Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
1 
この投稿を報告する
Thank you for kindly taking the time out to share this feedback.
We use feedback to help make improvements for the future.
If ever we can help with any game related issues, just let us know.
- Ubisoft Support
If you add achievements to this and Valhalla people will buy the game on steam.
I used to think this way,
But seeing as how they still aren't even adding achievements to Epic despite being on far better terms with Epic than with Steam, and now even getting 100% sales revenue for 6 month exclusives on games like Avatar and future releases on Epic by taking advantage of their First Run program, it's honestly just the way Ubisoft is, they're lazy.
Their employees want to do as little work as possible, very few of them from a select few Ubisoft studios have cared enough to add these achievements to Steam in the past, but for some reason, the big shareholders and upper management still haven't got the memo that platform specific achievements actually sell more copies, so the employees listing these games on Steam and Epic have never actually been instructed to add them, it's optional, and optional means it won't happen 9 times out of 10.
half the work's been done already (coming up with the achievements and making icons), so all they really have left is adding the in-game triggers and API so steam & epic have the achievements, then do QA testing to make sure they all trigger properly.
you could have 1 - 3 employees on each game just adding in existing achievements lol. I doubt it would take all that long. Could even have a couple teams add achievements to any previous games that didn't launch with platform achievements on anything (although i'm not sure how many of those ubisoft has made).
but alas, that isn't going to happen any time soon :'c
This is lame. Do 100% because you WANT to do it, not because you have some silly achievement page where you can show it off. How do you think people handled games like this in the PS2 era and before? No one cares about your achievement page. Just play the game how you want.
If anything, the lack of achievements is apparently keeping people from forcing yourself themselves from doing something they don't like. Because if these people LIKED getting 100%, they would have already done it with this game.
No one here considers whether they would even like going for 100%...but they want an achievement list to force them to do it? Huh?
>i think it's moreso the executives blocking them rather than "lazy employees",
No one's blocking anyone. They have a budget and list of things to port and they do it. It's likely a lot of work to program the achievements and they know that the PC sales of their games are low so they don't bother. I'm sorry but your market is too small and it's that simple.
And frankly, isn't the feeling mutual? If Ubisoft was THAT interested in PC sales, they would work on the ports more...but if gamers cared about Ubisoft THAT much, they'd have a console so they could play the best and complete versions of their games. So it's two sides that only "kinda" care about the other. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me. If I cared THAT much about Ubisoft games, I wouldn't be playing on PC, period.
>you could have 1 - 3 employees on each game just adding in existing achievements lol.
It's strange how much gamers blow off game development like it's all so easy. If it was, don't you think more ports would include Steam achievements? The fact that they're left out so often tells you it's clearly not that bloody easy.
Also, those 1-3 employees could be working on something new. Why waste their time on a game that came out multiple years ago and on a platform that has a low percentage of their sales?
Regardless of whether you think Achievements are "real" content or not, the fact remains that all these Achievements are ALREADY made, since they're required on consoles. No creative work is required; just copy-paste them from the console version and do a few days testing to confirm that the triggers are all set correctly. It would only take a few hundred / thousand dollars in labour for Ubisoft, and if that results in even a few dozen new sales it pays off.
I just finish a post explaining how programming games isn't this simple and how gamers always pretend it's easy because they have no clue.
You respond by stating that programming games is simple because you have no clue.
Were you purposely trying to provide a direct example of my point or was that just a coincidence?
I'm sorry but when your big argument involves you pretending that game development is easy then you have no point at all. I just hear frustration.
>It would only take a few hundred / thousand dollars in labour for Ubisoft,
Yes, and how many extra sales would adding achievements garner them? Given that there are VERY few people who really feel like you guys do, it's likely not many. Look at the achievement percentages on most games...Most people don't care about them at all. And it's certainly not enough to recoup that "couple hundred-thousand dollars" you tossed out. This is exactly why it's not done.
And, I'm sorry, if you're that obsessed with achievements, then get a bloody console. There's a reason I get the bulk of my games on PS4 rather than the Switch and it's because I enjoy them. If it's so damn important to you then I don't know why you wouldn't do the same. You want to be PC players yet want all the perks of having a console. You don't get both. Ubisoft's focus will always be on console first. Just accept it and move on.
