Why Doesn't Ubisoft put these Modders on the payroll?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sav112

What always gets me is these guys the Mod’s can fix things and change things for the better in a matter of the first few weeks, They can spot obvious mistakes that were obviously missed or just left by the developers in the half arsed why the game was released.


If the Mod’s can do so much in a week then why cant a seemingly professional outfit make such an arse of it

I’m dam sure the game would not end in 1943 that’s for sure if the Mod’s had started it and script the very boring interaction with the crew. What they should have done is got to the stage were they said right “ We have the look now lets get the feeling and depth into the game and nail down the nut and bolts like the Ai etc”

Having met one of the developers personally, I believe that he would have done the same thing, had he been given the chance. If they were told to produce something new, and go in such-and-such a direction, the modders would have been under exactly the same constraints. Modding is done by people who can devote the time to what they want, not to what is required of them.

Also, much of reason that the "Mod’s (sic) can do so much in a week" is because the developers intentionally made it easy for them.

[janh]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Having met one of the developers personally, I believe that he would have done the same thing, had he been given the chance. If they were told to produce something new, and go in such-and-such a direction, the modders would have been under exactly the same constraints. Modding is done by people who can devote the time to what they want, not to what is required of them.

Also, much of reason that the "Mod’s (sic) can do so much in a week" is because the developers intentionally made it easy for them.

You get to the core of the problem. Modders are members of a community dedicated to their "genre" and ideas, say for subsim it be realism and creating the "one simulation experience" of realistic and utmost detailed U-Boat warfare. They know what most subsim members here are probably seeking, and what Neal gathered from this forum and mentioned as the wishlist in his review.
Had the developers, or whoever in the Ubisoft framework makes and directs the design decisions and fund allocation, considered that as the basic ideas that need to be implemented into SHIII to make it at least appealing to hardcore fans, then many people here would probably by now feel like in heaven.

On top of that, the devs would have needed to add something that would give casual customers the impression that really hold a new game in their hand whose features sound new and different (when they compare the screenshots and description on the boxes, or in the reviews to what the knew from the predecessor -- I bet few would either realize that the graphics are polished up, or care so much, but most would realize that they never ever walked through their boat in any subsim before!).

[OakGroove]

What always gets me is these guys the Mod’s can fix things and change things for the better in a matter of the first few weeks

Except for the "new and exciting features" introduced in SH5, little has changed under the hood. It´s not breaking new ground, as was the case with SH3.

[sav112]

I do think that the Mods probably are more intune with the workings after all this time as if you say the Basic stuff is much the same. But to me if the guts of the game are much the same then why is it still so poorly bugged.


Are the Development staff different from the staff that did SHIII as it looks like they have no familiarity with the stuff as you put it under the hood that the Mod's do.

[McHub532]

Originally Posted by sav112

Are the Development staff different from the staff that did SHIII as it looks like they have no familiarity with the stuff as you put it under the hood that the Mod's do.

It just occurred to me: Perhaps Ubisoft is reinventing the wheel? They turn out a product with bugs and errors and of which is a horrid professional embarrassment and the people responsible fade off and leave the company in shame. --> They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

I guess some things in life are meant to cause you to stop, blink three times, shake your head and say, "What the???".

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by McHub532

They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

It's the same people, or at least, it's the same people in the positions that matter. The question of why the same bugs are re-introduced (or never fixed) despite them being complained about constantly has never been answered in any way. The developers do browse there forums and they do take notice and it does influence them, but some things just stay broken. Why that is, I can't answer. The question was raised recently why SH5 had the same bugs that SH3 and SH4 had, but no answer was forthcoming. It's just a bit weird you know... like the bug reports are being ignored as irrelevant to the grand design. SH4's TDC was never patched to work properly and remained broken for (assuming there will be no further patches for it) ever.

[pythos]

Very simple reason.....They would have to pay, which cuts into the share holder's dividends. Just like everything that is going to the sh*t pot. Greed.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by kylania

Because that would cost money and rather than have the time to do the amazing job they are doing they'd be in crunch mode to finish a product with no time and no budget and we'd end up with what we ended up with.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Originally Posted by McHub532

It just occurred to me: Perhaps Ubisoft is reinventing the wheel? They turn out a product with bugs and errors and of which is a horrid professional embarrassment and the people responsible fade off and leave the company in shame. --> They hire new people.... who make the same product with a new name on it and don't realize that the people before them made all the same mistakes and that they are only repeating history again.

I am probably wrong. I keep trying to think of why a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed. Why put out another program with the errors in it from years ago; that were fixed already?

I guess some things in life are meant to cause you to stop, blink three times, shake your head and say, "What the???".

And after they leave they do the only decent thing and perform seppuku

While there were and are many on the SH Dev teams who are not happy with what they were allowed to release and there is a strong attachment to the product, it is in the end a job.

As for high turn over and making the same mistakes, if that was the case then no program or programming as a whole would evolve. I work for government and we have a lot of in-house applications which are very complex and must interact with many other government agencies who also have a lot of in-house applications which are very complex we are able to continue to improve/add to the applications even though the contracted programmers come and go by the dozen.


The reason that "a company would not fix bugs and errors in a program that modders here already fixed" comes down to reviews and the way in which Ubi operates.

The people who need to hear the 'true' message are the executives. It is the executives who set the policy and procedures. Dan and the Dev team can only work within the framework set out by the policy and procedures.

There is an industry wide issue with the reviews of games and this has resulted in the executives not hearing the true message which is how your game really rates. Too often reviews score on how much we want access to your products for exclusives and/or how much you spend on advertising or if we are too honest we may not get another one.

• Why video game reviews suck: part one
• Why video game reviews suck: part two

I would also add backward perspective is needed i.e. "the submarine is still able to submerge after being hit with several 3" shells and this has not been fixed since SH3, why not?" and so on.

While Dan and others are here and at other forums this sites feedback and helps Dan & crew but does not change the policy and procedures that have resulted in the situation where none of the old invisible or even visible issues are addressed and where the development cycle only allows for releases which are nowhere near completed and introduce many new issues.

The other issue as I see it is that Ubi do not have an effective internal peer review system and/or feedback loops, again this comes back to the executives.

However obvious it may be from the outside that they need an effective peer review system and feedback loops it is hard for a organisation to see because often they are lost in the day to day operations of what they do and do not have the time and/or the expertise to be able to reflect inward by themselves and as noted above, the way in which games are reviewed compounds this as game reviews would be probably the only peer review system and feedback loops used by Ubi in this instance.

So, would you like to hear my long answer?

[McHub532]

Thank you Der Teddy Bar.

Seriously.. very good response and well worth reading.

[mcarlsonus]

They need a, "PEER review" system, not a, "PIER review" system! A, "pier review" is what one does while, "peer-ing" at ones boat from the dock.

ANYWAY, back to message ---- why are there still bugs in SH5 that've been around since earlier versions! Simple! Because SH5 was built on previous versions and, like Microsoft, they never eliminated anything - whether it became a relic or not! In SH5, they simply DEACTIVATED useful stuff - didn't kill it off!

[Heretic]

Great idea. Then everyone could bitch about how those greedy modders sold out.

[McHub532]

Originally Posted by Heretic

Great idea. Then everyone could bitch about how those greedy modders sold out.

I absolutely adore the modders here. Honest.. almost bordering a bro-mance here. heh

[Faamecanic]

Originally Posted by sav112

What always gets me is these guys the Mod’s can fix things and change things for the better in a matter of the first few weeks, They can spot obvious mistakes that were obviously missed or just left by the developers in the half arsed why the game was released.


If the Mod’s can do so much in a week then why cant a seemingly professional outfit make such an arse of it

I’m dam sure the game would not end in 1943 that’s for sure if the Mod’s had started it and script the very boring interaction with the crew. What they should have done is got to the stage were they said right “ We have the look now lets get the feeling and depth into the game and nail down the nut and bolts like the Ai etc”

Dont forget the MODDERS of SH3 and 4 did GREAT MODS, fixed a TON of stuff that was BROKE EVEN AFTER UBI SAID "NO MORE PATCHES" and they didnt even have a SDK OR ACCESS TO THE CODE! UBI and the devs DO!

Again proving that 1) our modders are HEROS and 2) UBI SUXXORS.... (I will still not blame the devs...but its getting harder with each release when I see stuff that has been broke for over 5 years now being put in the next release).

[Faamecanic]

Originally Posted by McHub532

What about bragging rights?
Let our amazing modders here in on the product before it's released to the product. They could drag out the ... "If you knew what I knew.. SH6 is going to blow your mind.." We'd be drooling and elbowing each other to buy the next product.
Pay them with an easter egg per modder, their names in the 'credits' page and drop them each $1000. It would be the most cost effective thing the company ever did. They'd make $100,000 on a $10,000 investment. At LEAST!

^^ THIS ^^^

Its not like it would take a salary to get a lot of these modders here working on an OFFICIAL release of the next SH series....

Also... like I have said before.... why not get the dedicated members/MODDERS here to BETA test? They are good at keeping a secret even without a NDA (damn GWX devs/modders always kept us guessing )