Massive Price Drop!

[Sonarman]

And while we are on the subject of massive price cuts my brother just phoned to let me know that GAME in the UK is now selling off Black Shark in their sale at £4.99 (bricks & mortar stores) what does that say for the future of PC simulation gaming?

Originally Posted by Sonarman

And while we are on the subject of massive price cuts my brother just phoned to let me know that GAME in the UK is now selling off Black Shark in their sale at £4.99 (bricks & mortar stores) what does that say for the future of PC simulation gaming?

Sh5 is not a simulator, don't you agree? I would pay much more than 50 euros for a well made simulator. And please, don't "serve" me that line with "niche market", it's not so niche ...

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Sonarman

And while we are on the subject of massive price cuts my brother just phoned to let me know that GAME in the UK is now selling off Black Shark in their sale at £4.99 (bricks & mortar stores) what does that say for the future of PC simulation gaming?

I dont think it says anything at all about the PC sim market. It says something about the disasterous DRM backfiring because Assasins Creed 2 is also being reduced in a big way, and that is a perfectly populist genre.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

I dont think it says anything at all about the PC sim market. It says something about the disasterous DRM backfiring because Assasins Creed 2 is also being reduced in a big way, and that is a perfectly populist genre.

I suspect that this is the real reason we have seen prices plummet so soon after release. Regardless of the consistently negative reviews SH5 has received, I seem to remember SH3 and 4 being just as incomplete and bug ridden, yet becoming immensely popular despite their numerous issues. In fact, I could hardly play either until the mod community started to work their magic. Frankly, I suspected nothing would change with SH5, that's just the way it's always been with this title. Granted, they could have done a lot better, but then again, I tend to feel like that with a lot of games these days (especially so called simulations).

Some people are claiming that poor sales will mean the end of Silent Hunter, yet I'm sure SH4 was not as popular as SH3, yet they clearly made enough money, and thought that there was enough demand for another game. Don't forget the expansion, which while small in nature, still demanded time and effort from the developers. Therefore, I see no reason why this should be the end, assuming money can still be made (they are a business after all).

The real clincher in all of this, despite claims to the contrary, was definitely the net connection fiasco. I have spoken to friends of mine, who have outright refused to buy any games coupled with such a system, and these are people who have previously put up with StarForce and SecuRom without complaint. Obviously the negative press surrounding this issue has not done anything to help their sales, and honestly, they only have themselves to blame. Many of us called this situation before it was really known about, and sadly we were proved right. I'm surprised they didn't realise the trouble it would cause, but I suppose they misjudged the unpopularity of such strict requirements.

If this is to be the last Silent Hunter, then that's just the way it is. Nothing we could have done would change Ubi's mind, because at the end of the day, they are only concerned with profit. This is something which is far more complex than the oft repeated "buy the game, or they won't make more!" argument.

In any case, we now have three sub games, two of which have already been heavily modded, and another which has 'potential'. That should be more than enough to keep most of us occupied should Ubi decide to pull the plug once and for all.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Some people are claiming that poor sales will mean the end of Silent Hunter, yet I'm sure SH4 was not as popular as SH3, yet they clearly made enough money, and thought that there was enough demand for another game. Don't forget the expansion, which while small in nature, still demanded time and effort from the developers. Therefore, I see no reason why this should be the end, assuming money can still be made (they are a business after all).

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

Yes exactly, that's my point. If there was no money in this genre, then they would have stopped with SH3. Clearly that is not the case, so why should SH5, despite it's current problems, be any different is that respect?

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Yes exactly, that's my point. If there was no money in this genre, then they would have stopped with SH3. Clearly that is not the case, so why should SH5, despite it's current problems, be any different is that respect?

Ya good point They;ve released 3 sub sims since 2005. Hardly signs of a dead market :-)

The only reason they might drop the franchise is if they werent satisfied with the profit margin , based on what they were spending on dev and marketing. So whereas Ubi might think a 20% margin on a spend of $3million ($600,000) is pittance compared to what some games return, to a smaller dev house that would be a decent outcome. All devs and artists well paid and profit to boot.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

I'm so over this 'be nice to Ubisoft because they are the only Publisher producing subsims' argument. It looks to me like SH5 is very modable...we just need to be able to play it offline in order to really enjoy it.

I automatically assume this is directed to me (and that's fine), but I do want to point out that I have always maintained that we should be nice to any publisher that makes a decent submarine game, not only Ubisoft. And by "be nice", of course no one means "unconditional love". But we should try not to adopt a hostile, unreasonable attitude. We should separate ourselves as subsim enthusiasts from the militant consumers that judge everything purely on the weight of their hard earned money© It is possible to be critical AND nice....

I like to "be nice" to everyone!

