D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And gamers should by now, which genuinely frustrates me. Laboratory rats learn faster than gamers
You can always trust the developer (or how Ubisoft screws you over and over again)
- Thread starter Kaotik
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
They can do this, they did it for Far Cry Primal, announcing in January 2015 that a new Far Cry was coming but they kept it under wraps until it began leaking as Sigma in October 2015 and it launched in February 2016. WATCH_DOGS was bad being shown at E3 2012 and not launching until almost two years later. No Man's Sky is worse having been first teased in 2013 and shown properly in 2014 and that's still not here. GTA V's first trailer was in November 2011 and it launched almost two years later in September 2013. It happens quite a lot. Witcher 3 announced in February 2013, released May 2015. Lots of devs/pubs are doing this. The longer the time, the more scope for change.
I wonder if part of the problem for big devs is pressure from investors and the stock market and for little devs it's maintaining investment for the duration of the project.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
What happened? Also, I've never played it!!
It would help a lot, the bad part is that Ubi has a habit of showing just that (or at least claiming it's live gameplay (or at least recorded gameplay, not in-engine cinematic footage or some such))
Aw... you missed that whole stretch?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Cry_3:_Blood_Dragon#Development_and_release
Basically, folks found evidence of its existence towards the end of March 2013, then UBI released a trailer for it on April 1. Turns out IT IS REAAAL and coming out a month later.
Last edited:
What about when Ubisoft uses the original versions of the footage to sell the game in the current state? Which they've done on several occasions and still do.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That's bad. Where have they done that? Do other countries not have advertising standards enforcement agencies like the UK?
It's a combination of over ambition and pure marketing. In an industry filled with incredible looking games you have to stand out, you want people to notice your game "wow that looks amazing, i want to play it". Of course, that also works internally by putting pressure on internal development of the game "we have to deliver, people have high expectations". What usually happens is that either money or time run dry and you have to deliver something on time and the only way to do that is to start cutting things off. And in the case where you show off how the game looks throughout development you have people being disappointed, FFXV and GTS two recent examples.
The only way to shield yourself from that as a consumer is to not have expectations, it's better to criticize what you have and not what you could have had. Although, i think all this "DOWNGRADATION!" internet drama only really helps improving the issue by having more people notice the current state of the industry even at the expense of comments like "just wait for the downgrade i tell you!" or people going in a game with a confirmation bias just to find something where there's nothing at all.
Of course, all of that happens because publishers show games too early. Best case scenario for gamers is Fallout 4, game shown months before release for the first time -> Almost everything is exactly the same as E3.
The only way to shield yourself from that as a consumer is to not have expectations, it's better to criticize what you have and not what you could have had. Although, i think all this "DOWNGRADATION!" internet drama only really helps improving the issue by having more people notice the current state of the industry even at the expense of comments like "just wait for the downgrade i tell you!" or people going in a game with a confirmation bias just to find something where there's nothing at all.
Of course, all of that happens because publishers show games too early. Best case scenario for gamers is Fallout 4, game shown months before release for the first time -> Almost everything is exactly the same as E3.
Last edited:
Anyone having Rainbow Six Siege can double check the roof ?
I like to have more than one source ^^
Alternatively if I someone can get me the level the roof is on I can ask around
It's true that dev platforms are much higher performance than consoles and they use very high-end hardware, such as Xeon + Latest GPU + insane amount of RAM (64Gio), so when you end up running that on the final target (even more so on current consoles with their anemic CPU & Memory) it won't match their framerate (surprised ?), so things have to be optimised and scaled down.
Add to that some companies having artists deciding stuff instead of engineers, and you end up with a lot of things that are way worse than suboptimal...
Now marketing has to make you aware of the game and impress you, and all they have is the work in progress game that run on behemoth systems and looks great...
Not an excuse, but a natural outcome of the way things are done, obviously producers will say (pretend ?) they can get that image quality once everything is optimised out, but that's not exactly how proper engineering works, when the systems have been ill designed and a lot of time & effort has been put into them or their use, it's a way too late to replace them.
I'm curious to hear what solutions people have, you have a work in progress product and you need to build up the hype, technology is still evolving rapidly so you can't hold back a product for long before it starts looking outdated...
I like to have more than one source ^^
Alternatively if I someone can get me the level the roof is on I can ask around
It's true that dev platforms are much higher performance than consoles and they use very high-end hardware, such as Xeon + Latest GPU + insane amount of RAM (64Gio), so when you end up running that on the final target (even more so on current consoles with their anemic CPU & Memory) it won't match their framerate (surprised ?), so things have to be optimised and scaled down.
Add to that some companies having artists deciding stuff instead of engineers, and you end up with a lot of things that are way worse than suboptimal...
Now marketing has to make you aware of the game and impress you, and all they have is the work in progress game that run on behemoth systems and looks great...
Not an excuse, but a natural outcome of the way things are done, obviously producers will say (pretend ?) they can get that image quality once everything is optimised out, but that's not exactly how proper engineering works, when the systems have been ill designed and a lot of time & effort has been put into them or their use, it's a way too late to replace them.
I'm curious to hear what solutions people have, you have a work in progress product and you need to build up the hype, technology is still evolving rapidly so you can't hold back a product for long before it starts looking outdated...
Unveil it closer to completion, there's really no need to unveil games years before they're out
Just look at Watch_Dogs screenshots on the Steam page, they're from the original e3.
I'm in Indonesia and we do have a law that prohibits this kind of marketing deceit.
But our law is almost never enforced.
The government body that supposedly receive complains also did not work (useless phone number, dead email, broken Web forms, etc).
I have not tried to directly visit their physical office though. Although I doubt there will be a human there. The "low-usage" "low-exposure" government office normally devoid of people here lol.
Btw although I do have problem with how ubisoft use their "fake" marketing material...
I actually like with how bungie used their "fake" materials. They presented those not only I'm gameplay trailers but also in extensive video documentary.
This Giving the context that what you see in old videos may not be the same.
Please stop this "or how Ubisoft screws you over and over again".
I own The Division and AC: Unity and both do look much much better than in the older footage (I am playing the PC version).
After I saw AC Unity on another gamers PC I bought it in December 2014 only because of the graphics and the Setting/atmosphere.
In the E3 videos it did not looked as impressive. Therefore, I have not bought it on the release date.
I own The Division and AC: Unity and both do look much much better than in the older footage (I am playing the PC version).
After I saw AC Unity on another gamers PC I bought it in December 2014 only because of the graphics and the Setting/atmosphere.
In the E3 videos it did not looked as impressive. Therefore, I have not bought it on the release date.
Last edited:
Yes, and he is obviously using lower settings and a very low video quality. Everyone could make a bad video about a good looking game.
Similar threads
