Watch Dogs official thread (PC and Console)

[The Joker]

I would hardly call having an awesome time in a game that I bought for R225 being shafted. But whatever floats your boat. I don't need to read about other people's issues and their rage to try and justify my own hatred for the company and the game.

http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/65187-watch-dogs-pc-launch-travesty.html

Edit: I should add that I am actually enjoying the game a lot, its fun in the same way that GTA is fun on PC but you can't ignore shit like this.

 

[Wyzak]

Well in all honesty i have not experienced anything i might just be lucky (touch wood) don't no one jinx my game now please

Impossibru, you and I must be on drugs or playing the wrong game.

http://mygaming.co.za/news/columns/65187-watch-dogs-pc-launch-travesty.html

I think you should read my post again. Maybe you should have listened to me when I said you should cancel your pre-order. Think how much happier you would have been right now.

 

[The Joker]

Impossibru, you and I must be on drugs or playing the wrong game.



I think you should read my post again. Maybe you should have listened to me when I said you should cancel your pre-order. Think how much happier you would have been right now.

Never mind, I don't even know why I bother, your blatantly a fanboy that won't see the issue/s people are having.

 

[AlienTaker]

well i played and had no issues but i have mainly done a lot of hacking and exploring and so forth not much of the main story line yet so maybe i'm talking too early

 

[Wyzak]

well i played and had no issues but i have mainly done a lot of hacking and exploring and so forth not much of the main story line yet so maybe i'm talking too early

Quiet now, we've had enough of you fanboy!

 

[MetalSoup]

I feel that one the biggest threats we face as gamers, is other gamers, defending bad games and terrible developers. The more people defend this kind of shit, the less developers care and the more they know they can get away with.

"It works for me". That's great for you, but that doesn't mean you can just dismiss the problems others are experiencing. What if, tomorrow it stops working for you? Are you going to change your tune, or stick to your opinion that everything is great, just so you don't have to admit you may have been wrong?

 

[James]

To temper that, it is useful to know that some people are playing it without issues, but I agree they should stop short of defending the game, the developer, and the publisher when it's clear that a massive number of people have been left with a broken mess of a product.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I feel that one the biggest threats we face as gamers, is other gamers, defending bad games and terrible developers. The more people defend this kind of shit, the less developers care and the more they know they can get away with.

"It works for me". That's great for you, but that doesn't mean you can just dismiss the problems others are experiencing. What if, tomorrow it stops working for you? Are you going to change your tune, or stick to your opinion that everything is great, just so you don't have to admit you may have been wrong?

I have to agree with you.

It's a large part of what makes the reviews on these releases so frustrating. Here you'll have a game that has given a significant portion of the player base legitimate problems. But, on PC, it's been reviewed very well (here's looking at 80 on Metacritic).

Yet come some non-AAA title with fewer bugs and suddenly reviewers are overly critical.

And you'll always find people defending it.

I don't believe that most publishers really care what gamers think anyway. How often do they force developers to push through stupid ideas just because the "stats show that this is the in thing right now" despite an outry from their fanbase? The only way you can get a publisher to take heed and listen is if you refuse to buy their products.

And that's where most gamers a gullible chops who will keep supporting a terrible IP or rush to the forums to defend a broken IP just because they've not experienced the same degree of problems.

You'll always have your apologist martyrs.

But, truth be told... I'm not much different. I'm always happy to fall in love with "broken" or "unloved" IPs if they capture my heart and sing their praises. Although that's probably because they don't have the budget and resources AAA games have.

I just struggle to look at the last twenty years of Ubisoft releases and see them as anything other than an unethical company that has always treated their PC market with disdain.

 

[Wyzak]

I feel that one the biggest threats we face as gamers, is other gamers, defending bad games and terrible developers. The more people defend this kind of shit, the less developers care and the more they know they can get away with.

Is it really a bad game though if some people aren't experiencing any issues or hardly any issues? Is it really a bad game if the developer hasn't even been given a chance to fix the issues? When last did we have a good game then or a good developer then? The game has been out for two days, it did not have an open beta, or a well publicised closed beta so some teething issues should have been expected.

A bigger threat to gamers in my opinion is buying a game purely on hype. If you don't like the game or the direction the developers have taken don't buy their product. It's really as simple as that. If they don't sell enough copies they will change, if they keep on shattering records they aren't likely to change.

I just struggle to look at the last twenty years of Ubisoft releases and see them as anything other than an unethical company that has always treated their PC market with disdain.

Why are you still buying their products then? Oh and btw how is your experience of Watch Dogs so far?

 

[MetalSoup]

Is it really a bad game though if some people aren't experiencing any issues or hardly any issues? Is it really a bad game if the developer hasn't even been given a chance to fix the issues?

