Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Ubisoft Financials

Ubisoft announces the release of financial results (Adobe Acrobat format) for their fiscal year 2013, saying their numbers for the year are "at the upper end of the recently-raised target ranges." They report annual sales are up 18% to €1,256 million and non-IFRS operating income is up 79% to €100 million. The results include perspective from Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot:

"In 2012-13 our financial performance outstripped the targets that we had announced a year ago, notably with non-IFRS operating income up 79% and higher-than-expected cash generation. The expertise and talent of our teams enabled Ubisoft to manage the year’s difficult market conditions and the drop in the casual segment remarkably well. In addition, the success of Far Cry 3 confirmed our strong comeback in the major segment of shooter games.” Guillemot continued "We began fiscal 2012-13 with two major franchises: Assassin’s Creed and Just Dance. Twelve months later, we have substantially extended our reach by establishing Far Cry as another major franchise, building upon the great potential for our newest brand, Watch Dogs, and making our online/digital segment an increasingly significant part of our business. The steady rise in our operating and financial performance during the last three years is the direct result of the longterm investments we have made, with the continued development of our creative capacity and the bolstering of our expertise in online activities.”

View
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

55. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 17:59 Jerykk
 
It's true that if Sleeping Dogs didn't require Steam and didn't have any integrated auto-update system, you could play without patching. But again, the only reason you don't want to patch is because the patches are so huge and the only reason they're so huge is because the developers put the DLC into them. The root of the issue is the poor DLC implementation, not automatic updates. It has nothing to do with Steam. Even if Sleeping Dogs had no DRM, the DLC would still be included in the patches and the patches would still be huge. Yes, you'd be able to play the game without patching but then you'd miss out on the numerous fixes and improvements the patches provide.

On a side note, I think the reason you couldn't play Sleeping Dogs was because you had already begun updating it before switching to offline mode. The game was already partially updated so it needed to finish updating, otherwise it would just be broken. If you had immediately switched to offline mode after first installing the game, I think you would have been able to play without downloading any patches.

I would like to see a poll of Steam users to see the actual satisfaction rating. Steam has a lot of points that seem like that's a good idea until... you want to do something that counters it.

If people were unsatisfied with Steam, it wouldn't be the most popular digital distribution platform. When Steam came out, everyone hated it and the only games that required Steam were Valve's games. Over time, more and more publishers started adopting Steamworks because consumers requested it. Steam is successful because people choose to use it, not because they are forced to.

How many free services are great ideas and convenient, everyone uses it then one day the company dedcides to do something it's users don't want like start charging for things... There will be a price to pay later for all this convenience I strongly believe as it happens all the time.

If we were talking about Microsoft, you'd have a fair point. But we're talking about Valve. When has Valve ever charged for something that was previously free? Hell, Valve provides more free content and services than any other company. There's no precedent for them trying to exploit customers so there's no logical reason to expect them to suddenly start doing so.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2013, 18:04.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 12:57 netnerd85
 
I think I made myself clear about what I really meant, if you fail to take note and just want to ignore that...

Jerykk is actually having a discussion with me without resorting to childish "but you said ALL aliens are green", I've made my point and myself clearer, is that not what we are trying to do here by communicating?

@Jerykk, but it's still a problem and a bad point. Yes it's more of a developer issue but the developers are using Steam to create the problem. I wouldn't have the problem if I didn't require Steam. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's not an issue.

I only have a handful of my 120+ games installed on Steam so I don't know which ones update and which do not. I tend to play older games first so I don't notice how often the new games are updating. Some games are great and require very little while others clog up your bandwidth usage.

I would like to see a poll of Steam users to see the actual satisfaction rating. Steam has a lot of points that seem like that's a good idea until... you want to do something that counters it.

