By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Ubisoft fully support WiiU, but isn't happy with the high console price

happydolphin on 13 November 2012
RolStoppable said:

Instead of handpicking examples, you could work with total software sales and divide them by the total number of games (especially because the VGC database is incomplete). Official tie ratios for GC and Xbox are something around close to 10 and slightly more than 10, respectively (if memory serves right), so you are looking at about 200m units of software for the GC and about 250m for the Xbox.

200m/640=312k
250m/900=278k

This favors the GC in terms of average sales per game, but obviously you would need to remove sales of first party and third party exclusives from the total number of software sold first (as well as substract the number of exclusives from the total number of games). The Xbox would probably come out ahead afterwards, but it's not going to be a dramatical difference; and that's the point. Both systems would post quite pitiful numbers, so there wasn't much of a business reason to drop one or the other. However, the GC was dropped. Additionally, the quality of the remaining GC ports dropped over time while the quality of Xbox ports remained stable. This will naturally have an effect on the sales performance as well, not just Microsoft's more aggressive marketing.

The funny thing about the Prince of Persia example is (if the numbers you posted are in fact true) that the GC continued to get the rest of this series despite a rather big difference in sales compared to the Xbox version. The costs for porting a game weren't particulary high in the sixth generation, so if a game was built on the PS2 first (and that was usually the case), then expected sales of 100k units would usually be worthwile to justify a port. Of course, higher sales would be preferable, but the point is that the threshold for profit could be easily met.

Okay, I guess I'll join the exercise. Let's see how this turns out.

I have here ->

GC: 79.80m units for 65 games published by Nintendo (I realize this is a flawed value but it'll have to do)

XB: 54.38m units for 90 games published by Microsoft Games Studios.

The numbers come to *drum roll plz*

GC: (200-79.80)m = 120.20m, (640-65)games = 575 games for a ratio of 120.20m/575=209k

XB: (250-54.38)m = 195.62m, (900-90)games = 810 games for a ratio of 195.62m/810=241k

 

tee hee

I'm not sure what to make of the numbers :) Looks like the cube's multiplats are more popular on the whole.

But now I want to make certain, that for the games that actually matter (the big games, because Ubi is a big company), that this trend is also true.

I think I could hand-pick some 5 big companies, and compare their multiplats across the platforms (over the years) and see how that goes. (That would also help to better isolate games in the market in question)

 

Bottom-line, if the xb sells progressively better over the gen, then there is a case for dropping support for Nintendo's platform. Unless there is a break-even value that we know, upon which profit is just profit and like you said, so long as profit is made the business case is always there.

 

(EDIT: Rolz, I added the vgchartz numbers underlined to give a better idea)

GC: (165.19-79.80)m =  85.39m, (665-65)games = 600 games for a ratio of 85.39m/600=142k

XB: (181.51-54.38)m = 127.13m, (972-90)games = 882 games for a ratio of 127.13m/882=144k



Around the Network
happydolphin on 13 November 2012
RolStoppable said:

You made a mistake. The number of total software I suggested for the Xbox is 250m, not 200m. The resulting average is 241k. But like I said, it isn't a dramatical difference.

The reality of the situation is that the GC and Xbox were neck and neck in sales on a global basis for about their first three years on the market, but towards the end of this three year period GC support already began to suffer. No racing games from Codemasters for the GC. No Burnout 3: Takedown. No Legacy of Kain: Defiance. No Just Cause. The number of relevant multiplats not making their way to the GC kept increasing.

oah, I will correct that.

Well, how do we explain that? I also noticed a similar trend to madden with the NHL franchise, where they simply gave up on the cube and stopped porting it half way into the generation.

Why would devs stop supporting it if it didn't cause some kind of problem somewhere in terms of revenue? Do you think, if sales truly are comparable between cube and xbox bar exceptions here and there, that there was some form of incentive that made companies decide to drop support for the cube along the way? And even if so, if the cube games bring revenue, why would they stop supporting them even if the competition offered some kind of added incentive?



happydolphin on 13 November 2012
RolStoppable said:

Well, when Microsoft was buying their way into the video game industry (a $4 billion loss in four years was unprecedented), they were trying to get a hold of important third party IPs. The Xbox was a defensive move to stop Sony from taking control over the living room, so they were naturally trying to do their best to diminish Sony. However, the PS2 already had such a big foothold in the market that the majority of third parties were unwilling to make their games Xbox exclusive. For example, even Madden was up for debate, but EA opted for multiplatform development, because it allowed them to snatch the exclusive NFL license and thus push 2k games out of the American football market (they could make much more money that way).

So pretty much the only thing Microsoft could do for the time being was to establish themselves as the #2 player in the business and prepare for the next generation (which ultimately led to them rushing the 360 out of the door and subsequently, the whole RRoD fiasco). Thus their natural target became Nintendo and rumor has it that Microsoft started to pay third parties to not develop for the GC. Since historically Nintendo got branded as "kiddie" by all of their competitors, Microsoft pursued that path as well. There's quite a clear pattern in which multiplats ceased to become available on the GC. Essentially, everything that did fit into the "kiddie" category made it through while more "mature" games often times did not. Remember, Nintendo had mainline exclusivity of Resident Evil at that point in time, so it's not like other third parties would have had no market to work with on the GC.

Eventually GC sales started to suffer, because the software support began to slow down. Afterwards it was easy for statements like "Only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems" and "Mature games don't sell on Nintendo systems" to spread and be accepted as truth (by gamers and developers alike). And it's incredibly hard for Nintendo to disprove this notion, because third parties have been largely unwilling to even try to make an effort since then.

