I've asked you again but I hope you actually answer this time. Why do you invent these weird conspiracy theories about analysts? Like, what do you get out of it?
Sales analysts talk about sales. Some games do better on PC and others do better on PS, its not "preaching a narrative" to talk about where the sales are coming from.
~Half as well as the previous entry in their flagship IP would be a disaster when they're relying on it to carry the company. I agree that money is money, which is why none of the media spin excuses matter.
Best product Ubisoft has ever put out IMO.35 hours in. Let me say, without providing a huge wall of text (I might do that when I'm finished), that they 100% deserve this success.
They cooked, as the kids say. Great game.
Im providing some context for better launch numbers, nothing more.
MMaRsu
is also providing facts. So are you only interested in facts when they suit an agenda and otherwise they are "excuses"?
If the game is doing so great, why do they keep doing this? WTF is "total activations"? Does that mean sales, and if it does, why not just say sales?
They are definitely counting Ubisoft+ as activations. But we don't know the split between Steam and Ubisoft+. So if there are 300k Steam buys and 500k on Ubi+, that implies just under 3 million "players" based on their 27% metric.
You invented something just now.
What did he post? Did he mention that Playstation contributed more than half the sales? Or he will emphasize it when its favorable to his agenda?
At the moment he's talking about the 2 million players number. What is his agenda and what would be favourable to it?
The expectation would be that the game performs as well as or better than games that required a similar level of capital investment. Spider-Man 2 looks like a good comparison based on budget and recency, which sold 2.5 million in the first 24 and over 5 million in 11 days.
Maybe, but I doubt it. This formula is basic Steam sales 101, and all three trackers that Steamdb uses has it with that general area, two of them have it lower. If there is a problem with the math it's not on the Steam sales end. A month from now that formula doesn't work, but the week of a release, absolute works and has a thousand times before, even as late as MHW.
And that's the whole problem. They hide the data behind "players" and "activations". This same company said Skull and Bones had "record player engagement" and it was an absolute trainwreck of a failure. It means absolutely nothing, it's PR fluff.
Except no sales were actually reported, only revenue. What people want to see is units sold, period. All the rest is meaningless.
Yes, you totally owned the chuds, well done...
My explanation was correcting a flawed inference. The excuses offered here were an attempt to undermine a correct (as far as we know) and relevant statement, as made clear by the 'keep reaching bro'.You were giving "excuses" as to why Shadows was at the top of the best seller list. I went along with your reasoning as it was based in facts.
If its obvious then you would be able to tell me what Chris' agenda is. Are you referring to Wilds selling more on PC than consoles?
The comparison will likely be YOY.. Why would they choose 2020 to compare to specifically?We will see how well Shadows did when Ubisoft reports their revenue for Jan to March 2025 in a month or two.
The quarter that AC Valhalla released, Oct to Dec 2020, Ubisoft had revenue of 1 billion Euros. I’m guessing they will report a fair amount lower despite the player counts reported, just due to those players being one month subscribers.
No, that's how the real world works. Investors expect returns on their investment, and if Ubi fails to deliver returns on investment on par with their peers, it's a failure on Ubi's part, and the money flows elsewhere.
Do you think investors expect years of bombs to be undone by a single massive hit?
I don't think you're following the conversation.
Activations are presumably copies which they know are in use. I would expect Ubi+ to count as activations, but not if you've eg. bought the game in a store but haven't played it yet.
Nah.
Because it doesn't make any sense. Chris is a Ninty fanboy and that's why he's talking about the success of Monster Hunter Wilds and AC:Shadows? (two games not even available on Nintendo plaforms.
I have no clue who the exact source is, but the first time I remember it being used was to determine server population on Everquest. Verant confirmed the fact that at any given time 20% of a servers population was playing on that server. So if you had 3000 people online that meant the total population was 15,000 players. And it was accurate. and it translates. And it did translate, because people have been using it for Steam for years. It was accurate for Kingdom Come 2, it was accurate for MHW, and it will be accurate for this if they ever release Steam sales numbers. Count on it, or don't, we will see one way or the other soon enough.
This is exactly what I think, there is no other way for these statements to jive unless they are counting Ubisoft+.
Uh oh......don't look now but seems folks may be buying PS5 Pro to play AC:S
We will see how well Shadows did when Ubisoft reports their revenue for Jan to March 2025 in a month or two.
The quarter that AC Valhalla released, Oct to Dec 2020, Ubisoft had revenue of 1 billion Euros. I’m guessing they will report a fair amount lower despite the player counts reported, just due to those players being one month subscribers.
