Anonymous Ubisoft source hints that The Division will be pushed back to 2015

[Russ Boswell]

According to an anonymous source within Ubisoft's development ranks, Tom Clancy's The Division may not see a release until 2015. This is sad news for any of you anticipating the post-apocalyptic action title, which makes use of the brand new Snowdrop Engine, a tool that promises to bring stunning visuals and gameplay.

European gaming magazine Game Reactor managed to secure an interview with an unnamed member of Ubisoft Massive's development team, who spilled the beans on the purported delay.

"The game engine works well, it's not done but works well. The actual game development has barely started, however," said the source. “The fact that Ubisoft has gone public with a 2014 release date feels laughable to be perfectly honest, we will never be able to release The Division this year. It's a large project, and we have very far to go."

This may not come as a huge surprise to anyone who has followed Ubisoft's development cycle as of late. The highly-anticipated 2013 release, Watchdogs, was pushed all the way to late 2014 by the video game giant. We've also seen the massive-multiplayer racing game “The Crew” receive a push all the way towards the end of 2014.

Ubisoft has definitely seen its share of hiccups in the past few years when it comes to scheduling development, and due to the other projects on their plate it may be safe to assume that this anonymous source is right about a potential 2015 release. Although it is important to note that none of these statements are “confirmed by the company,” so take them with a grain of salt.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55246-anonymous-ubisoft-source-hints-that-the-division-will-be-pushed-back-to-2015.html

 

[Mister_K]

Nooo! I was really, really hoping for a 2014 release. Well, I guess if that is true then I will be putting away my console purchase until 2015. Hopefully by then you have the slims and just overall much improved consoles compared to day 1 releases (ie all the new ones atm).

 

[Teko03]

This is hilarious. The Division and Watch Dogs are the only reason are planning to get a PS4 or XBox One. On a more positive note, the consoles bugs will be fixed and price will be lower by the time these guys release!

 

[Forg0t2]

This is hilarious. The Division and Watch Dogs are the only reason are planning to get a PS4 or XBox One. On a more positive note, the consoles bugs will be fixed and price will be lower by the time these guys release!

Yup. So all front row people who fought for getting their hands on one of the consoles are now feeling screwed... that's why I rather wait until the games actually worth playing are released.

 

[Burty117]

Are any of you PC gamers? Because I'm pretty sure both games have a PC version and The Division Developers have gone on record saying the PC version will be there best? Why on earth would anyone who already has a gaming PC buy a PS4 / Xbox One to play both games?

 

[Forg0t2]

Are any of you PC gamers? Because I'm pretty sure both games have a PC version and The Division Developers have gone on record saying the PC version will be there best? Why on earth would anyone who already has a gaming PC buy a PS4 / Xbox One to play both games?

Some prefer to experience those games on console.

 

[Burty117]

Some prefer to experience those games on console.

Sometimes I just really don't understand :/ I can understand exclusives, but why on earth would you buy expensive hardware, pay more for the games themselves, when you already own everything to play the same game but in better quality?

 

[m4a4]

As someone who appreciates quality, I'm perfectly fine with this. A bit disappointed, but fine.

 

[Forg0t2]

Sometimes I just really don't understand :/ I can understand exclusives, but why on earth would you buy expensive hardware, pay more for the games themselves, when you already own everything to play the same game but in better quality?

Don't ask me. I want to play the Division on the PC because my community is set around PC gaming and not Console gaming...

 

[davislane1]

Some prefer to experience those games on console.

Sometimes I just really don't understand :/ I can understand exclusives, but why on earth would you buy expensive hardware, pay more for the games themselves, when you already own everything to play the same game but in better quality?

I game on both and will occasionally buy a multiplatform title for console rather than PC. Why buy for a less versatile platform? Comfort and time, for me. Having a game run with the best possible textures at the highest possible resolution is less important to me than physical comfort while playing the game, and sitting in front of a PC or fiddling with a laptop are two of my least favorite activities. Secondly, and more importantly, games are a waste of time. PC generally has much more content (mods and other user-created content) than consoles, so purchasing for Playstation means I will spend less time playing/modifying games and more time being productive. Thus the price markups on hardware and software are offset by increased overall value.

 

[Burty117]

I game on both and will occasionally buy a multiplatform title for console rather than PC. Why buy for a less versatile platform? Comfort and time, for me. Having a game run with the best possible textures at the highest possible resolution is less important to me than physical comfort while playing the game, and sitting in front of a PC or fiddling with a laptop are two of my least favorite activities. Secondly, and more importantly, games are a waste of time. PC generally has much more content (mods and other user-created content) than consoles, so purchasing for Playstation means I will spend less time playing/modifying games and more time being productive. Thus the price markups on hardware and software are offset by increased overall value.

So when you are being "productive" on your computer you're incredibly uncomfortable? Ok...

Edit: "Thus the price markups on hardware and software are offset by increased overall value."

PC versions are cheaper, and as you said, have mods, so value sways to the PC? I'm utterly confused right now...

 

[davislane1]

1. I said I don't like sitting at a computer, not that I was "incredibly uncomfortable." Moreover, productivity does not imply comfort.

2. Value ≠ Content - Price. With luxury goods, value is subjective and increases (decreases) proportional to the satisfaction it gives the consumer. For me, time wasted is weighted much heavier than hours of content per dollar and core gameplay is weighted much heavier than graphics. With 3 hours of free time, I'd rather spend 30min progressing through a decent-looking game and 2.5 hours progressing in something real than spending 3 hours exploring the most beautiful, content-filled game ever created. By gaming on a console, I give up graphics (which I don't generally care about) and content in return for less time wasted and the alleviation of some negative (boredom, for example) and wind up more satisfied. Ergo, the price markups are offset by an increase in value. Thrift is a component of value, but it is not the only variable in the equation.

 

[Burty117]

1. I said I don't like sitting at a computer, not that I was "incredibly uncomfortable." Moreover, productivity does not imply comfort.

2. Value ≠ Content - Price. With luxury goods, value is subjective and increases (decreases) proportional to the satisfaction it gives the consumer. For me, time wasted is weighted much heavier than hours of content per dollar and core gameplay is weighted much heavier than graphics. With 3 hours of free time, I'd rather spend 30min progressing through a decent-looking game and 2.5 hours progressing in something real than spending 3 hours exploring the most beautiful, content-filled game ever created. By gaming on a console, I give up graphics (which I don't generally care about) and content in return for less time wasted and the alleviation of some negative (boredom, for example) and wind up more satisfied. Ergo, the price markups are offset by an increase in value. Thrift is a component of value, but it is not the only variable in the equation.

But they are the same game? Same content (unless you actually mod it) but you've paid considerably less? You can use the same controller as a console if you want and gameplay is the same on both? You can enjoy a PC game with any screen it plugs into and since it's a Ubisoft game you just download it from Steam or uPlay and just hit play? Sure, I guess you have that install time vs console which doesn't to an extent but still? Your Equation doesn't fully make sense?

 

[davislane1]

But they are the same game? Same content (unless you actually mod it) but you've paid considerably less?

The price difference on new titles is typically around $10. Not that big of a deal in my book. Additionally, I generally buy my games used in an average price range of $5 - $15, so price is, again, not the biggest variable in my value equation.

Your equation doesn't fully make sense?

Simplified version: Value = Subjective Benefits - (Subjective + Objective Costs). When dealing with luxury goods, Benefits and Costs are subjective and, therefore, what one person sees as a benefit (or cost) another might not. What's more, even if two people consider the same Benefits and Costs, they may assign them different values.

My central point is that the value of a luxury good is not merely the amount or quality of stuff you get for your dollar (thrift), but a measure of the total satisfaction you can derive from the good. That satisfaction is not based on an objective cost/benefit reality, but on a subjective one. Quite literally, this means that something one person values another might not care about or even consider a negative (cost). The reason my previous posts appear nonsensical is because we are measuring our satisfaction potentials differently. I would buy The Division for PS4 and you would buy it for PC simply because our satisfaction is based on different things.

Edit: Objective Costs is the money you lose as a result of buying and/or playing the game.

 

[Burty117]

The price difference on new titles is typically around $10. Not that big of a deal in my book. Additionally, I generally buy my games used in an average price range of $5 - $15, so price is, again, not the biggest variable in my value equation.

Simplified version: Value = Subjective Benefits - (Subjective + Objective Costs). When dealing with luxury goods, Benefits and Costs are subjective and, therefore, what one person sees as a benefit (or cost) another might not. What's more, even if two people consider the same Benefits and Costs, they may assign them different values.

My central point is that the value of a luxury good is not merely the amount or quality of stuff you get for your dollar (thrift), but a measure of the total satisfaction you can derive from the good. That satisfaction is not based on an objective cost/benefit reality, but on a subjective one. Quite literally, this means that something one person values another might not care about or even consider a negative (cost). The reason my previous posts appear nonsensical is because we are measuring our satisfaction potentials differently. I would buy The Division for PS4 and you would buy it for PC simply because our satisfaction is based on different things.

Edit: Objective Costs is the money you lose as a result of buying and/or playing the game.

