People like to have someone blame, its much more satisfying than reflecting on our own screw ups. ;) UBISOFT was the big bad villain for a long time, but there have been doubts cast on their vileness so we are researching other prospects.

David Hayward opined:

>>I know they are. I'm trying to find out why. It seems pointless. If there is a point (other than the usual internet pissing contest), I'd like to know what it is. <<

Perhaps it's none of your business if others wish to know? And if you're not interested, as professed, why should it concern you? As for pissing-contests, you're one of the shoe-ins for the patron-saint short-list.

Enough of the dubious one-liners and terse bluntness. Who do you think you are? King of the high horse?

When I see your posts all I see is an ego looking for an argument, a bunch of glib, stand-offish wiser-than-thou assertions, and an inordinate amount of low-level nastiness.

Have some back, sunbeam :)

Ben

Chivas, I see nothing has changed. Your knowledge of the human condition, and step-by-step iterating of what is going on (all presumed) inside the dev house is boundless :)

All spoken with a matter-of-fact certainty.

Unrealer and unrealer....

Ben

I'm asking anyways.

You always do. And if there's no question to be asked, or answer to be had, you ask anyway. As tersely and rudely as possible. No-nonsense-man-in-the-corner alert...

Let's see how you fare when you're picked up on it. With someone in your own language.

I'd say, in defence of Chivas there, that what he is saying is standard Psychology 101. :)

Some people do want to know who to blame, right or wrong.... some people don't.

As for Ubisoft regaining some reputation..... not going to happen either way. They are just under EA on the popularity scale. :D (Of course, as much as people seethe, they keep buying their products..... that's another one for the psychologists. I'd suggest it is an S&M thing.)

Yes, I asked. So far, no answer. It seems like there should be a reason for an argument that goes on and on and on. But there appears to be none.

Falstaff, Its called common sence...you should try it.

Can anyone explain to me why I should care about that question?
:grin:

>>Yes, I asked. So far, no answer. It seems like there should be a reason for an argument that goes on and on and on. But there appears to be none. <<

Big deal.

Do you also go up to complete strangers having a private argument of their own, and demand to know the answer (if there is one) and expect all eyes to instantly turn on you?

Inimitable.

Ben