Okay, so here we go. You (Wyzak) don't think Ubisoft is without blame for delivering a poorly tested product. You believe they should have done a better job at testing the game (despite this being a challenging task).
So we agree then. This is what I've been saying all along (and so have many others).
You're personally willing to cut them some slack because "making games is hard, man". You also expected this outcome anyway for various reasons.
You didn't pay full price because you got it on special and you reckon you have a product that works acceptably to your standards, and therefore the expense:right to complain ratio hit your personal butter-zone of leaning toward defending the product because you can't just sit back and watch people tear Ubisoft apart (despite having conceded they should have done a better job of testing).
Within that framework, you also reckon that others shouldn't complain so vociferously because they should have known better than to buy it in the first place (business ethics and consumer rights notwithstanding).
Conversely, some of us are not willing to cut them slack, because making games is what they specialise in doing and they expect us to pay money for said games (and we expect them to work properly). We also feel very strongly about what we consider to be a poorly delivered (faulty) product and we're vocalising that.
What are we arguing about?
We are having a debate on an interesting topic, where we each have different opinions but we each defend our positions and listen to the rationale of the other person, in the end we reach a suitable compromise and everybody wins. No need to make it personal.
