisher a hell of alot more than a protest.
In the creative industries a bad reaction is better than no reaction.

[Méo]

Not allowed? you don't get it?

Ok, no offence to anyone here, but all this sounds so silly to me.

I really don't think it's about Ubisoft, I think it's about any publisher/developer of any submarine simulation.

What I understand from subsim.com is that it promotes, shares and give news about any submarine simulations.

If I was the owner of this site and if I wanted this place to grow, I don't think it would be very clever to be associated with a boycott of any publisher/developer (it could be hard later on to have some privileged info...).

BTW it's not like if there were so many submarine simulations on the market right now...

[Platapus]

its guilt by association thing so we must remain objective and not seen to promote a protest



Is it guilt by association when the General Topics forum is full of right wing nutters posting crap? Of course not. So why would it be guilt by association if people vent here about a game.

I think people need to get a more realistic viewpoint of this website. We are really not that important. We are just a bunch of game lovers posting our opinions on an internet forum. I doubt anyone outside of this website takes the opinions posted here seriously... nor should they.

I think it is hubris to think that posts need to be censured because of any association with the website.:nope:

[AOTD_MadMax]

Wow,

nearly the same discussion like in german forum.

I will buy it to get the full information about the crap.
We need a base, more arguments for being active in things like "boykott" !

At this time the informations are not tight enough for this "nuclear weapon".
I agree with Neal.
But when it is tested out, one week after release, we have this option if SH5 is more crap we think about it yet.
The only thing we have to do is wait cause the time is working for us, not for the devs.
They have to work against the time............

Best Regards

AOTD|MadMax

[Méo]

I think people need to get a more realistic viewpoint of this website. We are really not that important.

With more than 40 000 members (without counting those who come here and who are not members) this website might be more important than you think. ;)

[ETR3(SS)]

With more than 40 000 members (without counting those who come here and who are not members) this website might be more important than you think. ;)With 6 billion people in the world we are truly an insignificant spec in the internet.

[IanC]

40 000?? How come I only see the same 10 people all the time :lol:

[codmander]

my posts get banned pretty regular,,,whatever :doh: use to it.. god forbid too much negativity on something we have passion for i still say boycott the buggers..after all subsim IS SILENT HUNTER

[Méo]

With 6 billion people in the world we are truly an insignificant spec in the internet.

6 billion ...like it would matters. :nope:

You think everyone in the world possess a computer and everyone who possess a computer use it to play naval simulations...:doh:

[ETR3(SS)]

6 billion ...like it would matters. :nope:

You think everyone in the world possess a computer and everyone who possess a computer use it to play naval simulations...:doh:No they don't, and even less that do have computers play naval sims. Hence you proved my point, and Platapus point.

[Méo]

Hence you proved my point, and Platapus point.

WTF? What's your point?

That among 6 billion ''potential customers'', we are ''only'' 40 000...

[goldorak]

With 6 billion people in the world we are truly an insignificant spec in the internet.


Wrong sample. We don't care about the 6 billion people out there, we care about those that play subsims and specifically those that play the SH franchise.
And you can bet your *** that the people on subsim represent a non negligeable fraction of the Silent Hunter player base.

[Letum]

Wrong sample. We don't care about the 6 billion people out there, we care about those that play subsims and specifically those that play the SH franchise.
And you can bet your *** that the people on subsim represent a non negligeable fraction of the Silent Hunter player base.


And SubSim it's self represents a significant part of the genre's journalism.

[Méo]

And SubSim it's self represents a significant part of the genre's journalism.

Good point! :up:

[goldorak]

Hmmm... cheap shots now, Golderak?


You're right, I apologise.
The fact is that your "fatalism" in relation to this DRM issue sounds a lot like a copt-out.
People bitched and moaned during the SH 3 days because of Starforce. with your fatalism nothing would have changed. On the other hand the backslash made Ubisoft forget out Starforce and start experimenting with alternative ways. Some games such as HAWX and Prince of Persia came with no copy protection. Some games had their copy protection eliminated after 2 years (Chessmaster !0th edition, and SH3 just to stay in Ubisoft land).
So you see, expressing our displeasure for draconian DRM measures some times carries weight. And things change, maybe for the better maybe for the worse but they change. Instead of keeping us in a status quo were everybody loses out.
Even EA who is known for implementing draconian DRM backpedalled with Mass Effect 2 after the horribile problems of the first chapter on the pc.
So yes, if customers make their voices heard change can happen, hopefully for the better.
Remember if gamers and by association the press and influential game forums etc... give a free pass to whatever publishers come up with, things will go from bad to worse. The publishers gamer relation is not a one way relation, its a two way relationship. They make a product, and we decide wether or not its valuable enough to warrent spending our hard earned dollars/euros on it.

