UBIsoft in potential financial trouble

[arandomguy]

I feel like there's two arguments here (well more than two, but just in terms of the current discussion). One is whether or not companies factor in societal agendas when developing games. The other is how the above affects the success of a game.

In terms of the first one I think it's evident that companies will engage in social commentary. It's always been this way because the audience itself engages in these issues. If we want to look at the woke debate there's marketing towards and also away from it with companies catering to both sides.

The second one is really the more complex issue. Companies engage in activism or avoid it because of the perceived impact on their business. In practice if we want to look at the "woke" issue, the success or lack of success is actually rather varied. If we want to say games that are "woke" aren't successful I don't feel that is true, there's some that aren't and some that are. Albeit I know the anti side will try to hand wave those games as not woke after the fact. The same applies the other way around as well.

Ultimately I have to just circle back to my core belief in that the entertainment business has not actually been distilled down to a science. It's much easier to arm chair analyze after the fact. I do wonder if people think this isn't true are they confidently willing to predict the success level of games that are still far out? Take Naughty Dog's Intergalactic for instance, what level is it on the woke scale and how successful or not will it be? I would not be willing to bet anything significant on my predictions personally, but it seems like some people are.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

As for the "woke" stuff, if you do not like it do not buy it? I mean can not the people making it make what they want?
I just do not understand why people gets their panties in bunch over seeing people of colour or women doing stuff

That doesn't have anything to do with. It's a straw man argument. Labeling things you don't agree with as misogynist or racist is really sad.

As I've said before, no one had a problem with Sarah Connor or Ripley etc... probably because they weren't lecturing us while they were saving the world from Terminators or Aliens.

Back on topic. I agree with the notion that woke doesn't necessarily lead to failure. Baldur's Gate 3 being a good example, but it definitely hurt a number of games like Veilguard.

I'm not sure Ubisoft shareholders were amused by all the controversy and I definitely don't believe the board made the choices they did for business reasons. The activists just had too much control. Disney has the same problem.

 

[trinibwoy]

As for the "woke" stuff, if you do not like it do not buy it? I mean can not the people making it make what they want?

Because some people don’t like seeing other people enjoy things that they don’t like. Maybe this has always been the case but now the internet provides the means to spread their misery.

There are so many games being made in every genre that it should be easy for anyone to find something they want to play and ignore the rest.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

That actually isn't the reason.

People don't want politics invading every aspect of their lives because some overzealous activist wanted to make a point. Video games included.

Ubisoft can make whatever it wants, but gamers can object if they want. Freedom.

The point in a thread about Ubisoft troubles is that they had a golden opportunity to turn things around with the long awaited Japanese AC and they likely messed it up because they let activists run their company.

In a business context I'm not as much offended by the wokeness as much as the poor business decision making.

We'll have to see if the improved stealth elements can overcome the rest of the mess they've created.

 

[trinibwoy]

People don't want politics invading every aspect of their lives because some overzealous activist wanted to make a point. Video games included.

A video game can’t invade your life if you don’t play it. There’s a difference between “I don’t like this so I won’t play it” and “I don’t like this so I hope the company fails”.

 

[techuse]

I feel like there's two arguments here (well more than two, but just in terms of the current discussion). One is whether or not companies factor in societal agendas when developing games. The other is how the above affects the success of a game.

In terms of the first one I think it's evident that companies will engage in social commentary. It's always been this way because the audience itself engages in these issues. If we want to look at the woke debate there's marketing towards and also away from it with companies catering to both sides.

The second one is really the more complex issue. Companies engage in activism or avoid it because of the perceived impact on their business. In practice if we want to look at the "woke" issue, the success or lack of success is actually rather varied. If we want to say games that are "woke" aren't successful I don't feel that is true, there's some that aren't and some that are. Albeit I know the anti side will try to hand wave those games as not woke after the fact. The same applies the other way around as well.

Ultimately I have to just circle back to my core belief in that the entertainment business has not actually been distilled down to a science. It's much easier to arm chair analyze after the fact. I do wonder if people think this isn't true are they confidently willing to predict the success level of games that are still far out? Take Naughty Dog's Intergalactic for instance, what level is it on the woke scale and how successful or not will it be? I would not be willing to bet anything significant on my predictions personally, but it seems like some people are.

