Support NeoGAF

[DForce]

What if you got an A in your last maths exam but you got a C in this one, but it's ok because it's only because you slept in and missed the first 30 minutes of the exam?

He's not comparing an A to a C, he's comparing an A to a B.

An A and B are both good grades. Do you think Ubisoft expected Assassin's Creed Shadows to sell 8 million copies in the first 3 days? No.

Sure, they WISH it would sell 8-10 million copies in the first 3 days, but that's unreasonable for their expectations.

 

[semiconscious]

2 million "players" let's pretend for a second it's sales...

unfortunately, this's exactly the point of all these gibberish-filled articles...

 

[StueyDuck]

Consider the wise words from Christopher Dring.

For a man whose whole job it is to measure and quantify sales data.

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Games are made for profit, Publishers want maximum profit.

No publisher is ok with their product doing averagely or slightly ok.

now there is a discussion to be had around that topic because that would improve the quality of games.

But if he really thinks that Ubisoft are okay with this game being anything but the the highest selling product they've ever made then he is clueless.

 

[Blitzkrieg!]

I also wanted to mention something about Veilguard. While one of the reasons it failed was the focus on gender and sexual identity, I think something people are underestimating in its failure, which was also a big negative, is that it was a massive departure from the previous games. So, not only was it a game with a focus on something that most people weren't interested in (at least as far as I saw), but it was also a different visual style, combat system... It felt more like a sort of reboot, than what I believe most people wanted which was a continuation of the ideas seen in DA: Inquisition. AC Shadows, meanwhile, it's mostly a new iteration of the same formula we've seen since AC: Origins, with better visuals, better combat and, from what I've read, a rather bland story (I can't speak about this because I'm only a few hours into the game) and leaning on the huge success that was AC Valhalla. Even Mirage was praised by some due to its shorter nature.

What I mean by this is that comparing Veilguard to AC: Shadows as if they had the same context doesn't really make sense.


Oh, and +1 to this.

DA:V failed for a number of reasons: budget was way high for a DA game, gameplay did not impress, 10 years passed since the last DA entry, ideology bullshit made it a laughing stock at launch.

 

[calico]

He's not comparing an A to a C, he's comparing an A to a B.

An A and B are both good grades. Do you think Ubisoft expected Assassin's Creed Shadows to sell 8 million copies in the first 3 days? No.

Sure, they WISH it would sell 8-10 million copies in the first 3 days, but that's unreasonable for their expectations.

I'm suggesting that my analogy is a better fit for where we are now.

I think AC Japan could and should have been expected to outperform AC Viking, and I think it would have if they hadn't fumbled it so unnecessarily. A part of their explanation for why it couldn't do that is the release date, as though missing their release window is an external issue which was forced upon them.

 

[Kacho]

I think AC Japan could and should have been expected to outperform AC Viking, and I think it would have if they hadn't fumbled it so unnecessarily.

I agree with this. Especially with a Steam launch in the cards.

 

[DForce]

For a man whose whole job it is to measure and quantify sales data.

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Games are made for profit, Publishers want maximum profit.

No publisher is ok with their product doing averagely or slightly ok.

now there is a discussion to be had around that topic because that would improve the quality of games.

But if he really thinks that Ubisoft are okay with this game being anything but the the highest selling product they've ever made then he is clueless.

I'm suggesting that my analogy is a better fit for where we are now.

I think AC Japan could and should have been expected to outperform AC Viking, and I think it would have if they hadn't fumbled it so unnecessarily. A part of their explanation for why it couldn't do that is the release date, as though missing their release window is an external issue which was forced upon them.

If it was all about chasing the maximum profit possible, then you would see all developers pushing out sequels with the same characters for the next 30 years. That just doesn't happen.

It's always a gamble to change the main protagonist of a story or kill off one of the most-believed characters in a game, knowing people would be upset.

Developers don't always take the safe bet, they often make creative decisions that some gamers might not be happy with.