[mookiemookie]

So we've moved on from just plain bitching to boycott threats. Checking my "New Subsim Stages of Grief" pocket reference, I'd say the next step is the class action lawsuit threats. Eagerly awaiting that. :ping:

[Webster]

So we've moved on from just plain bitching to boycott threats. Checking my "New Subsim Stages of Grief" pocket reference, I'd say the next step is the class action lawsuit threats. Eagerly awaiting that. :ping:


lol thats scheduled for tomorrow :up:

[JScones]

Aren't boycotts what Facebook is for? :hmmm:

[urfisch]

Wow, you wanna job? :up:

Simply this, guys: boycotts are the nuclear weapon of community activism. People as individuals can determine for themselves if they want to buy a game or not.



You are right, but the core mission statement for Subsim has always been, to support sub game developers and the people who play subsims. Politics and sub games are apples and oranges.

Supporting developers of sub games? Or developers of subsims? Nice rhetoric, Neal. ;) I understand your point of view and in the core you are right. But wheres the objective differentation in this topic? You cant say, we are just supporting all of them.

Cause

in this whole discussion i miss one important point: What about the facts in progress and information with this game? And the rating of this behavior? Maybe from this point of view a support for such manner is no longer appropriate...

Look

Most of us follow the development of sub games since more than 10 or 20 years. Me too (my first subsim was silent service and wolfpack). And we are a very passioned and skilled community, which made SH3 to one of the most worthful subsims ever. We all are not dumb and have our opinion about, how the 5th part of this series should be - analysing the former versions. So UBI noticed that...and we where all made very hopeful, with a lot of big words (UBI in summer 2009: Now, we are doing all different, New ways in creation, We will have a special community developer, the community really counts for us. Be sure, to get a really nice game, to your long term needs, etc.) and now we all see, not to get most of anything from that, what has beeing promised and proclaimed...adding a really unfair kind of information policy (e.g. why didnt got neal the preview version first, before any press got it???)...and all this beside the facts of semi dynamic game content, only one boat, a limited time line, an console optimized gameplay and interface...and things like non-local savegames, permanent net connection...etc.

So, is there still the need of politeness in supporting the studio, which just follows the orders from UBI HQ?

[zulus]

...why? why are threads, which call for action are shut down?

anyone can decide on his own, wether he follows or not. this is like a democratic proclamation, which must not be censored. as carotio rightfully stated, which signal should we send, instead of not buying the game in the first days?? uhh...hard to answer.

:arrgh!:

please give people, who also ask themselves this question, an answer. i simply do not understand. fear of advocats and lawyers from ubi?...

Well it sounds like a question of national security of Subsim. If it accidently turned out to be clear for UBI that this place becomes a nest for Boycott raisers. This might worsen relationship between SS and UBI. So it is advisable to mind your words while speaking about such radical decissions like boycotts and so on, just breath deeply and try stay cool. Solutions comes with time to everything.

[Onkel Neal]

You're right, I apologise.
The fact is that your "fatalism" in relation to this DRM issue sounds a lot like a copt-out.
People bitched and moaned during the SH 3 days because of Starforce. with your fatalism nothing would have changed. On the other hand the backslash made Ubisoft forget out Starforce and start experimenting with alternative ways. Some games such as HAWX and Prince of Persia came with no copy protection. Some games had their copy protection eliminated after 2 years (Chessmaster !0th edition, and SH3 just to stay in Ubisoft land).
So you see, expressing our displeasure for draconian DRM measures some times carries weight. And things change, maybe for the better maybe for the worse but they change. Instead of keeping us in a status quo were everybody loses out.
Even EA who is known for implementing draconian DRM backpedalled with Mass Effect 2 after the horribile problems of the first chapter on the pc.
So yes, if customers make their voices heard change can happen, hopefully for the better.
Remember if gamers and by association the press and influential game forums etc... give a free pass to whatever publishers come up with, things will go from bad to worse. The publishers gamer relation is not a one way relation, its a two way relationship. They make a product, and we decide wether or not its valuable enough to warrent spending our hard earned dollars/euros on it.

I understand. No one is stopping the voices here from saying "I don't like the online all the time DRM, I'm not buying SH5".

