[janh]

I guess the questions are quite valid, and honest, though likely also uncomfortable. I don't know whether a developer would have the authority to answer those questions, or whether it would better involve a higher level authority at Ubisoft.


Improved -- improved as compared to what standard?

Sure, it has changed. As the change out target audience that Ubisoft attempted would require. It doesn't seem that they have cut back on the simulation part, but added another layer of a "casual-customer more accessible", more "arcade style" simplification. Including, and perhaps most obvious the interface.

The changed the focus of the game, narrowing the time-frame to the "Happy Times" for german U-Bootler. They added a dynamic element to the campaign, subdiving it in "missions" in certain areas of operation and giving it some kind of dynamic feedback reaction to player activities (whatever exactly that is now -- I guess most of us only know what the FAQ and previews mentioned, so very little). They took another try at polishing up the look and graphics, which is also most enticing to casual gamers (and likely less important to simulation-oriented players).

Sure, it has bugs, and after SHIII and SHIV that is surely no surprise. Though one would expect that someone at Ubisoft could have thought of the connection between low-sales volume and the intial state of the release, which of course was mirrored in many previews, reviews and forum posts here. All of which may have -- and for me this is true -- guided other potential customers and convinced them to find a different toy.

I am not quite sure why this time the bugginess appears to be even a worse debacle judging from the ongoing discussions and posts here. Initially I had the impression aside from the moral bug it was more stable than SHIV initial. Maybe it is not.

But maybe people receive it much more critically these days. That could have to do with the high expectations, partly raised by promises. Partly a major lack of information transfer from Ubisoft to the community before the release surely also added into misleading expectations, as speculation partly filled the information gap. As someone said on another thread, many expected something more of "wolf pack/dynamic campaign/AI" patch for SHIII (i.e. keeping changes to its backbone and features otherwise minimal), rather than something different.
Lastly, I have the impression people are generally angered (unhappy doesn't seem to be enough to describe it) by the DRM scheme. And that anger blends into their judgement of SHV, quite naturally. To make up for the DRM problem, SHV must logically offer something ground-breaking to be worthy of the money. I bet if not for the DRM, SHV would have been received very differently.

As for me, I clearly see a lack in the information policy. Lots of misconception as to the bias and focus of the game could have been avoided initially. But it was DRM that sunk it.