I can understand an exclusivity incentive to make a game just on the xbox, but incentive sto make a game just on the xbox and PS2, that's shady. I don't think that's what happened exactly, maybe something similar?

Possibly, some of the games that went XB/PS2 were originally PS2 games that Microsoft paid in to get a piece of the pie (kinda like FXIII). That must've left Nintendo trailing behind with either the scraps, or nothing. It must also be easier to sign-off on a project when there is guaranteed money from the get-go (incentives), rather than borrowing and getting returns on investment (no incentives).

 

Another thing that's possible. When business people make projections, they don't have all the data of all the games ever made like we did earlier. They'll take either their past projects or the projects of other big companies as examples to draw a road map. Maybe the numbers ultimately didn't please them.

What if it's a mix of the two?

In our earlier analysis, we took the final sales at the end of the gen. But the thing we didn't do was look at the trend of the ratio over the years. If it was trending downwards, then that could explain the concern. What about the HW sales? How was the trend as compared to the cube? Was the cube more front-loaded? It's too bad we don't have that data.



think-man on 14 November 2012
WindyCityHeat said:
If wiiu sells well, ubisoft will have to deal.

If wiiu fails, ubisoft wont support.

Longterm sales will tell. Looks cloudy right now.

Ubisoft is quite good at supporting consoles even if they are struggling just look at the vita for example they have released about 4 ports(I think) and a vita only title thats alot more than most other third party devs.



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

oniyide on 14 November 2012
Cobretti2 said:
oniyide said:
Cobretti2 said:
Here is a point I totally missed earlier.

Isn't it software that is meant to sell more hardware? Which in turn will lead to more sales of your other games.

Therefore shouldn't we be expecting from the UBISOFT CEO an annoucement saying we are releasing more AAA killer app game? i.e Far Cry 3


its not Ubisoft's job to sell hardware, that makes no sense. That is on Ninty, why should Ubisoft spend money making AAA games on a system that is only just coming out?

So why did developers support PS3? Byt rights after it's first year allsupport shoudl have been dropped due to the sales.

Also every Sony fan keeps saying wait for the killer app for VITA from 3rd party, then it will sell. So I only paplied the same logic.

What are you asking? It wasnt there job to sell PS3s either and they didnt, most of those games were multiplat anyway and it was just not that hard(im most cases) to port the 360 game to PS3, so im not quite sure where you are coming from. Im not saying that Ubisoft SHOULDNT make games for Wii U, that would be silly. Im saying its not their responsibility to try and sell it, they didnt make it.

Dont know what Vita has to do with anything. Its not same logic, not even close.



Around the Network
DanneSandin on 14 November 2012
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

oh youre such a tease Rol! what can ps720 do to help nintendos relationship with 3rd parties? i have a hunch, but lets hear your thoughts first! :D

You should have a hunch after you've read this:

"3. Let the industry run its course. They'll keep rising development costs while Microsoft and Sony will put out expensive consoles once again. At some point third parties will have to bring their games to the Nintendo system out of sheer necessity to survive."

A lot of the higher-ups who make the decisions in third party companies are incredibly biased (it shines through in their interviews). Removing choice is going to break them.

 

So, by uping the specs sony and microsoft increases dev costs, more or less forcing 3rd parties to publish on nintendo consoles as well to earn a few extra bucks. Is that what you're saying?

This will only happen if Nintendo will produce a sufficient console that can run these games without gimping them down... But I agree that this would be the smart way to go for Nintendo; satisfying HW for a lower price with 1st party games and ports would do wonders.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin on 14 November 2012
happydolphin said:
DanneSandin said:

what you are describing here is the Wii - plain and simple. it was the number one selling console for years, and still recieved little 3rd party support. all it got was gimped ports, and those don't sell too well.

I think you should have added a fourth point; namely, making adecvate hardware that can somewhat compete with sony and microsofts consoles. as long as it doesn't get gimped ports and is the cheaper option, nintendos console should get better 3rd party support.

I agree with bold.

haha too bad I messed up the spelling :P question is though; would that be enough? GC was more than qualified specs wise to take on all the ports, but didn't receive them. Now, you and Rol have already been discussing this issue, so I'll leave it at that :p I guess this coming gen will show us how willing 3rd parties are to support Nintendo.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Player2 on 14 November 2012
happydolphin said:

Well, how do we explain that? I also noticed a similar trend to madden with the NHL franchise, where they simply gave up on the cube and stopped porting it half way into the generation.

Sports games are bad for comparison purposes because XB had an american-centric userbase unlike the GC. Those japanese and european GC owners weren't interested in Madden or NHL.

Edit - And we're talking about EA and Nintendo... bad idea again.



happydolphin on 14 November 2012
Player2 said:

Sports games are bad for comparison purposes because XB had an american-centric userbase unlike the GC. Those japanese and european GC owners weren't interested in Madden or NHL.

Edit - And we're talking about EA and Nintendo... bad idea again.

I am currently ramping up for research on the whole matter, will be making an article shortly. Could you supply a few examples that you consider are not US-centric, and that are either EU-centric, JP-centric, or even regularly distributed accross the three regions? I'd like that.



CityOfNoobs on 14 November 2012

 


This chart really does say it all , Ubisoft is being absolutley ridiculous.Wii U only costs $15 more in actual terms than the wii, and it even costs less than the mighty PS2 did at launch when accounting for inflation. 



Who is John Galt?

 

3DS Friend Code : 2535-4338-9000 

AMD FX 8150 , 8 GB DDR3 Kingston Memory,  EVGA GTX 560 TI 2 GB superclocked, Samsung 256 GB SSD