Really sorry to hear about this. The community is there for you, IcyEyes. Anything you need, let us know.
patrickklepek's forum posts
I understand it's a news article, and since it's the written word and not all that exciting, you need to entice people into clicking on it (sadly, as you can tell, it worked), but does every article title need to be so snarky?
Can't news be delivered in a simple, matter-of-fact way? Negativity is irritating, regardless of how accurate it might be.
Can you explain how this is snarky? The article is mostly positive about the steps Ubisoft is taking.
I agree that the honesty is much appreciated, especially coming from someone who bought the PC release. That being said Patrick, I really think you should be holding Steam just as accountable as Microsoft or Sony for allowing a totally broken game to be sold on their service. Is there just no QA on the seller's side anymore? It's hard to believe that (as someone who meets all of the recommended system requirements according to Steam and has an Nvidia card) someone could have started up AC:U and played for more than an hour without noticing the huge frame-rate and crashing issues present.
I really hope that in the future console manufacturers and online marketplaces like Steam will have to accept some accountability for these sorts of problems, but somehow I doubt that will take place. I can't complain though, I did get a refund from Steam despite their policies about that.
P.S. You should edit your title duder, it says Ubisof!
Steam/Valve's role is pretty different from Microsoft and Sony. Steam doesn't have a certification process, but Microsoft and Sony do. Certification processes exist to ensure a certain level of quality, but it's a bit more wild west on the PC. The onus is entirely on the publisher on the PC.
Sorry that comments were locked for a bit there. Clicked the wrong button!
So according to 'how long to beat' the original game is 1 hour and 26 minutes long. While $3.99 isn't that much, there's also isn't any explanation on the store page that you're paying 4 bucks for a game shorter than most movies you could rent on Amazon Instant for half that price. So I could understand some users being scorned for then being asked to pay $1.99 for more content, which again doesn't state how long it is, is it 20 minutes? 30 minutes? It doesn't say.
I agree that people redoing scores is childish, but I would have been far more interested in an article that reviewed whether these were new reviews from pissed off users (who had not rated the game before), or people changing their review. According to techcrunch there were 500,000 downloads after a single month of the game being in the app store, that's just under 2 million US dollars. Let's assume that they negotiated the standard 30% that is part of the app store, and we'll take another 20% for taxes. So in the first month this game made 1 million dollars for a small indie studio. They also say that the game took only 10 months to make. The one missing factor is how many people worked on this title. They've made a lot of money on this title, and it's deserved.
@patrickklepek I think you can do better than this, or at least show it from both perspectives, especially when a game states 'new levels coming soon'. As other users mentioned this sets a level of expectation that the levels will be free, that's just how it works on the App store. They could have simply titled it as an expansion, or noted that it would cost money, and a lot of the outrage wouldn't be a problem. I want to see a deep dive into the reasoning behind the cost of the expansion versus the money made from the original, and why the developer felt that $1.99 was more justified than $0.99, or even free based on how much the game made originally.
What new movies are you renting on Amazon for $1.99? Everything new is $4.99/$5.99.
I mean, Hitman Go is a better, longer game and its new levels have been free, so...
The real story here is that more need to play Hitman Go.
While I agree with the your sentiment, Patrick, I feel like this article is sort of a missed opportunity, you could have gotten the same point across in a twitter post. I don't mean to come across as a dick by telling you what you should have done, but you could have used this as an opportunity to explore this phenomenon beyond this one particular game; doing so might have led to a more engaging, and perhaps more self evaluating, article overall.
That's not something I can do in five minutes. In five minutes, I can share something taking place that speaks to a broader trend, while also poking around for a more fleshed out piece. I've also explored the idea of problems in the mobile market extensively on Giant Bomb -- here and here.
uh Patrick you seem to have misspelled "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" in that subhead
The Lost World is no Jurassic Park, but it holds up pretty well upon a recent rewatch.
Nothing from the GB community this week?
Other than that, great Worth Reading as always Patrick.
The community stuff was supplied by ZombiePie, who hasn't been feeling well lately. I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he just didn't get around to sending Patrick that stuff because of those reasons. That said, I don't know for sure, so I could be wrong.
This is correct. He's recovering from some medical issues. It'll be back ASAP. :)