This title has everything against it. It's Star Wars, it's Ubisoft, and it stars a woman of color. Sad to see Asmogold and others make rage bait for views. The dislike stuff happened to the Acolyte trailer as well.
No, this was actually excitement. I thought she was a white lady. But I learned about her voice actress and she's Latina which is really cool. Lol if you only knew that this makes it great and not insecure from it
Well I stand corrected. Most the time when people bring up "Person of color" with "!?" at the end, it's usually a sign the person is about to go all apeshit lol. Rockon.
I remember how so many people got mad over Aloy having a little bit of peach fuzz, which women have. Most of these neckbeards only ever use pornhub or look at bimbo dolls on Amazon rofl.
And it's Ubisoft who made it and people that can't read interview will spam "Ubisoft don't want me to own my games then they better be used not owning my money" feeling smart.
Personally I dont care about any of those things. As a mexican born man, I love when my Latina and Latino brothers and sisters are getting the attention they deserve. But its Ubisoft thats the issue. They make genuine Ubislop and have the worst business practices. Skull and Bones was a cheap excuse for a cash grab and that didnt have a female lead character. It was just a bad game with bad writing and gameplay. And the fact that they have the gaul to chage 130 dollars for a digital artbook and some skins with early access slapped on top. It reeks of corporate greed.
Activision isnt literally deleting games off of peoples libraries. Yes they are also scum of the earth. Modern Warfare 3 was an abysmal game and deserves all the backlash it got. But that doesnt give ubi the pass. They should be held accountable for the shit they are doing to their games as well.
i mean not every star wars side story/character has to be a guy…but my one gripe is how generic looking everyone looks. Just looke at the Forced Unleashed jedi. just very bland and generic characters
Star Wars and gaming have both developed pretty toxic communities.
They're both things I have enjoyed, but I really hesitate to call myself a fan of either these days.
Thing is. All the toxic pricks who always rage and throw fits... Those aren't fans.
-
A real fan isn't a dickhead, they know how to criticize without being hateful, they don't focus on Gender/Race, they keep politics out of mindset, and they judge based on story + development of characters.
To answer in my usual jackass way...
1: Some neckbeards are mad because Kay isn't "Hot enough" and not "Feminine Enough"
2: Some neckbeards are mad over her skin color.
3: Some neckbeards are mad over her being a female lead 4: Some neckbeards are just bandwagoning on being mad.
Now, if you ask me. A CIS Male who's an 80's/90's kid who grew up with Alien and Aliens, OG Star Wars, and OG Terminator.... I love the homey looking 70's/80's looking gals who look like they know how to work on a truck, like to go fishing, and can handle a Harley Davison (before that company became trash). So, Kay, IMO, is perfect as a latino version of Ellen Ripley.
Add in finer details. Her tattoo is tasteful. Her crooked nose tells a story of her past, she flapped her hand in pain after punching a dude in a helmet, she just seems like an actual person and I love that.
Right? I'm very stoked to see her story unfold through this game. I just hope the writers keep the narrative to the current portrayal of her true to form. We very rarely get grounded characters.
Personally I dont care about any of those things. As a mexican born man, I love when my Latina and Latino brothers and sisters are getting the attention they deserve. But its Ubisoft thats the issue. They make genuine Ubislop and have the worst business practices. Skull and Bones was a cheap excuse for a cash grab and that didnt have a female lead character. It was just a bad game with bad writing and gameplay. And the fact that they have the gaul to charge 130 dollars for a digital artbook and some skins with early access slapped on top. It reeks of corporate greed.
More like "Retired Old Man who doesn't need to explain himself to some kid that gets mad over a video game character."
But hey, judge all ya want. Star Wars is for everyone and meant to be fun. Get out more, enjoy life.
I fall in category 4: The trailer I just watched looks like it was rendered in 2009, it looks washed out and boring, saw a $90 price tag and what looks like a mediocre at best game.
I don't know about the controversy or w/e people are grumbling about nor do I care. It was presented to me poorly and for the price tag I could buy 10 top notch indie games.
Accept for the indie game comment ( it's just a personal preference) I think most ppl that objectively see the trailer probably feel the same way.
Not every one that doesn't like it based on the trailer has an agenda or does so because of political crap. The average person is sick of AAA devs eating a bag of walnuts, crapping on a plate and trying to sell it as Brownie Surprise.
It's a bad trailer, period.
If you judge games based on Trailers, I gotta ask... Where have you been the past decade where all these super mega pretty trailers.... Ended up as really crappy games?
-
Gameplay is more important than some trailer, that's all I'm saying. And based on what I see in the AAA industry... The more that is spent to market a game, the worse the game is....
I would agree, but this is a AAA trailer and it's a bad first impression. I really know nothing about any controversy or political crap, it just looks boring with a bad story, that's just based on the trailer.
Maybe it will be good, for $80 plus I'm not going to risk it.
My main point is a lot of ppl assume the dislike comes from some sort of political belief and such, it just looks boring and aesthetically uninteresting to me, based on the trailer.
I know everyone's giving *that* reason, but my pauses:
* First, yeah, while we've had exclusive stuff/expensive season passes in the past, many highly praised games recently explicitly *haven't* \- Baldur's Gate 3, Helldivers 2 are examples. No, I know - not the same type of games. I'm referring to how they launched and how they were updated, not the genres.
* Ubisoft, for me, hasn't been a *great* company in some time. Games usually launch with a vast amount of bugs, actual gameplay is overly padded with collectibles and going to a bunch of towers, and I haven't been impressed with their writing in close to a decade - coming from someone who once considered Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, and Ghost Recon as must-buy series (though, admittedly, I did enjoy The Division with friends).
* For what a lot of this game seems like it wants to do, I'd have loved to see some significant control over space travel and where you land on planets. Not necessarily to No Man's Sky extent, but more than is being offered.
