• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

News Ubisoft, facing "slower sales", has cancelled three unannounced projects and will focus on bigger franchises. Also, Skull and Bones has been delayed.

None of these games are masterclasses in what i said, both are very lacking in animations. Playing Odyssey after luigi's mansion 3 made the game seem cheaper. And if you compare botw to any open world game any of them will feature superior animation and cutscenes.
Highly disagree here. Luigi's Mansion 3 is a "PS1 Resident Evil"-like game, fixed camera, short environments, they could put way more detail, also they aimed for 30FPS.
Super Mario Odyssey is 60FPS, open ended, full controllable camera, many different stuff played due to copy ability, has way more content than LM3 I think, and while Mario himself surely could've been higher poly, enemy variety, NPCs and all are very high poly and well done assets. There's the attention to little details too.
I have to disagree with you on BotW too as that game is simply gorgeous and the cutscenes at least for me were all fine. World building, animations and moveset for Link and all is something I didn't see in any open world game I tried before that. I played GTA V on the PS3 and damn, it could be the most expensive game ever, but I could use better examples of animation, graphics, world design and cutscenes on a handful of PS3 games. Breath of the Wild is something special that changed the market ever since it came out.

PS: I'm not downplaying LM3. In fact, it's the best looking game on the Switch and definitely the most technically advanced graphically by a huge margin. The thing is, if we compare the absolute best as a floor, everything else will feel not on par or inferior. But LM3 is such a case where the game looks way better than even most PS4 games all things considered (poly counts/modelling, textures, reflections, lighting, volumetric lights, etc). It's an outstanding achievement that only Next Level Games can replicate or surpass with Luigi's Mansion 4. Or Mario Kart team if they are working on another game for Switch.
 
Ubisoft has more people and likely higher budgets than most AAA games. That does not take away from the fact that other AAA games are still huge blockbusters. There is no subjective take on this. I don't think any studio barring maybe Rockstar Games rivals Ubisoft with how many people are involved in a single AAA project. Why are people confusing their own feelings for the scope of a game?
Also did not expect to see a push for consolidation here of all places with "poach them". I thought we left that behind.
 
Ubisoft has more people and likely higher budgets than most AAA games. That does not take away from the fact that other AAA games are still huge blockbusters. There is no subjective take on this. I don't think any studio barring maybe Rockstar Games rivals Ubisoft with how many people are involved in a single AAA project. Why are people confusing their own feelings for the scope of a game?
Also did not expect to see a push for consolidation here of all places with "poach them". I thought we left that behind.
I had the mentality that if rabbids 2 succeeded i would like if soliani and co made a new rayman game eventually. But chances are that wont happen now.

If milan and paris do end up reduced to simple support studios now i would def prefer if they left ubi to form their own studio and... well... nintendo kinda is in need of more western studios, especially an european one.
 
I had the mentality that if rabbids 2 succeeded i would like if soliani and co made a new rayman game eventually. But chances are that wont happen now.

If milan and paris do end up reduced to simple support studios now i would def prefer if they left ubi to form their own studio and... well... nintendo kinda is in need of more western studios, especially an european one.
The idea that Nintendo is in need of more studios in any specific geography feels extremely misplaced.
 
I had the mentality that if rabbids 2 succeeded i would like if soliani and co made a new rayman game eventually. But chances are that wont happen now.

If milan and paris do end up reduced to simple support studios now i would def prefer if they left ubi to form their own studio and... well... nintendo kinda is in need of more western studios, especially an european one.

But why? Nintendo with its own first party output, partnering with other studios for exclusives, and deals with third party publishers for big games had the most consistent output of any platform holder last year. Why should they buy or form more studios in different parts of the world?

Just because an exclusive game is really good, it doesn't mean the studio needs to be bought or work only with one platform holder. Independence leads to more creativity through experimentation usually. I hated it when Sony bought Insomniac, hated MS owning ID, and people wanting Mercury Steam to be bought now? The only one I'm ok with is Monolith Soft. Granted no one needs to care what I think, but this push for consolidation and to make games free on subscription services to push MTX and devalue them is awful.

