Quote:
Originally Posted by TDK1044
I'm so over this 'be nice to Ubisoft because they are the only Publisher producing subsims' argument. It looks to me like SH5 is very modable...we just need to be able to play it offline in order to really enjoy it. 
|
I automatically assume this is directed to me
(and that's fine), but I do want to point out that I have always maintained that we should be nice to
any publisher that makes a decent submarine game, not only Ubisoft. And by "be nice", of course no one means "unconditional love". But we should try not to adopt a hostile, unreasonable attitude. We should separate ourselves as subsim enthusiasts from the militant consumers that judge everything purely on the weight of their hard earned moneyİ It is possible to be critical AND nice....
I like to "be nice" to everyone!
(When possible).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcall
Ya good point They;ve released 3 sub sims since 2005. Hardly signs of a dead market :-)
The only reason they might drop the franchise is if they werent satisfied with the profit margin , based on what they were spending on dev and marketing. So whereas Ubi might think a 20% margin on a spend of $3million ($600,000) is pittance compared to what some games return, to a smaller dev house that would be a decent outcome. All devs and artists well paid and profit to boot.
|
I wonder how much impact there is on the aspect that there are some really fanatical history buffs and submarine-loving devs in Bucharest....
You know what I mean? If the guys in Ubi Romania that are passionate about submarine warfare were not around, would Ubi have made SH3, 4, 5 ? Or, did those games, especially SH4 and 5, see the light of day mainly because Ubisoft knows they have a valuable resource and decided to utilize it? I imagine there is a big fixed cost in getting educated about the millions of historical details a sub simulation like SH3-5, and now that the FC has been invested, Ubi thinks they should keep it invested....
Just a thought.....