I wouldn’t be willing to bet on how woke the new ND game will or will not be. l’d happily bet on it selling over 10 million copies though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The impact of social movements in entertainment isn't absolute and clearly comes down to how the content/subject matter is handled. Many artists set out to challenge social norms, and in analysis in education, students need to identify the underlying themes which are always human and social.

"Has moral lesson/ideology == bad" is not a valid equation

It's a matter of how it's handled, but that goes for the artistry of the entire production as well. eg Post effects. Too much and we hate them. Everyone chase next-gen FPS "piss filter" colour grading or CA and we get sick of it.

If Ubi are failing in the market because they are using themes, that in and of itself doesn't mean those themes are the cause of their failure. See the success of TLoU. It just means they are handling them badly. A vocal minority means nothing in business terms and the fact loud voices on the internet grumble doesn't reflect how the market or moderate people will respond. Presently AC:Shadows is reviewing okay. It hit the top end of preorders in Japan. A quick look at Steam charts for different AC games, the highest historical Concurrent Steam Count I could find was Odyssey at 62,000 a couple of days after launch. AC:Shadows currently sits at 25,800 9 hours after launch, far above other titles in the series.

For all the noise around AC:Shadows, it doesn't seem to me sales are impacted. This reflects similar games like Hogwarts Legacy where the minority interest in getting it 'cancelled' for politics saw it sell 30 million on the quality of its game.

 

[ZebMacahan]

Looking at the game it seems pretty obvious to me that alot of the decisions regarding the writing and characters were not made by people who generally enjoy playing assasin or ninja/samurai games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's probably true. I expect most story in games is developed independently from the game mechanics as there's rarely any crossover between player action and story arc. Story just serves to tie episodes of action together and/or engage the player with a narrative.

 

[ZebMacahan]

That's probably true. I expect most story in games is developed independently from the game mechanics as there's rarely any crossover between player action and story arc. Story just serves to tie episodes of action together and/or engage the player with a narrative.

I think that is a problem. As you say, the story is there to engage the player with a narrative. In some games the story is just there, and it doesnt bother me. In other games, the story and writing is a big part of makes me want to keep playing. What we have with for example shadows and a bunch other games is that the story and writing and character design are detrimental to the players enjoyment of the game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...the story and writing and character design are detrimental to the players enjoyment of the game.

You mean some players enjoyment. Reviews aren't highlighting this as a universal problem. As this thread is about Ubi's business operations and not about the quality of writing in games, we need look at sales performance of the game. Is it selling on target (and were the targets good targets or are Ubi aiming too low)? If so, the number of people bothered by the story choices isn't an issue. It's only an issue if these choices are impacting Ubi's operations and they are losing money as a result, which will be if potential customers are turned away in significant numbers due to the story choices.

 

[ZebMacahan]

You mean some players enjoyment. Reviews aren't highlighting this as a universal problem. As this thread is about Ubi's business operations and not about the quality of writing in games, we need look at sales performance of the game. Is it selling on target (and were the targets good targets or are Ubi aiming too low)? If so, the number of people bothered by the story choices isn't an issue. It's only an issue if these choices are impacting Ubi's operations and they are losing money as a result, which will be if potential customers are turned away in significant numbers due to the story choices.

Im taking about the kind of players who like the power fantasy about being a ninja, like in this example. The people who are most likely to buy these kinds of games.

If Ubisoft make choices that alienate the largest part of their potential customer base than thats not a very smart buisness decision.

Its possible the game will sell alot anyway. Its a big franchise, its set in japan, its being marketed etc. Maybe most people dont follow these thing. But it takes time to ruin IPs. Star wars wasnt ruined in a day.

I hardy think its a controversial statement that its a good buisness decision that you should try to make a games story, characters and writing etc appeal to your target audience.

 

[trinibwoy]

Im taking about the kind of players who like the power fantasy about being a ninja, like in this example. The people who are most likely to buy these kinds of games.