(When possible).

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ya good point They;ve released 3 sub sims since 2005. Hardly signs of a dead market :-)

The only reason they might drop the franchise is if they werent satisfied with the profit margin , based on what they were spending on dev and marketing. So whereas Ubi might think a 20% margin on a spend of $3million ($600,000) is pittance compared to what some games return, to a smaller dev house that would be a decent outcome. All devs and artists well paid and profit to boot.

I wonder how much impact there is on the aspect that there are some really fanatical history buffs and submarine-loving devs in Bucharest.... You know what I mean? If the guys in Ubi Romania that are passionate about submarine warfare were not around, would Ubi have made SH3, 4, 5 ? Or, did those games, especially SH4 and 5, see the light of day mainly because Ubisoft knows they have a valuable resource and decided to utilize it? I imagine there is a big fixed cost in getting educated about the millions of historical details a sub simulation like SH3-5, and now that the FC has been invested, Ubi thinks they should keep it invested....

Just a thought.....

[TDK1044]

I think the reality is that Ubisoft's arrogance finally caught up with them with this release.

This Publisher has a history with this franchise of throwing unfinished, buggy games onto the market, which then need significant patching in order to get them to where they should have been at release.

With Silent Hunter 5, Ubisoft took their arrogance to a new level. Not only is this game the usual buggy mess, it also requires that you connect to totally unreliable Ubisoft servers in order to play it. Add to that the fact that the game is targeted at a new demographic that doesn't seem very interested in buying it, and you have the perfect storm....something that ironically Ubisoft has been unable to create in any of the Silent Hunter games

For some to claim that the current fiasco it is the fault of those of us who have been critical of Ubisoft, is nonsense.

If this game is the final offering in the Silent Hunter series....so be it. Give us a patch to allow us to play it offline, and we'll heavily mod it just like we modded SHIII and SHIV.

I'm so over this 'be nice to Ubisoft because they are the only Publisher producing subsims' argument. It looks to me like SH5 is very modable...we just need to be able to play it offline in order to really enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

Stay chill, they didn't invested that much in SH5, they invested a few hundreds of thousands euros from my sources. With 2 millions you would make a simulator for NASA in 6 months.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

Stay chill, they didn't invested that much in SH5, they invested a few hundreds of thousands euros from my sources. With 2 millions you would make a simulator for NASA in 6 months.

If you are correct with that figure then that blows my mind, because 200,000 sales at $50 per sale is $10million. Ubisoft would have a great margin in that case and the fact they complain is unbeleivable. It also indicates the blatant profiteering they have engaged in by releasing these games early. There was clearly no need as the profit marguin was huge. They could have simply taken 2 more months to QA the game. At the rates you menntioned that would have cost them an extra few tens of thousands, nothing compared to the ROI.

PS: Do you know the devs? If so, seriosuly ask them if they have ever considered going off on their own. If they sound interested, please let me know.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

If you are correct with that figure then that blows my mind, because 200,000 sales at $50 per sale is $10million. Ubisoft would have a great margin in that case and the fact they complain is unbeleivable. It also indicates the blatant profiteering they have engaged in by releasing these games early. There was clearly no need as the profit marguin was huge. They could have simply taken 2 more months to QA the game. At the rates you menntioned that would have cost them an extra few tens of thousands, nothing compared to the ROI.

I dont think its such an easy calculation. Most of Ubisoft's sales are to retailers who negotiate a price based on their network and the potential sales, so I would say a average sales price by Ubi between say $15-25 may make more sense. Perhaps more on the lower end, since some retailers seem to already be dumping their stocks. Since some retailers seem to be accepting returns with no hassle, I presume they also have a deal to get a refund from Ubi.

Sales of sh3 were around 200,000, sales of sh4 were around 100,000 total. If sales of SH5 are only as high as, say sh4, which seems a reasonable assumption. We have gross revenues of $1,500,000 to $2,500,000. From that you have to detect salary, marketing and other costs at Ubi corporate, so even if they only paid say 500k to Ubi Romania, we are still not talking about a huge profit.

When you look at it this way, it also shows why Ubi acts the way they do. The keep the development cost and time to a minimum to be certain to turn a profit.

Obviously if they had more sales, they could afford to spend more money on it.

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

If you are correct with that figure then that blows my mind, because 200,000 sales at $50 per sale is $10million.

Well, discounting the recent proce drop, even at $50 per copy you have to understand that includes not only development costs but marketing, packaging, distribution, retail mark-ups, etc., etc..

And also keep in mind that the question isn't so much whether or not the game makes money, but how much money does it make relative to other, more mainstream projects? Games like Assassin's Creed 2, Prince of Persia, and their ilk, most likely yield a much higher return on investment of those same resources.

JD