Just an observation...

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by Reece

I can't understand why Ubisoft released it in such a state! What logic is there for releasing a game unfinished, full of bugs, lack of support with OSP/DRM!
Surely it must be that they abandoned it for whose knows what reason, a reputable company would never do this, totally bad publicity, what is there marketing ploy??? Mind boggling though isn't it, and if the Developers had no hand in this it would have to be a huge embarrassment.

I'm guessing their development plan was patterned after something like this:

Poor design.

Too many things, from prior titles, "fixed", that were not broken.

Too many errors, from prior titles, ignored.

The "icing on the cake", was leasing, as opposed to selling, the game.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Poor design.

Too many things, from prior titles, "fixed", that were not broken.

Too many errors, from prior titles, ignored.

The "icing on the cake", was leasing, as opposed to selling, the game.

Awfully expensive lease for that pile of ....!

Originally Posted by Reece

Awfully expensive lease for that pile of ....!

You got that right!

[Catfish]

Hello,
it's not just about the state of the sim. SH IV was not especially developed either. SH3 would look awkward meanwhile without the mods.

The problem with SH V is the internet connection requirement, which is so interwoven with the game that you cannot leave it out judging the sim.
And then the internet connection or UBI servers fail all the time leaving you unable to play, also destroying your online-saved games now and then. And they call it a feature
This is why UBIsoft gets fire from all directions .. and rightly so.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Raptor1]

One of the marks of a game company's transition to 'evil corporation' status is the complete disregard to the players; basically telling the players that they should want to play whatever game and in whatever way the company wants rather than making games the way the players want them.

This sums it up perfectly:

Why is Ubisoft forcing their loyal customers to sign up for a Ubisoft account when they don't want to give their private data and only play single player games?

We hope that customers will feel as we do, that signing up for an account will offer them exceptional gameplay and services that are not available otherwise.

EA has been like this for years, but I actually considered Ubisoft a decent company until this mess...

[Jimbuna]

IMHO the majority of complaints relating to the need to be on line before you were able to play would have easily been overcome if they (Ubisoft) had incorporated a similar requirement to Steam....the ability to play single player offline.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by Weiss Pinguin

I'm guessing their development plan was patterned after something like this:

Well phase 1 seemed ok!