I'm "bumping" my main topic post because it was locked (Sigh! Oh well). I hope you guys have the time to read this:
When it was announced that Rayman Legends would go multiplatform, which caused a delay, I wasn't sure what the big deal was, other than it was strictly a business decision on Ubisoft. Sucks? Yes. But there was just too much outcry for my taste.
Yet little did I realize that Microsoft may have played a hand in this, albeit indirectly.
It seems that Microsoft will not release their games to the Xbox 360 if there are no simultaneous releases. Now, I thought that there were simultaneous releases to keep the consumers happy, but little did I realize that all the simultaneous releases might have been manipulated because of MS's policy. Think about this. Why did only the PS3 (after the Wii) released No More Heroes for the HD console?
Wow, Microsoft, what a way to do business with the developers! And shame on you Ubisoft for not standing up to it!
See and that is what I don't understand. Ubisoft is worried because yhe WiiU isn't selling as well so they make Rayman Legends multiplatform in order to maximize profits. So you want to boycott the game making sure Rayman Legends doesn't sell as well on the WiiU as other systems to show Ubisoft they should have supported the WiiU better? It doesn't make any sense
Sorry about any gramer issues. I posted this from my phone
They should have thought of that before delaying something that was promised to the consumers.
@Sdcazares: Again, if that's true it's not news to anyone - especially Ubisoft who have published many titles on Xbox and PS3 and Wii. Am I to believe that they forgot this? No, I don't think so.
@DefHalan: the point of the boycott is not to tell Ubisoft "if only you had released on time you would have had more sales" the point is to say "you said you were going to give us a Q1 release and now you're not doing that so screw you." This isn't about showing them what a great fanbase there is on Wii U it's saying that you shouldn't take that base for granted and if you pull crap like this you're not going to have as big a market for your software on that platform.
For the individual it's down to what you're prepared to do on principle and really that's a question only each person can answer. I personally won't put up with anything for the sake of a game or even an entire publisher's output. There are always other games to play.
@Blizzaga
They should have thought about what before they delayed it? The idea is that they delayed it because they were worried the WiiU version wouldn't sell well because of the lower than expected install base. They wanted to port it onto other systems to maximize their profits, to make sure it does well.
I'm "bumping" my main topic post because it was locked (Sigh! Oh well). I hope you guys have the time to read this:
When it was announced that Rayman Legends would go multiplatform, which caused a delay, I wasn't sure what the big deal was, other than it was strictly a business decision on Ubisoft. Sucks? Yes. But there was just too much outcry for my taste.
Yet little did I realize that Microsoft may have played a hand in this, albeit indirectly.
It seems that Microsoft will not release their games to the Xbox 360 if there are no simultaneous releases. Now, I thought that there were simultaneous releases to keep the consumers happy, but little did I realize that all the simultaneous releases might have been manipulated because of MS's policy. Think about this. Why did only the PS3 (after the Wii) released No More Heroes for the HD console?
Wow, Microsoft, what a way to do business with the developers! And shame on you Ubisoft for not standing up to it!
sdcazares1980 brings up a good point. It may not have been Ubisoft's fault. Games get delayed all the time and their have been plenty that get delayed weeks before the release date. If you want to make a difference then boycott the Xbox 360/PS3 versions. Show Ubisoft that porting the game was a waste of money. I am done, I feel like I am talking to a wall and you guys just want something to be mad about. You don't want to discuss the situation
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
Microsoft are able to get away with that because they are in such a strong position in the games market. It's a bit unscrupulous - like their timed exclusives, but Ubisoft are probably very confident that Rayman Legends will sell very well on the X360.
I can't help but feel that Ubisoft truly believed that most would of us would not be able to see how the statements they have made don't fit with their recent actions. Let's take a look at some comments. When the whole thing hit the fan one of the statements that was made was:
”We decided to give the fans what they wanted while at the same time broadening the audience exposed to this innovative and memorable game."
I don't believe anyone could look at that statement without the benefit of recent history and find fault with it. The problem is that we do have recent/current history to weigh actions against these words. Farcry 3, Watchdogs, Splinter Cell, these are all games that are published by the company making the above statement. However, for some reason they do not feel that it would apply in the cases of these games. One has to wonder.........why not? Aren't the Wii U owners (aka former Ubisoft fans) wanting these games and seeing how you want to "give the fans what they want", shouldn't these be released to the Wii U platform and thus "broaden the audience exposed to these innovative and memorable games."
Ubisoft later stated:
" We usually release all of our platforms simultaneously (aside from PC). We've made special exception sometimes in the past but it's definitely just on a case by case basis and not our standard practice. In this case, Ubisoft recently decided they wanted to release the game on multiple platforms so the decision was made to launch them all at the same time rather than separately. I know it's not an elaborate, 'convincing' answer, but it's the simple truth."
Again, if it is company policy then you can't really argue with that, even it if puts a completed game on the shelf for 7 months. However, very recent history tells a different tale. When Assassin's Creed 3 was released it did so to PS3 and Xbox360 platforms on 10/30/12, with a Wii U release 11/18/12 in NA and 11/30/12 in EU. Here is my question: Why didn't Ubisoft decide not to follow their company policy and release these simultaneously, esp since we are only talking about a 2 week period of time? Why was this event a "special exception"? One could argue that the Wii U wasn't released until 11/18/12, so why hold back the other completed games? What a minute....isn't that the case with the Wii U Rayman? Even most 5 year old children would detect there being an unfair treatment. I also find it interesting that within hours of this statement being made Ubisoft was now searching for a new PR professional. To be honest, I was really surprised when I read Ubisoft just blatantly admitting there was no other reason for the delay. Apparently, executives at Ubisoft were also surprised and felt the need to teach someone a lesson. After all, how dare Sarah Irvin simply tell people the truth? For the record I admire her giving a truthful answer and I know she will land on her feet. Believe it or not, honesty and integrity are still valued by many businesses today. For the executives, I guess it is always easier to make decisions when you can always hide behind a wall of "many factors weigh into these type of situations" responses. I do have to agree with they last part Sarah's statement that it was indeed not convincing.
While not admissible in a court of law as any type of evidence, I also find it interesting the timing of these announcements. If a company has made what they believe to be a decision that will make many people happy they tend to make these early in the week. This allows them to bask in the warm glow of consumer approval pouring into their inboxes and forums during normal working hours. Bad news is later in the week, that way if it goes as bad as they fear, then by the time they get back into work on Monday most of the people they have upset have become upset by something else and they don't have to deal with the issue when it is a fresh wound. I have no doubt that the executives at Ubisoft feel that by Monday the major backlash of their decision would have quelled. That could be possible.
The release of another demo I really find to be knee jerk. Perhaps they were surprised by how vehemently the news was received. Perhaps they felt that the negativity of the delay would be balanced or at least mellowed by the positive comments from PS3 and 360 owners happy to be able to get the game. In either case, it didn't go well for them and, perhaps in a bit of a Friday panic, they ended up throwing gasoline on the fire. I honestly don't think they know how to fix this. If Microsoft's policy is that no one gets a game before they do, then they really have no option. I don't know if there is any truth to that statement, but that is the story that is being offered. However, I don't believe that should save Ubisoft from being destroyed in the public forum of the internet because that is a decision they made. Ubisoft decided they wanted to have Rayman on the 360 platform and realized that if they did that they would need to delay the release of the Wii U version. They weighed the pros and cons and decided that they could weather the storm of the Wii U side to get the additional revenue from the 360 side. Whether that was a good decision or not we probably won't know until Monday and ultimately in September. Will the hostility directed at Ubisoft die down over the weekend? Their post on Facebook regarding the new demo is approaching 2,000 comments (almost all of them negative)
If any good has come out of this, I have to say that I have enjoyed seeing PS3 and 360 owners siding with owners of the Wii U and saying "Wow, that was really stupid" By and large, when it comes to exclusives, the only time a gamer cares is when it isn't on their system. If there is a game they enjoy and it is then made available to more gamers on other systems, they don't really seem to mind at all. We just don't want to be left out. I may be hunted down and shot for saying this, but I wouldn't mind at all if Mario or Zelda was released on the 360 or PS3. They are fun games, why not let everyone enjoy them?
Microsoft does have the right, but I suspect most of the customers don't know about it, yet I can imagine why this would piss off not only Nintendo owners, but PS3 owners as well. Is this what the Xbox 360 owners want? I don't know. I don't think they would care about it much, but even they have to consider that this is not an ethical practice.
Either that or Ubisoft can tell Microsoft to F-off. That would be the braver approach.
How is it not an ethical practice? It's ensuring that your customers don't get the short end of the stick from developers that want to cut content or release exclusive content elsewhere but not on the Xbox. It's also ensuring that your console gets games the same time as everyone else (or even first). I don't see what's so bad about it. It's pretty much the situation everyone wants their prime console to have. I'm more surprised Sony doesn't have a policy like that.
And business isn't about bravery. It's about doing what will benefit you most financially. There are still tons of Xboxes out there. It would be stupid to tell off Microsoft. They'd simply refuse the game be released on their system, and Ubisoft will be out a crap load of money.
I know that it's Microsoft's job is to make money, but c'mon, even you have to admit this: if you didn't own an Xbox 360 (assuming you do own one, like I do, along with the Wii U), you'd be pissed because it's policy has put Ubisoft in an uncomfortable position of "sell this for all 3 systems or don't sell it at all." It's just like you said: it would be stupid for Ubisoft to not release this for Microsoft. Microsoft did not have this policy until LAST YEAR, so there would have been simultaneous releases anyway. I think MS just got a little power-hungry here.
Yes, I'd be mad. But not as mad as I would be if there were no more Rayman games. We're talking about the lesser of two evils, here.
Actually, I think I'd be more mad that my console favorite console developers don't do the same thing. Again, though, you need to look at it from a different perspective to understand where Microsoft is coming from. I'm not in the business, but if I were, and I had enough market-push to enact such a thing, I would. It'd be better for my customers, and better for my company.
I understand where Microsoft is coming from, but mind you, the world doesn't revolve around it. If I were Ubisoft, I would just release the game for the Wii U now, and release it later for the PS3, and forget about having the game for Microsoft. If MS wants to play economic chicken, then I can take my case to the consumer and tell them about Microsoft's business practices. It didn't need to happen.
It's a good thing you're not in charge of Ubisoft, then. You'd probably run them to the ground with that attitude. Either you miss out on millions of potential customers, or you play by their rules. It's really that simple.
And it's not just the consumers that are mad, but the developers that put countless hours of hard work and sacrifice, only to have Ubisoft to "kowtow" to MS and say, "Sorry, but we're going to have to release the game for ALL 3 systems simultaneously." All this because Microsoft said "You release the game for us first or simultaneously or we won't buy it." Since Ubisoft has no control over what Microsoft does, the ultimate decision falls on them, but Microsoft had a lot do with as well.
Their customers would've been mad no matter what they did. That's the part no ones realizing through all of this. If they released the Wii U Version first, their Xbox and PS3 customers would be mad. Especially the Microsoft customers if it doesn't come out on their system at all. Now they're only angering the Wii U fanbase - their smallest potential consumer-base. Again, it's the lesser of two evils. Granted, I hope the games get delayed until after GTAV and the other big games come out, because right now they really are screwed no matter what they do, but if it's out of they're control, there's nothing anyone can do.
Their customers would've been mad no matter what they did. That's the part no ones realizing through all of this. If they released the Wii U Version first, their Xbox and PS3 customers would be mad. Especially the Microsoft customers if it doesn't come out on their system at all. Now they're only angering the Wii U fanbase - their smallest potential consumer-base. Again, it's the lesser of two evils. Granted, I hope the games get delayed until after GTAV and the other big games come out, because right now they really are screwed no matter what they do, but if it's out of they're control, there's nothing anyone can do.
I'm not sure why the Microsoft and Sony customers would be angry if Legends came out on the Wii U first. They wouldn't have been expecting to get the game until the recent announcement. I would expect that PS3 and 360 owners are happy that Ubi decided to make it multi-plat, but why would they be annoyed if it was released on Wii U when it was supposed to?
I think Nintendo and Ubisoft had a verbal contract for Rayman Legends being exclusive. Something happened and now its been delayed and no longer an exclusive of any kind.
I mean no one one complained that Splinter Cell Conviction was an Xbox exclusive.
Think this of a case of Nintendo not ironing out the deals with ubisoft.
WAT!
Hey check out my awesome new youtube channel shingi70 where I update weekly on the latest gaming and comic news form a level headed perspective.
Nice analysis Everly. I'd call it a post-mortem, but I don't think it's played out yet. I cannot imagine we won't hear anything further from Ubisoft come Monday. Everyone keeps bringing up this Microsoft statement like it's new, but that was reported in 2011, so no, I don't think "Microsoft is to blame" here. The only party which appears to be at fault is Ubisoft. The whole time it's been their declarations of exclusivity, their release dates and now their decision not to publish a completed game for a non-reason.
I cannot see any rational reason for not doing online distribution at a minimum on-schedule. Honestly if they cannot do this one simple thing, then they may as well just join EA and practically drop support for the platform altogether. I don't see the value in half-assing it with the odd port here and there. Wii U owners would be better served by Nintendo investing in more partnerships which result in the kinds of titles fans want, but where they'll have sufficient stake to ensure an appearance on their systems in a timely fashion.
Thanks Sean. I've enjoyed reading your responses and takes on the issues that are mentioned here on the forum. I sent a request to you through the Wii U system hoping to add you for whenever NoA decides to release Zen Pinball here in the States.
The only party which appears to be at fault is Ubisoft. The whole time it's been their declarations of exclusivity, their release dates and now their decision not to publish a completed game for a non-reason.
I agree, they didn't make Microsoft's policy, but they decided to capitulate to it in spite of the fact that it would fly in the face of the statements you are citing.
When you stop playing is when you start getting old
I've changed my mind. I will not buy Rayman Legends on release if it isn't released this month.
One of the reasons for wanting to stick with it was that I'll be getting it from a shop where I could earn double reward points for fulfilling a preorder, but I'm willing to take that hit and get it much cheaper.
I added my name to the petition as well. Ubisoft may not change their decision, but they must know that we cannot be taken for granted.
Given my kid is now keen to get New Super Mario Bros. U I don't think I'll have any issues skipping Rayman come September. Getting the next Pokemon in October will be additional distraction, but she's never been a gimme gimme gimme kind of child. I'm not a person who's ever bought a Rayman game so my voice doesn't really count, but I'll feel better regardless.
I still think boycotting will do more damage than help, and not just Ubisoft. All third parties will see it as yet another third party title with poor sales and it could hurt the chances of the Wii U getting included in multiplatform titles. A logical boycott would be refusing to buy the 360 or PS3 versions. Still, I doubt this will get through to anyone, definitely will do no favors for the third party support (FYI most companies will not care the reason sales were low, they'll still see it as a reason to avoid the system).
Feel free to add me on the Nintendo Network: ShadJV
Here's my 3DS FC, always looking for Pokemon X Friend Safaris: 2191-7643-5167
Peace!
Their customers would've been mad no matter what they did. That's the part no ones realizing through all of this. If they released the Wii U Version first, their Xbox and PS3 customers would be mad. Especially the Microsoft customers if it doesn't come out on their system at all. Now they're only angering the Wii U fanbase - their smallest potential consumer-base. Again, it's the lesser of two evils. Granted, I hope the games get delayed until after GTAV and the other big games come out, because right now they really are screwed no matter what they do, but if it's out of they're control, there's nothing anyone can do.
I'm not sure why the Microsoft and Sony customers would be angry if Legends came out on the Wii U first. They wouldn't have been expecting to get the game until the recent announcement. I would expect that PS3 and 360 owners are happy that Ubi decided to make it multi-plat, but why would they be annoyed if it was released on Wii U when it was supposed to?
They wouldn't have gotten the game at all if it wasn't released on the same day. Unless you're talking about the reasoning for the policy itself, in which case, it's the same reason some people are mad that they're not getting Wii U versions the same time as everyone else - because it means they're recieving a lower quality of support than those with the other consoles, and one more negative to add to the list for the console they chose (and will probably be stuck with if they can't afford to get a different one).
Forums
Topic: Rayman Legends delayed
Posts 261 to 280 of 353
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.