Devil’s Advocate: Does Ubisoft have a point? (Column)

[Lycanthrope]

I posed the questions, didn't sell it as fact It's an interesting discussion point, and in my personal capacity do not agree with Ubisoft's knee-jerk reactions to PC gamers, or their interpretation of the data.

They say "PC sales are bad, so obviously the PC market doesn't want us" - but the issue is beyond sales figures - that's the standpoint. The figures given are for context as to what developers are seeing, and what they're using as ammo for their arguments.

I know, I did actually read your article :3

I'm just teasing

It's thanks to people like Trevor Longino I still have faith.

My first computer, a Commodore 64, was accompanied by a box full of pirated games. There wasn't a day that went by on the schoolyard in the 90s when at least one of my friends wasn't swapping a bundle of 3.5-inch disks. It's been an age-old problem, and always will be, so to pretend it's suddenly only a major problem now, and either introduce busted DRM or not release PC games at all as a result, is defeatist at best and disingenuous at worst.

and yet games were still produced for PC. There were no pathetic excuses that games had to be "streamlined" for "commercial reasons" either to justify selling out a game's loyal fan base.

*nod* *nod* Completely agreed.

Oh noes the silent treatment.

I'm tempted to put him on ignore myself.

 

[qornea]

Perhaps if they produced games of quality that cater to PC gamers results wouldn't be so "bad".

Again by what standard are sales "bad". Compared to console or compared to what PC games sales have been in the past.

Now THAT is a very good point. But then again, does the past matter? Take it from this perpective

If you sold 500 000 copies of a game on PC in the past, that's all well and good.

But if you sold 500 000 copies of a game on PC today, but sell 5 000 000 on consoles at the same time, where are you going to want to put most of your money and focus?

I haven't done the research to make the past vs present assessment, so I can't say - but I don't think it would do much to change the stance that, hey, consoles are making us stacks of cash, and PC not as much. But it is an interesting point - it may not be the PC that's gotten worse/dwindling, but rather the industry as a whole that's just shifting.

 

[MOnk]

If 38 095 is 5.3% of the PC population...100% would be 718 774.

39 135 at 1.6% of PS3 population means the total is 2 445 938, and 26 110 at 0,8% of the 360 population means the total is 3 263 750.

Those figures aren't that far off from what VG Chartz says.

You just reversed the percentages I calculated from the VG chart figures to get back to the VG chart figures...

But, they do provide good context for the argument - even if they're not on the nose, they couldn't get away with being entirely off-the-wall, and there is a big difference between PC and Console sales. I doubt even Steam's figures would bolster those numbers enough to make it a negligible discrepency.

There are estimates that put digital distribution sales at 50%+ of PC game sales, so to just ignore that completely means you could just about throw numbers at a dartboard and get closer to the answer than VGcharts.

Just looking at AC:B and comparing to the latest total sales from Ubisoft VG is missing around 1.5 million copies.

 

[qornea]

You just reversed the percentages I calculated from the VG chart figures to get back to the VG chart figures...

LOL oh I see the way you presented them I figured they were drawn from somewhere else haha.

There are estimates that put digital distribution sales at 50%+ of PC game sales, so to just ignore that completely means you could just about throw numbers at a dartboard and get closer to the answer than VGcharts.

Just looking at AC:B and comparing to the latest total sales from Ubisoft VG is missing around 1.5 million copies.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But the fact is, DD companies aren't forthcoming with their figures, so we simply don't know - and saying an "estimated 50%" is just as vague and unreliable as excluding them. And I would assume it's up to VG Chartz to fix their data to reflect what IS known.

Like I said, the figures are for context - Ubisoft and Bethesda and companies who moan about piracy are coming from somewhere, and they DO have access to those figures, so there -must- be something to what they're saying. We're just working with what's available to us.

 

[Alan]

Now THAT is a very good point. But then again, does the past matter? Take it from this perpective

If you sold 500 000 copies of a game on PC in the past, that's all well and good.

But if you sold 500 000 copies of a game on PC today, but sell 5 000 000 on consoles at the same time, where are you going to want to put most of your money and focus?

I haven't done the research to make the past vs present assessment, so I can't say - but I don't think it would do much to change the stance that, hey, consoles are making us stacks of cash, and PC not as much. But it is an interesting point - it may not be the PC that's gotten worse/dwindling, but rather the industry as a whole that's just shifting.

It does if they want to claim piracy is the problem. If sales or more accurately profit margins are no worse than they were in the 90s or early naughties when developers were happy to produce games for the platform then why not now?

But as you point if the issue is profit margins compared to consoles then piracy isn't the problem. It's simply greed. They'd prefer to produce games solely for consoles because it makes them a lot more moola. It's not that PC games don't make money it's just not enough to satisfy their greed.

When they blame piracy they are LYING. They're trying to shift the blame onto PC gamers when it's their own greed.

Now if they were honest and came out and said "sorry PC gamers we're only interested in the money so no games for you" then that would be a different story. Business is business after all but don't peddle bullshit blaming the same loyal PC gamers that they're screwing over for cash for there being no games for the platform.

 

[qornea]

It does if they want to claim piracy is the problem. If sales or more accurately profit margins are no worse than they were in the 90s or early naughties when developers were happy to produce games for the platform then why not now?

But as you point if the issue is profit margins compared to consoles then piracy isn't the problem. It's simply greed. They'd prefer to produce games solely for consoles because it makes them a lot more moola. It's not that PC games don't make money it's just not enough to satisfy their greed.

When they blame piracy they are LYING. They're trying to shift the blame onto PC gamers when it's their own greed.

Now if they were honest and came out and said "sorry PC gamers we're only interested in the money so no games for you" then that would be a different story. Business is business after all but don't peddle bullshit blaming the same loyal PC gamers that they're screwing over for cash for there being no games for the platform.

I hear ya; it's unfortunate that level of transparency can never be, though. If Ubisoft had to say that, the backlash would be even worse.

It would be interesting to see the past vs present figures - because if you sold 500 000 games in the past and 500 000 games today, it doesn't mean that games are selling as they always have - because the industry is growing, and sales should reflect that. A constant sales figure across many years either means that particular section of the market is stagnating (there are no new PC gamers coming in) or that there's something that's stunting sales (there are new gamers, but, say, piracy means they aren't buying).

It would be an interesting assessment.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Like I said, the figures are for context - Ubisoft and Bethesda and companies who moan about piracy are coming from somewhere, and they DO have access to those figures, so there -must- be something to what they're saying. We're just working with what's available to us.

I don't know about that. "Those figures" are largely thumb-suck numbers by industries like the RIAA who go out of their way to exaggerate everything. Their jobs consist of making their existence seem useful by sensationalising and twisting facts to intimidate big-wigs and shareholders who are so far out of touch with the reality of their market that it's ridiculous.

Like the Kotaku article basically says and like numerous studies of music piracy have already pointed out: people pirate, and pirates are more likely to buy media than conservative consumers because of an interest in the media or for whatever reason. If someone's going to pirate and has zero intention of buying a product then nothing is going to change that.

Instead, focus on the market that will buy.

PC gamers definitely make up a smaller percentage than console gamers, but PC gamers (at least from my experience) are pretty much die-hard loyalists and enthusiasts. That's your market, not 16-year-old Billy in his mom's basement torrenting whatever he finds under the sun on his Pentium II because he doesn't have a job or money; or those folk who pirate just for the hell of pirating.

The fact is that "piracy" is such a worn out excuse that the eyes of people who are passionate about the gaming industry gloss over. It's not a legitimate excuse.

Go fight counterfeit rings. They're a far more pressing concern and a much bigger danger than second-hand game sales, piracy or whatever the latest upset is.

 

[qornea]

I don't know about that. "Those figures" are largely thumb-suck numbers by industries like the RIAA who go out of their way to exaggerate everything. Their jobs consist of making their existence seem useful by sensationalising and twisting facts to intimidate big-wigs and shareholders who are so far out of touch with the reality of their market that it's ridiculous.

And what is the alternative?

It's all well and good - I acknowledged in the article itself that the figures are subject to your own approach to the source; however, if there's nothing else to really work with, there's no point of reference, no context and nothing to encourage the discussion

And this is a good discussion to have.

 

[Necuno]

DRM and lack of quality breaks PC sales

Fixed.

I don't see broken gog sales or witcher or humble bundles...

...It be interesting to see how gog's "steam" without drm is going to fair.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lycanthrope]

And what is the alternative?

My opinion is that they do better market research and advertising. If something as simple (yet intricate) as MineCraft can make over 1,000,000 sales on PC alone, that says a lot about what a developer (and, publisher) can achieve if they know how to attract, communicate with and appeal to their target market.

It's all about how well you can sell your product and, of course, the number one way of doing that is by getting people to talk about it.

Unfortunately, I'm hardly a business analyst and I definitely don't have a doctorate in marketing (is such a ghastly thing even possible?) but as a consumer, I know what I want to hear.

While I'm obviously enjoying having a ramble here, my issue is largely just that I believe the numbers are entirely useless the moment you use them to say "Sales aren't good on this platform because of piracy." The moment you do that, it's nothing more than utter bullshit.

If sales on a particular platform has failed you then it's because you have failed to appeal to your target market and, face it, PC gamers are far more demanding, however, not unreasonably so (interface, controls and basic graphical options being important).

And this is a good discussion to have.

Yep, yep

 

[Necuno]

Valve: pirates are just unconvinced sales.

