The Rayman Topic: Last Game - Rayman Legends

[...]

well, if the game released on Wii U when it was suppose too... it will retail at $60 no? If the game was still going Multi-platform 7 months down the line, with the Wii U version already released.... Will the ps360 owners get it for cheaper? Will sales suffer because the game was already released and people already watched the game or played it via a friends/family's Wii U? So on and so forth.

 

I understand how the Wii U owners feel, but does it truly make sense to release a game for one platform and others 7 months later?

 

Yes, it would, because the Wii U version is FUCKING DONE. There's no reason for them to delay it 7 months later with two other versions if the game is finished, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Conando]

well, if the game released on Wii U when it was suppose too... it will retail at $60 no? If the game was still going Multi-platform 7 months down the line, with the Wii U version already released.... Will the ps360 owners get it for cheaper? Will sales suffer because the game was already released and people already watched the game or played it via a friends/family's Wii U? So on and so forth.

 

I understand how the Wii U owners feel, but does it truly make sense to release a game for one platform and others 7 months later?

 

You do realize a bunch of companies just did that with the Wii U, right? More than 7 months later in some respects.

[Wraith]

And even if they ARE just cutting off Murphy content, it shouldn't take 7 fucking months, should it?

[...]

I think this image sums up the entire situation.

 

[LunarEdge]

You do realize a bunch of companies just did that with the Wii U, right? More than 7 months later in some respects.

well in that occasion, the Wii U wasn't even released yet, they kind of had no choice and yes I am aware.

 

And even if they ARE just cutting off Murphy content, it shouldn't take 7 fucking months, should it?

Couldn't tell ya, not a developer. Would they really need to cut out the Murphy content? Seeing how the ps3 at least supports sixaxis. 360 though.... no idea

[Conando]

Also, from what people have been telling me, Ubisoft out right admitted the game is delayed only due to the PS3 and 360 versions. So yes, the main version of the game is going to sit there, gathering dust, for 7 months. This is also stupid because they're releasing it in September, when Nintendo's heavy hitters of Wind Waker HD, 3D Mario, and Mario Kart roll in. Then there's the multiplat behemoth of GRAND THEFT AUTO 5. Not to mention Orbis and Durango very liking releasing only months after. It will have no place in the holiday shopping season.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[LunarEdge]

my question is... why do people think the ps360 versions will be superior? Wasn't the game technically built for the Wii U.... doesn't that mean that the game is practically getting ported to the ps360

[Conando]

Do people seriously think that? Anyone with a brain knows they will be inferior because, it was actually developed on the Wii U rather than being a half-assed port. The PS3 and 360 versions will be the half assed ports.

[Nepenthe]

At the very least, they will be lacking WiiU-specific content like Murphy, but the game architecture has always seemed so comparatively simple that I don't think the ports will be shit. 

[Conando]

Missing features are enough to call them half assed, though.

[Cyrus]

At least non WiiUsers won't have elements and plot (If the game has an actual plot this time) spoiled by their WiiUser friends. I'm just looking at the glass as half-full here.

[Conando]

It's Rayman, so that's not really a thing. The last game was just pure insanity.

[Nepenthe]

Missing features are enough to call them half assed, though.

 

Features missing just because, or features missing simply because there is no adequate technology on the relevant consoles to support them? That's a big distinction to me. (Although frankly, I see no reason Murfy couldn't be included as co-op exclusive material.)

 

Also of note is the fact that the biggest thing probably being cut- Murfy's levels- were downplayed for months as a significant part of the experience due to initial backlash to them ("they're not mandatory!" "They only compose a small part of the game!") that I feel like calling any version half-assed on account of actually cutting them out is an overreaction.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Nepenthe

[T-Min]

Well, this is interesting.

 

 

I completely understand you but you have to understand one thing. This is not a decission taken by the development team, this comes from really really high up, so please don't pick on the game.

