Watch Dogs

gizmo · 19-05-2014 2:17pm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

No to be fair, This is classic cover-up for an average product, we have seen it all before.

Bad press prior to release leads to negative day-1 sales & pre-order cancelations. Review embargo on the day of release is disappointing but clever by the publishers.

Actually what we're seen in more recent times is that review embargos no longer automatically mean we're in for a bad product.

In the case of Ubisoft, they generally have embargoes on most of their larger titles, off the top of my head South Park, some AC entries, ZombiiU and Rayman Legends all had them. Child of Light, on the other hand, had an earlier embargo if memory serves?

19-05-2014 2:18pm

Mr Blobby wrote: »

This is nothing but a tinfoil hat theory..

There's been loads of great games that have had embargoes till the day of release.
Having an embargo means no rush jobs for reviewers.

Now if a publisher withholds review copies from reviewers until the game actually releases then thats a bad sign.

I could turn around and say that there have been a load of titles that have been failures which there has, your argument is flawed. Day 1 sales are the most important to the publisher and to state that its tinfoil hat theory that they don't put review emargos on a product of poor quality up until release for this reason is nonsense in my opinion.
So many titles in the last year like Ruse, Beyong Two Souls, Battlefiel 4 and SIM City have burned holes in people's pockets just to pick a few and they all has release day embargos.

19-05-2014 2:18pm

Mr Blobby wrote: »

This is nothing but a tinfoil hat theory..

There's been loads of great games that have had embargoes till the day of release.
Having an embargo means no rush jobs for reviewers.

Now if a publisher withholds review copies from reviewers until the game actually releases then thats a bad sign.

I could turn around and say that there have been a load of titles that have been failures which there has, your argument is flawed.

Day 1 sales are the most important to the publisher and to state that its tinfoil hat theory that they don't put review emargos on a product of poor quality up until release for this reason is nonsense in my opinion.

So many titles in the last year like Ryse, Beyong Two Souls, Battlefield4 and Sim City have burned holes in people's pockets just to pick a few and they all had release day embargos.

Mr Blobby · 19-05-2014 2:26pm

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I could turn around and say that there have been a load of titles that have been failures which there has, your argument is flawed. Day 1 sales are the most important to the publisher and to state that its tinfoil hat theory that they don't put review emargos on a product of poor quality up until release for this reason is nonsense in my opinion.
So many titles in the last year like Ruse, Beyong Two Souls, Battlefiel 4 and SIM City have burned holes in people's pockets just to pick a few and they all has release day embargos.

And there have also been plenty of great games with embargoes.

Point being just because there's a release day embargo it doesn't mean the publishers are trying to hide something.

Retr0gamer · 19-05-2014 2:38pm

Mr Blobby wrote: »

And there have also been plenty of great games with embargoes.

Point being just because there's a release day embargo it doesn't mean the publishers are trying to hide something.

9 times out of 10 it does mean that. Unless there's an exclusive deal with a site or magazine for a review then release day embargoes scream that a publisher has a bit of a dud on their ands and wants to limit the damage on day one sales.

CastorTroy · 19-05-2014 2:44pm

Think I saw in Xtravision that they have a trade in 2 games from a list online and get Watch Dogs for cheaper, but checking online I don't see the list of games.

calex71 · 19-05-2014 2:50pm

With this one I'm growing more and more suspicious of the game the closer we get to release.

I knew about the frame rate / resolutions etc and those are disappointing but only impact minimally for me over all.

What I didn't know about were the differences between current and last gen versions of the game.

Mr Blobby · 19-05-2014 2:51pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

9 times out of 10 it does mean that. Unless there's an exclusive deal with a site or magazine for a review then release day embargoes scream that a publisher has a bit of a dud on their ands and wants to limit the damage on day one sales.

Thats just not true.

Bioshock Infinite,Batman Arkham asylum,South Park and AC4 all had release day embargoes.

I'm also pretty sure GTA reviews were only allowed to be published 24hrs before release.

Rossi IRL · 19-05-2014 2:56pm

calex71 wrote: »

What I didn't know about were the differences between current and last gen versions of the game.

What sort of differences?

I too am getting suspicious of this game the closer we get

4Dlolz · 19-05-2014 2:56pm

Why gives a flying FOOOOK if Watch Dogs turns out to be total garbage?!

