104
Ubisoft director blames gamers, says they've been exposed as 'non-decent humans'
(www.tweaktown.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
104 points (83.3% liked)
Games
16734 readers
496 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This article sucks. The original quote could be talking about anything, because it's so vague. It could be about legitimate criticisms of the game, or it could be nonsense like people yelling about Sweet Baby and DEI. There's no way to know, but the author of the article would clearly like you to ascribe it to something rational that still makes Ubisoft the bad guy.
EDIT: Original tweet is from a MAGA guy, so it's very easily actually about shitty people.
Especially with the gamergate 2.0 that's opening a new article-specific case on Wikipedia court for the first time in 8 years...
Can you elaborate? I haven't heard about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows#Protagonists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash_to_diversity_and_inclusion
Edit: Man, downvoted by someone without reply for providing sourced information
Learn from this, and provide misinformation next time 👍
lol, good one. btw, now my edit seems rather out of context and uncherishing of what i have, so i'll add that the reply had no votes save one downvote at the time of the edit
The quoted bit is pretty clear the guy was simply against people tearing each other down rather than supporting each other. They weren't even talking about the people who play their games. There has always been shitty people who play games. They expect better from people inside the industry, though.
Is there any reason you would be against video game developers supporting their field in general?
It's vague enough that it could be people complaining about DEI nonsense, which is stupid, but it could also be about anything from destroying good will with their fans to creating an industry that's a house of cards responsible for the bubble bursting that we've witnessed for the past two years, and I could see game developers railing against their own if it's for something they perceive to be destroying their industry. Like, this guy is a monetization director; I could absolutely see developers railing against manipulative monetization practices like loot boxes. But again, the statement is so vague and presented without context that it could be anything. The twitter account that linked it would absolutely be motivated to have people hound them about Yasuke and then say, "See?! They blame us innocent gamers for hate even though Ubisoft is obviously bad!"
Their statement, in my opinion, is comparing two perspectives. The first thinks that Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should fail as a company for it, as punishment. The second perspective thinks Ubisoft has failed their customers and they should revise their business model so it aligns again with the public.
They are saying the first perspective is toxic, and won't fix any problems. People can and do change constantly. The position of monetization director isn't going anywhere, although it might be renamed. We should allow people the room to receive feedback and improve. Ubisoft is well positioned to reassess and get back to making games people want to buy.
Also, if Ubisoft literally goes bankrupt, does anyone realize how many developers will be out of work?
I listen to Jeff Grubb's daily news podcast, and when some toxicity came up around Ubisoft recently, he mentioned that maybe not everyone feels that way, but they don't have anyone who feels so positively about Ubisoft that they're about to jump to their defense either, and I think that tracks. Me, personally: Is it worth openly hating and spewing vitriol at Ubisoft? No. Do I hope they fail? Yes. Do I realize how many people would be out of a job as a result? Yes. Do I feel good about that? No. Do I want products that I perceive as "bad" to succeed in the market? No. Similarly, it sucks that the talented folks at Crystal Dynamics were set to work on Avengers and that the talented folks at Rocksteady were put to work on Suicide Squad, but I'm proud of the market for not supporting that garbage, and there are positive consequences to that that affect what gets made in the future.
I agree with most of it except for what you think the punishment should be for making bad games. Why do they need to go out of business? Why can't they lose a ton of money on multiple games in a row, and then restructure and change the company dynamic? Is it just a disbelief its possible? Perhaps they will never earn your trust back no matter what?
They spent all their time and money putting their eggs in so few baskets that I doubt they could survive even a handful of flops. If they survived long enough to pivot, that would be a-okay by me, but I doubt that timeline exists.
Interesting, I don't know I have considered they might go out of business in a matter of months. Their stock has tanked pretty bad already.
That's their opportunity to go private for cheap. But if they do, I doubt that results in them realizing what they've done wrong.
Going private means buying back all the stock?
If you're a public company and want to go private, you have to offer a buyback price for the outstanding shares, yes. It's easier to do when the stock is low. Or you can blow a fortune on it like Musk buying Twitter.
What do you think the reaction would be to going private? I know some well regarded studios are private, so I'm not sure what would be the issue there?
Private companies are just as capable of making bad decisions as public ones. You just hear about them less due to scale. The same people will still be in charge at Ubisoft if this happens, and they're used to making money a certain way. This move would just be to prevent someone else from taking over the company.
Thats fair, its more a way to hide from the public so they can continue making unpopular choices.
I still am hopeful they will realign with what their customers actually want. Its good to know the signs things are going wrong though so I appreciate that.
The criticism of SBI is often hyperbolic but there’s a real issue there. Rich people profiting off the puritanical sensibilities of the American upper middle class at time does have a negative impact on the writing of games. Management not trusting their own internal developers is usually frowned upon. That MAGA idiots are attempting to hijack this issue is not surprising, but honestly they are handed this one way too easily.
SBI is just writing work for hire. When game dev cycles get longer, you don't need writers for the full length of it, and contract work makes more sense. The "criticism" is little more than conspiracy theory, especially since SBI's contributions aren't exactly itemized.