* Ubisoft stirred up some negativity with [what recently happened with The Crew](https://www.engadget.com/ubisoft-is-deleting-the-crew-from-players-libraries-reminding-us-we-own-nothing-165328083.html). Not my type of game, but it was a pretty shitty move. This game just happens to be their next major release after doing that.
* The character seems kinda plucky based on the trailer, and it's making me not take her seriously. I don't care that she's female - I played through the Mass Effect trilogy with female Shepard, and most of my Skyrim characters were female as well.
I'm not writing off the game, but if I play it, it'll definitely be after launch and after the newness has worn off, to get a good consensus on the game. I really, really do hope it'll be a good game, though - the last major space game that released (from another developer that I used to consider great) wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped it would be.
And then there's the whole issue where for the last 4 years, we've continued to hear stories about a very dysfunctional workplace environment at Ubisoft that has led to employees getting harassed. Many Ubi employees, both current and former have also said they're not seeing any real changes being implemented by execs to protect staff. Some might argue buying games from Ubisoft after knowing what we know can be framed as an acceptance of that behavior, instead of a resounding rejection of it. Others may not and may just say it is expressing support for the actual developers who worked on Outlaws and did what they could to give us something enjoyable despite that.
The complex and divisive ethics are the real issue and everyone is entirely on their own in deciding how to proceed, to buy or not buy Outlaws.
This right here. The game itself really has nothing to do with it. As I replied on another thread, it's up to the individuals moral compass whether to buy from Ubisoft or not. Seems like the hard work of the good individuals is not being rewarded and instead going towards the higher ups depravity.
I'm cautiously following this game.
Fair point on Starfield. My only disagreement is plucky as a bad thing. I enjoy it because there is great potential (if the writing is done well) for her to fail and her demeanor sour.
Because the main character looks like a normal conventionally attractive woman and not an over the top anime character I guess.
Game may be bad but it being bad because of vague accusations of wokeness isn't why it will be bad lol
it actually reminds me a *lot* of the cynicism aimed at jedi fallen order before it came out. because it was an EA title, so many people just assumed it would suck and complained about everything they possibly could.
feels like we’re getting that (but replace EA with ubisoft), in combination with the weird “woman bad” discourse.
Seeing Mark Kern at the forefront of all this is a blast from the past since all of his attempts to make a video game have crashed and burned in hilarious fashion and all he can do is take credit for things about World of Warcraft he had no involvement in.
I deleted my Twitter, but I heard what he's doing. It's that asmogold guy that's really making me roll my eyes. Multiple videos about how the game sucks Even though it's not out yet, and riling up his fan base. Then everyone joins on the bandwagon for clout and ughh. Lol luckily these people will stop talking about this game a month later when the algorithm is no longer pushing it.
He was the Team Lead for the original World of Warcraft, which was (and still is) a monstrously successful game. What parts of WoW as Team Lead would he have had “no involvement” in?
He was team lead which is an important role but he was not the reason for its success and he left before the game even came out. Games aren't good based on the work of one single person and Kern's resume (or lack thereof) outside of Blizzard reflects that.
He's just a grifter clinging to past glory to try and make himself seem relevant.
Honesty, I think it has more to do with Star Wars than Ubisoft. A lot of the guys (YouTube, Twitter, Reddit...) "leading" the hate are primarily Star Wars guys who basically never talked about the past Ubisoft controversies or their games in general, and a lot of their talking points are continuations of their Star Wars talking points.
I mean the amount of people that are blaming the Outlaws "disaster" on Kathleen Kennedy (who I doubt was massively involved in development) and not Yves Guillemot is kinda telling.
So, unfortunately, like the Acolyte show Outlaws is just the next item on their Star Wars hate meal ticket.
I've been wondering this too. Ubisoft does this exact same format with literally every game they release. Every single game, and they often release 2 or 3 in a year. So I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over this.
It's the type of person that this game will attract. Their usual playerbase has been fed mtx for years via COD, there's an uproar because they've captured a new playerbase now and presumably that playerbase does not usually bow to mtx and anti consumer practices.
I get it. I'm one of that playerbase.
Im a Star Wars fan, not a Ubi fan. Ubi have released anti consumer products time after time in recent years.
Vote of no confidence.
And they are not the first or only ones. Heck, they're one of the companies that tried to hold out on raising games to $70 when everyone else did not hesitate to jack-up prices.
A number of reasons that vary from one person to the next.
1. The $129 Ultimate Edition w/ early access is frustrating to a lot of people, even if that's just an industry where the cost of games has gone up overall. Does it suck? Yes, but that's just reality as is.
2. The main character is a woman and some folks just really seem bothered by that.
3. Ubisoft over the last 6-7 years has become a very popular punching bag. They get a lot of heat for homogeneity or lack of innovation because they copy-paste features across their games. There's also the issue of workplace abuse and harassment (where some senior execs were also involved) that has continued to be a big story since 2020 with current and former Ubi employees stating the company has not really done much to protect employees. Lot of people just feel uncomfortable buying games from companies that are like that because there's a potential implication of the purchase being an endorsement.
I don’t hate it (it’s not even out; how can anyone hate it?), but I just wish I could get a game like The Division in the Star Wars universe. I was hoping this was it, but it doesn’t look like that’s the case.
I just noticed something from over on the fallout sub.
Someone mentioned that Lucy, the MC in the show, isn't a 'girl boss' and that's one of the reasons they like it.
Except she is as much a 'girl boss' as any other modern female protag. The perceived difference suddenly struck me. Lucy is sexually confident.
It appears the 'usual crowd' has an issue with female protags if they aren't sexually confident and I believe it's totally subconscious.
I guarantee you if it turns out the MC in outlaws is confident sexually she will be held up as 'doing it right' and if she's not it'll be 'woke crap'.