How did you come to this conclusion? I like the AC formula for a few reasons but a ninja power fantasy isn’t one of them. What if people like exploring the worlds that Ubisoft builds or the presentation values or the paint by numbers gameplay?

I hardy think its a controversial statement that its a good buisness decision that you should try to make a games story, characters and writing etc appeal to your target audience.

Is the implication here that Ubisoft doesn’t understand its target audience? Or is it that the people who don’t like Ubisoft games are not in their target? In all this we have to assume Ubisoft is trying to make money.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

A video game can’t invade your life if you don’t play it. There’s a difference between “I don’t like this so I won’t play it” and “I don’t like this so I hope the company fails”.

Sure, but this is a business thread about Ubisoft's business decisions. People wondered about the controversy in that context. If you're trying to save your company, it's not smart to piss off half your customer base.

I wouldn’t be willing to bet on how woke the new ND game will or will not be. l’d happily bet on it selling over 10 million copies though.

True, but could it sell 20 million if they don't go down that road? That's the analysis from a business standpoint.

If Ubi are failing in the market because they are using themes, that in and of itself doesn't mean those themes are the cause of their failure. See the success of TLoU. It just means they are handling them badly. A vocal minority means nothing in business terms and the fact loud voices on the internet grumble doesn't reflect how the market or moderate people will respond. Presently AC:Shadows is reviewing okay. It hit the top end of preorders in Japan. A quick look at Steam charts for different AC games, the highest historical Concurrent Steam Count I could find was Odyssey at 62,000 a couple of days after launch. AC:Shadows currently sits at 25,800 9 hours after launch, far above other titles in the series.

Ghost of Tsushima hit 77k and it was a PC port of an old game. 26k is just ok for Ubisoft's big release of the year. We'll see how it all plays out, but AC: Shadows had the potential for mega hit given that so many people have been clamoring for a Japanese AC game for decades and Ubisoft isn't going to be happy with 1/2 Odyssey numbers.

For all the noise around AC:Shadows, it doesn't seem to me sales are impacted. This reflects similar games like Hogwarts Legacy where the minority interest in getting it 'cancelled' for politics saw it sell 30 million on the quality of its game.

Listen, if AC:S ends up like Hogwarts I'll eat my words, but somehow I doubt it. Even if it does well, I would still argue that it could have done better without all the nonsense.

It's true that some Ubisoft/AC haters are using the controversy to grind their axes, and Ubi would be foolish to cater to those people who really aren't their potential customers, but they still made some pretty poor decisions with this one. We'll see how it all turns out.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Im taking about the kind of players who like the power fantasy about being a ninja, like in this example. The people who are most likely to buy these kinds of games.

Surely that's played out in the gameplay, not the story? Given a game that really embodies the spirit of ninja and allows players to enjoy that fantasy, would they reject that game because the cutscenes suck? I know I wouldn't. Heck, I can't be arsed with any story in any game and I'm skip, skip, skip! It's alien to me how someone would reject a good game they'll enjoy playing because of a bad narrative. Only particular reason I can think to skip a game is if there's grating background NPC chatter that can't be avoided.

If Ubisoft make choices that alienate the largest part of their potential customer base than thats not a very smart buisness decision.

Its possible the game will sell alot anyway. Its a big franchise, its set in japan, its being marketed etc. Maybe most people dont follow these thing. But it takes time to ruin IPs. Star wars wasnt ruined in a day.

Going by Steam numbers, it's selling far better than previous iterations, so the very opposite of being gradually ruined; Shadows is restoring the game.

I hardy think its a controversial statement that its a good buisness decision that you should try to make a games story, characters and writing etc appeal to your target audience.

Not at all controversial. The issue is who they were picking as their target audience. If we a take a theoretical example, let's imagine an AC set in the historic south of the US with an aspect of slavery and black oppression, released in a hypothetical world that's fundamentally neutral and won't generate any good or bad publicity based on the story choice. There is an element of society that'd want to play as a Redneck slaying Negroes, and an element that'd want to play to protect them. Ubi's choice of story would have to pick one side or the other as they can't serve both, and doing so would alienate the opposite side. For maximum business sense, they would need to pick the story that would have the largest favourable audience, and the other audience would complain about the game.

