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.
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.
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 ran fine since 2017 and got blindsided by MS. Anyone blaming Ubisoft is biased af, or has information not included in this article.
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.
Brb gonna test those old 1995 games and if they don’t run on Windows 11 I’ll review bomb Eidos.
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.
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.