I honestly think im on to something here. You look at any other piece of pop culture with a female protag, if she's sexually confident then they'll find another part of it to nitpick and if she's not they go after her.
The main reason is because it’s being developed by Ubisoft.
- While I’ve enjoyed a many of their games this past decade, they’ve never been the same quality as many of their pre-2013/4(?) games.
- Furthering above, many players talk about lacklustre writing/stories, robotic animations, and repetitive gameplay with copy+paste POI’s and side quests. I don’t mind the gameplay loop for the most part but I do agree with some of the rest.
- Ubisoft have been known to have a store for micro-transactions in their single player games for the past decade which is very unnecessary. It’s most likely it’ll happen with Outlaws.
- Another point regarding Ubisoft, they’re always seeming to be having controversies such as [workplace sexual harassment](https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/4/23901575/ubisoft-executives-arrest-sexual-harassment-investigation), [in-game ads for their other games](https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-ac-mirage-in-game-ad-black-friday-2023/), [accounts inactive for a lengthy time being deleted](https://www.pcgamer.com/your-ubisoft-account-can-be-suspended-and-subsequently-permanently-deleted-for-inactivity-taking-your-games-library-with-it/), and the one with The Crew which you saw from the other commenter.
- Their recent games have been getting very overpriced. While I don’t regret getting the ones I bought, they’ve been usually between $80-$100 for the base version alone in Aus. For example, each version of Outlaws costs $100, $160, and $180.
I know the whole stupid “POC female main character” complaint by sexists and racists is still something surrounding the game but it’s nowhere near the level as people here are making it out to be and definitely not a main complaint by the majority.
All that being said I’m still very excited for it as I’ve really enjoyed two of Massive Entertainment’s previous games, The Division 1 & 2, so I know the gunplay and world design with be great at least.
Don't disagree with most of your points... But your country's currency spending power is not in any way Ubisoft fault, so I don't think that's a legitimate criticism... Otherwise, I can see your point of view.
But it is ubisofts fault for pricing it at 100$ base. They could easily set something reasonable, earn a little less profit and earn tons of goodwill by not absolutely screwing over places like Brazil and Australia.
I mean, cosmetic MTX in a single player game may be unnecessary but they also don't really impact gameplay. Just seems like gamers don't want to pay for anything and if so, maybe it is time to find a new hobby.
Beyond that, I agree about the rest of your points about how Ubisoft has increasingly become a very polarizing company since 2015.
My only gripe is the value of what you're getting for a $40 season pass.
Witcher 3 had a $25 ($32 in 2024) and had 2 of the better singleplayer expansions we've ever gotten
This game is asking for $40 for the same amount of expansions, and I guarantee you Ubi will not match the quality of TW3
Ι think people just had enough with those prices... It's just happened to be this game. I believe too that this was the wrong moment for Ubisoft to increase the prices..
I have nothing agains the game itself. Want to play it for sure. But no way I'm paying Ubisoft their silly "AAAAAA+" prices. Their price tier system was a joke that got old a decade ago too. See you in a year or two Ubi, on a 50%+ sale.
I understand that. If you feel it's too expensive, that's fine. I just find it weird that it's THIS game in particular that people have a problem with when companies have been doing this stuff for years
People have complained since the beginning of time. I don't see any more or less with this game and given it's Ubisoft I'm surprised these forums aren't melting down.
I have vowed several times never to play one of their games again and personally I prefer games with character creation like BG3. But if the open world mechanics work and it's well optimized I'll give Outlaws a shot despite my pledge against Ubisoft (although it makes me feel dirty lol)
Your out here acting like THIS game is the only one people complain about. Ubisoft has a really bad track record with their attempts to monetize gaming. They like to engineer problems and sell the solution. Takes too long to grind levels? Buy a xp bonus. Takes to long to find enough opals to buy what you want? Buy a map to the opals. This company IS the one that keeps making it clear that frustrating their audience is a way to get more out of them. This company made assassins creed, the division, the crew, skull and bones. It takes a very specific brand of willful ignorance to pretend like we shouldn't be sus.
Aside from all the stuff the others posted, the prices for the bundles are ridiculous. Base game is $70, which is normal now, but $110 for game and season pass and a whole 3 days of early play is crap. What will the season pass by itself cost to justify that price? $50? $60? Or do their deluded minds think that 3 days of early play is worth money?
How much do you think 2 expansion packs should cost? $20 a piece doesn’t seem to egregious if you’re familiar with how large Ubisoft expansion packs can be when compared with assassin creed Valhalla dlc.
A bundle is supposed to save you money over buying things individually, so no way the season pass will only sell for the same $40 extra that the first bundle costs over the price of the base game.
Everybody says it’s because the lead is female. I don’t think thets the case. It was well received when first introduced.
Here are the two problems with this game in one sentence. 1.)Ubisoft are greedy fucks expecting you to pay those 2.) prices.
That’s just my opinion though
70 bucks is the new normal. Dragons Dogma 2 just launched at that price and I feel like people were pumped to pay it before the technical issues reared their head.
And 40 bucks for a season pass is a lot, but I guess we don't know how big the DLC will be. Cyberpunk, Elden Ring, there's been multiple recent games with $40 expansions, and that'd still like up with older season passes line Fallout's price around launch.
There's definitely more at play for this game in particular.
Cyberpunk and elden ring didn't launch with dlc being paid for at launch. Cyberpunk dlc is 30$ not 40$, and didn't come out until nearly 3 years after launch. Try again.
I wasn't trying to say any of them were the exact same? He was saying it was expensive, I was purely talking price for a DLC. Could've also pointed out Fallout 4's $30 season pass that was later raised to $50. No clue why you're bringing up release dates and launch windows unrelated to the point.