So far, it seems AC: Shadows is selling well. If it's profitable and it's in line with their expectations, then that's what matters. It doesn't need to be compared to Monster Hunter Wilds.

 

[StueyDuck]

If it was all about chasing the maximum profit possible, then you would see all developers pushing out sequels with the same characters for the next 30 years. That just doesn't happen.

ummm.... have you not kept up with gaming.

The industry is basically existing on Sequels and rehashing old stuff. AC shadows is the least risky gamble imaginable . Take the formula and put in a scenario people have been asking for.

No publisher is saying "we spent 300 million on this game and you guys made 302 million" good job. Big budgets means they are expecting a big return.

Again there's a discussion to be had about that and it being the major issue plaguing 99% of AAA games.

But to suggest Ubi or any publisher is happy with anything past break even and 5 or however many years of development is not correct and Dring himself should know better considering its his job to cover this.

 

[Bernardougf]

I guess this game succeeding in some form is reaaaally important for journalists with the amount of different numbers coming from everywhere.... Im sure culture wars has nothing to do with this, at all.

I personally like the "success is subjective" part lol ... thats cute

 

[DForce]

ummm.... have you not kept up with gaming.

The industry is basically existing on Sequels and rehashing old stuff. AC shadows is the least risky gamble imaginable . Take the formula and put in a scenario people have been asking for.

I didn't say developers don't make sequels, I said sequels with the same characters for the next 30 years. Those are safe bets.

No publisher is saying "we spent 300 million on this game and you guys made 302 million" good job. Big budgets means they are expecting a big return.

Again there's a discussion to be had about that and it being the major issue plaguing 99% of AAA games.

But to suggest Ubi or any publisher is happy with anything past break even and 5 or however many years of development is not correct and Dring himself should no better considering its his job to cover this.

That's not what's happening here. You're acting like Assassin's Creed Shadows is performing below their expectations when we have no clue as to how it's performing within Ubisoft's expectations.

If they wanted to make 300M-400M within the next 2 months, and they make 360 million, then 360 million is still successful.



@17:00
Neil talks about how the safest thing to do would be to make another Ellie and Joel adventure, but they decided to go in a different direction..

Naughty Dog wasn't chasing maximum profit. They wanted to make the game successful enough to do it again.

 

[calico]

This apparent acceptance of decline could explain a lot about how Ubisoft got to where it is.

 

[kazuyamishima]

More than 120k copies of the game were sold in France (retail only) and 55-60k on launch week in the UK (retail only).

In France, the game is the biggest retail non EA Sports/COD launch game since Super Mario Bros Wonder.

 

[b0uncyfr0]

Solid 6/7 game depending on what you like. For those of us who wanted more depth and attention to animation, story, combat etc - its the same stuff.

They made it pretty though

 

[Raven117]

Ubi doesn't have to sell to Tencent now and that is good.

You think one somewhat successful game will save Ubi? All this did was increase the purchase price for the AC IP.

 

[Woopah]

For a man whose whole job it is to measure and quantify sales data.

this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Games are made for profit, Publishers want maximum profit.

No publisher is ok with their product doing averagely or slightly ok.

now there is a discussion to be had around that topic because that would improve the quality of games.

But if he really thinks that Ubisoft are okay with this game being anything but the the highest selling product they've ever made then he is clueless.

That tweet is from 2022, it has nothing to do with AC: Shadows.

He's saying the requirement for success is diferent for different games. So for example, just because Astrobot sold 1.5 million and was a success doesn't mean 1.5 million would be a sucess for a 3D Mario or a Call of Duty.

In that case it was about Days Gone and Ghost of Tsushima.

 

[sachos]

I can understand this feeling, not about them being sad for a game per se, but at a deeper level is a "sadness" at the realization of how hate/fake/ragebait narratives can be constructed out of thin air and then just let the social media algorithms do the rest.