 

If you're pissed, imagine how we feel. Think on the situation, we've been making overtime with this game practically since May preparing E3, and then almost a demo per month (gamescon, Wii U presentation, shops, eShop, etc...) and at the same time trying to actually finish the game. We had a first delay because it was obvious we couldn't finish on time but we gave it all to be there on February. What face do you think we had when the week we had to close the game we're being told it's not going to be released? I couldn't believe it.

 

For practical matters, you'll have to wait for some months for the game to be released and will most likely serve for more content to be added and do it better. For us, this means we've spent 6 months barely seeing our wifes, kids, and friends for nothing because, after all, such a haste wasn't needed. Believe it, it was a hell to swallow these news.

 

Even then I'm firm in what I said back in the day, Rayman Legends is an excellent game and will still be, and the team that's making it doesn't deserve to have your back turned on them just because some men in ties one day took a wrong choice. This industry is really that shitty

This just got ten times more depressing.

[Nepenthe]

I like how the post right after that impassioned rant of empathy and frustration from one of the devs, a poster said he wasn't buying it.

Edit: As I read through that topic, a potentially daft thought came to me. People are willing to boycott Legends regardless of the fact that it would further screw the devs who had no part in the decision and have lost the most out of anyone, which brings up the obvious question: how do you hurt the publisher but help the dev? So I wondered: is there any reason why a fund couldn't be set-up to be directly donated to the actual studio while the game is still boycott through second-hand sales or otherwise? It would probably still hurt the franchise ("can't make an omelette...."), but I think it'd send an interesting message to Ubisoft. Or I'm just thinking about this too simply.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Nepenthe

[The Kid]

I don't think anyone here thought the devs were to blame. They didn't make the shitty decisions, they made an amazing(at least I hope) game and put countless hours into it. 

[Soniman]

Damn, this is just shitty for everyone invovled.

 

I still really want to know who made this asinine decision though.

[KHCast]

Jeez people really Need to stop acting like this is the worst thing to happen to the video game industry. I've seen and heard mug worse. Yeah it's really dumb that it got delayed 7 months. I feel for you. But I don't think protests and petitioning is mature or smart really. It's still gonna come out and be the same game.

]@soniman capcom took control of ubisoft.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Vanitas

[Nepenthe]

Does something need to be the absolute worst thing ever for someone to validly refuse to participate in it?

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

The Wii U must have been failing so hard in sales, that Ubisoft couldn't take their chances. That has to be the only reason. If there is tons of money to be made, they would have no problems releasing this in 3 weeks for Wii U. Will it be worth it? Will Ubisoft have enough profits if they release this game in 3 weeks? Will it be enough for them to remarket the game 7 months later for the PS3 & 360 versions?

 

Ubisoft obviously wants to play safe and release all versions at the same time and any Wii U loss sales can be made up.

[KHCast]

Does something need to be the absolute worst thing ever for someone to validly refuse to participate in it?

i didn't say it had to. Of course there are legit reasons I see as to why people feel this way. I wasn't referring to anyone here. Im talking about those people on that website saying their going to make petitions. Or the people acting like the company is the shitstain of the world.:/ I already said I understand where their coming from. I don't think they should suck it up and move on. Just don't overreact perhaps like its the end?

[Nepenthe]

I don't think making a petition/boycott, or being mad at the company and thus making inflamed statements as a result, is acting like it's the end of the world.

[KHCast]

I'd say it depends on the petition or boycott. And I did say there were people also saying ubisoft was shit and they were done with them. That to me seems a bit like a overreaction.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Meh, they said that to EA too and look at EA today. Still healthy as ever.

[Nepenthe]

I'd say it depends on the petition or boycott. And I did say there were people also saying ubisoft was shit and they were done with them. That to me seems a bit like a overreaction.

 

I doubt the decision to not patronize Ubisoft anymore is a result only of this one decision. Nearly every game company has a long rapport of stupid/anti-consumer stuff they've done- Ubi included- and this is the straw that may have broken the camel's back for some people.