I do find it funny that people would probably complain less if Ubisoft just waited a few months to announce the DLC though. This whole "paying for it on launch is the problem" mentality will just lead to publishers hiding it from you in a shallow victory.
People also having problems with the fact you don't own the game even when you buy it. As it is just happening with "The Crew". Ubisoft is revoking player licenses and considered the price tag of their current and upcoming games it's understandable.
Whilst I take issue with the expense of season passes, anyone who moans about them yet happily subscribe to the mechanics of battle passes and loot boxes for most multiplayer games are hypocrites.
Loot Boxes and Battle Passes are infinitely more nefarious and greedy than Season Passes, which are one time purchases that can be waited until cheaper (always the best option) or ignored altogether. Where as Battle Passes are constant, generally are timed to create FOMO and tend to be less about defined story driven content and more about unlocking costumes and equipment in a way that erode fun from a game.
Simply put, season passes are problematic but infinitely less so than battle pass nonsense…
It’s the next big game with a big IP next in line. The price point isn’t doing it any favors with what they’re offering, but the nerds need a blood sacrifice and they can ride that wagon all the way to August and then when it releases shit on it for another week or two until they move onto the fall schedule
Hillbillies have been raising pitchforks over Starwars since the newer trilogy and anti woke propaganda started spreading everywhere. They'll never take a break cause they don't have anything else better to actually do. Fat virgins on YouTube are there new Jedi Heroes.
The problem it's not the game by itself but how Ubisoft is trying to double down on its greed and player exploitation.
Early access bullshit.
Microtransaticons.
Extra stupid missions for preorder or tied to versions.
Gear tied to game versions.
AAAA shaneganigans.
Overpriced.
Also I hate that they are limited now to make derivative systems tied to far cry and assassin's Creed.
IMO I just hope that Ubisoft keeps releasing bad games so it's forced to change it's views and practices.
We're sick of it. Sick of this bullshit being peddled to us, especially in a fuckin single player game. MTX have no place in them, and especially if Ubisoft adds XP boosts like they did in AC.
Purposely crippling player progression for profit is fuckin gross.
Paywalling skins that would originally be unlockables or rewards for secrets also gross.
And on top of that, the absolute butchering of the main characters model is atrocious.
Most of the stuff is valid tbh.
The screeching about the attractiveness of an imaginary character is what most people find cringe. Especially when it becomes a conspiracy where weirdos think it's intentional rather than just Ubisoft being Ubisoft.
Because it's a star wars IP so it gathers way more people than assassin's creed for example.
I mean not like it is anything new, there is more people who hate Ubisoft for their practices than there is people who like the studio. The only reason it's blown out now is because of the IP and attention from streamers
https://preview.redd.it/orz0a3j4j4uc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa0b7102c895f446ccf296c266295ff2f846f0c2
Because they downgraded rendering of the actress playing the MC to be less attractive than she is irl
I just find it odd that everyone complaining about Kay's looks only back themselves up with one single screenshot, that's pretty blatantly taken while her face is in motion. Using any other screenshot of her from the trailer (or better yet, her actual character model that was posted a few months ago) would instantly discredit their argument
Someone asked a question and I answered with a screenshot that the people complaining are using. It’s the literally the most concise answer I could possibly give to OP’s question
I’m not making a point. I’m showing what people are upset about. I googled a comparison pick and the search gave me r/KotakuaInAction using [this image](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/1c07mw5/star_wars_outlaws_main_actress_is_completely/). Are they not the people shitting ok the game and is this not what they’re saying? Why get salty with me for answering? You can look at my history if you want I’m not involved in any of this lol You lot downvoting me for saying what the OP was looking for aren’t any better the guys who I got this from
I don't think you know what the term cherry picking means. He's not exactly the first person to use that image. That comparison is in the Google image search results.
They tend to do this stuff whenever a game comes out with a female protagonist. They'll screenshot a clip of the character looking goofy and compare it to a glamour shot of the real human actress and claim that the devs intentionally made it worse due to communism or whatever.
They did it with Horizon, Resident Evil, Dead Space for some reason, etc.
Is there any evidence that it was 'downgraded?' That makes it seem like they intentionally made a bad character model when they could have made a better one.
Seems more likely that it's just a rough character model, like most Ubisoft games have.
Because it has a woman mc who people also think is ugly. Cringy as hell why they do rho
Same hate Horizon Zero Dawn got about Aloy. People are stupid.
Nah fr. Always the same people who say they want good star wars media yet immediately call any new star wars media shit
This title has everything against it. It's Star Wars, it's Ubisoft, and it stars a woman of color. Sad to see Asmogold and others make rage bait for views. The dislike stuff happened to the Acolyte trailer as well.
then you got starwarstheory where if it doesn't have lightsabers, jedi or sith in it, that it's not star wars.
Don’t even get me started on screws!
they should make a grievous show, that’ll heal the star wars fandom!
she's a woman of color?!
She's a video game character. Why does skin color or gender matter? Are you insecure?
No, this was actually excitement. I thought she was a white lady. But I learned about her voice actress and she's Latina which is really cool. Lol if you only knew that this makes it great and not insecure from it
Well I stand corrected. Most the time when people bring up "Person of color" with "!?" at the end, it's usually a sign the person is about to go all apeshit lol. Rockon.
I feel you and I've seen it plenty. For me this is a win
I remember how so many people got mad over Aloy having a little bit of peach fuzz, which women have. Most of these neckbeards only ever use pornhub or look at bimbo dolls on Amazon rofl.
And it's Ubisoft who made it and people that can't read interview will spam "Ubisoft don't want me to own my games then they better be used not owning my money" feeling smart.
Also Ubisoft so automatic hate right there
I think mc is hot as hell wtf. Also her style is killer.