I know, I did not display public alarm with Starforce, but you do not know what goes on behind the scenes.




Supporting developers of sub games? Or developers of subsims? Nice rhetoric, Neal. ;) I understand your point of view and in the core you are right. But wheres the objective differentation in this topic? You cant say, we are just supporting all of them.

Cause

in this whole discussion i miss one important point: What about the facts in progress and information with this game? And the rating of this behavior? Maybe from this point of view a support for such manner is no longer appropriate...

Look

Most of us follow the development of sub games since more than 10 or 20 years. Me too (my first subsim was silent service and wolfpack). And we are a very passioned and skilled community, which made SH3 to one of the most worthful subsims ever. We all are not dumb and have our opinion about, how the 5th part of this series should be - analysing the former versions. So UBI noticed that...and we where all made very hopeful, with a lot of big words (UBI in summer 2009: Now, we are doing all different, New ways in creation, We will have a special community developer, the community really counts for us. Be sure, to get a really nice game, to your long term needs, etc.) and now we all see, not to get most of anything from that, what has beeing promised and proclaimed...adding a really unfair kind of information policy (e.g. why didnt got neal the preview version first, before any press got it???)...and all this beside the facts of semi dynamic game content, only one boat, a limited time line, an console optimized gameplay and interface...and things like non-local savegames, permanent net connection...etc.

So, is there still the need of politeness in supporting the studio, which just follows the orders from UBI HQ?

It is not because of the relationship between Subsim and Ubisoft. I know some people think that but they are being short-sighted. I have a relationship with some of the developers, because we have common bonds, like an affection for history, submarines, and a respect for the values of determination and effort in making a quality sub simulation; but the rest of Ubi is transitory, they are blowing hot with excitement over a game and next they are gone, off on their migratory career trail. I don't take that seriously. But I do feel that when we as a community spew forth a lot of common internet ranting, it makes us look bad and it cannot make the SH5 devs who are elbow deep in code trying to make the #(^)&*%$# game work feel any better. Taunts and insults like "following orders from Ubi HQ" do not affect me, but I think we should show class when mentioning the Romanian developers. I did not see a single person in Copenhagen tell Mike, Mihai, or Dan that they suck, they didn't know what they were doing, etc. Why would we want to do it here? Ranting may sound great to anonymous people who use a pseudonym, but I have to know the cause is right to stake my name and the reputation of my 13-year old website on it.

[bigboywooly]

I dont think anyone feels the devs suck - wish I had half the talent

Tho one look at the med map tells you attention to detail isnt as it should be
Mis spelt sea name for a start - various languages used for place names and mis named islands

And thats only one map

The blame tho lies with Ubi as publisher in firstly allowing games to be released half cock as SH3 and Sh4 were and secondly in the way they are going about marketing SH5
A little over a month before release and we find only one sub type and limted war span then the DRM bombshell
Most of us have had dalings with ubi servers and they aint all that

No playable preview for subsim tho others have had a copy
That alone may have gone some way to calming fears among ppl

[Onkel Neal]

I dont think anyone feels the devs suck - wish I had half the talent

Tho one look at the med map tells you attention to detail isnt as it should be
Mis spelt sea name for a start - various languages used for place names and mis named islands

And thats only one map

The blame tho lies with Ubi as publisher in firstly allowing games to be released half cock as SH3 and Sh4 were and secondly in the way they are going about marketing SH5
A little over a month before release and we find only one sub type and limted war span then the DRM bombshell
Most of us have had dalings with ubi servers and they aint all that

No playable preview for subsim tho others have had a copy
That alone may have gone some way to calming fears among ppl


hi BBW! :salute:

Well, English isn't their primary language, and map typos can be fixed during the final phase (haha, even though "Galverston" was never fixed in SH3--were they trying to have a laugh on me? :haha:).

One thing I do not understand, how anyone can describe SH3 as "half-cocked"? SH4, yeah, no doubt; pre-patches it had a lot of bugs. But SH3 was as good as any sub game ever was on release... yet it gets lumped in with its brothers SH2 and SH4 as half-cocked :timeout:

I agree with you, Ubisoft's marketing approach has been a complete disaster, and I say that calmly without malice or because someone in the echelons decided to supply information only to CasualGamer.com instead of simulation communities. The end result is the game commercial performance is going to suffer.

[urfisch]

I understand. No one is stopping the voices here from saying "I don't like the online all the time DRM, I'm not buying SH5".

