*sigh*
Here we go again.
making money is not what the buisness should be, making games that we want because we are paying the money for them is what should be done.
The reason Ubisoft has redesigned the R6 and GR titles the way they have is because most of those that are paying for the game(s) want it that way. You say the business shouldn't be about making money (which, by an economical stand point, is absurdly false), it should be about pleasing those who are paying for the product.
It just so happens the way you want the game to be designed puts you in the minority of how most people want the game to be designed. So the way Ubi has redesigned the game actually falls into your logic of how things should be done. It just doesn't work out in your favour.
People do marketing for Ubi, they also look at current and past sales and the numbers tell them that dumbing down the game not only nets them more money (which anyone with half a brain would jump at), but it pleases more people.
So carrying on this crusade is actually going against everything you stand for. I find that quite ironic and amusing.
Was RvS a true R6 title? No. Will Lockdown be a true R6 title? No. But the people at Ubi have bills to pay and families to raise. I don't think they should be condemmed to salary cuts and job cuts because you want a
game developed in a different way.
I know what you're going to say, "If they changed the name of the game then it won't matter.". I have news for you, even if they change the name, it won't be any more tactical, so why does that matter? Why should semantics be at the root your rage? They also won't hire an entirely different dev team to make R6 titles the way they used to be made and have yet another dev team to make a shooter that more people want. That's fiscally irresponsible since it's just a waste of money.
I know no amount of discussion will shed any light on the reality of the subject to you, but all I can hope to do is persuade others to not be the bigger fool who follows the fool.
EDIT---
I also forgot to add that holding a grudge against the company for creating a game differently then the way you want it doesn't fit with your "they should make games we want to play because we're paying for them" statement. You haven't paid for Lockdown yet, therefore they have no obligation to please someone who hasn't given them anything.
Ubi's (and every other companies) loyalty is with it's shareholders. Those who fund their operations, and the only way to please shareholders is to make them money. You have to spend money to make money, and that money can't always come from sales alone. Without funding from shareholders you won't get any game, let alone a game you're displeased with. If you buy one share and can mustar up enough other people with shares that equate to the bulk of Ubi's stocks, your opinions will be heard and the game will take your shape. However, when your money is on the line I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune.
Purchasing a game you don't want is no excuse for receiving a product you know full well you won't enjoy. It's not Ubi's fault you buy games under the false hope that it will meet your expectations.
If you want to start a crusade on their mod support (or lack thereof), I'll gladly let you rant away. But to scorn a company for trying to make money and please the majority is selfish and ignorant.