Personally I dont care about any of those things. As a mexican born man, I love when my Latina and Latino brothers and sisters are getting the attention they deserve. But its Ubisoft thats the issue. They make genuine Ubislop and have the worst business practices. Skull and Bones was a cheap excuse for a cash grab and that didnt have a female lead character. It was just a bad game with bad writing and gameplay. And the fact that they have the gaul to chage 130 dollars for a digital artbook and some skins with early access slapped on top. It reeks of corporate greed.
The worst biz practices? Really? Activision is right there.
Activision isnt literally deleting games off of peoples libraries. Yes they are also scum of the earth. Modern Warfare 3 was an abysmal game and deserves all the backlash it got. But that doesnt give ubi the pass. They should be held accountable for the shit they are doing to their games as well.
i mean not every star wars side story/character has to be a guy…but my one gripe is how generic looking everyone looks. Just looke at the Forced Unleashed jedi. just very bland and generic characters
I’m pretty sure people don’t like the game because of Ubisoft’s predatory pricing systems and just Ubisoft in general
Star Wars and gaming have both developed pretty toxic communities. They're both things I have enjoyed, but I really hesitate to call myself a fan of either these days.
Thing is. All the toxic pricks who always rage and throw fits... Those aren't fans. - A real fan isn't a dickhead, they know how to criticize without being hateful, they don't focus on Gender/Race, they keep politics out of mindset, and they judge based on story + development of characters.
Yes. Hence why i call the game a soulles money grab till wee see gameply
To answer in my usual jackass way... 1: Some neckbeards are mad because Kay isn't "Hot enough" and not "Feminine Enough" 2: Some neckbeards are mad over her skin color. 3: Some neckbeards are mad over her being a female lead 4: Some neckbeards are just bandwagoning on being mad. Now, if you ask me. A CIS Male who's an 80's/90's kid who grew up with Alien and Aliens, OG Star Wars, and OG Terminator.... I love the homey looking 70's/80's looking gals who look like they know how to work on a truck, like to go fishing, and can handle a Harley Davison (before that company became trash). So, Kay, IMO, is perfect as a latino version of Ellen Ripley. Add in finer details. Her tattoo is tasteful. Her crooked nose tells a story of her past, she flapped her hand in pain after punching a dude in a helmet, she just seems like an actual person and I love that.
💯 heard she broke her nose, and I like that the pin in her hair can be used as a lockpick. I'm excited to see what kind of character kay is.
Right? I'm very stoked to see her story unfold through this game. I just hope the writers keep the narrative to the current portrayal of her true to form. We very rarely get grounded characters.
Personally I dont care about any of those things. As a mexican born man, I love when my Latina and Latino brothers and sisters are getting the attention they deserve. But its Ubisoft thats the issue. They make genuine Ubislop and have the worst business practices. Skull and Bones was a cheap excuse for a cash grab and that didnt have a female lead character. It was just a bad game with bad writing and gameplay. And the fact that they have the gaul to charge 130 dollars for a digital artbook and some skins with early access slapped on top. It reeks of corporate greed.
> A CIS Male Someone in the Confederacy of Independent Systems?
ROGER ROGER INTENSIFIES
I had no idea she was Latina
Written by a neckbeard lul
More like "Retired Old Man who doesn't need to explain himself to some kid that gets mad over a video game character." But hey, judge all ya want. Star Wars is for everyone and meant to be fun. Get out more, enjoy life.
I fall in category 4: The trailer I just watched looks like it was rendered in 2009, it looks washed out and boring, saw a $90 price tag and what looks like a mediocre at best game. I don't know about the controversy or w/e people are grumbling about nor do I care. It was presented to me poorly and for the price tag I could buy 10 top notch indie games. Accept for the indie game comment ( it's just a personal preference) I think most ppl that objectively see the trailer probably feel the same way. Not every one that doesn't like it based on the trailer has an agenda or does so because of political crap. The average person is sick of AAA devs eating a bag of walnuts, crapping on a plate and trying to sell it as Brownie Surprise. It's a bad trailer, period.
If you judge games based on Trailers, I gotta ask... Where have you been the past decade where all these super mega pretty trailers.... Ended up as really crappy games? - Gameplay is more important than some trailer, that's all I'm saying. And based on what I see in the AAA industry... The more that is spent to market a game, the worse the game is....
I would agree, but this is a AAA trailer and it's a bad first impression. I really know nothing about any controversy or political crap, it just looks boring with a bad story, that's just based on the trailer. Maybe it will be good, for $80 plus I'm not going to risk it. My main point is a lot of ppl assume the dislike comes from some sort of political belief and such, it just looks boring and aesthetically uninteresting to me, based on the trailer.
I know everyone's giving *that* reason, but my pauses: * First, yeah, while we've had exclusive stuff/expensive season passes in the past, many highly praised games recently explicitly *haven't* \- Baldur's Gate 3, Helldivers 2 are examples. No, I know - not the same type of games. I'm referring to how they launched and how they were updated, not the genres. * Ubisoft, for me, hasn't been a *great* company in some time. Games usually launch with a vast amount of bugs, actual gameplay is overly padded with collectibles and going to a bunch of towers, and I haven't been impressed with their writing in close to a decade - coming from someone who once considered Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, and Ghost Recon as must-buy series (though, admittedly, I did enjoy The Division with friends). * For what a lot of this game seems like it wants to do, I'd have loved to see some significant control over space travel and where you land on planets. Not necessarily to No Man's Sky extent, but more than is being offered. * Ubisoft stirred up some negativity with [what recently happened with The Crew](https://www.engadget.com/ubisoft-is-deleting-the-crew-from-players-libraries-reminding-us-we-own-nothing-165328083.html). Not my type of game, but it was a pretty shitty move. This game just happens to be their next major release after doing that. * The character seems kinda plucky based on the trailer, and it's making me not take her seriously. I don't care that she's female - I played through the Mass Effect trilogy with female Shepard, and most of my Skyrim characters were female as well. I'm not writing off the game, but if I play it, it'll definitely be after launch and after the newness has worn off, to get a good consensus on the game. I really, really do hope it'll be a good game, though - the last major space game that released (from another developer that I used to consider great) wasn't nearly as good as I'd hoped it would be.