I know, I did not display public alarm with Starforce, but you do not know what goes on behind the scenes.






It is not because of the relationship between Subsim and Ubisoft. I know some people think that but they are being short-sighted. I have a relationship with some of the developers, because we have common bonds, like an affection for history, submarines, and a respect for the values of determination and effort in making a quality sub simulation; but the rest of Ubi is transitory, they are blowing hot with excitement over a game and next they are gone, off on their migratory career trail. I don't take that seriously. But I do feel that when we as a community spew forth a lot of common internet ranting, it makes us look bad and it cannot make the SH5 devs who are elbow deep in code trying to make the #(^)&*%$# game work feel any better. Taunts and insults like "following orders from Ubi HQ" do not affect me, but I think we should show class when mentioning the Romanian developers. I did not see a single person in Copenhagen tell Mike, Mihai, or Dan that they suck, they didn't know what they were doing, etc. Why would we want to do it here? Ranting may sound great to anonymous people who use a pseudonym, but I have to know the cause is right to stake my name and the reputation of my 13-year old website on it.

Thanks a lot, for this detailed answer, Neal. But you forget, the romanian developers are part of the ubi-machine. This makes the whole thing of judging quite complex. And your personal relationship to some of the devs, lets SUBSIM not getting more objective, even i understand your point of view a lot better.

And they do follow orders, this is no taunt or ranting. Its no mysterious spoken word from a glass sphere, which they are following, right? ;) So, they are not that independent, one would wish to. Which does not mean, i do not believe in passion of their work! How could i be that ignorant. But the target of their hard works fits not the intention many would like to see here. Simply cause of the UBI HQ in their back. If they could have decided on their own, together with some skilled people from here...the SH5 would be mind blowing. No doubt on that.

But the strategy behind and the whole game concept are more or less far from what we all exspected to come, right?

So, one cant blame the devs for beeing unpassioned. But one (can) MUST blame UBI for the result we have now.

[Uber Gruber]

I wasn't around for SH1 or SH2 so i can't comment, though I've heard something about Neal having to pay someone to finish SH2....is this true ?

SH3 was released in a very poor state...requiring 3 patches to get it stable. A lot of people complained about starforce DRM at the time.

Sh4 was released in a very poor state too....I lost count of the patches though the last one was in a mission add on which you had to pay for. I have never heard of anyone getting that patch without having to buy the UBoat Addon thingy....please correct me if i'm wrong.

SH5 is rapidly looking like it will be released in an unfinished and/or unpolished state too.. It will also use a controversial DRM protection system.

Given the above history, I don't think anyone can really blame subsimmers for being disapointed with UBI, getting annoyed with UBI and wanting to protest. Human nature is what it is.

That said, subsim.com is a community and I would hate for this community to loose the "ear" of the devs. But how does the community maintain the ear of the devs whilst also recognising the frustrations of its members to UBI, the people who pay the devs ? Its like being stuck between a rock and a hardplace.

I imagine subsim.com wouldn't exist without members so its first allegiance should be to them. Perhapps uniting them behind a more "diplomatic" approach to UBI might be a solution...I don't know.

Alas for me, I think we've had a good couple of weeks of pre-release fun, and hopefully a few more to come to. And once the game is out then the party will really get started :yep:

So lets all have some fun, get annoyed, hava-a-rant, smack the moderators, ride the mature donkey and be good ministers of disorder and mayhem.....but lets all do it together, as a community, and as 'one'.

Anyone for careball ? Rules are simple, we each take turns passing a fluffy ball to eachother in a caring and considerate manner.:salute:

[bigboywooly]

Out of the box was playable but sooo many bugs which caused crashing
Even after a further 3 patches it was still never great in terms of stability or from a savegame POV
And those patches introduced new bugs like the land unit camera bounce

Thats how I found here looking for ways to cure problems

Even if you say SH3 wasnt too bad then why the slide downhill with SH4 ?
And what we are witnessing now with SH5

Yeah I know the Med map is typos - in some cases - but from past experience am not 100% convinced those lil things wont slip past
Galverston wasnt the only one on the SH3 map IIRC - been so long since looked at stock SH3 map tho

[Onkel Neal]

Thanks a lot, for this detailed answer, Neal. But you forget, the romanian developers are part of the ubi-machine. This makes the whole thing of judging quite complex. And your personal relationship to some of the devs, lets SUBSIM not getting more objective, even i understand your point of view a lot better.