How many free services are great ideas and convenient, everyone uses it then one day the company dedcides to do something it's users don't want like start charging for things... There will be a price to pay later for all this convenience I strongly believe as it happens all the time.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 11:48 Beamer
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 19, 2013, 06:17:
I'm talking about bought security mainly. Let's try to seperate the safety in numbers argument from the company or politician trying to sell you a false message of security. They sell you peace of mind and nothing all. Secuirty is a band aid to a much larger issue of evil human behaviour. Obviously humans need to stick together and that's not what I am talking about. Rules are important but security, the peace of mind bullshit people sell you, is not needed. There is only so far you can go where the balance of ACTUAL real safety is not increased vs the restriction of freedom. It's a balancing act, you should never go too far and choose a little bit more security over freedom.
Define "too far."

Plus, you're getting farther away from your initial "only fools choose security over freedom." Now you're saying "only fools choose TOO MUCH security over freedom."

Well fine, most consumers, educated or otherwise, do not feel Steam is too much security or too little freedom.


But I like how you backpedal and keep whittling away at your initial blanket statement and make it more and more meaningless.

Remember, all blanket statements are bad!

 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 08:59 Redmask
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 19, 2013, 06:17:
No. You just ignored me completely with Sleeping Dogs, that's a real issue and real concern for Steam. Forcing people to download and update or not play their game? That is extremely restrictive.

We don't live in a world with unlimited bandwidth, unlimited disk space yet and it's probably a way off still.

This is a huge stretch and just shows how weak your argument is. The days of mods requiring previous versions are long past and thanks to the internet its rare for mods to be totally abandoned. Also Steam does provide the functionality for multiple revisions to be used but few publishers use it, that's an implementation problem on the developers end.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 06:30 Jerykk
 
Sigh. I already addressed your Sleeping Dogs argument. Your issue isn't that you had to update the game. It's that the updates were ridiculously huge due to the DLC being included with them. That's a case of poor DLC implementation, not an issue with automatic updates. And how often is being fully updated a problem? In 99.9% of cases, you want to be fully updated. Only occasionally does the latest patch create problems and even then, that's an issue with the patch, not automatic updates. For every broken or poorly implemented patch, there are about 50 patches that improve their respective games, making automatic updates advantageous in most cases. Once a game is up-to-date, Steam lets you play it offline without issue. In the unlikely event that Steam ever gets shut down, I'm pretty confident that they'll offer a permanent offline mode for any games you've downloaded. In fact, if I downloaded and updated all of my games right now, I'm pretty sure I could just switch to offline mode and never log in again.

I've already stated that digital distribution (and thereby Steam) are not really viable for people with poor connections or strict bandwidth limits. This was never in contention. However, the majority of PC gamers do not suffer from these limitations and as time goes on, good connections will only become more prevalent. It's a concern that will only grow less relevant in the future.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2013, 06:36.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 06:17 netnerd85
 
Jerykk wrote on May 19, 2013, 06:08:
Security isn't a black and white thing. There are varying degrees of security and most people are willing to sacrifice some degree of freedom to attain it. This doesn't make them unreasonable. It makes them practical. It's why you choose to live in a society bound by laws and regulations. If you want complete freedom, you need to become a hermit and live in the woods, desert or some other remote location far away from civilization. I'm pretty sure you aren't a hermit living in the woods or desert so really, you're just being a hypocrite.
I'm talking about bought security mainly. Let's try to seperate the safety in numbers argument from the company or politician trying to sell you a false message of security. They sell you peace of mind and nothing all. Secuirty is a band aid to a much larger issue of evil human behaviour. Obviously humans need to stick together and that's not what I am talking about. Rules are important but security, the peace of mind bullshit people sell you, is not needed. There is only so far you can go where the balance of ACTUAL real safety is not increased vs the restriction of freedom. It's a balancing act, you should never go too far and choose a little bit more security over freedom.

Such as, not being able to access some of your games without an internet connection and some companies stupid software that is just designed to sell you more shit.