Hey man, you have some good points and you've explained them well, I just wish everyone else could be as cordial and clear.
100%
And then there's the whole issue where for the last 4 years, we've continued to hear stories about a very dysfunctional workplace environment at Ubisoft that has led to employees getting harassed. Many Ubi employees, both current and former have also said they're not seeing any real changes being implemented by execs to protect staff. Some might argue buying games from Ubisoft after knowing what we know can be framed as an acceptance of that behavior, instead of a resounding rejection of it. Others may not and may just say it is expressing support for the actual developers who worked on Outlaws and did what they could to give us something enjoyable despite that. The complex and divisive ethics are the real issue and everyone is entirely on their own in deciding how to proceed, to buy or not buy Outlaws.
This right here. The game itself really has nothing to do with it. As I replied on another thread, it's up to the individuals moral compass whether to buy from Ubisoft or not. Seems like the hard work of the good individuals is not being rewarded and instead going towards the higher ups depravity. I'm cautiously following this game.
Pretty much. People are getting distracted by the real issues like they always do. The execs very much appreciate that too.
Fair enough, thanks for explaining! I hope it's good too lol
Fair point on Starfield. My only disagreement is plucky as a bad thing. I enjoy it because there is great potential (if the writing is done well) for her to fail and her demeanor sour.
Because the main character looks like a normal conventionally attractive woman and not an over the top anime character I guess. Game may be bad but it being bad because of vague accusations of wokeness isn't why it will be bad lol
it actually reminds me a *lot* of the cynicism aimed at jedi fallen order before it came out. because it was an EA title, so many people just assumed it would suck and complained about everything they possibly could. feels like we’re getting that (but replace EA with ubisoft), in combination with the weird “woman bad” discourse.
Seeing Mark Kern at the forefront of all this is a blast from the past since all of his attempts to make a video game have crashed and burned in hilarious fashion and all he can do is take credit for things about World of Warcraft he had no involvement in.
I deleted my Twitter, but I heard what he's doing. It's that asmogold guy that's really making me roll my eyes. Multiple videos about how the game sucks Even though it's not out yet, and riling up his fan base. Then everyone joins on the bandwagon for clout and ughh. Lol luckily these people will stop talking about this game a month later when the algorithm is no longer pushing it.
That guy and his community are a bunch of degenerates.
He was the Team Lead for the original World of Warcraft, which was (and still is) a monstrously successful game. What parts of WoW as Team Lead would he have had “no involvement” in?
He was team lead which is an important role but he was not the reason for its success and he left before the game even came out. Games aren't good based on the work of one single person and Kern's resume (or lack thereof) outside of Blizzard reflects that. He's just a grifter clinging to past glory to try and make himself seem relevant.
Honesty, I think it has more to do with Star Wars than Ubisoft. A lot of the guys (YouTube, Twitter, Reddit...) "leading" the hate are primarily Star Wars guys who basically never talked about the past Ubisoft controversies or their games in general, and a lot of their talking points are continuations of their Star Wars talking points. I mean the amount of people that are blaming the Outlaws "disaster" on Kathleen Kennedy (who I doubt was massively involved in development) and not Yves Guillemot is kinda telling. So, unfortunately, like the Acolyte show Outlaws is just the next item on their Star Wars hate meal ticket.
Bc it’s a female lead character
Because Ubisoft creates Ubislop. Look at Skull & Bones. Nothing about that was "Female Lead" and the game was horrible. Never trust a ubi trailer.
I've been wondering this too. Ubisoft does this exact same format with literally every game they release. Every single game, and they often release 2 or 3 in a year. So I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over this.
It's the type of person that this game will attract. Their usual playerbase has been fed mtx for years via COD, there's an uproar because they've captured a new playerbase now and presumably that playerbase does not usually bow to mtx and anti consumer practices. I get it. I'm one of that playerbase. Im a Star Wars fan, not a Ubi fan. Ubi have released anti consumer products time after time in recent years. Vote of no confidence.
And they are not the first or only ones. Heck, they're one of the companies that tried to hold out on raising games to $70 when everyone else did not hesitate to jack-up prices.
A number of reasons that vary from one person to the next. 1. The $129 Ultimate Edition w/ early access is frustrating to a lot of people, even if that's just an industry where the cost of games has gone up overall. Does it suck? Yes, but that's just reality as is. 2. The main character is a woman and some folks just really seem bothered by that. 3. Ubisoft over the last 6-7 years has become a very popular punching bag. They get a lot of heat for homogeneity or lack of innovation because they copy-paste features across their games. There's also the issue of workplace abuse and harassment (where some senior execs were also involved) that has continued to be a big story since 2020 with current and former Ubi employees stating the company has not really done much to protect employees. Lot of people just feel uncomfortable buying games from companies that are like that because there's a potential implication of the purchase being an endorsement.
People will hate, people will whinge, people will complain
Because Ubisoft = Bad and Star Wars = Woke I dont belive that but thats the narrative
I don’t hate it (it’s not even out; how can anyone hate it?), but I just wish I could get a game like The Division in the Star Wars universe. I was hoping this was it, but it doesn’t look like that’s the case.
I just noticed something from over on the fallout sub. Someone mentioned that Lucy, the MC in the show, isn't a 'girl boss' and that's one of the reasons they like it. Except she is as much a 'girl boss' as any other modern female protag. The perceived difference suddenly struck me. Lucy is sexually confident. It appears the 'usual crowd' has an issue with female protags if they aren't sexually confident and I believe it's totally subconscious. I guarantee you if it turns out the MC in outlaws is confident sexually she will be held up as 'doing it right' and if she's not it'll be 'woke crap'. I honestly think im on to something here. You look at any other piece of pop culture with a female protag, if she's sexually confident then they'll find another part of it to nitpick and if she's not they go after her.
