Games worth your time

It isn't the first time Ubisoft has said or done controverial things. Just read my review of Watch_Dogs or the numerous of threads regarding the PC port of the game, which was a mess to put it lightly.

The art director from the developer of Ubisoft's new game "Assassins Creed: Unity" recently stated that the game will run at 30 frames per second and only in 900p resolution on both Xbox One and Playstation 4.

This is an obvious way appease consumers on both consoles in order not to spark any debate over which hardware is the better. Then again, everyone who has read into the consoles even a little knows the Playstation 4 hardware is superior, so why not make it run better there unless there is some sort of hidden agenda?

It isn't the most controversial statement by far, as the art director then went on to say that 60 frames per second feels good for first person shooters, but not for action adventure games such as Assassins Creed: Unity. He then also stated that "the number of pixels wasn't important if the graphics were gorgeous."

How an art director of a game can state such things and think he can be taken serious as an art director of all things is beyond me. Apparently this was also said in order to calm the growing discontent over the previous statement regarding the two consoles, although I can't think of a worse way.

So why would they say these things? Surely you would expect a developer of an AAA game to know their stuff.

Trying to appease both Microsoft and Sony is the first obvious theory here. By locking the graphical settings to be the same on both consoles they avoid any problems with both companies. It is quite possible that Microsoft have paid Ubisoft in order to make the game look just as good on the Xbox One as Playstation and even PC.

It certainly brings back recent memories from Watch_Dogs which had hidden config files that were used in their E3 showcase, but then turned off as the game looked better on PC than the next gen consoles, and since Watch_Dogs was a high profile game for the new consoles it would be a disaster if the graphics were better on PC. Again, everyone with a little knowledge about hardware knows that a relatively new gaming PC will always be more powerful than any console. It certainly makes it seem more and more likely they are being paid under the table in order to hide the shortcomings of the consoles or certainly Xbox One.

It is also plausible that Assassins Creed: Unity simply can't run smoothly at 60 frames per second, and render everything on the screen at the same time.

At least accept your own limitations if that is the case. The worst thing you can do is to make it seem as if your consumers are stupid, and any gamer should feel insulted by a company claiming such things.

For someone like me who has studied business and marketing I am amazed at these statements. You should never talk to your consumers as if they don't know as much as you, and outright lying to them is sacrilege. Not only do you lose the respect of your consumers, but they may simply never buy your products again. Your company loses creditablity, and it is very hard to gain consumer trust once it has been lost.

While some consumers may not care or notice it is obvious that Ubisoft is digging a hole for themselves that they may not be able to crawl out of any time soon. Their shady ways have not made them earn any respect from me, and they need to be a whole lot more transparent and honest in order for them to turn things around, something they truly lack.

Sources: Softpedia.com , Joystiq.com