Jerykk wrote on May 19, 2013, 06:08:
Also, how am I ignoring you? I've addressed every one of your points and refuted them with undeniable facts. That's why your argument is poor. If you can present an argument I can't soundly refute, then you'll have a good argument. Your personal tastes are all well and good but they don't support the arguments you're making. You may not like DRM or Steam but that doesn't change the fact that Steam has had a beneficial impact on PC gaming and that most PC gamers like it.
No. You just ignored me completely with Sleeping Dogs, that's a real issue and real concern for Steam. Forcing people to download and update or not play their game? That is extremely restrictive.

We don't live in a world with unlimited bandwidth, unlimited disk space yet and it's probably a way off still.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 06:08 Jerykk
 
Security isn't a black and white thing. There are varying degrees of security and most people are willing to sacrifice some degree of freedom to attain some degree of security. This doesn't make them unreasonable. It makes them practical. It's why you choose to live in a society bound by laws and regulations. If you want complete freedom, you need to become a hermit and live in the woods, desert or some other remote location far away from civilization. I'm pretty sure you aren't a hermit living in the woods or desert so really, you're just being a hypocrite.

Also, how am I ignoring you? I've addressed every one of your points and refuted them with undeniable facts. That's why your argument is poor. If you can present an argument I can't soundly refute, then you'll have a good argument. Your personal tastes are all well and good but they don't support the arguments you're making. You may not like DRM or Steam but that doesn't change the fact that Steam has had a beneficial impact on PC gaming and that most people embrace it.

You act like Steam is worthless because Steam games still get cracked. However, DRM is not the sole purpose of Steam and it's not the reason why people use it. As I've stated many times already, people use Steam because of the benefits it offers. Having a legal copy of a game on Steam is much more convenient than having a pirated copy. I speak from experience. That's the reason why Steam is so successful. It makes legal copies more appealing than pirated copies, something that no standalone DRM has ever accomplished.

This comment was edited on May 19, 2013, 06:18.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 19, 2013, 05:37 netnerd85
 
Beamer wrote on May 18, 2013, 21:41:
This argument started with "anyone that gives up any freedom for security is a fool" and turned into a discussion on the merits of Steam.

You guys don't even need to do that. He started with such a giant, stupid blanket statement that there's no need to discuss Steam. His opening hypothesis can be proven wrong with, well, society and civilization as a whole.
In general Security is an illusion. A perception of something that is impossible to achieve. Those are just the facts. It's a piece of mind thing that just doesn't work.

Games still get hacked, Valve are selling publishers and now developers a service. There are plenty of hacked Steam games out there. Plenty.

@Jerykk you ignored my personal experience as nothing. My examples you said just were simply not good. You're just ignoring me.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 21:41 Beamer
 
This argument started with "anyone that gives up any freedom for security is a fool" and turned into a discussion on the merits of Steam.

You guys don't even need to do that. He started with such a giant, stupid blanket statement that there's no need to discuss Steam. His opening hypothesis can be proven wrong with, well, society and civilization as a whole.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 21:37 Jerykk
 
If Steam had not come along another digital distribution system would have, there's a high chance of that. You give Valve way too much credit they do not deserve.

Would there have been other digital distribution platforms? Most likely. Would they have been even remotely as successful (and thus influential) as Steam? I seriously doubt it. When Steam was first released, everybody hated it, even though it came from a company with one of the strongest reputations amongst PC gamers. However, Valve worked hard to improve Steam and it slowly earned the favor of the community. Now, it is by far the most successful digital distribution platform and is largely synonymous with PC gaming. I think any credit given to it is well-deserved.

Your entire argument seems to rest on an irrational disdain for Valve. The facts don't support your position yet you persist regardless. If you can provide a cogent argument supported by objective facts, you'll be more likely to convince others. Unfortunately, the facts all prove that Steam has been beneficial to PC gaming so you'll have a difficult time convincing anyone otherwise.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 20:47 Redmask
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 18, 2013, 18:43:
If Steam had not come along another digital distribution system would have, there's a high chance of that. You give Valve way too much credit they do not deserve.

