Thoughts and opinions on what you've seen so far?
After that fiasco with Watchdogs?
I'm excited about the setting in Far Cry 4 more than in Far Cry 3. I'm so sick of looking at really green stuff for long periods of time.
It looks like it will be fun, but I agree with what MEC-777 says. Who knows what happens after Watchdogs?
It would be awesome in theory but the developer said that once they're done with the game for consoles they're gonna get a copy of it, fuck it up the ass, and then give it to us on pc. I wish big companies would just think for one flippin second about these things before doing them..
It looks better than FC3. Never bothered to finish FC3, it wasn't as good as everyone made it out to be. Boring as fuuuuck.
I can't tell you if FC4 will be a good game, but I don't trust Ubisoft to satisfy the PC crowd. There will be something wrong with the game. They cater to consoles, primarily. We just get a shit port of Ubisoft games.
I'm just hoping that Ubisoft doesn't do the same thing that they did to Watch Dogs and E3 effects.
No. I don't buy Ubisoft games on launch. I wait literally a year for them to release a GOTY edition. Which is a fancy word for a finished product.
I will certainly not buy it at launch, but maybe half a year or so later when the major bugs are fixed and the price tag is appropriate. Anything >20€ for a video game is overpriced
It looks fun, I usually never preorder or buy a game that hasn't been out for at least awhile though. It's usually best to wait for the bugs to be ironed out, an edition with all dlc, and everything else to be fixed. There wasn't really anything that stood out over 3 at their E3 booth either.
Rant: The Watch Dogs argument about Ubisoft and it being waterdowned are a little silly, it's about a fun game, a good story, intriguing characters and decent game mechanics.. didn't Blood Dragon have that? Or 1, 2, and 3? Far Cry 4 has a great chance of being fun too. You do have your rights and should complain that the product didn't look as they advertised, but I still felt it was kinda silly, everyone I've talked to said it was a fun game even when including all the false advertisements and terrible optimizations. If you mostly enjoyed the product, then it was a good product, yeah?
The only game that I think will break my preorder trend is Cyberpunk 2077, only cause of CD Projekt Reds track record and the stellar quality of Mike's original RPG, given that he is helping continue the same concepts he first made and expanding on it into the game. Maybe further looks of the game will deter that, but I doubt it.
So other than a game that gives you a similar vibe that you just wanna play it immediately, I think playing a demo (if available), watching gameplay, and being patient until after its release to solidify your want to buy it with an in-depth understanding of said game.
Haha i gotta remember that one!
Whether or not it was a "good game", is subjective. However, that's not the point. People wish to boycott companies like Ubisoft, until those developers/publishers stop being dicks. It's a protest. Not an issue of good game/bad game.
With the graphics mod installed, there was little to no performance degradation. It appears they didn't have to nerf the E3 demo graphics, their decision is highly questionable. Supposed insider information indicated that they didn't want PC graphics to outshine console.
It is subjective. Wait though, boycott Ubisoft and promote triple A priced Alphas + preorders + overpriced dlc? I lack a sympathetic understanding for this tactic. The latter seems to ruining PC gaming more.
All that is fine and dandy and I agree with it. I simply don't understand that developers reasoning on it, they know this fact just as much as anyone else.
Here is my theory: Maybe PC makes more in sales, but it's mainly from MMO's and in-game purchases, a good majority of companies tend to see less money from PC.. So sacrificing the elite and future gen PC community/gaming experience and creating a uniformed game based on 2 consoles, that make more collectively and singularly for them, makes it more beneficial to have a unified game on all 3. Also, this maybe a stretch, but Windows could've influenced/convinced/paid Ubisoft to water it down so they could sell more Xbox Ones.
I'm not sure. I think the licencing arrangement is very different on console. They don't really make much money on the hardware sales, they make money on licencing to developers. It could be that consoles have higher associated costs. PC revenues are higher for respective agents around the globe; hardware manufacture, developers, etc.
As for the uniformity of graphics; it was there to use. They didn't have to spend additional work hours to develop superior graphics, they disabled those graphics. I fail to see what was garnered by nerfing the graphics that they had produced for E3? If they didn't want to spend additional time developing for PC, you could make that argument. BUT! those graphics were already there. It was also marked with the words "this is for pc. who cares", allegedly.
Wait though, boycott Ubisoft and promote triple A priced Alphas + preorders + overpriced dlc?
I'm not so sure that is true? People with the "boycott Ubisoft" attitude don't usually pre-purchase games, etc. We have the good fortunate of purchasing gold edition, GOTY games for cheap during a sale. Tying that in with my earlier point about associated costs, we/I don't know if this is generates higher revenue stream.
Just because someone boycotts Ubisoft doesn't mean they promote triple A priced Alphas, pre-orders and over priced DLCs. It simply means we don't like what Ubisoft is doing. It's two completely different things.
What Berserker said is 100% on the money. It's not about whether it's a good game or not. It's about Ubisoft being stupid and making stupid decisions. They had no reason to gimp the PC version, but they did it anyways. They could have made more money if they made the PC version as it should have been. Instead, now all the PC gamers know what they did and don't want to give them a dime.
They have even claimed, already, that FC4 will look and run the same on the consoles as it will on a "high-end" gaming PC. This means they will probably do something similar to what they did with Watchdogs.
I'm not too sure about that. DayZ, Rust, The Forest, and much more have stayed on the top selling on Steam. When Far Cry 4 went on sale, it was on the top selling too, it is still on the second page. Overpriced DLC and Season passes have also frequented the top selling spots. All of these things have held their places way higher on the lists than GOTY and full packaged games, Steam also promotes Alphas, Greenlights, and overpriced nonsense on their front page.
That's not even close to true. Many PC gamers have already proven they are still going to buy their products, their preorders on PC have been the same. The PS4 made up 37% of their revenue and Xbox One 17%.. With PC at 14%. In total consoles make 86% of their revenue and PC makes 14%..
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ps4-made-up-largest-part-of-ubisoft-game-sales-dur/1100-6421105/, http://www.consoletuner.com/ps4-made-up-largest-part-of-ubisoft-game-sales-during-the-last-3-months-doubles-xbox-one-and-pc-sales/
There are some exceptions and some of those games you mentioned are a lot of fun, and that genre seems to be a running trend right now. That craze will die down a bit once "the next big thing" comes along.
But speaking specifically about FC4 and if or why I'm excited or not about it, I've made that clear as have others.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "all PC gamers", but Ubisoft has pissed off a good chunk of us and the fact remains they could have made more money from Watchdogs, had they given us the PC version that should have been in the first place. That's mainly all I was trying to say.
The argument wasn't based upon the fun factor, but the game quality to pricing ratio. As Ubisoft games are still fun and Alphas can be too, so the point is moot. Those games aren't as well polished yet, even in comparison to Watch Dogs. Either way, neither of us is completely right or wrong, the only fact that remains is that those have more potential of ruining the quality of PC gaming than companies like Ubisoft. That is what I was trying to get across.
The majority have only bashed on Ubisoft and made that their reasoning against Far Cry 4, which is flawed logic in my opinion.
Yes they have, but those sources encompass a larger time frame than Watch Dogs. Ubisoft also had their game torrented roughly a week before release. Something has me wondering if certain game developers kept the E3 effects in the code and made it torrentable before release to please PC gamers. Game developers are not stupid, when talking to them at E3, they know practically everything about their community. So its not unlikely they did that to get around the higher ups.
Either way, from a business standpoint, Ubisoft is making the right calls. Until the PC gaming community truly boycotts them and their sales start to decline in comparison to their previous PC sales, then they are doing well from a strictly business prospective.
There are quite a few alpha/indie games, I would argue, that have better polished graphics and very good game play - and what still remains to be added is simply more content. The reason for this is because those said games were developed specifically for PC.
But here's the bottom line; Ubisoft did not care to give us the best possible game they could for the PC version and they did this so it wouldn't make the console version look inferior. Whether its a good game or a fun game or not, is another matter.
I have no issue with the consoles themselves and I have no issue with the games themselves. The issue I have is with the people doing the decision-making for the marketing of the consoles and the games and the state in which said games are released. When they claim "this game will look and run just as good on the xbox one as it does on a high-end gaming PC." when they KNOW it can't and won't - and then proceed to intentionally handicap the PC version - that says they don't care about PC gamers and giving them a better experience. It's also picking a fight you can't win. Why are they making it about the resolution and frame rates, when they know the console hardware can't deliver cutting edge visuals and smoothness? They should take a chapter out of Nintendo's marketing book. Nintendo does it right, IMO - they don't try to complete with PC, and they make it about the games and gaming experience.
Better graphics? Not too sure about that, yes Watch Dogs was watered down but it still had current gen graphics by the current PS4/Xbox One console standard anyway. I said potential though, not that it was currently doing it. It has done more damage to the PC community than Watch Dogs overall. You can cite more games that failed and were money pits with Kickstarter and Alphas than you can with the successes.
True, it's like what Apple does, they hold back the industry from going further. With media though, it's more subjective. If you like the form of media they finally presented and had fun playing it, then it was a worthwhile purchase. I know I'm giving a run around of that same concept, but the business aspect I talked about is more than enough reasoning for their tactics.
Yeah it can't but most people can't afford a high-end gaming pc, so their PR says that to gear towards the majority. They can't win the fight but they don't want to, they want to win in sales. Ubisoft is nowhere near the size of Nintendo, so the tactic they went with was the most optimal for their company.