Topic: Rayman Legends Delayed to September

[EasyCure]

All I can add to this conversation is that, I didn't play Rayman Origins. I played the Rayman Legends Demo and enjoyed it. I would have bought this game this month, because I really want something on my Wii U. Come September, I will have many more Wii U games as well as PS3 games.
I won't end up buying it.
Not because of bias, or hate, or revenge, or anything like that, just terrible terrible timing.

And that's whats so unfortunate about this. I'm sure there are more gamers like you than there are the ones that will boycott it or purposely wait until they can get it dirt cheap at gamespot in order to spite a game company.

[Stogi]

They should probably take down those demos....

[Fireponcoal]

The WiiU is a fucking joke.

[Adrock]

And that's whats so unfortunate about this. I'm sure there are more gamers like you than there are the ones that will boycott it or purposely wait until they can get it dirt cheap at gamespot in order to spite a game company.

A bigger message would be to buy the game (if you were going to before the delay) to show that 3rd party games can succeed on the console.

Additionally, an organized fan movement that opens a dialog with Ubisoft to calmly and respectfully address fan discontent from a Wii U owner perspective would also be far more productive than flooding Miiverse with angry posts or wishing the game to fail. It may very well get ignored, but they're probably far more willing to listen if criticism is presented in a more constructive manner. It's important to be annoyed because this is annoying and it needs to be address because it matters and we need to treat it like it matters. Throwing a tantrum on Miiverse is not the way to do it though.

[EasyCure]

And that's whats so unfortunate about this. I'm sure there are more gamers like you than there are the ones that will boycott it or purposely wait until they can get it dirt cheap at gamespot in order to spite a game company.

A bigger message would be to buy the game (if you were going to before the delay) to show that 3rd party games can succeed on the console.

Additionally, an organized fan movement that opens a dialog with Ubisoft to calmly and respectfully address fan discontent from a Wii U owner perspective would also be far more productive than flooding Miiverse with angry posts or wishing the game to fail. It may very well get ignored, but they're probably far more willing to listen if criticism is presented in a more constructive manner. It's important to be annoyed because this is annoying and it needs to be address because it matters and we need to treat it like it matters. Throwing a tantrum on Miiverse is not the way to do it though.

While I agree with you, it's the sad truth that a lot of people game on a budget and if the game comes out when either you don't have money, or you have some but have to make a choice between that and something you'd prefer, the game loses - not the player.

[Adrock]

I just meant that in terms of sending a message. Buying the game sends a bigger message than boycotting it. If the game doesn't sell, they'll blame it on Wii U owners, not the discouraging and unnecessary delay. If it sells well, it kind of justifies the delay (in their mind), but it encourages more support. Not ideal, but it's the best case scenario from this (completely avoidable) mess.

Since we don't live in a fantasy world where people buy products based solely on sending messages from companies that dick them over, that's not realistic. Like I mentioned in another topic, if Rayman Legends launches near the Wind Waker remake now, forget it. Game over. 9 out of 10 people are going to pick Zelda because it's Zelda and ultimately Ubisoft will have traded solid sales on a single console with next to no competition on the platform for mediocre-best-terrible-at-worst  sales on 3 consoles due to strong competition.

[azeke]

Was watching miiverse reaction video:

Good one.

Also boycotting is stupid. When making statements on the internets start to matter to you more than your personal fun from playing the game you kinda lost the plot.

[EasyCure]

I just meant that in terms of sending a message. Buying the game sends a bigger message than boycotting it. If the game doesn't sell, they'll blame it on Wii U owners, not the discouraging and unnecessary delay. If it sells well, it kind of justifies the delay (in their mind), but it encourages more support. Not ideal, but it's the best case scenario from this (completely avoidable) mess.

Since we don't live in a fantasy world where people buy products based solely on sending messages from companies that dick them over, that's not realistic. Like I mentioned in another topic, if Rayman Legends launches near the Wind Waker remake now, forget it. Game over. 9 out of 10 people are going to pick Zelda because it's Zelda and ultimately Ubisoft will have traded solid sales on a single console with next to no competition on the platform for mediocre-best-terrible-at-worst  sales on 3 consoles due to strong competition.

I'd hate to sound like Ian but it (most likely) wouldn't generate the kind of support we'd want. If it sells they'll think the market is full of desperate idiots and provide only lackluster support. I guess some is better than none? Again, doesn't affect me because I won't buy something I don't like and in this example, I wasn't impressed by Rayman Legends so I was never planning on getting it anyway.

Yes, boycotting is stupid but I wasn't talking about that. I was referring to the people who will end up picking up a better game that will be released around that time, whether it's for wii u or any other system. That's happened to me before, a game kinda falls by the wayside and you forget about it. Could've been good but it missed its chance. Thats what I feel might happen with Rayman, and its unfortunate because it could've been avoided. People who declare boycotts probably weren't going to buy it anyway.

[Adrock]

Encourages ≠ Generates

A game selling better at least shows that there are people interested in buying Ubisoft games even if Ubisoft was responsible for the controversy to begin with. Even if you're referring to a game that people wait to pick up later, the same basic message is sent. Ubisoft will have made less money on the game when people wait to buy it for $20 or nothing if people buy it used.

[Plugabugz]

The market doesn't support more than two methods of consumer/manfacturer responses - we buy or do not buy. Interest, or little/no interest. Other things do not weigh in as heavily as those two.

Ubisoft are at the beginning of a circular argument - they delay a game so far to the point nobody wants it, nobody buys it, they release something else but because of what they did before people are turned off from Ubi, consumers expectations are raised even further (e.g. if they want me to buy this game it better be VERY good!), but because they delayed the first game nobody wants it... and so the circle goes on.

Eventually they don't release games and the consumers complain they're not releasing games.

[ejamer]

Interesting to see the very candid developer remarks. Hopefully there won't be any repercussions for speaking out.  Can't imagine that Nintendo is happy with this news either after giving the game a huge amount of marketing support, although doubt we'll hear anything from their camp on the matter.


Also have to say that, even assuming mediocre sales across all platforms, the delay probably makes sense for Ubisoft's bottom line.  Getting a small bump in sales (due to better marketing and removing the perception that PS3/360 versions are "just a port of an old game") across the massive PS3/360 install base will probably generate more sales than being a dominant game on Wii U at this point in the lifecycle.


That doesn't make announcing a delay so close to release any more acceptable for gamers, and I think the Ubisoft suits deserves ever bit the harsh criticism they'll end up receiving for this move.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Also have to say that, even assuming mediocre sales across all platforms, the delay probably makes sense for Ubisoft's bottom line.  Getting a small bump in sales (due to better marketing and removing the perception that PS3/360 versions are "just a port of an old game") across the massive PS3/360 install base will probably generate more sales than being a dominant game on Wii U at this point in the lifecycle.

That was my point exactly.

[Ceric]

I truly feel for the Workers on this game.  Everyone below managament who is actually making that project.  I just had almost the same thing happen to me just last week but, on a smaller scale and to say that it stinks is an understatement.  Especially since these people are probably being paid Salary and actually making less than a McDonald's employee pushing that long.

Now while I can feel for them they do not make the decisions.  Which is unfortunate from my perspective.  I will not be buying this game.  I was impressed enough initially to move from a probably not to getting it.  This just dropped me out.

For me its like knowing someone who you really enjoy spending time with.  Then you find out that they had beaten up your child one night, hospital level.  It may still be the same banter and everything but you are no longer going to enjoy it because, you know they have abused your child.

Their is almost no way that Ubisoft PR could have handled this worse.  Also almost no way that NoA PR could be handling it worse.  "We're still the only platform with the Demo."  Go F yourself.

Nintendo needs to take a hard look at their NoA branch.  At least in the Gamecube days they could keep fans interested.  Now they are a joke that are costing Nintendo more sales then helping.  Take Fire Emblem. 

With the hype that it has been getting from non-Nintendo sources it should have had a very large initial batch.  Instead you think it was a stinking Atlus Niche of Niches game.  You could have never guess it was 1st party.

Something going to need to happen in the gaming Industry and soon.  I'm in the generation of gamers and they are pushing me away.  I understand business but their not picking up a newer generation for the trade off.  The average age of a gamer is STILL in their 30s.

Also

Also have to say that, even assuming mediocre sales across all platforms, the delay probably makes sense for Ubisoft's bottom line.  Getting a small bump in sales (due to better marketing and removing the perception that PS3/360 versions are "just a port of an old game") across the massive PS3/360 install base will probably generate more sales than being a dominant game on Wii U at this point in the lifecycle.

That was my point exactly.

This would have been better.

[slim1980]

its like this ubisoft  messed up like the company who made epic mickey.when it was on just Wii it sold like hot cakes then they make epic mickey 2 and put it all consoles.now they are closed down.should have left rayman legends for just the wii u.but no matter nintendo wii still come on top been doing it since the 80,s

[Ian Sane]

That statement from the developers really hits home.  I remember about a year ago I had to a project that the client really needed in two weeks that was realistically a month of work.  My company trusted me and we needed all the income we could get so I busted my ass working 12 hours days including weekends to get the project on time and was just stressed out of my mind doing it - and then the client said they weren't ready on their end like the day before the due date.  There was no reason whatsoever to push myself so hard and that SUCKED.  A videogame is even worse since crunch time can be a lot longer than two weeks and in this case it's really more like their boss moved the deadline, instead of the client.  At least my employer appreciated my hard work, the Rayman devs realistically don't get that.  Hell, the delay will probably cause the game to underperform and Ubisoft will just lay these guys off.