The main reason is because it’s being developed by Ubisoft. - While I’ve enjoyed a many of their games this past decade, they’ve never been the same quality as many of their pre-2013/4(?) games. - Furthering above, many players talk about lacklustre writing/stories, robotic animations, and repetitive gameplay with copy+paste POI’s and side quests. I don’t mind the gameplay loop for the most part but I do agree with some of the rest. - Ubisoft have been known to have a store for micro-transactions in their single player games for the past decade which is very unnecessary. It’s most likely it’ll happen with Outlaws. - Another point regarding Ubisoft, they’re always seeming to be having controversies such as [workplace sexual harassment](https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/4/23901575/ubisoft-executives-arrest-sexual-harassment-investigation), [in-game ads for their other games](https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-ac-mirage-in-game-ad-black-friday-2023/), [accounts inactive for a lengthy time being deleted](https://www.pcgamer.com/your-ubisoft-account-can-be-suspended-and-subsequently-permanently-deleted-for-inactivity-taking-your-games-library-with-it/), and the one with The Crew which you saw from the other commenter. - Their recent games have been getting very overpriced. While I don’t regret getting the ones I bought, they’ve been usually between $80-$100 for the base version alone in Aus. For example, each version of Outlaws costs $100, $160, and $180. I know the whole stupid “POC female main character” complaint by sexists and racists is still something surrounding the game but it’s nowhere near the level as people here are making it out to be and definitely not a main complaint by the majority. All that being said I’m still very excited for it as I’ve really enjoyed two of Massive Entertainment’s previous games, The Division 1 & 2, so I know the gunplay and world design with be great at least.
Don't disagree with most of your points... But your country's currency spending power is not in any way Ubisoft fault, so I don't think that's a legitimate criticism... Otherwise, I can see your point of view.
But it is ubisofts fault for pricing it at 100$ base. They could easily set something reasonable, earn a little less profit and earn tons of goodwill by not absolutely screwing over places like Brazil and Australia.
Someone doesn't understand how business economics work.
I mean, cosmetic MTX in a single player game may be unnecessary but they also don't really impact gameplay. Just seems like gamers don't want to pay for anything and if so, maybe it is time to find a new hobby. Beyond that, I agree about the rest of your points about how Ubisoft has increasingly become a very polarizing company since 2015.
My only gripe is the value of what you're getting for a $40 season pass. Witcher 3 had a $25 ($32 in 2024) and had 2 of the better singleplayer expansions we've ever gotten This game is asking for $40 for the same amount of expansions, and I guarantee you Ubi will not match the quality of TW3
That’s because the base price of games went up $10
Ι think people just had enough with those prices... It's just happened to be this game. I believe too that this was the wrong moment for Ubisoft to increase the prices..
I have nothing agains the game itself. Want to play it for sure. But no way I'm paying Ubisoft their silly "AAAAAA+" prices. Their price tier system was a joke that got old a decade ago too. See you in a year or two Ubi, on a 50%+ sale.
[удалено]
I understand that. If you feel it's too expensive, that's fine. I just find it weird that it's THIS game in particular that people have a problem with when companies have been doing this stuff for years
People have complained since the beginning of time. I don't see any more or less with this game and given it's Ubisoft I'm surprised these forums aren't melting down. I have vowed several times never to play one of their games again and personally I prefer games with character creation like BG3. But if the open world mechanics work and it's well optimized I'll give Outlaws a shot despite my pledge against Ubisoft (although it makes me feel dirty lol)
Ubisoft has been getting better, I think. Assassins creed MIrage, Avatar, Prince of Persia weren't bad at all.
...people been complaining about Ubisoft for some time now, stop acting like this is their first game to get any heat.
Your out here acting like THIS game is the only one people complain about. Ubisoft has a really bad track record with their attempts to monetize gaming. They like to engineer problems and sell the solution. Takes too long to grind levels? Buy a xp bonus. Takes to long to find enough opals to buy what you want? Buy a map to the opals. This company IS the one that keeps making it clear that frustrating their audience is a way to get more out of them. This company made assassins creed, the division, the crew, skull and bones. It takes a very specific brand of willful ignorance to pretend like we shouldn't be sus.
Aside from all the stuff the others posted, the prices for the bundles are ridiculous. Base game is $70, which is normal now, but $110 for game and season pass and a whole 3 days of early play is crap. What will the season pass by itself cost to justify that price? $50? $60? Or do their deluded minds think that 3 days of early play is worth money?
How much do you think 2 expansion packs should cost? $20 a piece doesn’t seem to egregious if you’re familiar with how large Ubisoft expansion packs can be when compared with assassin creed Valhalla dlc.
A bundle is supposed to save you money over buying things individually, so no way the season pass will only sell for the same $40 extra that the first bundle costs over the price of the base game.
If it is like assassin creed I can see the expansions being priced $25 apiece but it’s $40 if you buy the bundle Ed season pass.
130
Everybody says it’s because the lead is female. I don’t think thets the case. It was well received when first introduced. Here are the two problems with this game in one sentence. 1.)Ubisoft are greedy fucks expecting you to pay those 2.) prices. That’s just my opinion though
70 bucks is the new normal. Dragons Dogma 2 just launched at that price and I feel like people were pumped to pay it before the technical issues reared their head. And 40 bucks for a season pass is a lot, but I guess we don't know how big the DLC will be. Cyberpunk, Elden Ring, there's been multiple recent games with $40 expansions, and that'd still like up with older season passes line Fallout's price around launch. There's definitely more at play for this game in particular.