They pioneered a billion dollar distribution industry at massive cost and continued in the face of criticism and major difficulties from publishers. The real problem is that you do not give them enough credit in your little 20/20 hindsight game.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 18:43 netnerd85
 
Jerykk wrote on May 18, 2013, 18:40:
netnerd85 wrote on May 18, 2013, 09:03:
You are acting as if there is only one side to the story, the one you wish to believe. There are always two sides and you aren't seeing both. I agree with some of your points but not the fact that it's the right or complete dominating majority view.

I do see both. I even listed the objective downsides to Steam. However, even if those downsides were all important to me, I still wouldn't be able to deny the beneficial impact that Steam has had on PC gaming because I can't deny facts. If Steam had never been created, digital distribution would be nowhere near as popular as it is now and we'd be seeing far less PC games than we see now. The retail presence of PC games was already in decline before Steam was introduced and that decline would have continued (as it did even after Steam debuted). However, without digital distribution, there wouldn't have been any other viable ways to sell PC games so PC gaming would have suffered.
If Steam had not come along another digital distribution system would have, there's a high chance of that. You give Valve way too much credit they do not deserve.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 18:40 Jerykk
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 18, 2013, 09:03:
You are acting as if there is only one side to the story, the one you wish to believe. There are always two sides and you aren't seeing both. I agree with some of your points but not the fact that it's the right or complete dominating majority view.

I do see both. I even listed the objective downsides to Steam. However, even if those downsides were all important to me, I still wouldn't be able to deny the beneficial impact that Steam has had on PC gaming because I can't deny facts. If Steam had never been created, digital distribution would be nowhere near as popular as it is now and we'd be seeing far less PC games than we see now. The retail presence of PC games was already in decline before Steam was introduced and that decline would have continued (as it did even after Steam debuted). However, without digital distribution, there wouldn't have been any other viable ways to sell PC games so PC gaming would have suffered.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 09:34 Redmask
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 18, 2013, 05:01:

There are good and bad points. I don't agree at all that it's the saviour of the PC industry like you seem to think it is.

You are just rambling about personal annoyances and things that have little to do with Steam, he is talking about objective facts. Steams few downsides are more than made up for by its many benefits, it has been nothing but a boon to PC gaming and some would say saved the industry which was quickly becoming a console exclusive mess.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 09:03 netnerd85
 
You are acting as if there is only one side to the story, the one you wish to believe. There are always two sides and you aren't seeing both. I agree with some of your points but not the fact that it's the right or complete dominating majority view.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 06:36 Jerykk
 
There were many forms of DRM and players decided that Steam was the best. That's why most publishers use Steamworks and why most developers want to be on Steam.

As for Sleeping Dogs, that's not a particularly good example to use against automatic updates, as the devs decided to put all the DLC into the updates and force everyone to download them, even if they didn't actually own the DLC. This is a good example of poor DLC implementation, not any inherent flaw of automatic updates.

And really, you're arguing that having low prices is bad..? Seriously? You'd rather have all games remain at full price forever and never go on sale? You say that sales hurt smaller developers but everything they've said is to the contrary. There have been multiple statements by indie devs showing how sales significantly boosted their revenue and continued to boost it even after the sales ended. It's all about perception of value. If people think they are getting a good deal, they're more likely to spend money. They believe that they are getting a product for significantly less than it's worth, which motivates them to buy things that they otherwise wouldn't have bought. It's the basic psychology that drives all sales.

F2P has nothing to do with Steam, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. It's a business model used by many games that don't use Steamworks and aren't even available on Steam. Same with DLC, which was popularized by consoles. How you somehow equate these with Steam is beyond my comprehension. I'm surprised you don't blame Steam for MMOs.

Here are the actual, objective downsides to Steam:

1) You have to be online to activate your games.
2) You have to be online to update your games.
3) If you lose your account, you lose all your games.
4) Digital distribution isn't really viable if you have a slow connection or strict bandwidth limits (though this is a downside shared by all digital distribution platforms, not just Steam).

