this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
32 points (74.2% liked)

PC Gaming

8924 readers
446 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RvTV95XBeo 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah, the billion dollar game developer doesn't have the resources to test preview editions of the only PC OS their game is designed for. They're just a small startup of ~20k employees. How are they supposed to allocated anyone to patching a game from their most popular franchise?

You're right, it's the consumers fault for being biased.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Brb gonna test those old 1995 games and if they don't run on Windows 11 I'll review bomb Eidos.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

If they're selling the game somewhere right now (like GOG) and it doesn't run on your computer then it's perfectly acceptable to give it a review rating of "Not Recommended"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The game is an eight years old single player game. I doubt they had many people working on it anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So, people should leave positive reviews for games that no longer work?

Like I get what your saying. It's not Ubisoft's fault.

But if they're not going to fix their old game, than it should be reviewed negatively so people don't spend money on a game that no longer works.

If they don't want that, than delist it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't want to discredit the reviews, just give more context to the situation. I don't think that there is any AAA dev that has 8 year old games at such a high priority level that they would fix any "posthumous" issues immediately.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Sure

But when people are replying to

https://lemm.ee/comment/17210238

Saying that anyone not calling out Microsoft is biased, is a bad take. And I'm not sure what your point of more context is needed?

A broken game gets negative reviews. I'm not sure what's biased about this.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They do have the resources, they also have the expectation they won't need to waste them on dumb shit MS breaks.

Ubisoft IS the consumer of MS products. But I guess your sympathies for consumers is only skin deep.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Companies aren't people. So yes, my limit is "skin deep".

(Not the person you replied to).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What a profound observation. Paperwork isn't flesh. Amazing. What's your point?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That yes, it doesn't bother me that Ubisoft is a consumer of Microsoft.

If Ubisoft doesn't update their product, they should be reviews negatively. If they don't like it they should de list it so people don't pay money for a broken product.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Delist the game that's been out since 2017 and already bought by 10 million people! Genius! The update point has already been clowned on by plenty of others in the thread, so I won't relitigate that. But wow dude, delisting is so smart. Like, if 10 million people with the game can't access what they paid for that's way better for consumers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's almost like you can delist it in such a way you prevent people from paying money for a broken game with no intention of updating it again, and still leave it for people who currently have copies.

Wow that was such a garbage take.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yea it's pretty garbage. No mention of MS having culpability for breaking it. Just blame the victim and sweep the game under the rug.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So what, you think they shouldn't be reviewed bad for a broken game?

No, it's broken and shouldn't be for sale if they're not going to fix it.

Guess what, as a mobile dev, my job is to fix the broken shit on multiple OSs as well. It's the territory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think MS should fix it, that's my only position. I don't care what Ubisoft does because they didn't break it. Their reputation can only improve from this set of facts. Doing nothing is a neutral act, and developing a patch is a positive.

Idc about your buggy checklist app.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Ubisoft isn't the victim here, consumers buying broken games are.