this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
69 points (93.7% liked)

Games

33489 readers
1308 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It was previously releasing Feb 14. Does not look good for Ubisoft.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

that's the problem:

"the company had appointed advisors to review and pursue various transformational strategic and capitalistic options to extract the best value for stakeholders".

Companies should focus on extracting the best value for consumers not stakeholders... when it was created the stoke market was supposed to be disconnected from real economy to prevent that situation where companies tries to give priority to the stakeholders (who don't produce anything and don't increase GDP) over consumers. When that rule started being ignored in the beginning of the XX century and provocked the 1929 krack they should have take it at a warning and stop doing that instead of continuing that heresy.

[–] ampersandrew 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ubisoft will likely be a private company soon, and I doubt the situation will change much in the aftermath.

[–] EncryptKeeper 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah the difference between being public and private disappears when the “private” part just means a private equity firm.

[–] ampersandrew 4 points 2 weeks ago

The private equity that would control it after it goes private, in all likelihood, would be the same family who controls it today and always has controlled it. They're not interested in stripping it for parts, but they're also not interested in scaling their operations down and learning some hard lessons to make a sustainable video game company.

[–] Pregnenolone 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you thinking of shareholders?

Stakeholders and shareholders are different. Consumers are stakeholders in this case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

hum yes, English is not my main language, sorry ><

[–] Katana314 2 points 2 weeks ago

Giving some Weird Al vibes with that mission…

[–] warmaster 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

lol, this game's fucked beyond salvation.

[–] chronicledmonocle 15 points 2 weeks ago

It's a Ubisoft game. It was doomed to begin with.

[–] pycorax 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Are delays not good? It's preferable to being broken on launch, not to say that it couldn't be, but it's likely that it would be more broken if not delayed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

When a game gets delayed it's not a good sign in general. It means "the game is broken and we can't release it as it is".

Of course a delayed game will be better than a game that needed to be delayed and released anyways instead, but realistically speaking you can't fix a broken AAA sized game in one or two months.

Add this to the fact that Ubisoft (rightfully so) earned a bad reputation among players as time went on, and that devs can't work at their best when they are crunching and they fear to be laid off, and you'll understand why non-casual gamers don't have faith in the game.

[–] glitches_brew 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Takes extra time to get that fourth A.

Also, never give Ubisoft money.

[–] LovingHippieCat 6 points 2 weeks ago

They're not saying it but I think it's likely this is because of all the big games coming out in February. Civ 7, Avowed, and Monster Hunter Wilds are the three big ones and those take up a lot of time. Shadows would get lost in the weeds. Meanwhile there isn't really a big game coming out in March. So perfect time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Assassin's creed died with 2 when they fired the creator and decided to milk it as much as possible.

So sad what this series has become, considering its counter-culture influences.

[–] Squizzy 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would have loved to see the original vision through

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

Me too.

Personally, I thought the series would've ended with getting to play as Desmond for most of the game, actually being an assassin in the modern day.

[–] Squizzy 2 points 1 week ago

It could have gone anywhere, the rumour was modern day third to close out the story.

It could have gone to settlements in space, templar industry types creating advanced cities to escape a doomed earth allowing for a cryogenically frozen Desmond to believeably do some of the stunt in space conditions.

Instead they picked random times and shoehorned in a rethread story barely expanding on the lore by walking all over it.

[–] MidsizedSedan 2 points 2 weeks ago

I feel more sorry for the Assasins Creed fans. Started by being a stealth parkour game, and its now just trying to be The Witcher

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Whomp Whomp

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

They are welcome to delay it again and again :)

[–] vane 1 points 2 weeks ago

KCD2 effect

[–] TastyWheat 1 points 2 weeks ago

When does it ever look good for Ubisoft?