A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Ubisoft revenues decline 31.4% to €990m
-
what, people don't enjoy gray sludge as much as they used to?
-
I get that when you spending 100m+ on game development, but a game needs to have actual value to the consumer, it has to be entertainment, and entertainment is art. Very few things of all forms of entertainment cross the rubicon into beloved status that aren't obvious works of love and talent. Turing out utter dross that has the same consistency as uncooked pink slime, and you can not expect to sell with any sort of long tail or expect repeat sales. Sure, you can get away with a cheap cash grab once, may be twice, but over and over? Most people aren't that dumb> I get that when you spending 100m+ on game development, but a game needs to have actual value to the consumer, it has to be entertainment, and entertainment is art. A side point on this: maybe some accounting transparency would help too. We know that that $100M+ isn't going to the developers as they are some of the most underpaid tech workers. How much of a given game's budget is actually going to compensate those directly contributing to it vs administration/execs?
-
Lets all laugh at an industry that never learns anything teeheehee
-
A few people said that last year’s Prince of Persia game was pretty good. But I didn’t play it. The 90s and 00s version of U soft was phenomenal. Remember the original Far Cry, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and Rayman? Everyone loved those games, and they were actually innovative. But now Ubisoft is formulaic and seems hostile towards the people who buy their games.Prince of Persia: the Lost Crown was probably the best Metroidvania I've ever played. A lot of critics agree. Ubisoft dismantled their team after they didn't meet sales expectations. The game itself was amazing and made its way onto a lot of Game of the Year lists. If it underperformed, it was either a failure of their marketing department, or a failure to set realistic sales goals.
-
oh no whatever will they do, only having 990m revenue instead of over 1b revenue. Granted yeah that's fair, a 31% revenue loss is a drastic change. Too bad they'll never understand why and blame others.
-
oh no whatever will they do, only having 990m revenue instead of over 1b revenue. Granted yeah that's fair, a 31% revenue loss is a drastic change. Too bad they'll never understand why and blame others.Well, first of all, the CEO needs a raise. That much should be obvious. What comes after is unsure, but layoffs are always on the table.
-
Prince of Persia: the Lost Crown was probably the best Metroidvania I've ever played. A lot of critics agree. Ubisoft dismantled their team after they didn't meet sales expectations. The game itself was amazing and made its way onto a lot of Game of the Year lists. If it underperformed, it was either a failure of their marketing department, or a failure to set realistic sales goals.The reason I didn't get the game was their launcher that's mandatory for all Ubisoft games. I have not bought a single Ubisoft game since they forced the launcher on us and I will never do so.
-
Well, if we can’t “own” your games, then why buy them?
-
I think about this post from last year a lot: > Navok noted that if a game costs $100 million to make over five years, it has to beat what the company could have returned investing a similar amount in the stock market over the same period. https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/05/24/square-enix-final-fantasy-unrealistic-sales-targets-jacob-navokThinking about that quote, it doesn't sound meaningful at all At the outset, all businesses seek to grow faster than the average/stock market. Five years later, half will do better than average, and half will do worse than average. Does it make sense to say the half that did worse should have instead invested into the market, five years ago?
-
Thinking about that quote, it doesn't sound meaningful at all At the outset, all businesses seek to grow faster than the average/stock market. Five years later, half will do better than average, and half will do worse than average. Does it make sense to say the half that did worse should have instead invested into the market, five years ago?What makes it make even less sense is imagine they could magically somehow have invested instead of creating something. Fast forward a few cycles of businesses swapping over from not beating the average and instead of actually creating anything, everybody is only investing. Except, none of them are actually creating anything.
