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.
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
ZippyDSMleeIf SF dose not start building upwards then they will price people out of the aera.04/15/2014 - 10:59am
Matthew Wilsonthe issue rent control has it reduces supply, and in SF case they already has a supply problem. rent control ofen puts rent below cost, or below profit of selling it. rent control would not fix this issue.04/15/2014 - 10:56am
NeenekoRent control is useful in moderation, NYC took it way to far and tends to be held up as an example of them not working, but in most cases they are more subtle and positive.04/15/2014 - 10:24am
PHX CorpBeating Cancer with Video Games http://mashable.com/2014/04/14/steven-gonzalez-survivor-games/04/15/2014 - 9:21am
Matthew Wilsonwhat are you saying SF should do rent control, that has never worked every time it has been tried. the issue here is a self inflicted supply problem imposed by stupid laws.04/15/2014 - 8:52am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Government created price controls don't work though. They may keep prices down for the current inhabitants, but they are the primary cause of recently vacated residences having astronomical costs. Look at New York City as a prime example.04/15/2014 - 8:50am
NeenekoI think free markets are important, but believe in balance. Too much of any force and things get unstable.04/15/2014 - 7:25am
NeenekoWell, the traditional way of keeping prices down is what they are doing, controls on lease termination and tax code, but it will not be enough in this case.04/15/2014 - 7:24am
Matthew WilsonI said that already04/14/2014 - 4:22pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician