Literally who cares, it’s not released and that’s the point.
You care apparently since you’re defending it so hard.
This game has set itself up to fail in a similar way that Metal Gear Survive set itself up to fail. Viewer reactions have been across the board pretty negative to footage released. Most people have said they do not plan to play the game. When a development studio sees a lot of negative feedback for early content, they make a choice of delaying and reworking what they have to hopefully get more positive reception, or releasing anyways to largely expected negative reception. The problem is Skull and Bones has been delayed multiple times, and every time it has had content shown the reception has been mostly negative. That’s generally a sign to a studio to drop development completely, because releasing will cost the company more money than dropping the game. This game has a legal requirement to release. So they either release and damage their reputation again, or they delay and rework. But they can only delay and rework so many times, their funding is not infinite.
This is like saying the lightbulb is doomed to fail because they didn’t get it working as soon as they’d hoped.
If the company making the lightbulb was going bankrupt, had numerous reports of unethical and illegal activity, had made only mid-at-best lightbulbs before, was cancelling other more promising lightbulb designs, and looked like a bootleg of another company’s lightbulb, maybe.
Alright, you make a compelling argument. We’ll see, but I do have friends that are still optimistic about this game when it eventually launches, they mostly just grovel about it not being done yet.
Maybe the broader circles are more informed and more negative. I’m projecting a bit in that I’ve loosely followed this game after learning it was even a planned thing a few months ago from the friend that still carries some optimism for it.
I don’t think the “mass market” follows prerelease content in the way you’re suggesting basically. If it releases as a polished game, and I hadn’t had this conversation, I would never have known or cared about early reception of the gameplay/gameplay footage.
had numerous reports of unethical and illegal activity
(While I think generative AI is an amazing and useful tool, I dont think it should be used in this way by a company that should be able to afford paying an artist. Therefore I along with many consider this unethical, but it is debatable).
Hopefully conditions inside the company have improved, but it’s hard to get that kind of “positive” insight even if it does exist.
(While I think generative AI is an amazing and useful tool, I dont think it should be used in this way by a company that should be able to afford paying an artist. Therefore I along with many consider this unethical, but it is debatable).
You care apparently since you’re defending it so hard.
This game has set itself up to fail in a similar way that Metal Gear Survive set itself up to fail. Viewer reactions have been across the board pretty negative to footage released. Most people have said they do not plan to play the game. When a development studio sees a lot of negative feedback for early content, they make a choice of delaying and reworking what they have to hopefully get more positive reception, or releasing anyways to largely expected negative reception. The problem is Skull and Bones has been delayed multiple times, and every time it has had content shown the reception has been mostly negative. That’s generally a sign to a studio to drop development completely, because releasing will cost the company more money than dropping the game. This game has a legal requirement to release. So they either release and damage their reputation again, or they delay and rework. But they can only delay and rework so many times, their funding is not infinite.
If the company making the lightbulb was going bankrupt, had numerous reports of unethical and illegal activity, had made only mid-at-best lightbulbs before, was cancelling other more promising lightbulb designs, and looked like a bootleg of another company’s lightbulb, maybe.
Alright, you make a compelling argument. We’ll see, but I do have friends that are still optimistic about this game when it eventually launches, they mostly just grovel about it not being done yet.
Maybe the broader circles are more informed and more negative. I’m projecting a bit in that I’ve loosely followed this game after learning it was even a planned thing a few months ago from the friend that still carries some optimism for it.
I don’t think the “mass market” follows prerelease content in the way you’re suggesting basically. If it releases as a polished game, and I hadn’t had this conversation, I would never have known or cared about early reception of the gameplay/gameplay footage.
I am curious about this though?
Regarding Ubisoft’s unethical/illegal activity:
Executives arrested for questioning in sexual misconduct probe: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53391689
Ubisoft is a Toxic Workplace: https://www.ign.com/articles/almost-a-year-after-toxic-workplace-allegations-ubisoft-employees-reportedly-say-nothing-has-changed
Ubisoft using generative AI for promotional artwork for Assassin’s Creed: https://www.pcgamer.com/ubisofts-using-hideous-ai-generated-assassins-creed-art-on-social-media-and-everyone-hates-it/
(While I think generative AI is an amazing and useful tool, I dont think it should be used in this way by a company that should be able to afford paying an artist. Therefore I along with many consider this unethical, but it is debatable).
Interesting… Looks like those folks are still going through the system https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/10/former-ubisoft-executives-reportedly-arrested-over-sexual-harassment-allegations/
Hopefully conditions inside the company have improved, but it’s hard to get that kind of “positive” insight even if it does exist.
Very fair.
Thanks