Who are "the higher echelons of these communities"? People who sit and scream in Youtube videos?
UBIsoft in potential financial trouble
- Thread starter Silent_Buddha
- Start date
Concord checks a lot of boxes for "what gamers want". The fact that gamers rejected it with such passion proves that "giving them what they want" isn't as easy as giving them what they say they want.
It is interesting how Marvel Rivals does so well and Concord is the greatest failure in entertainment history. From what I've read, Rivals is the better game but I don't think that's all there is to it. Concord is hideous and I think aesthetics play a major role in a game's acceptance by the market.
As for what matters most, that is what eludes me. Been playing games my entire life and I can't accurately predict what will succeed. Which is okay because I don't make games. However I think game developers owe it to themselves to figure this.
As for what matters most, that is what eludes me. Been playing games my entire life and I can't accurately predict what will succeed. Which is okay because I don't make games. However I think game developers owe it to themselves to figure this.
The top players who create all the metas. They understand the game on a far deeper level than the developers could ever hope to.
It can be hard to predict what will be wildly successful, but I think it’s fairly easy to predict what will bomb.
I don’t understand how Concord was, in any way, giving gamers what they wanted.
Last edited:
Yes it is definitely easier to predict the bombs. If a launch trailer has a 10/1 dislike/like ratio (or 20/1 in the case of Concord), that's a solid indicator that it's in some trouble.
Oh here's another one. I'll go out on a limb and say this might underperform.
Last edited:
No one thought BFV was going to bomb, just underperform. Which it did. BF2042 however was correctly predicted to bomb.
Yes it is definitely easier to predict the bombs. If a launch trailer has a 10/1 dislike/like ratio (or 20/1 in the case of Concord), that's a solid indicator that it's in some trouble.
Oh here's another one. I'll go out on a limb and say this might underperform.
^The youtube comments are really funny
I'll reserve judgement until real footage is unveiled, but this is certainly looking like a very uphill battle.
Last edited:
Dunno about FNAF but BFV and COD:IW aren't considered high points of their series by any means. BFV was a turning point for the franchise and it has never recovered. I don't think it's a bad game but for some reason I never played it. Played the hell out of BF One though.
Like I said, I don't fully understand the dynamics at play here but community response is a solid (not perfect) indicator of future performance.
Ubisoft has never been this kind of developer. They aren't making thought provoking high art, they are making slop essentially. It used to be fairly good slop (AC2 was a good game and AC4 is still one of the best pirate games ever made), now it is bad slop. However even in the golden days nobody has walked away from an Ubisoft game and thought "gee, that really was intellectually stimulating and expanded my mind".
It's kinda like Marvel movies: they're popcorn flicks that are fun to watch, nobody expects or wants them to expand anyone's mind.
Didn't it have the second highest first week sales of any Battlefield game? Doesn't it have the record for having some of the highest player counts and worst reviews on Steam? It wasn't a critical darling, but people bought it.
COD:IW still outsold Black Ops Cold War, though, so it isn't the worst of the modern era. And it's another example of people asking for "not the same COD every year" but complaining that it isn't what they want when it's different.
Also, the criteria was that a game was going to bomb, not be a disappointment. Those are 2 different things.
arandomguy
Veteran
Is predicting success based on the reception of the launch trailer that useful from a design perspective? Unless you're launching those so far out (ala CDPR) you might as well also say preorder interest predicts the reception of a game.
The problem with this idea about predicting game success just based on concepts during design is the huge inconsistency. Let's just use Concord, have people state what they think made it bomb and there can be counter examples of other games that hit those criteria that were successful. Although I'm sure they'll try to waive it away with mental gymnastics.
It's way easier to do post mortems or even late in the design cycle. The trick that I don't think anyone has down is to actually do so much earlier in the design cycle.
The problem with this idea about predicting game success just based on concepts during design is the huge inconsistency. Let's just use Concord, have people state what they think made it bomb and there can be counter examples of other games that hit those criteria that were successful. Although I'm sure they'll try to waive it away with mental gymnastics.
It's way easier to do post mortems or even late in the design cycle. The trick that I don't think anyone has down is to actually do so much earlier in the design cycle.
That allegedly included refunds and the 10 hour trial. Beyond that, it's difficult to find any information on the sales numbers. Numbers which are easy to find for every other entry in franchise history. We do know EA considered it a flop and a huge commercial failure. Player numbers were also the worst for any mainline BF title.
I would say several studios have it down. When has a Naughty Dog game flopped for example?
Which is all very well, but that wasn't your argument. Tuna's countering your generalised argument that being a successful entertainer is just about giving people what they want. There's therefore two points:
1) Should entertainers/entertainment just appeal to the lowest established common denominators, or should it push boundaries and can it find success introducing new things consumers didn't know they wanted?
2) If the latter, how well does Ubi perform at that? Is their trouble from being no good at this aspect?
Before you can argue point two, Ubi are no good, you need to accept that successful entertainment can and does involve giving consumer things they didn't know they wanted.
ZebMacahan
Regular
Concord checks boxes of what gamers dont want.
This one liner is not good conversation. You need to expand on your counterpoint so people know what it is. If you're just going to post cryptic one-liners, please don't.
ZebMacahan
Regular
I thought it was pretty obvious, and that I might break some rule if I mention it. But ok , the aesthetics, or more precisely the character design.
There are alot of games that surprised me and which I enjoyed alot, so I agree that its hard to know what people want. Its even hard to know what you want yourself before you get it, and I like that developers inovate. But the aestethics need to resonate with the target audience.
I disagree about this stance in case of The Division 1(flawed gameplay)+2, AC Origins and Odyssey. If these games didn't expand people's minds I don't know what kind of game standards you have? Deus Ex?
The religious background of one of Origin's DLCs stimulated me intellectually and Odyssey had a similar DLC. Just visiting the sites and meeting historical persons+and some nutty quests was an experience.
I also had a really good experience with Watchdogs 1 and thought it was a good start into a new game franchise with interesting gameplay ideas despite some flaws. Walking Chicago was surely an experience for me.
IMHO they had something there but then the woke/DEI started and I assume that caused my dissatisfaction with Watchdogs 2. Could also be just a bad project lead which missed the basics that "sunny CA weather/atmosphere" is demotivating in such game.
How about you define what's "slob" and what's not.
To me UBI's *strengths* in the past had always been their engineering approach. They established some sandbox and could produce a lot of content vs. *most* others for the price/sales. Their weakness was less polishing and not realising when their sandbox or "project leadership" got stale. You can't expect GTA V like polishing for massive less sales and if GTA is your standard who can compete here?
When was the last time ND released a game?
I would disagree with this simply because I don't think they developed those characters looks or personality to be something they didn't think players wanted, but the opposite. Concord smacked of a game developed by committee with the intent of being equally appealing to the plurality of gamers. They were trying to give people "what they want", which turned out to be not what gamers want. It might seam obvious in retrospect that those designs are a mistake, but I think if we are to believe they designed them intentionally to be something people wouldn't like, that doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't fit the narrative of any of the reporting coming out about the studio's toxic positivity. They thought people were going to love the game. And they thought people were going to love the characters so much that a 3 minute animated skit was going to bring them back every week.
It's hard to give people what they want when what we want as a market (ie what we spend money on) and what a vocal minority of gamers say they want are often quite different. I'm guilty of this as well. I said for years I wanted the classic Resident Evil games on PC again. GOG fixed them up and re-released them at what I would consider a fair price, but I haven't bought them.