backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by MatthiasF.. on Nov 28 at 1:04 AM


The gorgeous Ubsioft blockbuster, Assassin's Creed II is making a killing, posting better than-expected sales of 1.6 million.  (Source: TG Daily)
It may be no Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, but Assassin's Creed II's better than expected sales is music to Ubisoft's ears

Two weeks ago, the launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 posted monstrous sales to the delight of publisher Activision and developer Infinity Ward.  CoD:MW2 raked in over $310M USD in the U.S. and UK in only 24 hours, moving approximately 4.7 million units.  That tidy sum in cold hard cash puts even movie industry's biggest one-day opening ever, Twilight: New Moon (approximately $72M USD) to shame.

Now, rival publisher Ubisoft has a similar success to report.  Its new game, Assassin's Creed 2, developed by Ubisoft Montreal, has posted better-than-expected sales, selling 1.6 million copies in its first week.  With many of the sales occurring at $59.99 mark (Amazon.com and Newegg.com have discounted it to $55.99, and $54.99, respectively), that indicates the game likely has pulled in close to $100M USD in sales.

Cheers Ubisoft in a released statement, "This represents 32 percent growth over the first week sales of [the original] Assassin's Creed. Launched in November 2007, Assassin's Creed remains the fastest selling new video game intellectual property ever in the US."

The sales beat the expectations of most analysts, who were predicting lower sales.  Analysts had stated that Ubisoft would be unlikely to meet its sales targets in the current economic climate

As with sales, critical reception of Ubisoft new blockbuster has been extremely impressive, if a bit behind Activision's juggernaut.  Assassin's Creed II earned an average scores of 92.33 percent (Xbox 360) and 91.20 percent (PS3), just below Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's high bar of 93.4 (Xbox 360) and 93.90 (PS3), according to GameRankings.

Ubisoft aims to sell 6 million units by December 31, a goal that analysts now feel it is well on target to meet, according to Wedbush Morgan analyst Edward Woo.  Mr. Woo states, "Sales of Assassin's Creed II have successfully met initial expectations due to a combination of factors, including a bigger install base and an improved marketing campaign strategy.  The game will definitely have a huge impact on the Ubisoft's revenue, but will not change the company's current guidance."

Assassin's Creed II is available for the PS3 and Xbox 360 (the PC edition is not yet out and is currently preorder only), carrying a mature rating.  The player in the game is a modern day assassin who relives the genetic memories of his ancestors to hone his skills.  He jumps back to the Italian Renaissance where he lives through the eyes of a young nobleman-turned-assassin named Ezio Auditore da Firenze.  At the start of the game, Ezio's father Giovanni, elder brother Frederico, and younger brother, Petruccio are all executed by the ruling party.  Vowing revenge, Ezio slays his enemies using an advanced weapons-based combat system and inventions created by a young Leonardo da Vinci.  The game features the voice talents of actress Kristen Bell (of Veronica Mars fame) and humorist Danny Wallace.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

NOT out for PC yet, so those are console sales only
By rtrski on 11/26/2009 9:14:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Assassin's Creed II is available for the PS3, Xbox 360, and PC carriers a mature rating.


Ignoring the tortured syntax, there's a factual error you should correct please. ACII is not yet out for PC, being available only as preorder with (per NewEgg) a projected release date in March 2010.

So those sales, as compared to those for MWII, which released for all platforms simultaneously, are actually quite respectable.




By rippleyaliens on 11/26/2009 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 4
Awesome Stats sales wise. YET worries me a bit. If developers are purely focused on console gaming, with very little input on the PC side. This will cause a ripple effect that will hit all major vendors.
1. No need for $400-$1000 cpu's
2. No need for 300-600 Video cards and multi-video card solutions
I realize supply/demand and all the other acronyms associated with business with regards to making PC games.. Yet as a PC gamer for >20 years.. this is kinda rough for me. Very interesting..
WOW with 10mil people brings in 1.8 Billion a year in just monthly fees..And developers cry that there is no money to be made with pc gaming. I guess as PC players, we are stuck with benchmark graphics as eye candy versus good games..


By OblivionMage on 11/26/2009 5:32:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. No need for $400-$1000 cpu's


You can buy a decent gaming computer for $500, you do not need to spend that much on a processor.


RE: NOT out for PC yet, so those are console sales only
By B3an on 11/26/2009 8:26:20 PM , Rating: 5
Yes you can. Especially as most PC games are just console ports, so being as consoles have inferior outdated hardware you dont need anything super high-end to run most new PC games at a console res (720p) and frame rate.
And unlike consoles you can overclock PC hardware and get a lot more than you payed for.


By cruisin3style on 11/27/2009 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me??

Granted, I haven't played any newer games on the PC in a while but I built a gaming PC for about $600 with black friday deals last year and games like crysis warhead ran fine on it. Granted I didn't have EVERYTHING turned up all the way, but ALMOST all games ran at 1080p with all settings turned way up. And crysis warhead still looked awesome at lower res (cant remember 1600x900 or 1280x720, kinda confused with previous video card settings) and i am a friend-proclaimed videophile.

And that was last year. This year, jesus...

in my opinion the graphics demands haven't gone up too much lately (and yeah, it is easy for me to say that since I haven't played any recent titles ;)...but you could build a behemoth

my rig is e5200 + gtx260


By inperfectdarkness on 11/26/2009 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 4
no, it's much worse.

without PC gaming at the apex of the gaming experience--the development of newer, faster, more capable PC technologies will dwindle.

the push to innovate & create new graphics cards (among other parts) will taper off. this will happen because the consumer demand for high-performance graphic solutions for PC's will be in decline. this will eventually cause the prices on all graphics components to rise; which it naturally must as demand slackens.

what will then happen is that consoles (now at the forefront of game development) will be FORCED to adapt to the pricing increases in PC parts--lest their consoles be as obsolete as the outgoing generation. if you thought ps3 initial pricing was bad--wait until the PC market completely dries up.

mock us if you wish--but hardcore videophiles & die-hard PC gamers are the people whose $500 video cards make it possible for you to buy that xbox 360 at ~$299.

you think LCD tv's are cheap because the manufacturer's neglected the high-end market? LOL!


By jonmcc33 on 11/27/2009 8:14:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If what you say is true, I feel there has been a significant rebirth (if there really was such a thing as PC-gaming) of console gaming. This is good new to read. PCs should be used for business and education, not for games.


Must be just you then. FPS, RTS, MMORPG and flight sim games all started on the PC. Despite somewhat success with Halo, FPS gaming just isn't pretty on a console with a controller.

Only the console kiddies/fanatics keep saying that PC gaming is dead. The PC gamers continue to enjoy their games as well as much better graphics. Xbox 360/PS3 are stuck in DX9 world where as PC gaming has advanced to DX11. My Radeon HD 5850 will chew up and spit out any current console available.

On a side note, I am looking forward to Assassin's Creed II for the PC. No doubt that they will include DX10 effects just like the original included over it's console brothers. See what you are missing out with on a console?


By Hiawa23 on 11/27/2009 11:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
For the PC guys, I guess the question should be why are devs favoring less powerful consoles over the PC, when it's clear they could produce better graphics, & give PC owners the controls they want. It's becuase of $$$$$$, & honestly everything in our society is about $$$$, so can this reversed, cause I have seen many online articles where some want to claim PC gaming is dead or dieing. If they are why, if not, why are people saying this?


By rtrski on 11/27/2009 4:36:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you've decided from the start to release for console and PC, the console version is obviously easier to design (with some limits perhaps, related to the specifics of each platform or processor like the Cell and consequent compiler or tool issues) because the hardware is a closed, homogenous environment. PC development necessitates a considerably larger amount of testing for compatibility with different generations of graphics and sound hardware, OS variations, etc. I'd bet they intended to have it all out together in the original planning (why wouldn't you want to hit the holiday season with all guns blazing??) but when development fell a bit behind they prioritized the console release first so something would make the holidays.

Besides the closed infrastructure issue, a dev has some idea how many of a given platform are out there to have some better idea of the market to help you make the development cost decisions ahead of time. Sure they've got a rough idea how many of different genres of PC games sold, but not all FPS shooters are created equally, and there's the 800-lb WoW gorilla to contend with too. So from a purely business standpoint, console development might be considered a bit 'safer' to pitch.

So yes, you're right, it all comes down to money. If they can make it (the bucks), then they'll, well, make it (the games).

I won't touch the whole "PC gaming is dying" / "Consoles are dumbed down and killing gaming" debate. Suffice to say I have a preference myself as a PC gamer...but the wife did buy a Wii that we have in the living room, and I can certainly see the appeal in having a dedicated and essentially 'low maintenance' gaming apparatus as well. I really don't see either going completely away anytime soon.

And back on the subject of my original post, I am glad to see the article was updated, and no one pissed all over me for pointing out the error. ;)


What the heck are these numbers?
By sxr7171 on 11/26/2009 11:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
"As with sales, critical reception of Ubisoft new blockbuster has been extremely impressive, if a bit behind Activision's juggernaut. Assassin's Creed II earned an average scores of 92.33 percent (Xbox 360) and 91.20 percent (PS3), just below Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's high bar of 93.4 (Xbox 360) and 93.90 (PS3)."

What are those numbers? Metacritic ratings? Gamerankings composites? You need to specify. Also you should brush up on your writing skills if you expect to hold down a writing job.




RE: What the heck are these numbers?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/26/2009 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 1
You're obviously not new here, so I'm wondering why you expect any different from Jason Mick.

Numbers without context or definition, butchered grammar and a general flair for sensationalism and bias over study and levelheadedness are all par for the proverbial course in Mick's world.

You have much to learn, young Padawan.


RE: What the heck are these numbers?
By Chaser on 11/27/2009 9:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As with sales, critical reception of Ubisoft new blockbuster has been extremely impressive, if a bit behind Activision's juggernaut. Assassin's Creed II earned an average scores of 92.33 percent (Xbox 360) and 91.20 percent (PS3), just below Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's high bar of 93.4 (Xbox 360) and 93.90 (PS3), according to GameRankings..

Outside of the last sentence. The game's a huge success. How's that? I don't think we need "verifiable sources" to figure that out. Blow your noses and lighten up.


RE: What the heck are these numbers?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/27/2009 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody was disagreeing that the game is a success. All we're saying is that the journalistic practices of DailyTech have been steadily slipping.


RE: What the heck are these numbers?
By Chaser on 11/27/2009 3:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
The point is the editor of the article was. That's the entire purpose of the article. This isn't The New York Times or PC Magazine for that matter. It's a blog. Don't hate.



By MatthiasF on 11/28/2009 1:04:57 AM , Rating: 2
A blog is where someone shares an opinion. A news article typically has some journalistic professionalism.

Notice the ads at the top of the page. They're making money from you. Expect more.


Did anyone notice...
By descendency on 11/26/2009 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
That they quoted weekly figures for ACII but first day figures for MW2?

That's because MW2s weekly sales are closer to 550M (~9.2 million units).

I want AC2 to do well (and to play it!) but it was not even in the ballpark of MW2.




RE: Did anyone notice...
By jonmcc33 on 11/27/2009 3:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, MW2 had a lot of hype from the console kiddies who thought it was great. They just don't realize that it was dumbed down specifically for console kiddies. So if you got the game and you really think it's awesome, know that the game was dumbed down for your enjoyment.


???
By Zingam on 11/27/2009 3:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
You have to sell more than 1.5 million copies to be suxessful? That's so bad? Is there any chance for small companies any longer?




RE: ???
By Hiawa23 on 11/27/2009 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
You have to sell more than 1.5 million copies to be suxessful? That's so bad? Is there any chance for small companies any longer?

I don't think you have to sell 1.5 mill to be successful especially for the smaller companies where their costs are certainly much smaller than that of say EA, & franchises that have established themselves over the years.

Not bad at all, so I think the small have a good chance to do well with say selling less a 1. mill units. I think the first AC game sold like 8mill so had this one not sold atleast 1.5mill then I think that would be considered a bust, but not just based on the units sold but you have to take into account the dev, cause UBI is a heavyweight, so less than 1.5 by their standards isn't successful, on the other hand, less than that for a smaller dev is fine. Just saying there is a different scale depending the dev the game & the history.


It Deserves the Sales
By ziggo on 11/26/2009 12:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't all hype, I have enjoyed the game immensely. It did a great job of not repeating the errors of the first game while retaining the fun bits.

I must say the difficulty is a bit low, esp if you played the first game you are unlikely to be challenged much. It also seems to have had more level area than needed. I completed the game without spending much time in one city, and another area of another city.




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki