Joseph Merrick
Member
anno, settlers, silent hunter, trackmania, might & magic, heroes of might & magic
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Are PC Sales So Low For Ubisoft?
- Thread starter QaaQer
- Start date
anno, settlers, silent hunter, trackmania, might & magic, heroes of might & magic
It wouldn't be burning money if there weren't two layers of DRM to get through. The Steam cut is high (too high really), but what would the difference in sales volume be? What's the explanation for the price difference anyway? I thought there were pretty large price differences regionally for digital games.
KentBrockman
Member
In general, PC versions of games sell far less than the same game on consoles. This isn't unique to Ubisoft.
People are living in the past. Name me the last multiplatform Ubisoft game that was delayed on PC for a considerable length.
The last one i remember is Future Soldier. Most of the delayed releases were of AC in the first half of the last console generation.
This is an alarming example of how a lot of people form their opinion about something at one junction of time and then keep repeating it, oblivious (or ignoring) to actual data and facts that render that criticism obsolete.
So if people fail to realize and internalize that their argument is antiquated regarding that simple area of discussion, imagine how futile a discussion is on more heated and complicated subjects such PC sales, Console's (declined) prominence in the industry and the like.
The last one i remember is Future Soldier. Most of the delayed releases were of AC in the first half of the last console generation.
This is an alarming example of how a lot of people form their opinion about something at one junction of time and then keep repeating it, oblivious (or ignoring) to actual data and facts that render that criticism obsolete.
So if people fail to realize and internalize that their argument is antiquated regarding that simple area of discussion, imagine how futile a discussion is on more heated and complicated subjects such PC sales, Console's (declined) prominence in the industry and the like.
I think uPlay is responsible actually. It's literal shit. Or used to be.
Then we look at EA's percentage split, it says 65% for Console and 19.4% for PC.
That 65% is most likely counting all consoles.
So why op calls them comparable is beyond me, 65 / 4 = 16,25. (Assuming there's an equal split between platforms, which there most likely isn't, but still)
neotokyo360
Member
Uplay drm
The steam cut isn't that different from Sony & Microsoft, I don't know why some publishers refuse to use steam when they happily let Sony & Microsoft take the same cut from their games, Sony also charges publishers for every Gig downloaded from PSN of their titles, you could theoretically re-download the same Ubisoft game over & over until they lose all their margins.
The cut makes sense too, platform holders invest a lot of money on their platform & infrastructure.
Sportbilly
Member
While the last batch of identikit games (Unity, FC4, The Crew) might have been released at the same time as the console versions, they were excluded from Steam (at least in the UK) for a while. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Ubisoft have stopped their bullshit.
Wiktor
Member
They are when compared to how much they would be making through uPlay.
Not on Steam. Smaller local digital shops can sometimes hit lower price on digital, but it's still rare to see even they have lower price than retail.
Wiktor
Member
No big publisher has as man true pc franchises as Ubisoft.
They make shallow, repetitive, simplistic and expensive games. They are filled to the brim with forced tutorial elements, HUD prompts and other unappealing "user friendly" nonsense that assumes the player is a moron. They are DRM filled, rehashes and while sometimes there are a few interesting elements (sailing in BF), they are always overshadowed by a slew of tick box style design elements.
Everything they create is distinctly Ubisoft and all the unlock tower, hexagon mini-game monotony, that that entails.
Everything they create is distinctly Ubisoft and all the unlock tower, hexagon mini-game monotony, that that entails.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
I once bought HOMM6 on Steam, which installed Uplay. Then, I'd have to flip a coin if I wanted to play HOMM6. Head, I could play. Tail, the server couldn't connect. It lasted for months.
Later, I installed with another account the card-based HOMM game, don't remember the exact name. Same thing happened.
More recently, I bought the black elve expansion for HOMM6. The result? HOMM6 is now in a weird state where I can't play the expansion because it was bought on an account without the original game (my mistake, but that's not what's angering me), and I can't play the original game either, because it somehow see the expansion bought while I haven't a licence for it.
Uplay is utter garbage, and I'm not touching another Ubisoft game because of it.
Later, I installed with another account the card-based HOMM game, don't remember the exact name. Same thing happened.
More recently, I bought the black elve expansion for HOMM6. The result? HOMM6 is now in a weird state where I can't play the expansion because it was bought on an account without the original game (my mistake, but that's not what's angering me), and I can't play the original game either, because it somehow see the expansion bought while I haven't a licence for it.
Uplay is utter garbage, and I'm not touching another Ubisoft game because of it.
EA has the sims, sim city, C&C, Battlefield (though that doesn't really count anymore) and their MMO thing..
Activison has Blizzard.
Take 2 has CIV and firaxis in genral
Zenimax has fallout/elder scrolls, quake etc.
Ubisoft has some great legacy stuff as well but they screwed up quite a few of them with always online DRM (settlers, M&M heroes 6), Massive is doing console games now, i guess there's still trackmania and a few F2P games..
i really don't understand why Ubisoft don't just make the Steam versions without Uplay. tons of games have "steam version" that does not include the launcher that comes with the game if bought via retail/ other services.
or just implement Uplay into the game instead of being a launcher. I mean it can't be that difficult to have a tab for Uplay on the pause screen with Uplay points/ rewards etc right?
and it is still insane that such a huge company with so many studios can mess up so many PC ports.
or just implement Uplay into the game instead of being a launcher. I mean it can't be that difficult to have a tab for Uplay on the pause screen with Uplay points/ rewards etc right?
and it is still insane that such a huge company with so many studios can mess up so many PC ports.
For me it's a combination of factors. I don't think I'm even interested in most of Ubisoft's games (Assassin Creed series for example). For those I would be interested in, Uplay and/or extra DRM practically guarantee I won't ever buy (or play, since I'm not going to pirate) them.
Grow Home is the most recent Ubisoft title that I've been interested in, and I actually DO plan to get it due to the apparent lack of Uplay, and apparent lack of non-Steam DRM.
Grow Home is the most recent Ubisoft title that I've been interested in, and I actually DO plan to get it due to the apparent lack of Uplay, and apparent lack of non-Steam DRM.
I am a PC gamer and only own a PS3 for the exclusives.
I know it has been said multiple times already but for me the most obvious answer is - uplay
I have read that it has gotten 'better' over the course of the last couple of months but it's one of those "I don't even remotely want to install it on my PC because of the amazingly shitty reputation it has"
it's bad enough already I fell for Battlefield 3 and 4 with that freaking origin :/
I know it has been said multiple times already but for me the most obvious answer is - uplay
I have read that it has gotten 'better' over the course of the last couple of months but it's one of those "I don't even remotely want to install it on my PC because of the amazingly shitty reputation it has"
it's bad enough already I fell for Battlefield 3 and 4 with that freaking origin :/
Skyrim, DA series, minecraft, half life 2, diablo 3, starcraft series, fallout series... heck even warhammer 40k sold more than 4 million copies.
PC market is often viewed as the platform for mmos and indie fodder, when its so much more.
Wiktor
Member
look at how many of those turned into crap though or turned multiplat. I'm talking about active IPs. Otherwise Ubisoft has fricking SSI's catalogue.
Meanwhile with Ubisoft you can at least count on them releasing Might & Magic, Heroes, Anno and Settlers somewhat regularly. Plus Nadeo remains PC-only dev. All retainin good quality and staying PC-centric. And that's even not mentioning occasional fun pc experiment like Grow Home.
Now. Ubisoft has plenty of problems, including lacking uPlay's quality (I don't think there's anything wrong with Ubi having their own client, but it's just not as polished technically as Origin), but they're stil the one big publisher who regularly puts out good PC exclusives with good budgets.
At the same time, they are the publisher who most often launches bad PC ports of their multiplatform titles, giving the impression they couldnt care less about PC as a platform.
alexandros
Banned
I wonder if the Ubisoft geniuses will manage to crack the case.
Blood Dragon had uplay? That's probably why I skipped it. People may compare Blood Dragon with Call of Juarez: Gunslinger since they're both similarly priced, compact experiences.
I loved Gunslinger, one of my favorite games...and it didn't have Uplay or DRM or whatever. I don't know why they had to leave it on Blood Dragon.
Piracy is the easy answer.
Doubt that would make much of a difference.
Why are the other publisher's PC percentages higher than Ubisoft's, then? There seems to be SOME difference, though I'm not sure how significant.
Wiktor
Member
Yep. It's schrizophrenic behaviour. And it's a shame, because they have nice base to built healthy pc reputation. But for every valiant effort by some of their euro branchses somebody high up makes something terrible for multiplat.
Because other publishers have more online-focused games like Battlefield and COD where piracy isn't possible.
Ubisoft is known for Assassins Creed/Far Cry/Watch Dogs. All can be enjoyed without online features.
I suppose that would make sense.
yiepekaiyei
Banned
it's funny that Bethesda must have a higher percentage of sales than Ubisoft and still their only big online title is Elder Scrolls Online. How do you explain that?
Bethesda and EA games are much bigger on consoles than on pc. Half life 2 is ancient history. I kind of wanted to lump starcraft and warhammer under arena multiplayer games, though you can of course also play them singleplayer, okay strategy games too then.
I don't think that's correct - 2k have a lot of offline titles, and seem to do pretty well on PC. (I think most PC gamers would already have a '2k launcher' installed if it was required)
Personally:
- uplay is an absolute dog. My last experience was an awful mess that took about an hour to 'update X and Y and then Z' before I could do anything.
- there are no 'truly compelling' PC games from Ubisoft. Civ, xcom, battlefield, TF etc?
- the ubisoft 3rd person stuff (most of their AAA games) seem to play better with a controller, and that's not really what I'm looking for in a PC game.
You have a source for that?
hooijdonk17
Member
One response too late.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Uplay is the reason I personally don't buy Ubi games on PC.
yiepekaiyei
Banned
I am not saying they have more sales and players on Pc in comparison to consoles. I'm saying that their sales on PC is better than Ubi's on PC too and they have a great deal of single player games, like skyrim for example, who stayed for months and months on first place in terms of sales on steam.
People don't buy Ubisoft games on pc because they tend to be shit ports of simplistic games, with carbon copy mechanic designs. And the attitude towards the PC community by Ubi has been terrible. And there's uplay.
"PC 14 %" is a shame.
It seems like for the most part when a game is developed by a Ubisoft studio they have to use UPlay, but if the game is just published by Ubisoft but developed outside of Ubisoft they don't have to use Uplay (and usually use Steam).
That would be quite surprising, as the only stats I can find were generated by Ars (who estimated 6m owners on PC out of ~20m total).
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/
That would be around 1/3 of the sales on PC - which (given the tragic state of the skyrim PC UI) seems a good number to me.
I'd also expect 'higher' than 1/3 of DLC sales on PC (due to higher connectivity/HDD on the platform).
Ubisoft really shit the bed with their DRM solutions - sure, it may have prevented a lot of piracy, but I've come across a lot of people who just flat out refused to buy their games.
I'm saying this as someone who stomached Anno 2070's awful DRM - and it was worth it. Great game, showed that Ubi still had a little bit of magic in it. Could be long gone now though!
I'm saying this as someone who stomached Anno 2070's awful DRM - and it was worth it. Great game, showed that Ubi still had a little bit of magic in it. Could be long gone now though!
Yeah I now see that those numbers are from the first few days. It's to be expected that PC sales have a longer tail, especially with Steam dumping sales. Then again, the statistic in OP is based on revenue, where PC revenue may also be a lot lower due to the aformentioned sales, and so percentage ownership higher than 11%.
This is not an official data. Bethesda never disclosed platform breakdown for Skyrim at any point of time.
The only SKU-specific data we have for Skyrim is the PC version via Arstechnica's article.
I find it hard to believe that Skyrim sold only 2.8m on PC.
Yep, the only quote I can find from Bethesda is the RPS interview:
"Skyrim did better than weve ever done on PC by a large, large number. And thats where the mods are. That feeds the game for a long time. And its exciting that the new consoles are very PC-like."
So, a better tail-end, possibly better DLC sales, and lower revenue (although with a similar profit per unit, so better profit per revenue - due to lower platform licensing).
Quite how that adds up, I have no idea... but I suspect Bethesda did extremely well out of Skyrim/PC (especially given that [censored] UI /grumble).
But I do think Ubisoft need to focus on "why PC gamers who buy games, don't buy Ubisoft games"... instead of focusing on "PC gamers who don't buy games"...
derExperte
Member
These numbers are originally from that site that we should never mention here which rhymes with CGWartz and after years of quoting at least were removed from the Wikipedia article. 100% made up.
The next Settlers is btw another fine example of Ubisoft crapping all over a series' legacy and what the original fans want.
Wiktor
Member
Not really. And it's Settlers's tradition anyway. Blue Byte ran the IP into the ground by just doing improvements and what fans wanted. Since 5th entry each game has retained the core theme, but introduced wild changes into gameplay.
Btw..having constant city is what most fans did want, same with chains of productions.