Before going off topic more, I hope Ubisoft can find their footing again. The last year just had Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope (amazing) and the awful Rainbow 6 Extraction.
 
But why? Nintendo with its own first party output, partnering with other studios for exclusives, and deals with third party publishers for big games had the most consistent output of any platform holder last year. Why should they buy or form more studios in different parts of the world?

Just because an exclusive game is really good, it doesn't mean the studio needs to be bought or work only with one platform holder. Independence leads to more creativity through experimentation usually. I hated it when Sony bought Insomniac, hated MS owning ID, and people wanting Mercury Steam to be bought now? The only one I'm ok with is Monolith Soft. Granted no one needs to care what I think, but this push for consolidation and to make games free on subscription services to push MTX and devalue them is awful.

Before going off topic more, I hope Ubisoft can find their footing again. The last year just had Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope (amazing) and the awful Rainbow 6 Extraction.
I think it not the same situation at all. Soliani already has a strong relationship with ninty.

If soliani had a well known studio that was successful then yes that wouldnt be very nice. Now, the situation we are talking about wouldnt be nearly the same thing; a better example would be Retro Studios which had direct Nintendo investment and then got finally bought out by Nintendo.
 
I think it not the same situation at all. Soliani already has a strong relationship with ninty.

If soliani had a well known studio that was successful then yes that wouldnt be very nice. Now, the situation we are talking about wouldnt be nearly the same thing; a better example would be Retro Studios which had direct Nintendo investment and then got finally bought out by Nintendo.
So do Bandai Namco and Koei Tecmo who develop some of the best Nintendo games. Does that mean Nintendo should buy them? Fire Emblem in the Switch era has been carried by Koei Tecmo delivering 2 of the best Warriors games ever, not just "licensed ones", and they made Fire Emblem Three Houses. Bandai Namco developed the biggest collaboration game ever with Smash, that will likely never be topped for parties ever. What about AlphaDream?

Just because someone likes working with you, doesn't mean you need to buy them out and not allow them to do anything else. Bringing up Retro is something considering they've not released anything but a Wii U port in a long time.

Looking at potential future Ubisoft titles, they have a lot happening with Netflix (new Valiant Hearts game as well), and Rainbow 6 Siege continues to do massive numbers. I think a lot is riding on AC Mirage from their premium games standpoint.
 
Hope that they do keep around Mario + Rabbids if sales pick up over time. Sparks of Hope is on top of a great strategy game and a good addition to both Ubisoft's catalog and Mario's range of genres, the only other game besides the 3D Mario games at this point that allow Mario to get involved with a lot of brand new characters and environments without seemingly much of any restrictions, partly thanks to the Rabbids I figure, plus it fills a space of Mario RPGs (I like Origami King, but that is more like an adventure game).
 
Man...
Sparks of Hope was the only Ubisoft games I got in years and with the rest of their lineup being pretty much live service BS...Let's just say that I am not excited for them to double down on that.
 
0
It was for the new Just Dance and Mario+Rabbids

There’s no world in which those two games crashing set in motion Ubisoft needing to make $200m in ‘cost reduction’. They probably didn’t meet targets but having to make those kind of cuts while cancelling at least three other projects means they’ve been bleeding money somewhere, and since they won’t just come out and say ‘we bet the farm on NFTs the year before last, sold like 15 in a month and then the market crashed’ the only thing they’re left with is cancelling anything that isn’t a proven money maker to mitigate that failed investment.

If I wasn’t hilariously broke I’d put money on this being fallout from their failed Quartz scam.
 
Ubisoft are going in hard on GAAS because all they need is one to be a breakout hit and they'll be set for years. EA were in the same boat trying all sorts before Apex made the big time and became a recurring money spinner. Combine that with FIFA/Madden and they've got a guaranteed revenue stream which now allows them to take a punt on smaller titles and single player games. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Ubisoft were hoping for a similar breakout hit to supplement Rainbow Six. Trouble is they've sunk all these resources into this plan and got...nothing really of note.