That now makes more sense, I understand where your coming from now, but I also think that's an absolute waste of money. Money has a set value, to everyone, Hence exchange rates, the price of items in individual countries vary, but for example, £1 has the same value to me, as it does to you (in this instance we'll pretend you live in the UK) Surely, if you can plug a controller into your PC, plug your PC into your TV, that is exactly what the PS4 would do but run better and all the other goodies PC has going for it? Just simply you would have spent £300 less?

Now I understand your assigning the PS4 a great value to yourself personally, either, your so incredibly rich £410 is pocket change to you so the only Value you're looking at is the PS4 (I doubt this conclusion since you've put yourself down as a Student).

Or you simply want a PS4 just because you want the latest and greatest and using the games mentioned in the article as a way of convincing yourself to buy one? Thus adding an emotional value which derives from simply, your personality?

One more point of concern:

a measure of the total satisfaction you can derive from the good.

This implies you haven't even given your current "goods" (aka PC) fair judgement, that is, you haven't even tried to play a game on your PC the same way you would a console to see if you like it or not, which would explain your unfair conclusion you would get more satisfaction from a console don't even own yet.

 

[davislane1]

Money has a set value, to everyone, Hence exchange rates, the price of items in individual countries vary, but for example, £1 has the same value to me, as it does to you (in this instance we'll pretend you live in the UK)

This is why I classified a game as a luxury good and included objective costs as a negative component of value. As you rightly observe about monetary price, X = X. However, whether or not that price accurately reflects value is dependent on the consumer, as we've discussed. An unrelated but apt example would be asset pricing. Give five analysts the information for XYZ company and you'll get five different valuations. Make the second mistake of asking them for investment advice and two guys will tell you to stay away because it's "overvalued," two will tell you it's a "great deal," and the oddball will tell you it's stock price is "about right."

Or you simply want a PS4 just because you want the latest and greatest and using the games mentioned in the article as a way of convincing yourself to buy one? Thus adding an emotional value which derives from simply, your personality?

I've had only a fleeting interest in purchasing anything gaming related over the past year or so. To make a long story short, someone I know tried to challenge me with a wager and lost. Had that not occurred, I may very well be looking at the PC version of The Division instead of the PS4.

This implies you haven't even given your current "goods" (aka PC) fair judgement, that is, you haven't even tried to play a game on your PC the same way you would a console to see if you like it or not, which would explain your unfair conclusion you would get more satisfaction from a console don't even own yet.

No, I simply feel that it is too much hassle to properly set up my computer to play it like a console. I've done this from time to time with Skyrim and I do it with console emulators for obvious reasons. For multiplatform games, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth. I haven't failed to perform adequate analysis, I've simply reached a different conclusion. Subjectivity, my friend.

 

[Burty117]

No, I simply feel that it is too much hassle to properly set up my computer to play it like a console. I've done this from time to time with Skyrim and I do it with console emulators for obvious reasons. For multiplatform games, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth. I haven't failed to perform adequate analysis, I've simply reached a different conclusion. Subjectivity, my friend.

Huh, really? You find spending 5 minutes just setting up a controller and plugging in a TV for the first time to be that bothersome you'd actually go buy a whole console instead? Well I guess if your friend lost a wager that changes everything

Fair enough, just hurts all the logical parts of my brain hearing you say you'd buy a whole console just to save a bit of time xD

 

[davislane1]

Huh, really? You find spending 5 minutes just setting up a controller and plugging in a TV for the first time to be that bothersome you'd actually go buy a whole console instead? Well I guess if your friend lost a wager that changes everything

5 minutes setting things up, 5 minutes putting things back the way they were when I'm done, every single time. Alone, not enough to justify buying a console, but definitely one of the cons of certain PC situations. In fact, if I ever became so lazy as to spend $399 just so I didn't have to hook up a cable or operate a switch, I'd get a gun and shoot myself....Assuming I could find someone to pump it first

 

[Jad Chaar]

This is hilarious. The Division and Watch Dogs are the only reason are planning to get a PS4 or XBox One. On a more positive note, the consoles bugs will be fixed and price will be lower by the time these guys release!

MS is releasing an updated Xbox One in Q1 2014 supposedly.

I think this is a good move by Ubisoft. They probably saw Battlefield 4 and didnt want to release a buggy game but get it out on time.

 

[Blue Falcon]

It costs a lot of money to develop next generation games from scratch. I probably made sense to delay the game to both polish it more and allow for the userbase of XB1/PS4 owners to grow. The developer may also need more time since a PC version is in the making. Oh well, less and less next generation games out on the horizon for 2014 means I can happily wait until 20nm Maxwell and skip NV's rumored 28nm GM204 mid-range altogether. More time to save for a faster GPU that's not going to be needed until these next gen games drop.