Ubisoft profits

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You know what? We're lucky to have what we have. Where's the gratitude?

There is SH3. I give them gratitude for that, and DWX also. concerning "you reap what you sow" - there were more complains than just what you mentioned with SH4, the thing obviously was published in poor shape, so: they indeed reaped the feedback that they had sowed. as long as a half-finished games comes not at at half-price, my compassion is limited. And if half-finished games are what you label as "we are lucky with what we have" - okay, you are spending your money, not mine. with that level of forgiveness and willingness to pay for even that little what you get - you will never get something complete, and better. Because they get away with it like it is right now, they see. so why should they do better?

Fact is it has become a rule that things get rush-released before being completed and finished, not too mention polished (let'S not demand too much: for example the standard we used to expect from every other kind of product that we usually buy...). Excuse that kind of customer-slapping, and pay for it, and they will continue to do so. Penalize them by keeping your money, and sooner or later they will see the need to perform better, or will leave business. If the latter, and PC games die, okay: let them die. Who wants to pay full price for half-finished things, and need to hope for another couple of months (even years!), and all too often even then being left behind dissappointed! that's a trip I do not book any longer, but maybe I'm just becoming too old for that kind of mediocre "fun". And there are example that illustrate that developoers could very well perform better, if only they want.

Releasing complete and finished games is possible. Strange that one must point that out.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Skybird

as long as a half-finished games comes not at at half-price, my compassion is limited.
...
Excuse that kind of customer-slapping, and pay for it, and they will continue to do so. Penalize them by keeping your money, and sooner or later they will see the need to perform better, or will leave business. If the latter, and PC games die, okay: let them die. Who wants to pay full price for half-finished things, and need to hope for another couple of months (even years!), and all too often even then being left behind dissappointed! that's a trip I do not book any longer, but maybe I'm just becoming too old for that kind of mediocre "fun". And there are example that illustrate that developoers could very well perform better, if only they want.

Releasing complete and finished games is possible. Strange that one must point that out.

What is full price? I would argue that we are getting games on the cheap now. We are not willing to pay the price of a fully developed game. Therefore we get what we WILL pay for: the best submarine simulators in the world.

Everything you buy for a good price is thanks to people with more money than sense who buy these products for twice what you paid for it before the product was even ready for market! Your whiz-bang graphics card that you bought for the European equivalent of $200 or less is because some yahoo paid the equivalent of $650 for it when it didn't work right! The computer you bought at a good price was made possible by the one who paid three times as much to be your beta tester. Pioneers get the cool stuff but they do so at the cost of paying too much for products that don't work right yet. Thank God for rich people! Wish there were more of them.

If the product were developed until it was perfect and ready for market, nobody would buy it because it would already be obsolete. Part of the successful marketing of many products is to release it before it is perfected to those who are the early adopters. They will provide the income stream necessary to optimize production, perfect the product and get unit costs down for the mass market. This works for kitchen appliances, automobiles, boats, electronic appliances and others I am not mentioning (brain fade....).

Compassion is misplaced when talking about simple economics. There are strategies that work and those that don't. What you desire just doesn't work. The result would be releasing the perfect game that nobody would be interested in buying. They would be buying the much jazzier, more feature rich, cutting edge game that wasn't perfect yet.

You are just not an early adopter, but you have engaged in early adopter behavior not coherent with your tolerance for imperfection. You would be much happier purchasing a game after the inevitable patches have come out, after the necessary mods have been made, and after the game is less than half the price of its initial release. Then you reap the benefit of those who enjoy being on the leading edge (that doesn't include me either, by the way. I just know who butters my toast and thank them for it.) and who don't mind paying too much to be beta testers! I paid $15 for SH4 from someone who found they did not enjoy beta testing either. :rotfl:I got to be a pioneer on the cheap!

Holy cow! 7900 posts. My hat's off to you!

[Skybird]

"What is full price?"

To make it short, a PC game for 39-55 euros is considered to be "full price" these days. And there are games that get delivered in a state that show that for that money you can get a game with only so little flaws that they are not seriously hindering gameplay, and advertised features are not broken or missing. so, if the biggest companies cannot manage to get a completed product being delivered for that money, and patched in a reasonable ammount of time (everything beyond 3-4 months does not qualify for that descprition, I would say, because if it takes longer, the product was in a too poor shape for release), then this does not mean that it cannot be done, but indicates bad management and customer-hostile marketing practice.

As I said, you spend your money - not mine. And that is good so. So, go ahead spending your money, if you wish. One thing I am sure: it is a long time since I needed to wait long for a needed patch to a game that I already had wasted money on. I can only recommend everybody not to buy games in the release month, but to wait some weeks, maybe even 2-3 months - that will save you a lot of dissapointments and anger, and will deliver a strong message (voting by your wallets) to companies that thy can no longe rget away so easily with your money. Games that failed me over the last years were the few exceptions were I did not follow this my own rule - and these exceptions ALL failed me, as far as i remember. My losses serve me right, then.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I can only recommend everybody not to buy games in the release month, but to wait some weeks, maybe even 2-3 months - that will save you a lot of dissapointments and anger, and will deliver a strong message (voting by your wallets) to companies that thy can no longe rget away so easily with your money.

Hear! Hear! on the first part. But the message will not be delivered or received. They are proceeding as economic experience dictates, with concern only for what works best for them. When results change, they will change. I am perfectly happy waiting 3 to 6 months after a game is published to buy.

Buy you and I will never be driving forces in the economy, because we insist the economy work for us. We do not work and spend for it. Economies are driven by those who from our vantage point appear to have more money than sense.