To a degree, but please understand: I know what objective is, to friends and strangers. When I review the games, I am conscious of my obligation to the players, my friends in the community like you, to be objective, to be honest. I may soften the blow as compared to other reviewers who adore cheap shot rhetoric, I may state factually that this or that feature is not very good, but I really would not be an honest person if I covered it up or lied about it. And devs understand that, they know where their work falls short (and in a computer game, there is always some parts that they wish they had more time to work on). So, yeah, when I put on my reviewer hat, I'm serious about it. :salute:



But the strategy behind and the whole game concept are more or less far from what we all exspected to come, right?

So, one cant blame the devs for beeing unpassioned. But one can blame UBI for the result we have now.

Agreed. Agreed! Yes, I think that is correct, but I advocate blaming Ubisoft with the level if dignity that I hope sets Subsim apart from the the old usenet rabble approach. :yep:

The strategy of the game is very different from what I expected. I think like most, I was expecting SH3 2.0; an SH3 with full boat access and wolfpacks, a continuation of the traditional career based simulation. When I learned the scope was narrower and the aim was to replicate a Das Boot experience, I thought, Hmmm... well, let me wait and see before I decide. Hell, I cannot count how many things in life I thought I would not like only to discover how great they were.... like when the girls in Mrs. Peabody's 3rd grade class would flirt with me, I just wished they would leave me alone... :doh:

So, yeah, this was not what I was expecting, and I may not like it. There are plenty of subsims I did not care for. One thing I will say, I hope if there ever is an SH6 (doubtful), they will not neglect the great resource of this community like they did this time.

[urfisch]

So, yeah, when I put on my reviewer hat, I'm serious about it. :salute:

I believe you. Seriously. I never doubt about that.



Agreed. Agreed!

I was expecting SH3 2.0; an SH3 with full boat access and wolfpacks, a continuation of the traditional career based simulation.

So, yeah, this was not what I was expecting, and I may not like it. There are plenty of subsims I did not care for. One thing I will say, I hope if there ever is an SH6 (doubtful), they will not neglect the great resource of this community like they did this time.

So, its the same with me. I also exspected, they would learn from the former feedbacks and create, what thousands of people here where exspecting. But they are ignorant and try to settle a horse, which is not going to run as fast, they hoped.

It does not need some marketing experts, who say "Our collected data gives a clear sight on the market. we need to build this game mainly for consoles. and we need to make it easy to deal with. the campaign is not free, its a story mode. so everybody knows, what to do and the whole family may experience it like a film. this is going to be a great hit! i swear.." to make this game a success. As you simply need to take a look at this genre. Rascal rightfully stated, the players they are targeting (mainstream and console players) mostly do not want such a game. The topic "Submarine Simulation" is mostly interesting for people like us here. So i guess, the marketing management and the head of simulation gaming, will be fired, shortly after they got the first sales data. lol.

And as SH5 wont be a success, there wont be a SH6, unless we make it, through modding SH5...

[Carotio]

I did not see a single person in Copenhagen tell Mike, Mihai, or Dan that they suck, they didn't know what they were doing, etc. Why would we want to do it here?

I don't think anyone of us points our ranting at the devs. I mean, I was one of the lucky ones to meet them, talk to them and I got the feeling that they are as much passionate about the game as much as we are. But I also got the impression that they were on a tight schedule and that they had to decide which parts could make it in before the release and which couldn't.

I don't blame any of the devs. If the Ubi management gave them 1 more year, I'm sure there would be all types and the full war. I'm also sure that if the devs were to decide, they would probably choose another solution than this DRM.
As I wrote somewhere else: I just don't understand why the people in charge don't choose the Windows activation process solution instead. Let the users play the game as they wish, but within the first 30 days, it must be activated ONCE. It would make it much more acceptable for anyone, I would think.

[Sailor Steve]

I wasn't around for SH1 or SH2 so i can't comment, though I've heard something about Neal having to pay someone to finish SH2....is this true ?
Not quite. I'm not 100% up on all the facts, but the story as I understood it at the time was that the game did have problems, many of which were fixed by a single official patch. What Subsim (with help from others) paid an outside developer to do was rewrite the UBI multiplayer (with UBI's permission) to use the Windows version, which made the multiplayer work a whole lot better.

Other than that, the patch and mods made SH2 into a great game. What couldn't be fixed to make it a good sim was the scripted mission campaign. There were new and better ones written, and it got some random flavor, but that was about it.

