SH5 patch #2

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by ggregoro

It is fairly evident that this company, or at least this business unit of the company, does not know how to run a software development project. Whatever happened to under promise over deliver? It's a good bet that they don't have the "A" team working on this patch and the project manager is pretty much clueless as to their capabilities.

The guiding principles of the Montgomery Scott School of Project Management:
1. When the client asks for a new project, even when the specs are clear, deny the possibility of the task being able to be accomplished.
2. If pressed, multiply by 4 (or 8) the amount of time you think it might take.
3. When it only takes you twice as much time as you originally estimate, you will come out ahead by a factor of two (or four).
Ben Adams
http://mouthyamerican.blogspot.com/2...f-project.html

I will see your "Space-Guys in their Jammies" quote and raise you one from the Ubisoft Q3 Financial statement...

Sales for the third quarter of 2009-10 came to €495 million

Clearly they don't have a clue about how to run a software development project.

And this Project Manager is an actual person (as opposed to a character on a bad 60's sci-fi program) and is a friend of mine so you might want to think twice about slandering someone who you have never even met.


JCC

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by John Channing

I will see your "Space-Guys in their Jammies" quote and raise you one from the Ubisoft Q3 Financial statement...




Clearly they don't have a clue about how to run a software development project.

And this Project Manager is an actual person (as opposed to a character on a bad 60's sci-fi program) and is a friend of mine so you might want to think twice about slandering someone who you have never even met.


JCC

Oh keep defending UBISOFT. We wouldn't expect any criticism from a subsim mod..

[hawk2495]

Originally Posted by Reaves

Oh keep defending UBISOFT. We wouldn't expect any criticism from a subsim mod..

That is a bit unfair.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by hawk2495

That is a bit unfair.

So is life unfortunately. A good example is paying US$49.95 for a game not worth playing. When it will be worth playing I could purchase it for $14.95.

I can only blame myself though.. Been through this with every SH release.. nothing new here.

[Reece]

@ JCC, Reaves is correct, UBISoft had not right to sell a product, eagerly collecting peoples money, in such a poor state as this!
SH3 1.4b stock was very playable with a few bugs, SH4 1.5 stock is playable with many bugs, but SH5 so far is hardly worth playing at all. Quality is going down hill fast! and sorry but Dan and the rest of the devs as well as the producers (both UBISoft) are directly responsible for this mess! This product should be recalled!!

[Sgtmonkeynads]

It's 4-20 so maybe the guy that was supposed to upload the patch was doing something else.

[kylania]

Originally Posted by Reece

@ JCC, Reaves is correct, UBISoft had not right to sell a product, eagerly collecting peoples money, in such a poor state as this!
SH3 1.4b stock was very playable with a few bugs, SH4 1.5 stock is playable with many bugs, but SH5 so far is hardly worth playing at all. Quality is going down hill fast! and sorry but Dan and the rest of the devs as well as the producers (both UBISoft) are directly responsible for this mess! This product should be recalled!!

... you're trying to compare Silent Hunter III's final patch with out of the box Silent Hunter 5? Really? Perhaps you forgot all the changes that went into making Silent Hunter III playable? SH III was close to this buggy when it came out.

Last Week/Today's missed patch would have gone a long way in making SH5 playable, but to compare a final patch game with an out of the box game (with only one tiny day 1 patch) is just absurd.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by kylania

... you're trying to compare Silent Hunter III's final patch with out of the box Silent Hunter 5? Really? Perhaps you forgot all the changes that went into making Silent Hunter III playable? SH III was close to this buggy when it came out.

Last Week/Today's missed patch would have gone a long way in making SH5 playable, but to compare a final patch game with an out of the box game (with only one tiny day 1 patch) is just absurd.

Not at all, SH3 at v1.1 still had nowhere near the bugs plus you had many U-Boat types and 1945 end (and no OSP/DRM), it was much more playable than this, I remember very well!, SH4 was abandoned with still far too many bugs, and no amount of patching will fix SH5, it may be slightly improved but never fixed.
It doesn't matter which way you look at it, it should not have been released in the state it was/is.

[ggregoro]

Originally Posted by John Channing

I will see your "Space-Guys in their Jammies" quote and raise you one from the Ubisoft Q3 Financial statement...Sales for the third quarter of 2009-10 came to €495 million

Clearly they don't have a clue about how to run a software development project.

And this Project Manager is an actual person (as opposed to a character on a bad 60's sci-fi program) and is a friend of mine so you might want to think twice about slandering someone who you have never even met.

JCC

So what are you saying here? The fact that the PM is a personal friend of yours qualifies his competence? I do not doubt that Ubisoft makes a lot of sales. However in this instance I have an issue with how they've done it. What was the profit on the sales number? If it will help get the software patched I'll apologize and withdrawn my comment.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by ggregoro

So what are you saying here? The fact that the PM is a personal friend of yours qualifies his competence? I do not doubt that Ubisoft makes a lot of sales. However in this instance I have an issue with how they've done it. What was the profit on the sales number? If it will help get the software patched I'll apologize and withdrawn my comment.

I thought that would be self-evident but OK.. I will explain.

It's basic physics. To every action there is an equal and oposite reaction.

See, this is supposed to be a forum for the mature discussion of submarine simulations. Subsim.com has always benefited from having a close relationship with the developers of submarine simulations (not just Dan and his team). We know some of these people personally and know that they are enthusiasts, are extremely knowledgeable and passionate about their craft, and possess more knowledge about submarines that any of us will ever have.

So when someone who has barely even bothered to participate in this community starts throwing terms like "clueless" around about someone they have never even met, and makes foolish statements about Ubisoft, one of the largest and most profitable game publishers in the world, not knowing "how to run a software development project", and then finishes off with a bad Star Trek analogy... well, you just gotta expect some kind of reaction.

JCC

[SteelViking]

John, thanks for putting some sanity back into threads like this. It takes a patient person to do what you do.

[Reaves]

Ubisoft have let the Silent Hunter series down once again, plain and simple.

It is not good enough to say "it's a genre with a small fanbase so we should be happy they even make the game."

No, we pay good money to beta test. Everyone complaining has every reason to do so. This is not immature, it is people getting frustrated and feeling dudded.

Microprose made Silent Service, which is the grand father of Silent Hunter. If UBISOFT were to not make another, someone else would. It might not be as good but it might be better. Ubisoft didn't make the genre, they didn't make the style. It is the same gameplay I had playing Silent Service, just with the technology of graphics and game engines available today.

I believe SH3 took ideas form Enigma Rising tide with being able to be inside the sub. Previous titles simply had nav maps, stations like periscope and deck.

Ubisoft owe US not the other way around.


-End of Rant. (For today)

[The General]

Originally Posted by John Channing

So when someone who has barely even bothered to participate in this community starts throwing terms like "clueless" around about someone they have never even met, and makes foolish statements about Ubisoft, one of the largest and most profitable game publishers in the world, not knowing "how to run a software development project", and then finishes off with a bad Star Trek analogy... well, you just gotta expect some kind of reaction.

Nice one JC

I think this delay means The Devs are kicking ass and taking names. I think, with the help of members of this very Community, they're having a bloody good go at fixing as much stuff as they can before Ubi says, 'STOP!'.

[Sub Marauder]

I think the patch was on it's way over but the delivery ship was driven by the captain of the Exxon Valdez and it was struck by a DRM torpedo.

[SeamanStaines]

Almost...the patch is stuck on the ship that ran aground on the barrier reef. DRM is killing the coral.