That's it. Now here are the objective benefits:

1) You have all your games in one place, making it easier to find the games you want without having to shuffle through huge disc wallets or shelves full of cases.
2) Downloadable games require no physical space.
3) Automatic updates make it much easier to update your games.
4) Silent installs make it much easier to install your games.
5) Integrated social features (IM, chat rooms, forums, etc) make it easier to discuss your games with other people.
6) Achievements are available for people who need extra incentive to experiment and try new things in their games.
7) You can install and play your games on any PC without needing to carry around discs.
8) Cloud saves allow you to retain your progress if you use multiple PCs.
9) Integrated leaderboard, achievement and matchmaking functionality make it easier for developers to implement said features.
10) Multiplayer invites make it much easier to get into matches.
11) Steam Workshop makes it much easier to install mods.
12) Steam Greenlight brings much-needed exposure to indie developers.
13) Steam Market gives modders an easy way to make money from their work.

If you honestly think Steam hasn't had a beneficial impact on the PC gaming industry, you must be completely oblivious as to the state of PC gaming ten years ago.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2013, 06:43.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 05:01 netnerd85
 
Jerykk wrote on May 18, 2013, 04:41:
netnerd85 wrote on May 17, 2013, 11:42:
Verno wrote on May 17, 2013, 10:54:
Platform unification was bound to happen, the PC was too fragmented to support going forward and we were seeing the slow death of the PC gaming industry before digital platforms.
"Platform unification", what on earth do you mean by that? and what do you mean the PC was too framented to support going forward?

It seems pretty self-explanatory. Before Steam, the PC didn't really have any standards. There were tons of different DRM schemes (Starforce, SecuROM, TAGES, Safedisc, ByteShield, Uniloc, etc) and no standardized features between games. PC gaming still doesn't have any official standards but the fact that most publishers use Steamworks means that certain features (cloud saves, silent installs, automatic updates, achievements, leaderboards, etc) are quickly becoming standard and players need only deal with one DRM scheme for all their games.

In terms of PC gaming's health, Steam has been a boon. Steam brought digital distribution into the light and made it easier (and cheaper) for both publishers and developers to bring their games to PC. The PC currently has more publisher and developer support than it has ever had before and although most big-budget games are ports (due to the multiplatform nature of modern development), the quality of these ports has risen significantly over the past decade.

If you cast aside your contempt for DRM and look objectively at the features that Steam offers, you should be able to understand why so many people like it, even if you disagree that the features are enough to compensate for the DRM.
No, it wasn't self-explantatory. It's a very generic term and I had no idea what specifically you were referring to, I asked to make sure rather than assume.

There is nothing wrong or flawed with having different kinds of DRM, nothing is perfect and you need variety/competition to find out what works best (Lol, I'm not defending DRM, if we have to have it, then I think it's better to have different forms especially ones not tied to a massive piece of software/client). Personally none of the things you mentioned matter to me (cloud saves etc.), it can be good to have automatic updates however as I learnt with Sleeping Dogs, it was a massive pain in the ass. Steam would reserve double the amount of gigs, sometimes much more, than it needed to download an update for Sleeping Dogs. I ended up turning off automatic updates for the game, however I was unable to play the game because an update was "required". Forcing me not to be able to play the game. Sometimes you don't want to wait an hour for gigs of data to download. So I uninstalled the game and will have to get back to it whenever they stop farting out DLC for it. The patches weren't patches as such, it was just there for DLC.

So you can see, there is a massive downside and you can't just have a game installed on Steam and not have it update. These downloads are huge and are wasting resources. Limited or not, it's still a massive pain to be forced to deal with.

I do not think Steam has been good, especially for the long term. I now expect a certain low price for games. We all seem to be like "hrrmmm, wait for a sale". That is power to the people and all that but it is no doubt hurting some small players. It's also given a bit too much spotlight to some indie people that aren't making quality games, they are just making games to a known formula to get sales.

