Ubisoft Game Sales | Forums

[WhiteKnight77]

The latest Ubisoft FY 2004-2005 sales figures are amazing. They show that PC games make up one quarter of their business with the other 75% made up of combined console sales. Now, I realize that those figures take into account games that share multiple platforms, but they also include PC only games sales. I haven't been able to find number of game sales for each game yet, but if memory serves me correctly, those include sales figures for some of Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, iL2: Forgotten Battles Aces Expansion Pack and Pacific Fighters, Silent Hunter III, Prince of Persia and Brothers in Arms to name a few. Imagine what it would have been with a release of a GR2 for PC when originally scheduled. The one thing I see with a release like the XBox version is a hurting for the next version.

Some people say that the if PC gamers stopped buying Ubisoft published games, it wouldn't hurt their bottom line, but I don't agree. With figures like that from one sector of the market, losing one quarter of your total sales is a big loss. I don't think any stockholder or investor would like to lose money due to the loss of a sizable market.

If Ubi can publish some quality games of some genres, why can't they produce the same quality of game for all of it's games? I hear BIA is to linear and the MP component is junk (I haven't even tried the demo yet, but want to) as it doesn't allow for the kind of fun poeple want. Maybe people do not understand how it is supposed to be played. Seems to me, while a good game is hard to find, people want them.

I think one reason why Ubi has done so well is they are trying to produce quality games compared to the largest US video game conglomerate. Whle EA has permeated all sorts of game types, they fail to appeal to those who wish more from a game and that is why Ubi has been able to do well on all platforms. Sure Ubi has some average gamer fare, but do they really want average gamers? Possibly. Should they try to pull in the average gamer, sure, but they should create titles just for average gamers. Ubi has already shown a propensity for developing games for those who want more than average fare. Look at the sim and strategy games they have released compared to other companies. For every Ghost Recon, there is a Battlefield 1942 or Delta Force, for every Rainbow Six, there is a Counter-Strike. For every Silent Hunter, there is Enigma: Rising Tide. I can't compare other genres as I am not into them, but you get the drift. For every game Ubi has that challenges a gamer, there are many others that fit the genre that are aimed at the average gamer.

I think Ubi seems to be aware that at least PC gamers aren't some dumb kid and I am not implying that console players are, there are many over the age of 18, but while Ubi XBox game sales are equal to the PC for the last fiscal year they are down 2% from the previous fiscal year. That is in contrast to the PC's 1% increase. PS2 game sales are 11-12% higher over the same periods and the only console to break 30% sales. What does it all mean, I can't say, but as I said, Ubi can't afford to lose one quarter of their sales. Not meeting PC gamers needs could hinder that bottom line if they are not careful.

My 2 cents.

[cobaka]

With the vulture circling and ready to swoop down to feed on reduced value stocks, now especially is not the time to turn their back on a sizable piece of the market - and profit.

I have to wonder if the powers that be are eyeing that circling vulture and equating "for-the-masses" fare with major market share and trying to emulate that "success" formula.

However, I honestly don't think it's a matter of platform - console vs PC. There are plenty of run n' gunners on PC and plenty of serious tacsim fans on console. I think it's simply a matter of quality. There are plenty of voices screaming for quality games in the console forums, and don't like the direction of things in that market either. The powers that be have the talent and titles to own the quality "thinking man's" game market. I wish they would realize that being the biggest isn't being the "best".

[WhiteKnight77]

See Cob, that's my point, RSE had a great thing going and Ubi knew that when they bought them from TC.

With EA circling (yes, I will say it), Ubi would be smart to stop with trying to appeal to the average gamer and focus on the quality game that gives gamers what they really want. There are hundreds of average gamer fodder available for those who want it, but quality titles for those of us gamers who want more are few and far between. If I wanted BF1942, I would have bought it.

Funny thing is, I tried the new Delta Force Xtreme demo (DS picked it up at E3 and sent it to me) and it looked just like Joint Ops (I did try the demo, but had no one to shoot at). With so many games that look and play like each other, why not be originial?

Fargo of GameSpy stated:

Should gamers like us be worried? I would: EA cranks out terrific titles, but
creative industries thrive on competition. We would see less innovation and risk-taking in the games space if all the competition was swallowed up.

And I am inclined to say yes right now. With the dumbing down of some games, people are complaining.

[Alex_HS]

Lets see, last PC games i bought from them were Far Cry (colecting dust forever), Pop Warrior Within ( awfull and buggy, didnt even finish it) and SCPT (more like a poor expantion to the original).

Not very good purchases except maybe Far Cry though i didnt like it enough to bother with MP.. still a nice looking game that felt worth its price.

Recently i considered SCCT and Silent HunterIII, after playing SCCT demo i think i'll pass because it looks just like the same old stuff and its MP isnt my type, it just looks prettier and thats it..
SHIII is a game everybody recomends me and may deliver a very good experience, i might get it.

I believe GR2 for PC would have done great, if it was up to peoples expectations ofcourse and not a bad port, it would beat the ps2 version easily but they decided it wasnt worth it and moved on to the next one.

For the future i dont see anything, GR3 is a maybe has i dont like what they have showned for the console version so far, other than that they have no PC games coming that interest me, i think all this porting and console aiming is hurting PC sales too, because there are less and less quality PC games coming out, that is also a big reason has to why UBI's PC sales arent higher, they release more console games than PC ones ..

[Fyredawg]

Well console PC it doesnt matter. WK is right a good quality game, is a good quality game. Be it played on a PC an xbox or your dinning table. FPS games are a dime a dozen. Quality games, are rare esp these days when companies have lost sight of what got them to where they are.

[ZA_Corax]

Well to all you doubters UBISOFT isn't hurting at all. Loosing PC market share (ie. cancelling GR2 PC) when most of their revenue is generated through console titles, it is also insignificant when profits are about to roll-in from the next generation console titles (6 months with 50 million EUR operating cash flow)... The numbers in that report explain it. The real worry would be the nameless share holder, they would love to get a bigger piece of the cake.

Thanks for reposting the report WK.

WK how can you be so pleased with RSE when they've become M$ pawn... Bill says jump they say "How high?". Hence the PC GR3 is given to a SE company that has little to no experience with GR type genre (I might be a little harsh but we've seen this happen before when RSE allowed the Montreal group butcher R6), and now the Stockholm group is currently scrambling for staff... these are not good signs. (But I might have to eat my words at a later date, time will tell)

I'm just like everyone else, I agree developers should always create titles that's agreeable to everyones palette. But for now I still don't see a light at the end of this GR3 PC tunnel.

[Alex_HS]

I think my point is that if they bothered a little more they could profit more from the PC market, because good PC games still sell like crazy, notice "good", not ports of bs console ones.
Regarding GR3 i dont really care about who makes it has long has they do it well and i actualy have more faith in a developer other than RSE, because with all honesty GR was their "only" game and it was more because of theme and concept rather than technology, anyone who played sum of all fears knows what i mean, its the exact same bad engine of GR and it sucked worse than bad. RSE has also proved themselves incompetent with GR2, full of issues and lack of decently programed a.i.
I think a quality, tactical fps for PC would be a good investment considering there arent many out there on the market, GR or not it would be a good investment from UBI's part.

[WhiteKnight77]

I can't say as I am pleased with the direction RSE is going, not in the least. RSE, prior to being purchased by Ubi, knew what gamers wanted even if it were a niche market they sold to. The fact that they did as well as they did shows that demand is there. I know of one person who left RSE due to him seeing the direction RSE was moving. Is that Ubi's fault more that MS. I say yes. Ubi are the ones holding the purse strings and they have to pay MS a fee for games to be released on XBox as they do with Sony for the PS2.

What saddens me about RSE is Ubi took someone who cared about their intended audience and told them to turn their back on them and their core philosophies. If they wanted run and gun games, why didn't they just build a development house to begin with and let someone else buy RSE who would allow RSE to continue on the track they were on?