The people who are complaining about AC:Shadows would prefer a different story, but that doesn't inherently mean Ubi's choice is the wrong story. It's only clearly wrong in business terms if it utterly alienates most players, as I dare say AC:KKK would. Prior to release, internet noise would have some believe that the game would indeed be rejected for its story choices, but so far that's not playing out as clearly so.

* Apologies for the term 'Redneck'. It's the only name I can think of for the archetypal white racists of that ilk that'd attack people based on their skin colour, but I appreciate it's not a neutral term for a different culture.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ghost of Tsushima hit 77k and it was a PC port of an old game. 26k is just ok for Ubisoft's big release of the year.

It's up to 39,000 now. It also released on a Thursday where Odyssey released on a Friday. Give it the weekend to see how well it's really done.

Also, turns out Steam concurrent numbers aren't informative for these games. Just checked and Odyssey reportedly sold 10 million, and AC:3 sold 12 million. AC:3's max concurrent Steam users is only 15,000. Black Flag sold 15 million with only 16,000 concurrent players!!

We'll see how it all plays out, but AC: Shadows had the potential for mega hit

What sort of numbers based on what sort of data?

Listen, if AC:S ends up like Hogwarts

Why would it? AC has never shown that potential, now does it have the brand power of HP. Surely the target is whatever baseline the best AC has achieved in the past? That looks like around 10 million based on other franchise sales.

I'll eat my words, but somehow I doubt it. Even if it does well, I would still argue that it could have done better without all the nonsense.

We'll never know. Without A/B testing, we can't tell how the choices and pre-release controversy have affected product performance. The only thing we do know is controversy doesn't end games in and of itself with muiltple examples of titles that had loud internet protesting over their content but which sold many millions.

 

[pcchen]

Also, turns out Steam concurrent numbers aren't informative for these games. Just checked and Odyssey reportedly sold 10 million, and AC:3 sold 12 million. AC:3's max concurrent Steam users is only 15,000. Black Flag sold 15 million with only 16,000 concurrent players!!

I believe it's because they weren't mainly on Steam back then. Many people probably bought these games directly from Ubisoft store with its launcher (I remember AC Origins was also "migrated" to Steam later). Odyssey is probably the first one to be directly available on Steam? Or maybe it started from Origins I can't really remember.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Whatever the reason, we haven't any insight on sales at this point. I guess we're waiting on press releases.

 

[trinibwoy]

Ubisoft plans day one patch to make shrines indestructible.

Amid Japan Concern About Assassin's Creed Shadows, Ubisoft Confirms Day-One Patch That Makes Tables and Racks in Temples and Shrines Indestructible - IGN

IGN has confirmed that Ubisoft has quietly released a day-one patch for Assassin’s Creed Shadows that makes a number of important changes apparently in response to concern about the game in Japan. Check out the patch notes.

www.ign.com

 

[see colon]

People don't want politics invading every aspect of their lives because some overzealous activist wanted to make a point. Video games included.

I think in some cases more recently, we have evidence that things that would not have previously been considered political now being considered overtly political. In the case of Shadows, we have the inclusion of Yasuke and the other playable character being Naoe, a female ninja. Yasuke was featured in in a playable character in Samurai Warriors 5 (maybe earlier games as well, 5 was where I first saw him) nearly 5 years ago, where he was called a samurai. I can't remember any controversy around his inclusion in that game at that time. Female ninja's are also featured in popular media in several times I'm sure, but in games I think Tenchu and Red Ninja from PS1 and PS2 were both memorable examples of games that featured playable female ninjas. Again, I can't remember there being any outrage about these games featuring playable female ninjas.

So in this aspect, with this complaint about Yasuke and Naoe being the playable characters, there are examples where characters like them would not have been considered political. But culture has changed in some way that these choices are now considered political. It may actually be the case that the activists in this case aren't the developers, but from the consumer, or more likely the critic/social media/commentary side of the equation.