It would've been interesting at least, now he's just making (sad) excuses.
I do like the whole "Whoa whoa whoa, I actually didn't come near this game during development but here's what I think maybe might've somehow been a factor" ass covering he's doing.

Why doesn't this surprise me? It's like "Sorry, but it's their fault, even though we can't come up with any reasons for this."

i think thats one fo the main reasons why its such a clusterfuck
four huge games are a huge undertaking by any standards

and then all four of them by the same studio in a year and you are asking for porblems

seems ac unity is the clusterfuckiest of them all

I think Ubisoft ought to change their name to something more representative; Excubisoft.

Appearently so.

Watch Dogs: Only a Graphical Downgrade. (And tinkering with the PC code can set it back to the E3 graphics)

Far Cry 4: The only big issue is the framerate when driving vehicles other than that its alright for the most part.

AC: Unity: Broken.

I also think the reason why AC: Unity is the buggiest out of the 3 is obviously that the Montreal studio is getting tired of making AC games. Clearly they wanted to Prioritize Watch Dogs over it. (But this is only my opinion)

A good friend of mine works for Ubisoft in Montreal. Thanks for reminding me to bust his balls.

I want to object but i can't come up with a good reason to. Plus i might be viewed as a fanboy :P

As TB says: It was rushed to market for the holiday season.
There was a big update trying to enable the Playstation Share and video streaming features that weren't available on launch... Lots of frame-buffer stuff probably...

And Ubi Montreal developing 4 games at the same time and only 3 released in the same year on mulitple systems.

cant blame them for pouring more in to watch dogs its after all something new for them
while ac is same old same old

franchise fatigue is just as vad for developers as for gamers just look at team sonic who were at one point sick of sonic games

Well it's not like the same 5 people are working on all the games, they have thousands of employees (don't know how many of those actually work on the games) and I think they mostly use the same engine for all the games.
I really think they're just rushing things, they've released a lot of AC games in what seems to be very few years.
Although that might just be my funky perception of time.
Strangely I've heard Rogue which was released at the same time was a much more polished product.
Although I suppose they could've rushed Unity after they finished Rogue.

That's something i don't get. Most of the games use effectively the same engine, meaning adding content/areas/quests is the majority of the work if the engine is complete. Unity added some multiplayer, but beyond that it hasn't really changed. It probably uses the same cutscene engine, same fighting mechanics, perhaps new sound assets but that shouldn't affect the programming...

I know but weren't they expecting it? I mean, c'mon, it's a big feature therefore Sony must have told them and shared information about it...
Still, how does that work? The games are more recent = demands more from the console so it wasn't prepared for the removal of "resources/code" that Sony removed, or better, redirected to the share feature?

Almost none of the issues I've seen on YouTube can be explained this way. Seriously, NPCs floating through the air and walking through walls, NPCs walking into cutscenes, the player character teleporting in mid-air - that's supposed to be caused by technical differences between the dev kits and the retail consoles? For frigg's sake, at least put some effort into your excuses, people.

Ten studios made Unity. Ironic, no?