They haven't even acknowledged the issues, why would they fix them?

 

[Lycanthrope]

Is it really a bad game though if some people aren't experiencing any issues or hardly any issues? Is it really a bad game if the developer hasn't even been given a chance to fix the issues? When last did we have a good game then or a good developer then? The game has been out for two days, it did not have an open beta, or a well publicised closed beta so some teething issues should have been expected.

Ubisoft is not a small-time publisher. They've been in the industry since 1986. That excuse really struggles to fly.

A bigger threat to gamers in my opinion is buying a game purely on hype. If you don't like the game or the direction the developers have taken don't buy their product. It's really as simple as that. If they don't sell enough copies they will change, if they keep on shattering records they aren't likely to change.

What do you call misrepresentation of a product to invoke hype? That's precisely what Ubisoft did with the E3 trailer and what they have consistently been doing in media by falsely representing the quality of the game.

There's "marketing" and then there's "bullshitting." Ubisoft is guilty of the latter.

Why are you still buying their products then? Oh and btw how is your experience of Watch Dogs so far?

Generally, I don't. But once in a while I get caught up in the hype and I want to play the same games as my friends and chat/rant/whatever with them about the experience.

My experience is mostly fine, apart from the annoying microstutter while driving which has been working on my tits.

 

[Wyzak]

They haven't even acknowledged the issues, why would they fix them?

Inversely, why wouldn't they? They are trying to launch a new IP and pissing off everybody by not providing support certainly won't get them very far.

The guys communicating with the public aren't the same guys who have to resolve the problem. I'm willing to give them a chance, as I said above it's 2 days after the launch with little to no beta testing prior to release. If the issues still persist months after then that will be unacceptable. How long ago was BF4 released and they are still trying to fix fundamental gameplay issues. Same with Diablo III, it finally became a proper game to play with the release of the first expansion.

My experience is mostly fine, apart from the annoying microstutter while driving which has been working on my tits.

So the same as me and Alientaker then. Are you having fun?

Ubisoft is not a small-time publisher. They've been in the industry since 1986. That excuse really struggles to fly.

Are you saying that big publishers don't have buggy games or issues at launch? Which publishers would those be?

What do you call misrepresentation of a product to invoke hype? That's precisely what Ubisoft did with the E3 trailer and what they have consistently been doing in media by falsely representing the quality of the game.

There's "marketing" and then there's "bullshitting." Ubisoft is guilty of the latter.

This appears to be a very dear issue to many people. I guess I'm not really affected by it because I don't really follow the E3 announcements and my hype was based on actual gameplay footage that was recently released instead.

What I still struggle to understand, is that this was no surprise. It's not like people only found out on launch day that the game is different to the game they showed at E3. Why did you not cancel your order then? If you stuck through it knowing that it's different, I personally feel that you should blame yourself.

All companies bullshot these days. Rockstar certainly did, so did Blizzard with Diablo III. I don't excuse them for that, but it has made me more cautious.

 

[Lycanthrope]

So the same as me and Alientaker then. Are you having fun?

I don't know how to answer that without ranting about how stupid it all is. There are just so many inconsistencies. Total Biscuit touched on them in his WTF is... video. My biggest gripe is probably the fact that our antihero protagonist runs after criminals who commit crimes not all that different to himself (assault, invasion of privacy, murder, etc).

There's an entire ethical and moral minefield that this game just charges through like a rutting rhinoceros. It tries to take itself so seriously but it's just a juvenile silly, ridiculous game with a shallow story and inconsistent themes.

The gameplay is fun though.

Are you saying that big publishers don't have buggy games or issues at launch? Which publishers would those be?

Most publishers manage to have most of their customers be able to launch their games at least

This appears to be a very dear issue to many people. I guess I'm not really affected by it because I don't really follow the E3 announcements and my hype was based on actual gameplay footage that was recently released instead.

What I still struggle to understand, is that this was no surprise. It's not like people only found out on launch day that the game is different to the game they showed at E3. Why did you not cancel your order then? If you stuck through it knowing that it's different, I personally feel that you should blame yourself.

I actually already answered this:

Generally, I don't. But once in a while I get caught up in the hype and I want to play the same games as my friends and chat/rant/whatever with them about the experience.

All companies bullshot these days. Rockstar certainly did, so did Blizzard with Diablo III. I don't excuse them for that, but it has made me more cautious.

Sure, but they at least tried to let people down before launch. Blizzard answered people's questions about Diablo III, whether it was explaining that it wasn't going to be a completely procedurally generated world, how the auction house would work, that loot would be more difficult to acquire so that the Auction House economy would be stable; that it was going to be always-online, etc. They had the decency to be transparent about their design choices, even if it wasn't always what fans wanted to hear.