Oh yeah, that's right....only the people that pre-ordered a product they had little to no knowledge of.

Don't understand why people pre-order video games.

The last game I pre-ordered was Battlefield 4 and even though I never had a problem with it (touch wood), you're still basically a beta/alpha tester when you purchase new games these days....

Retr0gamer · 19-05-2014 3:00pm

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Thats just not true.

Bioshock Infinite,Batman Arkham asylum,South Park and AC4 all had release day embargoes.

I'm also pretty sure GTA reviews were only allowed to be published 24hrs before release.

Weren't they embargoes due to exclusive reviews with publications rather than blanket bans on reviews?

Mr Blobby · 19-05-2014 3:03pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Weren't they embargoes due to exclusive reviews with publications rather than blanket bans on reviews?

Not 100% sure..
I'll have a look.

gizmo · 19-05-2014 3:06pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

9 times out of 10 it does mean that. Unless there's an exclusive deal with a site or magazine for a review then release day embargoes scream that a publisher has a bit of a dud on their ands and wants to limit the damage on day one sales.

With review embargoes being more prominent in larger games nowadays, this just isn't true any more. Apart from the major Ubisoft releases listed above there are plenty of other recent examples like Left Behind, the Last of Us DLC, GTAV and Bioshock Infinite.

Hell, even Transistor, the next game from Supergiant has an embargo although they explained it by saying they hated seeing reviews of games not available yet.

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Thats just not true.

Bioshock Infinite,Batman Arkham asylum,South Park and AC4 all had release day embargoes.

I'm also pretty sure GTA reviews were only allowed to be published 24hrs before release.

Batman:AA is a very bad example as it had a review embargo that was avoidable if a particularly glowing review was published. That kind of practice is as reprehensible as refusing to send out review copies imo. Not the first time there's been some weirdness with Eidos on this side of things either. I can understand publishers wanting to avoid some story spoilers but still, hands off the review process.

calex71 · 19-05-2014 3:09pm

Rossi IRL wrote: »

What sort of differences?

I too am getting suspicious of this game the closer we get

Just saw this posted on another site this morning

According to Ubisoft, the only differences in the single player between the One and the 360 is the density of the city; there will be fewer NPCs in some areas. The seamless online will remain in place; however, the 360 will not have the Decryption competitive multiplayer mode, or the ability to free roam with multiple players.

Rossi IRL · 19-05-2014 3:23pm

calex71 wrote: »

Just saw this posted on another site this morning

Suppose they would have to take some things out though, it seems like a big game

Sweet, Online free roam
Everyday is a school day

balkieb2002 · 20-05-2014 1:34am

I'm presuming that those features [Online free roam etc] will be in the PC version?

I was really looking forward to this game when it was first announced but in truth over the last year I haven't been really following its development bar the occasional venture into this thread. It was only when I watched a few of the longer gameplay videos recently that my excitement for the game returned. Even if they follow through on some of it's promise I'll be happy.

Being a multi-platform game, I'm also hoping that it will have native 360 controller support. Not a necessity but handy for lazing on the couch!

C14N · 20-05-2014 9:00am

Well sure if it turns out to be another Assassin's Creed 1 I suppose I'll be glad I didn't pre-order. Would still like this to be a great game though.

naughto · 20-05-2014 11:35am

balkieb2002 wrote: »

I'm presuming that those features [Online free roam etc] will be in the PC version?

I was really looking forward to this game when it was first announced but in truth over the last year I haven't been really following its development bar the occasional venture into this thread. It was only when I watched a few of the longer gameplay videos recently that my excitement for the game returned. Even if they follow through on some of it's promise I'll be happy.

Being a multi-platform game, I'm also hoping that it will have native 360 controller support. Not a necessity but handy for lazing on the couch!

so you cant just pr1ck around like you could with gta?is that was Online free roam is ?

Julez · 20-05-2014 11:48am

balkieb2002 wrote: »

Being a multi-platform game, I'm also hoping that it will have native 360 controller support. Not a necessity but handy for lazing on the couch!

Oh, it will without a doubt.

Ravenid · 20-05-2014 12:36pm

Guys just because a few have posted on here about the "Unknown" website that this leak has come from let me fill you in on NeoGaf.

NeoGaf is a Video game forum (Obvious I know) that's know in the industry for being the first with videos, reviews and opinions of new games either by an individual looking show new games while avoiding the NDA's or as a promotional tool by the developers themselves.

Many of the first looks used by the major gaming news sources are initially seen on NeoGaf (Members of staff of respected titles like PC Gamer, Game Informer and not so respected like GameSpot) freely admit to getting the beginnings of their stories from NeoGaf. Also gaming industry developers like Jeff Blizinsky (If his name is spelt wrong screw it) and the majority of the Bungie team all post regularly there. (In fact news of Destiny was leaked first onto NeoGaf by a Bungie team member.)

Its not perfect. Because of that its mods can be very heavy handed. They Permabanned Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights (But knowing how he acts he probably deserved it.)

Even still they usually do come up with the goods leak wise and are definatly more trustworthy than a lot of "Review" sites out there. I wouldn't use them as your only source of info, but to dismiss them out of hand because you never heard of them is a definite mistake.

TLDR: NeoGaf is a respected site with members in the gaming industry who leak to NeoGaf all the time and are usually right. Usually.

Edit No 2: Oh and the "Its a Beta don't believe it" line being put forward by the devs? If its a Beta how was he able to run the Multiplayer? The Beta is well over and the servers for it shut down. The Multiplayer servers for the Gold version of the game are never the same as the Beta servers. NEVER. Ask anyone who has ever been in a Beta in their life.

Shiminay · 20-05-2014 12:41pm

Ravenid wrote: »

TLDR: NeoGaf is a respeted site with members in the gaming industry who leak to NeoGaf all the time and are usually right. Usually.

Yea, I don't frequent NeoGaf, but as far as I'm aware, it's always been considered a well respected site by fans and industry alike.

C14N · 20-05-2014 12:41pm

Ravenid wrote: »

Guys just because a few have posted on here about the "Unknown" website that this leak has come from let me fill you in on NeoGaf.

NeoGaf is a Video game forum (Obvious I know) that's know in the industry for being the first with videos, reviews and opinions of new games either by an individual looking show new games while avoiding the NDA's or as a promotional tool by the developers themselves.

Many of the first looks used by the major gaming news sources are initially seen on NeoGaf (Members of staff of respected titles like PC Gamer, Game Informer and not so respected like GameSpot) freely admit to getting the beginnings of their stories from NeoGaf. Also gaming industry developers like Jeff Blizinsky (If him name is spelt wrong screw it) and the majority of the Bungie team all post regularly there. (In fact news of Destiny was leaked first onto NeoGaf by a Bungie team member.)

Its not perfect. Because of that its mods can be very heavy handed. They Permabanned Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights (But knowing how he acts he probably deserved it.)

Even still they usually do come up with the goods leak wise and are definatly more trustworthy than a lot of "Review" sites out there. I wouldn't use them as your only source of info, but to dismiss them out of hand because you never heard of them is a definite mistake.

TLDR: NeoGaf is a respeted site with members in the gaming industry who leak to NeoGaf all the time and are usually right. Usually.

I think the question was less about NeoGaf and more about the website the review came from. I don't think anyone here has heard of them before, they aren't one of the major review sites like Eurogamer or Detructoid or Edge or whatever (I'm sure someone will come along and tell me about how all of those are terrible sources too but you get my point).

Ravenid · 20-05-2014 1:49pm

You're missing my point.

NeoGaf (Which as I said are very quick with the ban stick and have a serious reputation not only in the gamers community but in the Dev community also) had any concerns about this review they would not have let it hang around. Especially as it breaches the Review embargo.

Also 6 month delay to "Improve" the game and then the graphics shown don't match the initial in-game footage shown at the Con (I cant remember if it was at Pax or E3).

Review Embargo until day of release.

5!! That's 5 different Collectors editions (Which to me screams we need to make the money now before anyone sees this and realises what we actually made doesn't match what we overhyped and promised.)

This stinks of Alien: Colonial Marines.

Xenji · 20-05-2014 2:02pm

Ravenid wrote: »

You're missing my point.

NeoGaf (Which as I said are very quick with the ban stick and have a serious reputation not only in the gamers community but in the Dev community also) had any concerns about this review they would not have let it hang around. Especially as it breaches the Review embargo.

