• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Watch Dogs reportedly not coming any sooner than May or June 2014

Depends what they are doing. If it's just polishing then i don't think it's going to matter much. The game seemed worse with every new demonstration. Polish ain't gonna help that.
 
I hate rushed games so I tend to think of delays as a good thing but too many delays also result in terrible games (e.g. Duke Nukem Forever) so I don't know what to think anymore.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if the release date listed on PSN is correct.
It'll be a launch title for the PS21, Xbox Alpha, Nintendo Everyone and Steambox Smoke.
One year is enough to visit Los santos.

Come to chicago November 21st.

...2014
DpnOwcs.jpg
 
My worry is that the game was actually pretty good but reviewers are fucking terrible which leads to the game being altered for the worse - like a load of collectathon shite like Far Cry 3. A game that reviewed very well but I didn't like much at all.
 
They know they need to hit this game out of the park - not only because of the sunk cost fallacy but because I believe they have their hopes on WD being their next gen annual meal ticket franchise, like AC was last gen and Clancy the gen before. The first entry simply can't be mediocre.
 
There is a weird white substance forming around my mouth, like some kind of foam. I've also noticed an increased heartrate and a somewhat agitated state of mind as a result of this news.
 
A summer release sounds good to me. The game will never equal the expectations created during the E3 in 2012, but extra developpement time is a good think to polish it.
 
The game seemed boring to me from the first time I saw it. Point and press a button at stuff and something "cool' happens.

Ubisoft needs to make drastic changes to all their series actually. Their games offer very little compared to the insane content and production values they have. Their open world template stopped being fun for me in the middle of last gen.
 
At this point i am not looking forward to it. These delays are getting tired to many good games are coming and my wallet is all ready spend.
 
At this point, I'd be amazed if Watch Dogs isn't a Fall 2014 release. The PR machine is at full stop right now for this game. No more screenshots, videos, interviews, nothing. It can't be good.

I agree
there is a placeholder date at game stop for june 30th
 
Ubisoft has his own playtest lab in Paris, where games are played by actual players, and not mock reviewers. Ergonomists give feedbacks to the team for polish, the Ubisoft Editorial checks every steps too (and kills a game whenever it doesn't meet expectations).
It certainly wasn't a simple decision to make, especially when you plan to sale 7 millions games.

My guess is : GTA V was out, and good, feedbacks from the lab were bad (After all, Watch Dogs Creative Director is responsible for the malaria in Far Cry 2 :-/ ). The game needed some polish, probably balancing and rethinking of some gameplay mechanisms.
They already experienced that kind of situation with Assassin's Creed III, they would have given the game 6 more months and it could have turn great. It's Assassins, the IP was(is still) strong so that have never affected sales, but better not mess with a new IP (at least, they seem learning from their mistakes).

Best case scenario : Watch Dogs will released this November, along The Division. No AC this year (the brand need a pause anyway).
 
My interest died for this game along with the comments that it was intended to be a yearly release. Would have picked it up as a "best of a bad lot" title in the launch window but not now.
 
They already said that the Devision is a 2015 game and I'm sure there will be another AC this year.

Yeah, but the 2015 release is still just a rumor (source seems legit at least). I can't find any official confirmation.
We'll have to wait for the annual February Ubisoft leak I guess, but I honestly hope they give AC some time to rest.
 
Hmmm.. I'm not exactly upset about this. Well I mostly prefer games to come out quarterly so it gives me time to play all of them throughout the year so this is okay. At least I know that at least it won't be rushed and half assed and they are putting more into it. That makes it a little more relieving to wait.
 
We'll have to wait for the annual February Ubisoft leak I guess, but I honestly hope they give AC some time to rest.

Man Ubisoft is starting to talk about releasing two Assassin's Creed games per year now. Ain't nothing stopping that insane train until that series has imploded entirely.
 
I have to wonder to what extent we see the same conflict of interest with mock review houses you see with credit rating agencies. If a mock review outlet absolutely shits on a game-- like genuinely, truly shits on a game-- would the publisher actually be inclined to bring the review house back? Do publishers want genuinely negative feedback?
 
I always thought that the game didn't look that good. The extended gameplay video made the game look like it's just recycling the same Ubisoft open-world tropes.
 
Watchdogs is fine, actually May or June is great for them, what else is coming out then? With Tomb Raider, Titanfall, Thief, Metal Gear, and XB1 indie games coming, May/June will be fine for me. So Ubi take your time.
 
Yeah, so i'm not sure how much a company should allow those to influence them. In the case of TLoU the mock reviewers were disappointed that there wasn't a government conspiracy involved in the creation of the virus (seriously), and they wanted some super weapon that could destroy all of the infected.

I wish I could get names of those dumbasses.
 
Glad they are taking time to finish it up proper. I recently re-pre-ordered after cancelling it back when it first got delayed.

I wonder how strong the tie in to Assassin's Creed is going to be.
 
This isn't news, is it? We already knew it wasn't coming until the new fiscal year since the original delay. May makes the most sense I think.
 
Anyone remember the sorry state the first Assassins Creed launched in? It was a glorified tech demo.

I imagine this was the same last fall. The base of a really great game , but light on content. Hopefully 6 months is enough time to add more content and flesh this thing out to an actual great game.
 
What do you guys think about Watch Dogs having legs, as a franchise? I mean AC gets to enjoy jumping all over history, but WD is about hacking so it basically has to stick with the modern day. I can imagine it becoming samey within a few games if it's only different cities with slightly new hacking ideas. Maybe I lack imagination. A futuristic setting would be great, let us hack the robot police lol.
 
What do you guys think about Watch Dogs having legs, as a franchise? I mean AC gets to enjoy jumping all over history, but WD is about hacking so it basically has to stick with the modern day. I can imagine it becoming samey within a few games if it's only different cities with slightly new hacking ideas. Maybe I lack imagination. A futuristic setting would be great, let us hack the robot police lol.

I see no reason any particular franchise needs to hamstring itself into the whole continuous single world thing. It seemed like a really cool idea with Assassin's Creed, but now I think it has become clear that the in-game aspects that are required to tie it all together are some of the more disliked aspects of the series. I mean is there anybody who actually enjoys playing as Desmond, playing the modern era scenarios?

I'd take Final Fantasy for a different approach. You know broadly what you're going to get in each installment of the game - some summons, some chocobos, some moogles and some big evil entity conspiring to do naughty things to your world. But each game is more or less independent of the others. Square's not left shoehorning some explanation for the events of for Kefka's and Sephiroth's worlds into Sin's world and I think that's a positive more than a negative.

Watchdogs could easily just evolve into some random world dystopic sort of cyberpunk setting and I'd be down, yeah really down, with that.
 
I have to wonder to what extent we see the same conflict of interest with mock review houses you see with credit rating agencies. If a mock review outlet absolutely shits on a game-- like genuinely, truly shits on a game-- would the publisher actually be inclined to bring the review house back? Do publishers want genuinely negative feedback?

From what I've heard review houses tend to mostly get dropped if their mock reviews greatly contradict the final reviews, aka if the mock reviews are great then the game comes out and all the critical reviews are shit. While I'm sure review houses might get dropped for negative reviews, in theory if someone intelligent is running things at said publisher negative mock reviews should be a wakeup call to address problems (if possible) with the game, not a knee-jerk reaction to drop the review house.
 
Could be recording stuff for DLC.

Exactly.


A summer release could be a suicide and a fall release, well, good luck with that and the other next gen game releasing + probably a GTA V expansion and a next gen version.

It should be released this spring, no later than april.
 
Top Bottom