Not too mention AC2 has a replay value of about 0, while SH5 (with the proper support it needs after release) will still be played 5 years from now.

So.. this is some kind of excuse to make an unfinished game as there is plenty of time to fix it?
And ofc there was more investement in AC. I think there is more work to do in building up cities in details than build up one submarine.

Anyway, I don't really care about details, if is the devs or the publisher fault.. Ubi is one company and they just fail to develop a finished SH product. Maybe they should hire some moders from here to develop SH6.. if there will be any further release.

Where the heck did you get that from? :huh:

Just saying you can't compare AC2 to SH5. :-?

While setting dates and budget constrains is part of the publisher job (and thus, the blame falls on Ubisoft) I think the developers have their part of guilt. The new interface layout and look have been heavily criticized and there's no doubt it was an internal design decision.

I'm pretty sure that if SH5 were just like SH4+UBM with improved graphics (and maybe the ability to move around the sub freely), except for a few individuals, the community here would have welcomed it with open arms.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been any criticism, maybe centered around the lack of innovation, but at least it would have been a solid base from which start modding.

From the point of publisher, yes. But that's single part of the movie, and if you ask me the picture is much, much bigger.

I have to buy that film one day :D

You mean like SH4 that has been collecting dust on my shelf shortly after the last patch (the one we had to PAY for that came only with Uboat missions) that STILL left immersion destroying bugs galore.

I went back to SH3 with GWX.... sure I could have tried TM or RFB.... but just didnt care to being as GWX was so engaging (and still is).

+10 totally agree. The new UI the devs dreamed up was total FAIL, Uber FAIL, EPIC FAIL.

Just take what was GOOD (the devs knew darn well what we liked and disliked about SH4) and keep it. FIX the crap that was still broke in SH4, update graphics, and walking through the sub was BONUS. They could have released an epic subsim that would have floored almost all users.

you must not know about my UIs mod :hmmm:

I do Wraith (and THANKS for your work).

Again my point is, and always has been, when critizing UBI on thier shoddy workmanship is

UBI RELEASED AN INCOMPLETE PRODUCT! UBI SHOULD NOT RELY ON MODS TO FIX WHAT THEY NEGLECTED.

THANK GOD FOR OUR TALENTED AND DEDICATED MODDERS!

The above was for emphasis...not shouting :yep: A mod should be to improve game play, or change game play..... not to make something work that is broken or poorly thought out that 90% of the users think is bad (i.e. the morale system in SH5).

I get it - honestly I really do.

You see I've read it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

That's personal preference; for me it was SH3 that was collecting dust. Doesn't change that you can't compare SH to AC. :-?

Saying that the release of a buggy, unfinished, problematic software product is the developers' team responsability, shows an absolute ignorance about how software firms work.

I have worked in two software companies, and have worked at IT for more than 20 years. And I have seen the same problem many many times, and it's always the same: The publisher is the one who has a marketing schedule, the publisher is the one who sets the released dates, not based on the real product schedule, but on their marketing needs. The publisher is the one who cuts down on costs, developer resources, and time to get things done. The publisher is the one who won't let things go their way, have a finished product, test it, write some good manuals, and only then release it. The publisher is the one who selects a terrible DRM protection system that is a show stopper for many of us.

Please, don't get me started on the business model of software publishing. For ... sake, Microsoft is the biggest software publishing company in the world, and they have released such terrible products like Windows Me and Windows Vista, for marketing reasons, unfinished and buggy. You really think they have bad developers? C'mon, and get some information.

About the UI, I don't own SH5 so I can't tell, but usually those decisions are not in the hands of the developers.

I know you get it.... most do not.

Never played AC so I cant compare it. My point was when are people going to STOP defending Ubi and the crap they put out.

SH 3, 4, and now 5 would be total fail and only playable for a short time if not for our talented modders. Period. And that is unacceptable and reprehensible for a company with any dignity to put there name on a product that relies on FREE mods to fix it. But to do that 3 times in a row??

Frankly if I was a modder I would be INSULTED by UBI and those saying "look we left it more open and mod friendly for you...arent we great!"

MALE BOVINE FECAL MATTER. You left it open and moddable because you KNEW you were releasing a piece of garbage. And you are DEPENDING on the mod community to fix it..... :nope: :nope: If they wanted to leave the game open to modding....then release the SDK and stop screwing with us.