Yeah, the billion dollar game developer doesn’t have the resources to test preview editions of the only PC OS their game is designed for. They’re just a small startup of ~20k employees. How are they supposed to allocated anyone to patching a game from their most popular franchise?
You’re right, it’s the consumers fault for being biased.
That yes, it doesn’t bother me that Ubisoft is a consumer of Microsoft.
If Ubisoft doesn’t update their product, they should be reviews negatively. If they don’t like it they should de list it so people don’t pay money for a broken product.
Delist the game that’s been out since 2017 and already bought by 10 million people! Genius! The update point has already been clowned on by plenty of others in the thread, so I won’t relitigate that. But wow dude, delisting is so smart. Like, if 10 million people with the game can’t access what they paid for that’s way better for consumers.
It’s almost like you can delist it in such a way you prevent people from paying money for a broken game with no intention of updating it again, and still leave it for people who currently have copies.
I didn’t want to discredit the reviews, just give more context to the situation. I don’t think that there is any AAA dev that has 8 year old games at such a high priority level that they would fix any “posthumous” issues immediately.
If they’re selling the game somewhere right now (like GOG) and it doesn’t run on your computer then it’s perfectly acceptable to give it a review rating of “Not Recommended”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Yeah, the billion dollar game developer doesn’t have the resources to test preview editions of the only PC OS their game is designed for. They’re just a small startup of ~20k employees. How are they supposed to allocated anyone to patching a game from their most popular franchise?
You’re right, it’s the consumers fault for being biased.
They do have the resources, they also have the expectation they won’t need to waste them on dumb shit MS breaks.
Ubisoft IS the consumer of MS products. But I guess your sympathies for consumers is only skin deep.
Companies aren’t people. So yes, my limit is “skin deep”.
(Not the person you replied to).
What a profound observation. Paperwork isn’t flesh. Amazing. What’s your point?
That yes, it doesn’t bother me that Ubisoft is a consumer of Microsoft.
If Ubisoft doesn’t update their product, they should be reviews negatively. If they don’t like it they should de list it so people don’t pay money for a broken product.
Delist the game that’s been out since 2017 and already bought by 10 million people! Genius! The update point has already been clowned on by plenty of others in the thread, so I won’t relitigate that. But wow dude, delisting is so smart. Like, if 10 million people with the game can’t access what they paid for that’s way better for consumers.
It’s almost like you can delist it in such a way you prevent people from paying money for a broken game with no intention of updating it again, and still leave it for people who currently have copies.
Wow that was such a garbage take.
Yea it’s pretty garbage. No mention of MS having culpability for breaking it. Just blame the victim and sweep the game under the rug.
So what, you think they shouldn’t be reviewed bad for a broken game?
No, it’s broken and shouldn’t be for sale if they’re not going to fix it.
Guess what, as a mobile dev, my job is to fix the broken shit on multiple OSs as well. It’s the territory.
The game is an eight years old single player game. I doubt they had many people working on it anymore.
So, people should leave positive reviews for games that no longer work?
Like I get what your saying. It’s not Ubisoft’s fault.
But if they’re not going to fix their old game, than it should be reviewed negatively so people don’t spend money on a game that no longer works.
If they don’t want that, than delist it.
I didn’t want to discredit the reviews, just give more context to the situation. I don’t think that there is any AAA dev that has 8 year old games at such a high priority level that they would fix any “posthumous” issues immediately.
Sure
But when people are replying to
https://lemm.ee/comment/17210238
Saying that anyone not calling out Microsoft is biased, is a bad take. And I’m not sure what your point of more context is needed?
A broken game gets negative reviews. I’m not sure what’s biased about this.
Brb gonna test those old 1995 games and if they don’t run on Windows 11 I’ll review bomb Eidos.
If they’re selling the game somewhere right now (like GOG) and it doesn’t run on your computer then it’s perfectly acceptable to give it a review rating of “Not Recommended”