I can't comment about Rockstar, unfortunately

 

[Wyzak]

Most publishers manage to have most of their customers be able to launch their games at least

Certainly wasn't the case with Diablo III or Simcity, or even BF4.

Most publishers manage to have most of their customers be able to launch their games at least

Sure, but they at least tried to let people down before launch. Blizzard answered people's questions about Diablo III, whether it was explaining that it wasn't going to be a completely procedurally generated world, how the auction house would work, that loot would be more difficult to acquire so that the Auction House economy would be stable; that it was going to be always-online, etc. They had the decency to be transparent about their design choices, even if it wasn't always what fans wanted to hear.

Blizzard had bullshot videos showing how the terrain was destructible which never ended up in the final game. They also claimed that the latency would not be felt at all because it would be in the background only running checks. These did not end up in the final game but fortunately I noticed it during the beta and was able to steer clear.

In my opinion Ubisoft also let people down before the release, there was a ton of gameplay footage available up to the launch date. If they had something to hide I am sure they would have tried harder. And let's not forget that Ubisoft was willing to delay the launch of the game by several months and took a financial pounding during that time.

It's hard for me not to overlook the fact that my game is running fine, I haven't had a single crash, I didn't have any install issues and I haven't had any issues in game expect for the micro-stuttering. This to me means that the core game isn't stillborn, it's not a flawed concept or an asshole-developer. To me it's a game that has teething issues on launch.

 

[Clive Woofer]

I really must say, it's amazing how things never change. No matter how crap a game is, you'll always have apologists defending it. They can serve up a game that literally opens a screen of a turd on a plate and stays there, and then you'll have someone defending it.

This garbage needs to stop. ASAP. If you're not having issues and you're enjoying the game, good for you! Just stop telling everyone else off and making excuses. I must say, Wyzak, I am very surprised that you of all people are defending what is one of the poorer launches in recent history.

And this is Ubisoft. We'll never see all the issues patched out. When Far Cry 3 released I could play it with all my settings maxed out at 60FPS. Later patches broke the performance and now I have to play on High to get 60FPS. On the exact same hardware. Ubisoft will never fix this. The same is going to happen here. They'll release a few patches and then stop the moment it stops being profitable.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Certainly wasn't the case with Diablo III or Simcity, or even BF4.

Hey, you could launch them, at least. Whether you could connect is another matter--I'm not even arguing the server problems, I'm purely arguing the technical feat of starting the game

Blizzard had bullshot videos showing how the terrain was destructible which never ended up in the final game. They also claimed that the latency would not be felt at all because it would be in the background only running checks. These did not end up in the final game but fortunately I noticed it during the beta and was able to steer clear.

I appreciate that and it's a valid criticism.

In my opinion Ubisoft also let people down before the release, there was a ton of gameplay footage available up to the launch date. If they had something to hide I am sure they would have tried harder. And let's not forget that Ubisoft was willing to delay the launch of the game by several months and took a financial pounding during that time.

Yeah, if this is what we got after the delay, imagine what they'd originally wanted to give us.

It's hard for me not to overlook the fact that my game is running fine, I haven't had a single crash, I didn't have any install issues and I haven't had any issues in game expect for the micro-stuttering. This to me means that the core game isn't stillborn, it's not a flawed concept or an asshole-developer. To me it's a game that has teething issues on launch.

No, I don't blame the developer-side ethics of Ubisoft (not significantly, at least); I wholeheartedly blame the publisher aspect and the determination of old suits without a clue enforcing a flawed DRM tool (which, considering the large number of pirate torrents, has never worked anyway) and a shitty content distribution platform, along with not investing the resources necessary for adequate quality control for the PC release and for misrepresenting the quality of their product.

Just look at the Steam thread for it: http://steamcommunity.com/app/243470/discussions/

Its problems aren't just isolated to a handful of people. These are all people who have spent a lot of money on the simple, basic expectation to be able to run the game they've purchased. They waited with as much anticipation as the next person for its release and it came, and they've been unable to play it.

They're entirely justified in being angry and upset.

To get back to what Eugene was saying (sort of, I think), just because a game works for you, doesn't invalidate the legitimate problems that other people are having. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure you'd want to know that you aren't just being ignored and I'm sure you wouldn't want people trying to invalidate your problem by saying, "Works for me" and insinuating, "It must be you."

 

[Clive Woofer]

Another thing- it is scary how many people have simply started sitting back and accepting that the status quo is now to release broken games and then they want to excuse it by saying "Oh, but that happens with all games" or "But it will be patched later." If this is you, then go jump in a flaming pit. This is not acceptable and never has been. These issues should have come up in proper, thorough QA sessions and should have been ironed out long before release.

