this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
219 points (97.0% liked)
Games
32636 readers
971 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:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, you're not following me.
The point here isn't whether this game did poorly. It did. Cool.
The point here is that it did WORSE than other Ubisoft games.
Specifically, worse than Ubisoft games that include all the shitty behavior. More of the shitty behavior, in fact.
So the performance of the game is not correlated to the shitty behavior. Well, maybe more shitty behavior gets you better sales, that would fit, but I'm not going to jump to that.
You'd think if Ubisoft's shitty behavior is scaring people off this game would have done better than Mirage and Mirage better than Outcasts, but that's the opposite of what happened.
People that play games like this PoP don't generally buy the other games Ubisoft sells. And the people that do play recent Ubisoft games are not going to play this.
That is why things like the anti cheat (for a single player game) turn people off.
This doesn't have anticheat, it has DRM software, though.
But hey, if there is no overlap, then how come this did so much worse than other similarly well liked metroidvanias, right? That's been my point here. People keep pointing out that it's not comparable to other Ubi titles. I disagree, because PoP is PoP, but let's roll with that. It also underperformed compared to other games in the same genre with similar review scores.
So what happened there? Either the Ubi woes are behind this, and then it doesn't make sense because this did worse than other more Ubisofty Ubisoft games, or they are not because different demos, and that doesn't make sense because this did much worse than similar games not from Ubisoft.
I think as far as this tells us anything is that the stink of negativity is not very fact-based when it comes to the core gaming community. That and Ubisoft may not have more money to make by going to middle sized, pure and simple high quality experiences like Rayman or this. Which sucks. Those are the best games they've made in recent years, as far as I'm concerned.
Dude, multiple people have told you why. I spelled it out as well.
Unless you're a dev you've chosen a very strange hill to die on.
I don't and have never worked at Ubisoft, Mr McCarthy.
Multiple people have explained a hypothesis that doesn't fit the information we have. Them being multiple people doesn't make it true.
You being one person that refuses to accept things does not make everyone else wrong.
No, that'd be the info we have on how Ubi games performed on both Epic and Steam. I have very little to do with it, I'm just pointing at it.
Why do you even bother to comment a hundred times in here if you're not going to read anything anyone is saying to you?
What's the point? Are you really that bored?
If I responded to it, I read it in full.
Also, yes, obviously.