If I remember that line correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[czc]

Paradox sales are 90% digital, “we don’t really need retailers any more” says CEO

 

[MOnk]

Yeah you telling me Magicka has sold 600k and is heading towards 1mil and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood can't even manage 150k, common you know that's just hogwash.

More realistic estimates from publisher/developer supplied estimates/figures goes more along the lines of 70-75% console [360+PS3] and 25-30% PC sales, not the 98.5% : 1.5% those ACB figures suggest.

Anyway enough of that.

As far as I am concerned this has ZERO to do with piracy it's just an excuse Ubisoft keep bleeping at us in the hopes we'll actually believe them. If fact you would think they care FAR more about people who pirate their games than they actually do about the people who buy their games which is seriously sad.

 

[Alan]

It would be interesting to see the past vs present figures - because if you sold 500 000 games in the past and 500 000 games today, it doesn't mean that games are selling as they always have - because the industry is growing, and sales should reflect that. A constant sales figure across many years either means that particular section of the market is stagnating (there are no new PC gamers coming in) or that there's something that's stunting sales (there are new gamers, but, say, piracy means they aren't buying).

It would be an interesting assessment.

Well I meant profit margins. If producing PC games are as profitable all things considered at atleast the same level they were in the past the problem isn't piracy. The focus should be on producing quality games not making the most money. There are developers that produce solely for the PC for example. They've decided they'd rather make quality games for PC than make huge profits producing for consoles.

Unfortunately they are very few and far between today. In the past nobody got into game development for the money. Now the lure is there. The result is games are all meshing into the same type of game that sells the most. Rainbow Six is a good example. It started out aimed solely at tactical shooter fans. A small niche market within the PC gaming community. There was no big money to made out of it despite it winning plenty of praise. There were no attempts to make it more "accessible" for the "mainstream" for "commercial reasons" then.

Now Rainbow Six games are nothing more than your average arcade FPS. For no other reason than to sell more copies. If they're willing to rip out the core of a franchise, screw their loyal fan base for profit then I doubt piracy is their main concern when it comes to producing games for the PC.

And what is the alternative?

In the past the PC game market was made up of niches full of diverse games. Today games are all much the same. As long as the sole priority is maximising profits I don't see much change.

 

[wheunis]

No discussion is necessary.
Piracy is no more a problem on PC than it is consoles.

Ubisoft are simply too fucked to admit that it's a decision of greed to them. They can sell larger volumes at more exhuberant prices on console, and that's all.

Piracy has fuckoll to do with it. Assholes won't ever see another cent from me again.

 

[Weasley]

Alan and Lycanthrope post I think explains more about what going on in the market than what all the studios spokes people is saying. They probably don't play any games not even there own. Sound like our favorite friend CEO of Activions.

 

[kaytel]

When I first read about the idiotic anti-copying measures being employed by Ubisoft I couldn't believe anyone would actually still buy their games. But people do. Then they complain about how much it interferes with just playing what they paid for. The appropriate thing would be to stop buying their products on all platforms and drive them out of business.

I don't think the ease of getting copies of any game today means much. Back before the internet people who wanted free games just played what they could get via sneakernet.

It would be interesting to see the past vs present figures - because if you sold 500 000 games in the past and 500 000 games today, it doesn't mean that games are selling as they always have - because the industry is growing, and sales should reflect that. A constant sales figure across many years either means that particular section of the market is stagnating (there are no new PC gamers coming in) or that there's something that's stunting sales (there are new gamers, but, say, piracy means they aren't buying).

Not necessarily. The market can't expand indefinitely. Another factor at play here is the same thing not taken into account with music sales - people have only so much deposable income, so if they start spending it in some new area, they'll be taking away from what they previously spent on other areas.

Like I said, the figures are for context - Ubisoft and Bethesda and companies who moan about piracy are coming from somewhere, and they DO have access to those figures, so there -must- be something to what they're saying. We're just working with what's available to us.

I've seen plenty of delusional thinking from executives in my time, so I wouldn't assume they have any knowledge of real causes. There could be a number of reasons for lower sales of PC games (assuming they really are that low).

 

[Alan]

Alan and Lycanthrope post I think explains more about what going on in the market than what all the studios spokes people is saying. They probably don't play any games not even there own. Sound like our favorite friend CEO of Activions.

They interviewed the schmuk on CNBC yesterday. When asked if he played games he claimed he played Skylanders to which the interviewer replied "but it's a kid's game" and the only retort he could offer was " I like to upgrade all the characters" *facepalm*

 

[Weasley]

They interviewed the schmuk on CNBC yesterday. When asked if he played games he claimed he played Skylanders to which the interviewer replied "but it's a kid's game" and the only retort he could offer was " I like to upgrade all the characters" *facepalm*

If they dont play there games there no passion to make a great game for every1 to enjoy they just in it for the money aka Greed. So the will never be satisfied and will always blame there customers the Gamers. (piracy now but if they could elimante it they blame something else that we do)