I say again, if you think it's okay to release buggy games so that you can patch them later, your priorities are all screwed up. If someone tried to sell NASA a buggy piece of software that needs thorough patching to work properly, they would get the crap sued out of them. The videogame industry shouldn't be able to get away with it simply because the consumer base doesn't hold the same amount of sway as NASA.

 

[James]

We aren't talking about small bugs and glitches that can be resolved with a quick hotfix. Yes, most games have such problems at launch, and any respectable developer/publisher should respect their customers enough to acknowledge the problems and assure they are working on a fix (and then follow through and deliver that fix). Always-online DRM systems failing at launch are one thing, but having got past that to find the game itself won't work properly, is another level of insulting slop.

No, in this case we are talking about show-stopping game-breaking bugs. I've had problems with the PC version, and Kevin has been stuck in bug-loops on PS4. Ubisoft hasn't bothered to officially acknowledge the problems, probably because they are trying to ride out the launch week sales and fix it later once all the schmucks have paid for the broken game.

I'm not sure what bringing up the fact that Diablo 3, BF4, and SimCity had problems at launch proves other than that the developers/publishers have a habit of shipping poorly tested flawed products and patching them up after the fact. By the way, we also tore into each of those games for their launch failings. The difference is in how each has handled the aftermath (I could go into what I think of each respective handling, but that would digress from the point).

Also, I don't understand how pointing out that they didn't have an open beta testing period prior to launch is in any way supposed to excuse the shoddy launch product. It actually further highlights their failing - it absolutely should have been tested extensively before launch. The paying customer is not a fucking beta tester!

These sort of game-breaking launch problems should not exist in a purportedly 'ground-breaking next-gen defining AAA title' from one of the world's wealthiest and most successful game publishers.

It is not acceptable to launch such a bug-ridden and apparently broken game. These are entertainment products that cost a lot of money for the customer. The developers and publishers owe their existence to the customer. The industry exists to serve and entertain the end-user. The customer does not owe the developer/publisher anything.

In the simplest terms, in return for their money the customer should get a game that works. When that dynamic breaks, and the aftermath is handled in an utterly disrespectful way, then the developer/publisher absolutely deserves to be pilloried in the forum of public opinion.

Those who consistently deliver quality products and services might enjoy customer loyalty and support - they are not entitled to it for simply doing their job to the minimum standard of quality - but with repeat offender Ubisoft it has worn thin.

 

[Lycanthrope]

The paying customer is not a fucking beta tester!

 

[to0kenZA]

After playing this game for a few days now, I am too disappointed. Off the bat- this post will contain many swearwords, so beware.

First of all, I had no problems installing or launching the game. I had no performance issues, except for the stuttering, which is bullshit. In an open world game, stuttering causes a lot of displeasure whilst playing, honestly. It's not about being fussy, it's about the GAME NOT WORKING LIKE IT SHOULD.

Now, with that aside- I am fucking fairly (<-- lol, fairly) annoyed with the fact that they went straight out console port to PC. The controls do get on my nerves sometimes (90%), especially the fucking broken weapon wheel, that you have to wrestle with as it was clearly designed to work with a controller, and had absolutely no effort put in to streamline it with mouse controls. The overall control and menus in the game is like this. It requires you to guess where your mouse is and feels very unstable and counter-intuitive, and clunky as shit.

Basically, it's the same old shit as usual- develop the game for a shitty-ass console and just straight up port the g******m game to PC without any remorse.

I wasn't expecting the world's greatest story, but I was expecting it to be fun, which it is, but I'd say it's about a mile off from where it could have been if they did not port the living shit out of this game.

With all my personal experiences and impressions done with, I'd like to say that I really feel pissed off on behalf of all the other PC gamers that have not even yet been able to play the bloody game. The launch was probably as bad, if not worse, than Diablo III's launch. Having your servers unable to deal with the load on launch day? Fuck you Ubisoft. I had faith in Ubisoft's after playing good quality games like AC and Far Cry, but if this is how they're going to start 2014, they can go fok themselves with a Tak-bok.

I fully agree that support for these types of blatant thievery should stop being supported by the PC community. For some reason these developers spit on the PC community and give them the shittiest quality of product they possibly can. Just because we don't want to conform to buying a dumbed down piece of shit console, we are "rebels" and we don't deserve a fully developed and polished game?

So bottom line is this:

If you are a PC gamer: Fuck you- you are not eligible to experience a good quality game. Get bent, you PC gaming rodent, how dare you buy hardware at extravagant prices and expect games to run properly on them? Oh, you want to also play this AAA game you've been waiting for, for 3 years? NO. NOO. You get the scraps, bitch!

I shall not buy another Ubisoft, Rockstar or any game affiliated with EA, again.

Every time I make a post like this, a console dies.

/Fucks a console up with a sledgehammer, hardcore.