Free to Play, there is nothing good about that. Nothing at all for the long term. There is no quality in free. There is always a downside and some form of "payment". Nothing is free.

DLC. Do you really think this whole DLC thing is good? Steam is partly to blame for a lot wrong with the industry. We'll see what Valve really are like with their next game release.

There are good and bad points. I don't agree at all that it's the saviour of the PC industry like you seem to think it is.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2013, 05:08.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 18, 2013, 04:41 Jerykk
 
netnerd85 wrote on May 17, 2013, 11:42:
Verno wrote on May 17, 2013, 10:54:
Platform unification was bound to happen, the PC was too fragmented to support going forward and we were seeing the slow death of the PC gaming industry before digital platforms.
"Platform unification", what on earth do you mean by that? and what do you mean the PC was too framented to support going forward?

It seems pretty self-explanatory. Before Steam, the PC didn't really have any standards. There were tons of different DRM schemes (Starforce, SecuROM, TAGES, Safedisc, ByteShield, Uniloc, etc) and no standardized features between games. PC gaming still doesn't have any official standards but the fact that most publishers use Steamworks means that certain features (cloud saves, silent installs, automatic updates, achievements, leaderboards, etc) are quickly becoming standard and players need only deal with one DRM scheme for all their games.

In terms of PC gaming's health, Steam has been a boon. Steam brought digital distribution into the light and made it easier (and cheaper) for both publishers and developers to bring their games to PC. The PC currently has more publisher and developer support than it has ever had before and although most big-budget games are ports (due to the multiplatform nature of modern development), the quality of these ports has risen significantly over the past decade.

If you cast aside your contempt for DRM and look objectively at the features that Steam offers, you should be able to understand why so many people like it, even if you disagree that the features are enough to compensate for the DRM.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 17, 2013, 15:18 Luke
 
Krovven wrote on May 16, 2013, 17:27:
Luke wrote on May 16, 2013, 16:27:
Krovven wrote on May 16, 2013, 16:08:
Luke wrote on May 16, 2013, 08:40:
All i want is to buy a game install it without any of top 3 spyware software : 1 steam 2 uplay 3 gfwl

ohh and back then you got a nice box with paper manual and all funny stuff now...
you get a browser window telling you how many games you have and don't get me started on that shitty DLC , guess peps are to lazy to move there a.. to go out and buy there games sooo easy to sit on your a... click and you got your game.

Book

Most PC games don't even have a retail releases any more.

Materialism isn't something to be proud of by the way.

But everyone else is lazy because you have a compulsive need to have something pretty on the shelf to look at? /facepalm


don't hit your self to hard you like spyware i don't , and yes you can still get retail games tho to know that you have to get outside...to hard for some i guess Clown

You can still get "some" PC games at retail. Most you cannot. And the majority of the few titles still sold at retail are increasingly becoming Steamworks titles, or in the case of EA games, Origin titles.

The argument of Steam being spyware is long over, and you lost. If you still think it is spyware, then you are a stupid idiot that probably thinks the moon landing was done at a studio in hollywood.

But you stay strong, don't play any game that uses a digital distro service. As the rest of the world moves forward, we won't miss you.

Now looking at your post history, you basically never have anything of intelligence to contribute. I'll just ignore you now and save myself from any more idiotic ramblings.


intelligence to contribute Hmm do you ?

well what ever
I still play lots of Real Games , not those cinematic 3 hours so called Games ,filled with spyware facebook dlc links , stores to buy.
i don't know you so why should i care about you Clown
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Ubisoft Financials May 17, 2013, 11:42 netnerd85
 
Verno wrote on May 17, 2013, 10:54:
Platform unification was bound to happen, the PC was too fragmented to support going forward and we were seeing the slow death of the PC gaming industry before digital platforms.
"Platform unification", what on earth do you mean by that? and what do you mean the PC was too framented to support going forward?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo