Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

March 9, 2011 -

Hey, did you UK readers see Ubisoft’s trailer for We Dare?  Did it perk your interest?  Would you like to play it?

Well too bad!  Ubisoft has decided not to release the game in the United Kingdom.

"Following the public reaction to the 12+ rating of We Dare, Ubisoft has made the decision not to sell the game in the United Kingdom."

We haven't seen reports of rioting in the streets.  As far as we’re aware, that "public reaction" doesn’t consist of much more than Keith Vaz and a few parents, going on nothing more than the trailer, opining that the game none of them had played was inappropriate for children as young as 12.  One parent, speaking to the Daily Mail, went so far as to say "this sort of computer game will only serve to fuel sexual tensions and, in a worse-case scenario, sexual touching or assault."

PEGI, the body that stamped the game with a 12 rating, continues to stand by its decision, telling IGN:

"Conclusions by press and commenters have been based exclusively on the online commercial, whereas the conclusions of PEGI were based on the game experience.  It was correct to give the game a 12 rating. The content of the game and the interaction that the game itself implies do not warrant a higher rating. Marketing may have implied something else, but PEGI does not rate advertising, it rates game content."


America and the UK are out but the game will be sold in other parts of Europe.  For now.

Via: The Telegraph

Thanks to beemoh for the heads up.

[Disclosure: I freelance for IGN.]

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Contributing Editor Andrew Eisen

Posted in

Comments

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

Recently it seems that it has been the publishers who have been blocking the content. Normally this controversy is what publishers crave (just look at EA's shameless tactics with Dante's Inferno) because it's free promotion and sales will increase. But Ubisoft, like EA with Medal of Honor, are self censoring.

I blame none of the newspapers or media for this, as this sort of mild outrage is to be expected and ignored (like it does with most games and films). They didn't run campaigns or petitions and there wasn't any increasing pressure to block it. Ubisoft a week or two after the controversy disappeared decided to block the release themselves.

Whether this is part of Ubisoft's tactics to increase demand, which will see them reverse the decision due to "major public demand" remains to be seen.

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

In practice, it doesn't really matter since I doubt it would have been popular anyway, just another piece of Wii shovelware. However, in principal, it was a terrible decision. The Daily Mail morons will think they have some sort of sway as to what gets published.

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

Amazing, PEGI has more stones than Ubisoft, and they lose no money if the game loses sales.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

And here I thought it was only the US that was deathly afraid of sex. 

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

Absolute rubbish - they're only doing this to generate media interest in a party game (I would like to call it poor as indeed I haven't played it, yet it's hard to imagine it becoming the best of all time). There's NO WAY they're making a moral stand against censorship to the detriment of their sales, NO business acts that way!!

Re: Ubisoft Doesn't Dare Release We Dare in the UK Either

Sad, just sad. It seems we spend years fighting against censorship based on paranoia for the sake of the Industry, and as thanks they do it all by themselves.

I would stop buying Ubisoft games, but it's too late for that, besides, at this rate, will they let themselves release any more, or will they be too busy hiding under the blanket?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
james_fudgesome states have "at will" employee laws10/20/2014 - 7:50am
quiknkoldIt says in the article that being in florida, you can get fired regardless if its a fireable offence10/20/2014 - 7:19am
Michael ChandraIf your employee respectfully disagrees with your advice, that's not a fireable offense. If they ignore your order, THEN you have the right to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 6:49am
Michael ChandraI... Don't get one thing. If you do not want your employee to do X, why do you tell them it's advice or a wish? Give them a damn order.10/20/2014 - 6:48am
james_fudgeA leak that had me worried about being swatted by Lizard Squad.10/20/2014 - 6:03am
james_fudgeIt should be noted that the author leaked the GJP group names online10/20/2014 - 6:03am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician