ill take "who gives a damn" for $500 Alex

If you really want to protest this decision, but want to support the developers, buy the Wii U version and only the Wii U version.

Why does it always have to be you either love or hate the developer?  None of that should matter.  If you are interested in the initial premise of a game being offered, you decide whether or not you want to get it based on your own personal criteria. 

As a fan of Ubisoft games (Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Assassins Creed, Prince of Persia, Driver) I would understand if the delayed a game I was looking forward to if it were to add more content, fix bugs, address online issues...I couldn't however support a decision like this one. I have in the past bought games that I didn't like the publishers (Mass Effect 2,3...I hate EA) but that's only one company, and one game. I refuse to buy any other EA game new unless I can get it for $20 because of their crappy Madden game. Each situation is different, and the circumstances surrounding them are also different. I feel that in this particular situation Ubi realized that they were not going to get the return they initially though by being exclusive to Nintendo and that's a good point. Businesses make poor decisions all the time, and this time is no different. I fell sorry for the fans, but a delay is just that, a delay...good things come to those that wait.

BTW, Splinter Cell Blacklist was also delayed from March to August so yes, I know EXACTLY how you guys feel, now the only game I will get for my Bday is Tomb Raider

I buy games based on whether or not I want to play them. Honestly, there have been a number of games I've purchased where I didn't even know who dev'd or published it until I had my hands on the box or read some reviews that mentioned it.

But yeah, in the end skipping a purchase over a delay seems utterly pointless, and the only people being hurt by that are the devs and gamers skipping out on a game that they'd likely enjoy over a silly reason.

Sometimes it is, but not most of the time. I usually just buy games second hand from publishers I hate, I can't stand the thought of my money benefiting them. I can feel sympathetic for the developers, especially if I love them, but at the same time it doesn't change my decision. Look at EA for example, they own a selection of developers I like (such as BioWare), but in the past they have destroyed so many great development teams (Westwood Studio's spring instantly to mind) that I simply hate supporting them. They turn good developer's bad by milking their franchises and destroying their creativity. As much as I love a company I can't support a publisher who is clearly destroying their rep. What's worse, not supporting a publisher and seeing them close down their development teams because they need to save money, or seeing a publisher tear apart a company that you once loved and being powerless to stop them? 

My question from this debacle- if we can't express our displeasure with a publisher by voting with our wallet for fear of putting a good, hard-working development studio in the ground, how exactly CAN we tell Ubisoft we don't approve? Literally the only thing we can do to affect a publisher is buy or refuse to buy their games. We don't get any other products from them. And I don't want to have to kill a good developer just to get the message across. There needs to be some kind of reform in the relationship between the publisher and the consumer, some way to give the consumer more of a voice.

The sooner that publishers are out of the picture the better they kill creativity and innovation.

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced that not buying a game will 'teach publishers a lesson'. I mean, the phrase 'vote with your wallet' gets thrown around a lot, but at the end of the day, even if sales flop for this game, are the people who made these decisions actually going to put two and two together? Will they even notice that fans are grumbling, or will they just chalk it up to 'poor market conditions', 'development difficulties', 'bad marketing', etc. Ok, so not everyone has the geniuses at Capcom at the helm, but I'm not that convinced these guys will necessarily connect two and two.

I buy good games if they're good, I don't really care who published or developed them. If I 'blacklist' a publisher who happens to publish a good game, I'm the only one suffering. To answer the question of the blog title though, emotionally and intellectually my love for a developer overcomes a dislike for the publisher, yes. I tend to feel the developer's soul shines through the cracks of whatever DLC crap, marketing garbage, release decisions and suggestions a publisher might pile onto their game in the end. I still love Bioware, I still love Visceral, I would still love the original Infinity Ward if they were still under Activision, I still love Bungie despite their move with Activision. I respect developers that make good games and are good at their craft.

I won't be buying the game on September or  I should say I will get it used afterwards. If I have to wait for the game to be an all consoles release after promising a Wii U exclusive then the game company doesn't deserve a pass. The question about your love for a game being enough to overcome hatred for the publisher is an easy one to answer NO. And for the devs... it is paid work and you perform it willingly I understand your frustration but work is sometimes like that. I wont support a company just for the sake of its employees if their management lies to us like Ubisoft is doing I do believe the Dev team would be better off elsewhere because this game will fail if it releases on September and the company soon after if it keep doing boneheaded decisions like this one.

Well, sometimes things change, you really can't say why Ubisoft decided to delay Rayman, but I don't think that's cause for any ruckus...you guys will just have to be patient. Not stomping on your feelings, but getting mad over a delayed game is really infantile.

Is your love for a developer enough to overcome your hatred for a publisher?

It was for both Shadows of the Damned and Mass Effect. I felt dirty while I watched the EA emblem fill up my screen every time those games loaded, but I soon shelved my shame and dove into gaming bliss! There have been instances where I haven't been able to bring myself to pick up a game even if I really wanted to play it because of the publisher though.

Amazing article as usual Lucas. As much I don't like Ubisoft and what they have done with the developers, I may consider to buy the game but only if the Wii U version gets released first. These Wii U owners should get it first since they be waiting so long for and that the game might now sell well in september and may never get a sequel.

As a human being, I always empathise first with the consumer, second with the developer. The empathy disparity is not that great since both brackets are decent. Developers do generally put in their best. However, the one group that ruins the relationship between these two trading camps, and cheats them each out of a decent share of the monetary gain, is the publisher -- the middle man. The so-called helping hand that is always creating war between consumers as a group, and then between them and developers while using legitimate outlets like second-hand markets as the scape goat, along with irrelevant things like piracy to further the divide within consumers and between consumers and developers.

Here's to ideas like Kickstarter and Greenlight -- this is the step in the right direction where developers can directly approach their customers for funding and where customers can contribute what they can contribute and even receive a generous return for minimal pledge amounts. Quite a few projects have made in excess of their target amounts this way, removing the animosity-breeding, bloated mess of the publisher out of the picture.

As a PC gamer I have no love for Ubisoft after being treated like a second rate citizen and branded criminals for years now.

Sadly though, even if you want to support the developers they probably won't see much of the profits anyway, most of it ends up in the publishers pockets, not to mention their shareholders.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Diablo 3.

We're in a recession people!!!!!!! I don't have the money to buy games just because the development team "worked hard". I buy good games regardless of who the developers and publishers are, and likewise, I avoid bad games regardless of who the developers and publishers are.

Great blog! Couldn't of said it better myself. I'm disputing between either buying the game new or used myself just because of this bonehead move. Though you make a good point; it's hard whether or not to decide if we should still buy it so that the developers get the money that's rightfully deserved. Hopefully Ubisoft will just change their minds. If you guys haven't seen this yet, please sign this petition: 

http://www.change.org/petitions/ubisoft-entertainment-s-a-keep-to-the-original-rayman-legends-release-date-for-the-wii-u#share

Hopefully this will make some noise and make a difference.

 "Is your love for a developer enough to overcome your hatred for a publisher?"

-yes, I know most of the time the one thing that stop developers from delivering quality games (or a complete game) is the publisher. it isnt a rule set in stone though, in many occasions the publishers just dedicates to watch all the legal stuff, like making sure no copyright infringement is going on in the development of a game. also making sure there will be enough money to develop a game, promote it, distribute it.

but some times, the publishers manifests in the form of a dumb rich guy  who thinks, some how, he has any business making videogames.  then he goes around getting involve in the creative process of a videogame, it is the only part of the process he will probably understand enough to believe he can intervene and overrule the opinion  of the developers who usually know what they r doing.

I respect game developers, they work hard to deliver entertainment, they miss birthdays (love ones and their own),  their children's births, Saturday nights, and superbowls, to meet the deadline. and even if the game is successful there is no guaranty they will still have a job at the end of the season. 

I like to think that when I pay for a videogame I think was awesome, Im helping the developers who worked on it, some how, because I know most of the money goes to the publisher, but I meant to say that those developers names become better known...... (u know in the world of game developing, I have no Idea who those guys are I mean I know who Hideo Kojima is of course the guy dress like a rock star from the late 80's how do u forget something like that? but other more normal looking developers are harder to remember)...... and maybe more worthy publishers will take notice and shelter those developers under their wing.

I have always enjoyed the hypocrisy of the gaming community. They are recognized, as a group, for being selfish, irritating, short-tempered, short-sighted, and completely unforgiving. Yet, when they see the same behavior exhibited by someone else, be it player, developer, or publisher, they suddenly complain about how terrible those attributes are. Based on their behavior, most publicly active gamers don't have a shred of credibility when it comes to complaining about the actions of others because they're already guilty of doing the same thing. It's hilarious.

i believe strongly that amongst all the troubles is the marketing.  big investment firms rely heavily on marketing people and to me these people can be utterly moronic. these are also very very expansive events. just look at the halo 4 stunt in lichtenstein, i can't even begin to comprehend how much that must have cost them. money that would be better put to use in developing and giving the workforce better working conditions. but big investment firms are big banker egos that rather like to pay for THEIR name to look good on top of things, instead of the product they sell. the gamers grape vine forums are better advertisments than any event that, lets face it, 99% of us never be able to go to even if we wanted to. the only people to benefit from games these days seem to be the marketing people, go figure.

That's an easy decision for me: no buy. And I'm not talking about Rayman. So far I have in my "black list" two publishers that I don't buy anymore their games.

