As you might know, people don’t like being shown one thing and given another. In fact, the legal system in most of the world doesn’t like consumers being shown one thing and given another.
Hard to see how this guy reached that conclusion. He reported nothing illegal but a mere consequence of the US market being the primary target for Ubisoft.
And the marketing to support that goal was pulled out, probably an effective one.
It reminds me of that guy who was reported as telling that americans no longer support failures because of the education system and that therefore European developpers had to adapt because they did not get that.
At that time, I told that European studios had not been developping video games for the european markets for a long time.
Shows that again. It is a simple commercial situation. Ubisoft pushed out an effective marketing campaign for its primary market target, the US market. Could not care less to pay for a European markets marketing campaign as they are secondary markets.
If one thing can not be told, it's that marketing does not work in video gaming. The video gaming is nearly all marketing by now. So I trust the judgement of the marketing team when it comes to sell that Ubisoft game. They judged that Americans would prefer a game reporting them fighting for freedom against the oppressive Red Coats than being shown the real content of the game. They did it accordingly. Probably though, there are not many African Americans in this game as it could not help to support the marketing ideas.
Simple economic problem: Ubisoft knows that the US is the primary target. They chose to take the most effective approach to sell the game in the US. They did not bother to fund specific marketing campaigns for european markets as they are secondary markets and the game will sell in Europe with no big losses.
Nothing illegal here, only economics and how marketing work.
.