Also 6 month delay to "Improve" the game and then the graphics shown don't match the initial in-game footage shown at the Con (I cant remember if it was at Pax or E3).

Review Embargo until day of release.

5!! That's 5 different Collectors editions (Which to me screams we need to make the money now before anyone sees this and realises what we actually made doesn't match what we overhyped and promised.)

This stinks of Alien: Colonial Marines.

They have actually let lots of threads such as that one stay alive and even more with fake trailers/rumours over the years. They mainly just lock threads if they are duplicates or it is knowledge that is already known Hitler Dead, Titanic Sinks ect...

gizmo · 20-05-2014 2:07pm

Ravenid wrote: »

NeoGaf (Which as I said are very quick with the ban stick and have a serious reputation not only in the gamers community but in the Dev community also) had any concerns about this review they would not have let it hang around. Especially as it breaches the Review embargo.

The first review isn't from Neogaf, it was just linked there. As such, the mods wouldn't take any action on the thread outside of expressing doubt as to its authenticity.

As for their reputation, while they do have some great posters their signal-to-noise ratio is now pretty damn awful in general.

Ravenid wrote: »

Also 6 month delay to "Improve" the game and then the graphics shown don't match the initial in-game footage shown at the Con (I cant remember if it was at Pax or E3).

They could spend an additional 24 months trying to improve the game but at the end of the day if neither the current gen consoles nor next-gen (at the time unreleased) consoles support their earlier render targets then there's nothing they can do.

Ravenid wrote: »

Review Embargo until day of release.

As discussed earlier in the thread, this is par for the course with many of Ubisoft's recent releases, none of which have resulted in a particularly poor critically reviewed games.

Ravenid wrote: »

5!! That's 5 different Collectors editions (Which to me screams we need to make the money now before anyone sees this and realises what we actually made doesn't match what we overhyped and promised.)

And if you had read the chart you'd have seen that they weren't all available on the same platform, in the same countries and in the same distributable form or service. This is indicative of many things, none of which you mentioned.

Ravenid wrote: »

This stinks of Alien: Colonial Marines.

Based on the above? I disagree. Strongly. I guess we'll see in seven days though.

Kudros · 20-05-2014 2:48pm

Will 8gb of RAM be enough for running on ultra?
My Intel Core i7-4770K S1150 3.5GHz with 4 cores & my GTX 680 SOC should totally suffice, the only thing I'm on the fence about is to get another 8gb of RAM

Kiith · 20-05-2014 2:51pm

No games need 16gb of ram to run. 8gb is enough.

The GPU is probably the only thing that might not get you ultra settings, but i'm not 100% sure as i don't know Nvidia as well as ATI.

C14N · 20-05-2014 3:53pm

Ravenid wrote: »

You're missing my point.

NeoGaf (Which as I said are very quick with the ban stick and have a serious reputation not only in the gamers community but in the Dev community also) had any concerns about this review they would not have let it hang around. Especially as it breaches the Review embargo.

I still don't see your point. Are you implying that NeoGaf left the thread open because the review is "correct" or because it in some way agrees with the views of the more important Gaf members? What "concerns" could they have about it? It's a single leaked early review from a site I don't think anyone here ever made a point of trusting with good video game criticism, what's the big conspiracy?

Kudros wrote: »

Will 8gb of RAM be enough for running on ultra?
My Intel Core i7-4770K S1150 3.5GHz with 4 cores & my GTX 680 SOC should totally suffice, the only thing I'm on the fence about is to get another 8gb of RAM

Shouldn't be any problem. 8GB is still tons for any new game.

Kudros · 20-05-2014 3:56pm

Kiith wrote: »

The GPU is probably the only thing that might not get you ultra settings, but i'm not 100% sure as i don't know Nvidia as well as ATI.

I think my NVIDIA GTX 680 SOC should be grand to run it on ultra, I'll have to wait & see though I suppose!

C14N · 20-05-2014 4:03pm

Kudros wrote: »

I think my NVIDIA GTX 680 SOC should be grand to run it on ultra, I'll have to wait & see though I suppose!

Yeah I wouldn't worry too much as long as you're 1080p or lower. It's only one gen old and it was a very good card when it was released.

Watch Dogs

Comments