Burn Witches! Burn!

[kylania]

I don't really blame the devs. They've made us some beautiful and amazing games, but in all fairness they have shipped a game made nearly unplayable due to bugs then failed to meet two promised patch release dates. As nice as they are and as much as you trust them, that's a pretty poor performance. Especially since at this point, we don't have any idea when the patch will be coming.

Combine this with the completely unacceptable level of quality, and poor support and utter lack of communication from their publisher Ubisoft and you're starting to get into pitchfork and torches territory.

Combine all of that with the most insane and Draconian DRM scheme ever, and... you get where we are today.

So, love them or hate them, the cards are stacked a mile high against the devs. Patch 1.2 needs to kick some ass and get into players hands very quickly or I doubt you'll see the community turn around much.

[Navarre]

Originally Posted by kylania

I don't really blame the devs. They've made us some beautiful and amazing games, but in all fairness they have shipped a game made nearly unplayable due to bugs then failed to meet two promised patch release dates.

And they have the experience of the SH4 development (some even from SH3) which bugs and flaws may occur in such a project and that the estimated schedule not fit but they make the same mistakes over and over again.
Either they appreciate the schedule always wrong or let it extremely shorten by the managers without protest. The studio in Bucharest is not an independent studio, it is Ubisosft and as Ubisoft they have to accept the responsibility for the game.

[kylania]

Originally Posted by Navarre

The studio in Bucharest is not an independent studio, it is Ubisosft and as Ubisoft they have to accept the responsibility for the game.

Oh, they have accepted the responsibility for the game. But that's Dan posting on his own, I haven't seen anyone else from Ubisoft corporate be that honest---actually, I haven't seen anyone else from Ubisoft period. Their only official communications have been patch notes and announcements. No one is keeping us updated officially with what's happening.

Originally Posted by Reece

However, what I think is that the developers are under such a strain of pressure from the producers (higher up) that they give the go ahead knowing it's not ready but don't really have a choice in the matter, it must get frustrating when they are told to "wrap it up" for release!!

The odd thing is that Splinter Cell was pushed back several weeks to "polish it" and just today R.U.S.E. was pushed back to September to make it better. Given the state of SH5, wonder why that didn't happen here since SH5 is obviously the black sheep of the Ubisoft family given how much attention and press it's gotten, ie none.

[Adriatico]

Originally Posted by kylania

The odd thing is that Splinter Cell was pushed back several weeks to "polish it" and just today R.U.S.E. was pushed back to September to make it better. Given the state of SH5, wonder why that didn't happen here since SH5 is obviously the black sheep of the Ubisoft family given how much attention and press it's gotten, ie none.

Good brain usage...

As I said before... m a y b e it was "offline" GWX4 that should not take place of "DRM baby"... if it was announced for October2010 ?

Flame suite is on!

[captainprid]

Just out of interest, I would love to know the following, obviously I never will but it would be nice to know:

How many developers worked on the game
What was the production budget
What time restraints were put on the developers
What was the development budget compared to the marketing budget
What is the budget for further game development
and
How many devs are still working on the game post release


I think if you answer these questions, you will know who is to blame for the condition of SHV

[kylania]

Originally Posted by captainprid

What was the production budget
What was the development budget compared to the marketing budget
What is the budget for further game development

You missed "What was the beer budget?", perhaps the most important budget when designing games.

[captainprid]

Originally Posted by kylania

You missed "What was the beer budget?", perhaps the most important budget when designing games.

[tonschk]

.


........ I LOVE the DRM , and I am very Very HAPPY with the DRM , and I hope UBISOFT will NEVER ... NEVER turn off the DRM

.... What I really REALLY HATE are the pirates


.

[Zedi]

Originally Posted by tonschk

.


........ I LOVE the DRM , and I am very Very HAPPY with the DRM , and I hope UBISOFT will NEVER ... NEVER turn off the DRM

.... What I really REALLY HATE are the pirates


.

Lol, you are valkyrie the only guy on Ubi forum who has nothing else to say than stuff like... "I love SH5, awesome game, ty so much Ubi".
Now this "I LOVE the DRM" line is new, I think you need to crash dive

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by tonschk

.


........ I LOVE the DRM , and I am very Very HAPPY with the DRM , and I hope UBISOFT will NEVER ... NEVER turn off the DRM

.... What I really REALLY HATE are the pirates


.

Since this thread had nothing to do with DRM, I can only assume that you are a Troll...

A very sad, pathetic, angry, and possibly even confused, ...troll.

[mcarlsonus]

SH5 has all the qualities of an, "end-of-life" product, i.e. Ubi promised it, but, realizing it's a niche product that doesn't appeal to the now-prevalent, "ADHD-affected" target market (a.k.a., "shoot something, reload, shoot something"), released it prematurely when the allocated budget had been used up. I don't expect to EVER see an SH6 and was actually surprised when they announced they'd release a Patch addressing certain crippling gameplay issues. 'Course, then again, "where IS that Patch," etc., etc., etc.

[Spartan]

For what it is worth, I blame the collective management team - Studio & Ubi decision makers.

[McBeck]

Enough Placoderm and tonschk with the personal attacks...

Keep it clean and back on topic

[Faamecanic]

I somewhat disagree with you Privateer.... but here is why.

IF the devs KNEW the timeline and budget they had before starting development of SH5, then they HAD to know that were in over thier heads. They over promised and under-achived.... meanwhile letting bugs that have been known bugs since SH3 slip through yet again, because they didnt "have time" to address them. That is unexcusable.

IF UBI placed the demands for all the extra goodies, knowing full well the timeline and budget, and ignored the devs in saying "It will be a challange to get that much done on this timeline, with this budget" (in the corporate world that is saying there is no way this can be done, without sounding negative), then shame on UBI for pressuring the Devs.

Bottom line is I can excuse all the minor bugs, I can excuse the lack of depth with the Crew interactions, I can excuse the war ending in 1943, and I can excuse the fact that we only have one sub to command.

What I find totally unacceptable is the bugs that have migrated from each of the SH series that are hard-coded. I find it unaceptable that the UI is an abomination that MOST subsimmers abhor. And I find it unacceptable that any product can be released in such an unfinished state, no matter who is to blame.

That last point needs careful thought. Sure...we here at subsim know our Modders will fix and make SH5 great. But out of all the people that bought SH5... I bet we are a small part of that population. So for the larger part of the population that bought SH5, that have no idea about the moddability of this franchise, how does that look on Ubi? Will these simmers/gamers buy the NEXT SH release (doubtful). How many simmers have been lost with sH3's unfinished release, how many with SH4??

Just look at the title to the review of SH5 in PC Gamer Magazine (the largest US Gamer magazine) .... "20,000 Beta tests Under the sea" and the 55 out of 100 rating. How much harm did that do the franchise's future sales?

IF the devs wanted to chock all this new stuff in to make us happy (and I suspect themselves also) I applaud thier vision. But sometimes you have to reign in your desires and dreams and be realistic.

To me it looks like the Devs vision, while grand!, did more harm than good to the franchise. And releasing a sim that is open and moddable will not help the sales numbers, which in the end is all UBI looks at.

If we are such a niche market, I would think it bad to discourage potential buyers with every release.

Thats my .02 cents...

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Faamecanic

I somewhat disagree with you Privateer.... but here is why.

IF the devs KNEW the timeline and budget they had before starting development of SH5, then they HAD to know that were in over thier heads. They over promised and under-achived.... meanwhile letting bugs that have been known bugs since SH3 slip through yet again, because they didnt "have time" to address them. That is unexcusable.

IF UBI placed the demands for all the extra goodies, knowing full well the timeline and budget, and ignored the devs in saying "It will be a challange to get that much done on this timeline, with this budget" (in the corporate world that is saying there is no way this can be done, without sounding negative), then shame on UBI for pressuring the Devs.

Bottom line is I can excuse all the minor bugs, I can excuse the lack of depth with the Crew interactions, I can excuse the war ending in 1943, and I can excuse the fact that we only have one sub to command.

What I find totally unacceptable is the bugs that have migrated from each of the SH series that are hard-coded. I find it unaceptable that the UI is an abomination that MOST subsimmers abhor. And I find it unacceptable that any product can be released in such an unfinished state, no matter who is to blame.

That last point needs careful thought. Sure...we here at subsim know our Modders will fix and make SH5 great. But out of all the people that bought SH5... I bet we are a small part of that population. So for the larger part of the population that bought SH5, that have no idea about the moddability of this franchise, how does that look on Ubi? Will these simmers/gamers buy the NEXT SH release (doubtful). How many simmers have been lost with sH3's unfinished release, how many with SH4??

Just look at the title to the review of SH5 in PC Gamer Magazine (the largest US Gamer magazine) .... "20,000 Beta tests Under the sea" and the 55 out of 100 rating. How much harm did that do the franchise's future sales?

IF the devs wanted to chock all this new stuff in to make us happy (and I suspect themselves also) I applaud thier vision. But sometimes you have to reign in your desires and dreams and be realistic.

To me it looks like the Devs vision, while grand!, did more harm than good to the franchise. And releasing a sim that is open and moddable will not help the sales numbers, which in the end is all UBI looks at.

If we are such a niche market, I would think it bad to discourage potential buyers with every release.

Thats my .02 cents...

Dealing with projects is never simple - Things always go wrong. You can have a budget, you can a scope and you can have a plan, but the fact is that sooooo many things can and will happen. Its all about how you deal with it.
In this case we will never know the full story - thats for sure.