So? You're doing the same thing, going "the game doesn't have achievements because the game doesn't have achievements." I protest the lack of achievements because it seems childish and petty for Ubisoft to refuse to add Steam achievements when they're clearly capable of doing so (other Ubi games both before and after the Great Steam Exodus have them).
And this is because you refuse to accept that it's not that easy to just transfer them over to Steam and because you blow off the difficulties of programming. If they were that easy, they would have done them. If you think a group of grown adults act in such a petty manner then you don't get how businesses or adults think at all. You look at the world like it's a cartoon and like every decision is about getting personal. It's almost always a money and budget issue and some companies simply draw the line. That's all there is to it. Stop pretending it's Ubisoft hating you.
And, seriously, if you hate a company SO much that you have to make up conspiracy theories about them being evil then why the flying f*** would you have ANY interest in their games? If you're putting in all this talk, then walk away from this company and never look back. Otherwise it just makes you look like all this complaining means nothing since you'll just buy all their stuff anyway.
If all of Ubisoft's decisions are driven by "money and budget", why are they having to rush to port games to Steam? Why did they abandon Epic exclusivity, or delay AC Shadows? Doesn't sound like their finances are doing that well.
The assumption that companies are motivated by success applies to RATIONAL companies, and Ubisoft's repeatedly antagonistic, anti-consumer behaviour has robbed them of consumer trust. I don't see why such a bullet-to-the-foot company deserves the benefit of the doubt.
As for why I continue to pay attention to Ubisoft despite disliking behaviour, its because they're one of the few companies catering to a niche I care about; single-player open-world games with a sailing mechanic. It's a silly niche, but it's one that matters to me, and I'm annoyed that Ubisoft struggles to deliver quality games in that niche.
Because they're on a tight budget and only have so many resources to get them out. I've said time and again that Ubisoft is a console-first company and always has been. They'll toss out a PC version out of obligation but I'd never expect them to allocate any significant amount of cash to the endeavor.
And it's not just them...we hear up and down about console-to-PC ports that are done poorly or incomplete or whatever. It's been a tradition in gaming for years, stretching back to that infamous FF7 port so long ago. You're really surprised a console game that got ported feels incomplete and was made on a tight budget? They all do these things on a budget because PC sales are miniscule compared to what they get from consoles. It's not worth putting so much money in when they get so little money out. That's simple economics, sir, and every company has to make these types of decisions.
> are motivated by success applies to RATIONAL companies, and Ubisoft's repeatedly antagonistic, anti-consumer behaviour has robbed them of consumer trust.
Nonsense. I've played every Assassins Creed game up until now as well as Immortals. Ubisoft always delivers a complete game experience on console. And this is combined with the fact that their products go on sale VERY quickly. How is it "anti-consumer" when I can get their games with all the DLC for under $25 on a console less than a year after release? And all those big headaches you guys get on PC? Just not really a thing on consoles. Their games can be slightly glitchy but never too bad and that's expected for massive open-world games like the ones they make.
Only the poor schmucks who wish for attention to the PC products feel that Ubisoft is so bad. But it's strange that you don't seem to realize what a small piece of the market you are.
And, again, why have you not quit them forever yet? The fact that you say these things yet still care about their games is kinda messed up. It seems they have you by the balls no matter what they do, yes?
>its because they're one of the few companies catering to a niche I care about; single-player open-world games with a sailing mechanic
Then buy a bloody console for them and stop complaining. If I can buy a Switch because I still like Zelda, Metroid, and Mario games, you can do the same.
THAT'S the comeback you chose? That Ubisoft's behavior is justified because they're a console-first company? On the biggest PC gaming platform in existence?
I do in fact have a Switch, but that's because Nintendo has a strong line of exclusives and releases multiple big-budget games per year, with no sign that they will EVER come to PC. There's zero chance I buy a console, not when the vast majority of the games I care about do come to PC eventually, and not when the only Ubisoft game I unreservedly love (Anno franchise) is a PC exclusive.
I am well within my rights to post about companies I have beef with. I do so on a regular basis about Epic because I'm annoyed with them interfering with my enjoyment of Steam games, and Ubisoft gets up to much the same hijinks.
To put it simply, I'm not the one that needs to justify my dislike of Ubisoft; they're the ones that need to justify the price tag on their increasingly samey games. It sounds like you're saying that if I don't like Ubisoft, I need to pretend they don't exist.