I understand your frustration, but I think you're being too hard on the publisher.  The simple fact is, Wii U sales have sucked, and keeping it as an exclusive would lose a ton of money.  They COULD stagger the releases and drop the Wii U version now, but then they'd have to spend twice as much in marketing costs to keep it in the public eye in both time frames, it would be off the radar for people who buy a Wii U between now and then, and gaming websites likely would largely ignore the secondary fall release.  You'd have to ask one of their planners to know for sure, but I don't think this was a spur-of-the-moment decision; nobody wants to delay revenue for two quarters if they don't have to.

Also, I have to say that I think the developer's comments were unprofessional.  So they worked really hard for a few months to meet a deadline, and then there's a delay; big woop, welcome to real life.  I can't count how many times I've busted my hump on something that ends up as little more than a report filed and forgotten.  If he's going to whine every time "men in ties" make a decision he doesn't like, he should go indie - when other people are paying the bills, other people are making the decisions.

Yeah, as long as the game's good. I really like Bungie, and I wish they wouldn't have signed with Activision, but then again, I only buy games based on quality, regardless of publisher.

I'm certainly going to support the developers by buying the Wii U version of this game as planned.  Ubisoft did a one-two bonehead move by screwing Nintendo out of a great exclusive and delaying it just so it can be ported to the PS3 and 360.

Rayman Legends seems designed with the Wii U gamepad in mind.  How can they possibly translate that to a PS3 and a 360?

My "love" for any developer is contingent on the quality of the product and that includes the way it is sold. If I have a microtransations in my survival horror it is an instant 1 out of 10 game, no need to actually play it. And no I won't differentiate whose decision it was, I blame everybody involved, and I will call your game a piece of crap.

If a developer I respect associates with EA or the likes I instantly assume they are cashing in their reputation and will adapt to the schemes and malpractices of EA.

The abhorrent state of the industry is fault of a sheep like consumer base, EA and the likes would be bankrupt long before they had the chance to destroy the industry if people didn't feed them.

It is Ubisoft. I guess they want to be more like EA.

I remember reading an interview with Chris Avellone (I'd share the link but I don't have it handy), abnd he went pretty in depth about the stuff the developers have to deal with. I'd say a lot of the stuff people get upset about, for the most part, falls squarely on the shoulders of the publishers, whether it be rushing the development team, forcing DRM, DLC, and microtransactions, canceling a game, or situations like the example above. For the most part, the developers love gaming and actually give a crap about the gaming community as a whole, and more than anything they want to satisfy their fans. Obviously there are times where the publisher has to be "that guy" and make tough decisions, since this is a business after all, but too many times we see publishers overstepping their bounds and overruling devs in areas they know nothing about. For this reason, I'm hoping we will see more and more successful and positively reviewed Kickstarters, to stick it in the face of the publishers.

Take SimCity for example (Maxis and EA).   The answer is YES

As long as the publisher is providing the developer with funds to create a game. I have no reason to complain.  They are making this possible, without them the game couldn't even be developed in the first place.

This is the way I feel with EA. I have trouble supporting Bioware because they're owned by EA. But at this point, it's clear that Bioware will never be the same as long as they have to deal with forced multiplayer components and DLC. I also wish the Dead Space franchise didn't belong to EA.

Well in that particular situation ( regarding Rayman ) I don't care that much but I understand that it was supposed to be an exclusive and now they won't have the game until way to late and every other consol will have it. It seems to happen with Nintendo, I remember when RE4, Viewtiful Joe and another Capcom game came out on the GameCube first as an exclusive and then BAM! Capcom release those game on the PS2 like a year latter.

Do I avoid some publisher/maker even if they put out nice game ? Yes I sure stay as far as I can to EA, Activision and now Capcom. Otherwise I'm ok with every other publisher until their product may be too boring or crippled with DLC ... so maybe one day Square may joint the team.

Not sure about this particular situation, but in general, no. Being loyal or having 'love' for a developer only leaves you open to exploitation. My general rule is to stay detached until they've really proven themselves worthy of your trust and loyalty, like CD Projekt Red has. I'm fully aware of the possibility that they too, might one day, decide to cash in their fans and all the good will they've gathered. I hope that day never comes, but experience has taught me to be ready for anything.

More entitled whiny brattishness from Lucas. Who'd a thunk it?

If we stopped buying games from publishers we didnt like, we wouldnt have any games, may as well just bite the bullet and support your favorite devs until we find a better way of funding video games.

Wow, just wow. Of all the things to come on the internet to whine about this has to be one of the saddest most puerile rants I've read in quite some time.

Who cares if it's delayed. Is it the only videogame left in the entire universe? Unbelievable.