After reading those posts we can discern: a representative from Ubisoft reported on the issue being fixed in a post dated March 5. The post indicates that the patch (which would hopefully fix the broken game) was being held from release, so as to incorporate it into a title update for the system. A week later on March 12, an update about the patch/title update indicated major changes to the game and that a release date would be shared soon.
Why would a patch that would fix a game be held from release? Why not release the patch now and the title update later? Why a simultaneous release? Actually, this release leads us to think that Ubisoft may plan on charging for the update. After reading this article, we shouldn’t have to tell you to be appalled by that thought.
But something else is fishy here: how come the reviews (including our very own score of 9) don’t mention any outstanding bugs like those mentioned? To be honest, we're willing to bet everyone who reviewed the game never experienced the bugs we mentioned. And to be fair, the bugs don’t occur in every single copy of the game. But based on these findingswe propose a post-launch reduction of the score across all platforms and all publications.
Other precedents of faulty hardware and software include: Microsoft spending over a billion dollars in pre-tax money to up everyone’s Xbox 360 warranties to 3 years after the red ring of death issues (took 18 months) and Nintendo’s Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess cannon room glitch, which was fixed by replacing the discs (took 5 months). May we suggest a similar call on Ubisoft’s part?
Weknow many talented people sunk months into making a great game.We just want to be able to see that great game and not get screwed over like so many gamers have already.
Apr 7, 2009
The worst games, trends and people from an otherwise groundbreaking year
VIDEO: A Domino Rally of pyromania, crafted in FC2's level editor