[ejamer]

"Thanks for all your feedback regarding Rayman Legends in all of its forms. We have heard you and we will continue to listen. We understand your frustration and that you want to get your hands on the game.

We are working with the development team to provide you with a new, exclusive demo for the Wii U soon. Stay tuned for more."

https://www.facebook.com/ubisoft/posts/10151284871242293

Somehow, I think Ubisoft missed the point. "Exclusive" demo or not, seems like they might've been better off to not say anything at this point.

Read speculation somewhere (maybe GoNintendo?) that the delay is due to XBox 360 licensing agreements that clearly state third party games must not be released earlier on other platforms.  If true, that would help explain why the delay is necessary - otherwise you'd assume that Ubisoft could at least drop the finished Wii U game on eShop, even if they didn't do much advertising until the other versions were near release.

[Ceric]

...
Read speculation somewhere (maybe GoNintendo?) that the delay is due to XBox 360 licensing agreements that clearly state third party games must not be released earlier on other platforms. 
...

Nintendo should have put that clause into their licensing.

[ejamer]

...
Read speculation somewhere (maybe GoNintendo?) that the delay is due to XBox 360 licensing agreements that clearly state third party games must not be released earlier on other platforms. 
...

Nintendo should have put that clause into their licensing.

I have no idea how accurate it is for 360, but I doubt Nintendo could get away with that. Third parties already have enough excuses for not bringing games out on Nintendo platforms, they'd scream bloody murder if Wii U had anything like that in the contract.

[broodwars]

Just to make the 360 situation clearer, here is the original interview that "policy" originated from. I'll post the pertinent sections.

Eurogamer: What is the policy regarding multiplatform downloadable games? Do you have a policy to make sure that downloadable games released on both platforms are at the very least launched on Xbox 360 at the same time with feature parity, or you won't publish them on Xbox Live Arcade?

Chris Lewis: Yeah, as you can imagine, we focus on that. We're a little biased, so obviously we're going to look to protect our own space as best we can and get exclusivity. Whilst I can't be specific about the terms and conditions, you can be very confident we seek to maximise our own advantage to ensure the playing field is even, and certainly plays to our advantage wherever possible.
As you can also imagine, our partners have to be mindful of the relationship they have with all platform holders, and they need to be equitable. But there are contractual situations where we get agreement with different people to do different things, and through what we have available on Xbox Live, we are able to offer things other people can't offer, that allows that exclusivity and unique elements to it that might not otherwise be available elsewhere.

So basically, you release on 360 at the same time, or you offer a substantial content increase. Otherwise, Microsoft may (and the key word is "may") not allow a game to be published on the 360. However, we've never heard of any concrete occasions when this has actually occurred, and this probably doesn't have anything to do with the Rayman Legends situation, the original quote largely being about downloadable games.

[NWR_insanolord]

Also, I'm pretty sure that policy only applies to Xbox Live Arcade.

[Ian Sane]

A new demo from Ubisoft?  If I didn't assume they were clueless, I would figure they were intentionally mocking us.  All the demo will do is remind everyone about how they CAN'T play it now, even though the game is done.  The best move right now is to just shut up.  Personally nothing pisses me off more then when I'm being patronized and that's what this is.  Either Ubisoft is knowingly offering a bullshit olive branch or they're so out-of-touch that they're unaware that they're patronizing, which might be worse.  I prefer when someone intentionally insults me than when I'm such a blip on their radar that they don't even realize they're doing it.

While it would get them in trouble I would LOVE it if in the new demo the developers either added some Easter egg sticking it to Ubisoft or, better yet, they hid the WHOLE FUCKING GAME in the demo and made it so it could be found with a simple hack or code.

[Louieturkey]

Also, I'm pretty sure that policy only applies to Xbox Live Arcade.

Which is also stupid but not relevant to this situation.

[bobhobob]

Everyone is in the middle of this heated debate, and I'm just sitting here eating my popcorn.

[Mop it up]

It'd be hilarious if there were already copies of the game shipped to stores. It'd also be funny if the game still mistakenly appeared on the eShop on its original release date.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Maybe they can accidentally release it for a day on the Wii U eshop?  It's not like it hasn't happened before . 


I played Rayman Origins and I didn't really get into it that much.  This was never a $60 game for me.  I think I got Origins for either $10 or $15 which seems about right to me.  I'm much more upset that EA is showing no support.  They have a great collection of games even if you don't like their sports games. 


I'm really upset at Nintendo for letting this occur.  We may legitimately be looking at another Gamecube generation in terms of sales.  I get that the Wii U is lacking in games and that was probably the game of the first quarter.  But we shouldn't be that upset over the delay of one game.  After a decent launch (though many ports), Nintendo hasn't given us anything until summer.  Way too long of a drought for a new console.