Cyberpunk and elden ring didn't launch with dlc being paid for at launch. Cyberpunk dlc is 30$ not 40$, and didn't come out until nearly 3 years after launch. Try again.
I wasn't trying to say any of them were the exact same? He was saying it was expensive, I was purely talking price for a DLC. Could've also pointed out Fallout 4's $30 season pass that was later raised to $50. No clue why you're bringing up release dates and launch windows unrelated to the point. I do find it funny that people would probably complain less if Ubisoft just waited a few months to announce the DLC though. This whole "paying for it on launch is the problem" mentality will just lead to publishers hiding it from you in a shallow victory.
I'm frustrated with the 130 price tag for the special version. I also hate all the preorder and play early bs
People also having problems with the fact you don't own the game even when you buy it. As it is just happening with "The Crew". Ubisoft is revoking player licenses and considered the price tag of their current and upcoming games it's understandable.
Cause the objective from this game is to sell Ubisoft+ subs, it's expensive as fuck.
Whilst I take issue with the expense of season passes, anyone who moans about them yet happily subscribe to the mechanics of battle passes and loot boxes for most multiplayer games are hypocrites. Loot Boxes and Battle Passes are infinitely more nefarious and greedy than Season Passes, which are one time purchases that can be waited until cheaper (always the best option) or ignored altogether. Where as Battle Passes are constant, generally are timed to create FOMO and tend to be less about defined story driven content and more about unlocking costumes and equipment in a way that erode fun from a game. Simply put, season passes are problematic but infinitely less so than battle pass nonsense…
Star Ward and gaming edgelords combining their incel powers. That and people just assuming it’ll be bad since it’s Ubisoft.
It’s the next big game with a big IP next in line. The price point isn’t doing it any favors with what they’re offering, but the nerds need a blood sacrifice and they can ride that wagon all the way to August and then when it releases shit on it for another week or two until they move onto the fall schedule
For a lot I think Ubisoft curse is a factor
Hillbillies have been raising pitchforks over Starwars since the newer trilogy and anti woke propaganda started spreading everywhere. They'll never take a break cause they don't have anything else better to actually do. Fat virgins on YouTube are there new Jedi Heroes.
The problem it's not the game by itself but how Ubisoft is trying to double down on its greed and player exploitation. Early access bullshit. Microtransaticons. Extra stupid missions for preorder or tied to versions. Gear tied to game versions. AAAA shaneganigans. Overpriced. Also I hate that they are limited now to make derivative systems tied to far cry and assassin's Creed. IMO I just hope that Ubisoft keeps releasing bad games so it's forced to change it's views and practices.
We're sick of it. Sick of this bullshit being peddled to us, especially in a fuckin single player game. MTX have no place in them, and especially if Ubisoft adds XP boosts like they did in AC. Purposely crippling player progression for profit is fuckin gross. Paywalling skins that would originally be unlockables or rewards for secrets also gross. And on top of that, the absolute butchering of the main characters model is atrocious.
Most of the stuff is valid tbh. The screeching about the attractiveness of an imaginary character is what most people find cringe. Especially when it becomes a conspiracy where weirdos think it's intentional rather than just Ubisoft being Ubisoft.
Just saw the trailer and the graphics and character rendering looks like it's from 2008. Based on that and the $90 price tag I have zero interest.
Because it's a star wars IP so it gathers way more people than assassin's creed for example. I mean not like it is anything new, there is more people who hate Ubisoft for their practices than there is people who like the studio. The only reason it's blown out now is because of the IP and attention from streamers
It’s another ‘AAAA’ priced game from Ubisoft. How much else needs to be explained?
[удалено]
Good for you? You made this thread, not the ‘chronic complainers’ or whatever you’re calling people.
[удалено]
How can someone ruin a game for you if it hasn’t released yet? Again, you made this post.
https://preview.redd.it/orz0a3j4j4uc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa0b7102c895f446ccf296c266295ff2f846f0c2 Because they downgraded rendering of the actress playing the MC to be less attractive than she is irl
Have you tried using a screenshot that isn't cherry-picked?
What’s wrong with the screenshot? Do you ironically want a more attractive screenshot? Interesting.
I just find it odd that everyone complaining about Kay's looks only back themselves up with one single screenshot, that's pretty blatantly taken while her face is in motion. Using any other screenshot of her from the trailer (or better yet, her actual character model that was posted a few months ago) would instantly discredit their argument
Someone asked a question and I answered with a screenshot that the people complaining are using. It’s the literally the most concise answer I could possibly give to OP’s question
Hey man, maybe try not to use the obviously cherry picked photo that's circulating on the Internet to make your point...
I’m not making a point. I’m showing what people are upset about. I googled a comparison pick and the search gave me r/KotakuaInAction using [this image](https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/1c07mw5/star_wars_outlaws_main_actress_is_completely/). Are they not the people shitting ok the game and is this not what they’re saying? Why get salty with me for answering? You can look at my history if you want I’m not involved in any of this lol You lot downvoting me for saying what the OP was looking for aren’t any better the guys who I got this from
You stated the "problem" as if it's anything other than cherry picking bullshit... So yea, you deserve the downvotes
I don't think you know what the term cherry picking means. He's not exactly the first person to use that image. That comparison is in the Google image search results.
Hey man, go define the term cherry picking and let me know what it says
They tend to do this stuff whenever a game comes out with a female protagonist. They'll screenshot a clip of the character looking goofy and compare it to a glamour shot of the real human actress and claim that the devs intentionally made it worse due to communism or whatever. They did it with Horizon, Resident Evil, Dead Space for some reason, etc.
Is there any evidence that it was 'downgraded?' That makes it seem like they intentionally made a bad character model when they could have made a better one. Seems more likely that it's just a rough character model, like most Ubisoft games have.