[mookiemookie]

One thing I will say, I hope if there ever is an SH6 (doubtful), they will not neglect the great resource of this community like they did this time.

While the devs themselves are present and take what we say into account, I think the higher ups at Ubi are losing the "personal touch" with the community. At a large monolithic company like Ubi, everyone has someone higher up to report to. And with a situation like that, the wishes of the "little people" (us!) get lost along the way. I'm convinced that some empty suit in a boardroom somewhere is the one making the decisions on the focus of the game. And Dan & crew are doing their best to reconcile the two, but it comes down to Ubi being the one who signs their paycheck.

I too wanted SH3 version 2.0. I would have been perfectly happy with SH3 with spiffied up graphics and environment, wolfpacks, a more interactive BdU and refined AI. But we shall see.

Of course, this is just me musing, I could be completely off base.

[Webster]

I just don't understand why the people in charge don't choose the Windows activation process solution instead. Let the users play the game as they wish, but within the first 30 days, it must be activated ONCE. It would make it much more acceptable for anyone, I would think.


i agree and go one better, when updating windows validates the install by rechecking the registration and this too can be a good model to follow where the game validates on startup then goes offline unless your in multiplayer.

i see no reason (related to the game) for it to stay online the whole time

[JScones]

Well, English isn't their primary language, and map typos can be fixed during the final phase (haha, even though "Galverston" was never fixed in SH3--were they trying to have a laugh on me? :haha:).
Irrelevent Neal - this is why you have consultants and English speaking testers. I doubt it would be hard to find someone that can spell country names in English - just find a map, any map. I mean, Lybia?! Heck, even Wikipedia spells it right, lol!

Sure, it may seem minor in the scheme of things, but it shows a distinct lack of attention, especially given that it is a major screen that many people will spend time looking at.

Lack of attention is akin to laziness. So, what other corners have been cut?

BTW, I don't speak French, German, Spanish etc, yet these are all languages used by JSGME. It wasn't really that hard to find people to translate the interface for me. ;)

Galverston wasnt the only one on the SH3 map IIRC - been so long since looked at stock SH3 map tho
Not by a long shot.

[AOTD_MadMax]

I hope if there ever is an SH6 (doubtful), they will not neglect the great resource of this community like they did this time.


Hmmm you will see, they are blind like worms.............:damn:
It is an illusion to think that Ubi keeps an eye on things that happend here.
We only can get them on the financial terrain cause thats the first reason why Ubi works out any game.

If we wanne change something we have to work out an commercial strategic concept that they can follow.
The first point in a conceptline of an new SH-Game is, "how we can sell more units".
There we have to interact.
If we are able to create an good logical concept that Ubi shows that this concept will bring them more money, maybe they will open up the ears.

Thats the only way.........

Sorry for my poor english.

Regards

AOTD|MadMax

[urfisch]

Hmmm you will see, they are blind like worms.............:damn:
It is an illusion to think that Ubi keeps an eye on things that happend here.
We only can get them on the financial terrain cause thats the first reason why Ubi works out any game.

If we wanne change something we have to work out an commercial strategic concept that they can follow.
The first point in a conceptline of an new SH-Game is, "how we can sell more units".
There we have to interact.
If we are able to create an good logical concept that Ubi shows that this concept will bring them more money, maybe they will open up the ears.

Thats the only way.........

Sorry for my poor english.

Regards

AOTD|MadMax

simple...they need to involve community and make the game be more free of bugs. it would simply sell better.

:know:

[Uber Gruber]

I seriously think its time the SubSim community wrote it's own SubSim. We have the knowledge, hell we have everything we need here.

If we pooled our resources we could have it done in 6 months tops. It's gonna take longer than that and an equivalent effort just to get SH5 up to scratch anyway by the sound of it, that's if anyone actually buys it!

So....

Just planting seeds...

[Letum]

We have the knowledge, hell we have everything we need here.


We don't have the programmers.

If you want to help with a subsim, speak to the dangerdeep guys.

[urfisch]

We don't have the programmers.

If you want to help with a subsim, speak to the dangerdeep guys.

i also thought about that...but the outer graphics look too odd, more bad than sh3 looks now, compared to the newer graphics. i dont believe, they have a good engine. and im addicted to nice graphics!

finally, if we want a breaking sim, we need to set up an own firm. collect some money from private investors and some financial support from e.g. the european council. but i dont believe, anyone would take the risks to found a new, small studio, focussed on naval or submarine simulations - instead of me.

unknownworlds.com is a good example how it could work.

;)