Steam Achievements

[FunkeymonkeyTTR]

Thanks for bringing this game to steam but please utilise the features

it would be awesome if you could add some steam achievements

[Dark Exile]

The fact you can look up a video that shows a guy adding achievements to a steam game in less than 5 minutes and thier answer is "we'll see if its possible" shows how uninterested they are in doing it.

Of course its possible, its been done in almost all the other games they released here

[† 𝓓𝓪𝓷𝓽𝒆 †]

Add achievements already !

[James]

Would have been nice if they mentioned how Ubisoft attempted to silence people's valid criticisms of their steam release.

[Caduryn]

James님이 먼저 게시:

Would have been nice if they mentioned how Ubisoft attempted to silence people's valid criticisms of their steam release.

They didnt...?

[Frodo Bolsón]

+1 keep fighting guys.

[ilmessiablasfemo]

they were just keeping things in control, one big thread talking about adding achievements is enough, and a forum full of threads talking about the same thing is not useful

[brimstone]

Escapist님이 먼저 게시:

You are really putting too much importance on a community warning. It's not some permanent mark on your record. It's an automated message when they remove a message (in this case for being redundant).

it's not automated

i've had many posts deleted without warning

warnings are manually submitted

[James]

Caduryn님이 먼저 게시:

James님이 먼저 게시:

Would have been nice if they mentioned how Ubisoft attempted to silence people's valid criticisms of their steam release.

They didnt...?

They did, and more examples are in the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/zk5m30/ubisoft_sent_me_a_warning_on_steam_for_requesting/

[James]

Escapist님이 먼저 게시:

James님이 먼저 게시:

Would have been nice if they mentioned how Ubisoft attempted to silence people's valid criticisms of their steam release.

You are really putting too much importance on a community warning. It's not some permanent mark on your record. It's an automated message when they remove a message (in this case for being redundant).

That's incorrect.

[James]

Escapist님이 먼저 게시:

James님이 먼저 게시:

That's incorrect.

I disagree.

And you are allowed to be wrong.

[ALH409]

I am sure there are more games to list but these ones also deserve achievements

https://steamcommunity.com/app/447040/discussions/0/3713811178918442556/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/552520/discussions/0/3718314709217924534/

https://steamcommunity.com/app/939960/discussions/0/3711559313412140604/

[Caduryn]

James님이 먼저 게시:

Caduryn님이 먼저 게시:

They didnt...?

They did, and more examples are in the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/zk5m30/ubisoft_sent_me_a_warning_on_steam_for_requesting/

Only if you dont post in the *Steam Achievements* Topic where those Posts belong

[.//slayer]

Caduryn님이 먼저 게시:

James님이 먼저 게시:

They did, and more examples are in the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/zk5m30/ubisoft_sent_me_a_warning_on_steam_for_requesting/

Only if you dont post in the *Steam Achievements* Topic where those Posts belong

You are missing the point - the user in question received a warning for a thread created a week before the moderators made a decision to limit the discussion to only a single big thread.

This is a retroactive application of new rules, which, of course, makes no sense and deserves criticism.

[JustinIsJustice]

I'm also among those reserving their purchase for when achievements are added. Please do the right thing here Ubisoft and listen to the concerns of your community.

[.//slayer]

Escapist님이 먼저 게시:

.//slayer님이 먼저 게시:

You are missing the point - the user in question received a warning for a thread created a week before the moderators made a decision to limit the discussion to only a single big thread.

This is a retroactive application of new rules, which, of course, makes no sense and deserves criticism.

It makes perfect sense. They condensed them into the most popular thread, not the first thread.

It makes sense to condense the discussions, sure. But it makes no sense to issue warnings to people who created those older discussion threads, because nobody in the past could have known about a new rule being introduced.