Last CE/LE/SE you purchased or got

[LyricalOne]

Originally Posted by flatout

That is not it at all. Stock holders are all about immediate profit. Also if WD came out early (on time) then the next project would be on its way that much quicker and more profits technically.

I am simply speaking from a stock holder perspective of wanting gains/profit. Trust me my recipe is sound.

As much as I agree (or want to), I believe it wasn't really anything wrong with the games.

I believe it was basically down to profit. By releasing too many titles too close to each other, they cannibalize their own sales, specially heading into the holiday season. They don't want people choosing between AC4 or WD, they rather people own both.

I'm pretty sure I could be completely wrong, but looking at it from a business POV and even taking the stock holders into account; it would seem like a smart business decision.

Of course delaying AC4 WOULD NOT be even an option as that is already established and would hurt sales more than anything.

Just my thoughts

[LowlyAssassin]

Originally Posted by LyricalOne

As much as I agree (or want to), I believe it wasn't really anything wrong with the games.

I believe it was basically down to profit. By releasing too many titles too close to each other, they cannibalize their own sales, specially heading into the holiday season. They don't want people choosing between AC4 or WD, they rather people own both.

I'm pretty sure I could be completely wrong, but looking at it from a business POV and even taking the stock holders into account; it would seem like a smart business decision.

Of course delaying AC4 WOULD NOT be even an option as that is already established and would hurt sales more than anything.

Just my thoughts

I agree with you somewhat
But I would like to offer one minor view point
If there are 2 games being released at one time
And UBisoft sells one, then ubisoft take 1/2 of the sales

But if there are 3 games released, and UBisoft sell 2
Then that is 2/3
And 2/3 is more then 1/2
Although I am aware your view point is correct and I agree with you
I am just saying

[LyricalOne]

Originally Posted by LowlyAssassin

I agree with you somewhat
But I would like to offer one minor view point
If there are 2 games being released at one time
And UBisoft sells one, then ubisoft take 1/2 of the sales

But if there are 3 games released, and UBisoft sell 2
Then that is 2/3
And 2/3 is more then 1/2
Although I am aware your view point is correct and I agree with you
I am just saying

I also thought about that.
It makes more sense to control a bigger share of the market (hmm AAA titles market?) so therefore the buyer is deciding between UBI vs UBI, rather than UBI vs COMPETITOR.

At the same time, the world economy isn't at any high point at all (specially the US, that's for the lols) and there money going to the market for VG is limited.
Potentially, they will get a bigger profit in the long run since they will spread their sales over 2 periods and not just one.

Of course, the game being glitchy is ALSO a big part of the delay I'm sure.

I just see it as if they had to delay either WD or AC4; one means fans get hurt, one means fans hurt them

But yes, I agree with you as well

[LowlyAssassin]

Originally Posted by LyricalOne

I also thought about that.
It makes more sense to control a bigger share of the market (hmm AAA titles market?) so therefore the buyer is deciding between UBI vs UBI, rather than UBI vs COMPETITOR.

At the same time, the world economy isn't at any high point at all (specially the US, that's for the lols) and there money going to the market for VG is limited.
Potentially, they will get a bigger profit in the long run since they will spread their sales over 2 periods and not just one.

Of course, the game being glitchy is ALSO a big part of the delay I'm sure.

I just see it as if they had to delay either WD or AC4; one means fans get hurt, one means fans hurt them

But yes, I agree with you as well

well ubisoft said they would never make a triple A game again after AC3
so in their definition ac4bf and dogs arent AAA titles
unles the all powerful and mighty UBI lied to us and if so then i'm having a big bonfire ;(

[LyricalOne]

Originally Posted by LowlyAssassin

well ubisoft said they would never make a triple A game again after AC3
so in their definition ac4bf and dogs arent AAA titles
unles the all powerful and mighty UBI lied to us and if so then i'm having a big bonfire ;(

Oh really?

I didn't know they said that.

What I know is that they stated they won't make anything that can't become a franchise.

I know they are quoted to say that only AAA productions are the future.

So who knows?
I mean they are publishing Child of Light...lol

[flatout]

Originally Posted by LyricalOne

Oh really?

I didn't know they said that.

What I know is that they stated they won't make anything that can't become a franchise.

I know they are quoted to say that only AAA productions are the future.

So who knows?
I mean they are publishing Child of Light...lol

I though they said this as well.


Also there is a difference between publishing and developing.

[LowlyAssassin]

Originally Posted by LyricalOne

Oh really?

I didn't know they said that.

What I know is that they stated they won't make anything that can't become a franchise.

I know they are quoted to say that only AAA productions are the future.

So who knows?
I mean they are publishing Child of Light...lol

That's really strange as there are interviews over the web with ubi employees saying the AAA are a dying breed and how its not financially viable to put that much Rome and effort into a game but one of those interviews about the end of the AAA era is also where the line from Yves comes out, that he won't make anything unless it can become a franchise
you UBisoft, do you really know what your doing?

[LyricalOne]

Originally Posted by LowlyAssassin

That's really strange as there are interviews over the web with ubi employees saying the AAA are a dying breed and how its not financially viable to put that much Rome and effort into a game but one of those interviews about the end of the AAA era is also where the line from Yves comes out, that he won't make anything unless it can become a franchise
you UBisoft, do you really know what your doing?

Well if you look at all the interviews and there is one main one in particular, I forgot which one; they are not saying that they won't make AAA games anymore.

What they (Ubi) are stating is that AAA games that come and go are a dying breed. Basically new IPs. (I do believe at one point they stated that they wouldn't do new IPs either JUST SAYING.)
They stated that costs are just too high to make a game that will appear and never come back.
That's why they stated that they are only going to work on franchises ONLY. As long as the game has the potential to dish out a series of games, it is not for Ubisoft.

And remember; the AAA status comes from the money spent; not quality lol.

[comaamen86]

Originally Posted by LowlyAssassin

well ubisoft said they would never make a triple A game again after AC3
so in their definition ac4bf and dogs arent AAA titles
unles the all powerful and mighty UBI lied to us and if so then i'm having a big bonfire ;(

everyones says their latest game is the nuts

ubi have not made a aaa game since ac2

[SwiftDeath]

There is no clear defininton of what an AAA game is and what it is not

Generally it is thought of by budget and how much resources are put behind it

To be honest, the last several AC games could be considered AAA+ or AAAA games as Ubisoft are known for using the most devs, artists, personnel for each of their games vs other publishers

I assure you that all AC games are considered at least AAA

Quality of a game has nothing to do with it being AAA or not

Size of the game and the effort behind it qualify it as AAA or not