Their plight reminds me of Activision Blizzard in some ways, in that they're increasingly becoming trapped into focusing on 2-3 key IPs because these make most of their money. But with games now costing more to make and needing more development resources than ever, and shareholders demanding more and more growth year on year, they're trapped in a doom spiral where they have no choice but to churn out Assassin's Creed/Far Cry/Tom Clancey stuff because these keep the lights on, but there's no real scope to grow these franchises further. They've hit their peak, so expecting them to deliver the growth Ubisoft needs is a desperate hail Mary.
 
0
So do Bandai Namco and Koei Tecmo who develop some of the best Nintendo games. Does that mean Nintendo should buy them? Fire Emblem in the Switch era has been carried by Koei Tecmo delivering 2 of the best Warriors games ever, not just "licensed ones", and they made Fire Emblem Three Houses. Bandai Namco developed the biggest collaboration game ever with Smash, that will likely never be topped for parties ever. What about AlphaDream?

Just because someone likes working with you, doesn't mean you need to buy them out and not allow them to do anything else. Bringing up Retro is something considering they've not released anything but a Wii U port in a long time.

Looking at potential future Ubisoft titles, they have a lot happening with Netflix (new Valiant Hearts game as well), and Rainbow 6 Siege continues to do massive numbers. I think a lot is riding on AC Mirage from their premium games standpoint.
Your comparison about bandai would only hve made sense if i said "any studio who made a game with nintendo should be bought"... and yeah i never said that, far from it.

I said that if Soliani and co left ubi and formed a studio with nintendo's cash then maybe overtime they should acquire them, which they did with Retro Studios in a very similar deal.

Btw what does it have with the convo that Retro has had development problems over the years? It certainly hasnt impacted Nintendo's view of them.
 
0
Mario + Rabbids 2 suffered from the discount policy of the first one, no one will buy this game at launch knowing that in 2 years it will be 80% off, it's a good game but not the kind you are forced to play at launch.
 
Anyone concerned ubi's disappointment with Rabbids 2 performance would hurt Switch support overall?
I am. Sounds like they have soured on Switch. Sparks of Hope not hitting good sales with 115 million hardware sold doesn't sound good at all, that means Switch owners don't buy games at all. Both SoH and JD23 was top eShop sellers in their launch months.

For a handheld, having non game buying owners is bad news. It's either piracy is rampant or people are not interested in games at all. I'm slowly losing hope for another 30m seller Zelda game....
 
I am. Sounds like they have soured on Switch. Sparks of Hope not hitting good sales with 115 million hardware sold doesn't sound good at all, that means Switch owners don't buy games at all. Both SoH and JD23 was top eShop sellers in their launch months.

For a handheld, having non game buying owners is bad news. It's either piracy is rampant or people are not interested in games at all. I'm slowly losing hope for another 30m seller Zelda game....
I assume people are waiting on sales for SoH. Since the original went on sale quite a bit
 
I assume people are waiting on sales for SoH. Since the original went on sale quite a bit
I did sell good, as I said it was in the top 5 of eShop lists for 2-3 weeks. If that's not enough for Ubi, either their expectations were too high or people are not buying enough games on Switch...
 
Mario + Rabbids 2 suffered from the discount policy of the first one, no one will buy this game at launch knowing that in 2 years it will be 80% off, it's a good game but not the kind you are forced to play at launch.
Those discounts apply to Ubi's AAA games as well, yet AC Valhalla had record sales. There's more to M+R2's poor performance.
 
0
I am. Sounds like they have soured on Switch. Sparks of Hope not hitting good sales with 115 million hardware sold doesn't sound good at all, that means Switch owners don't buy games at all. Both SoH and JD23 was top eShop sellers in their launch months.

For a handheld, having non game buying owners is bad news. It's either piracy is rampant or people are not interested in games at all. I'm slowly losing hope for another 30m seller Zelda game....
I did sell good, as I said it was in the top 5 of eShop lists for 2-3 weeks. If that's not enough for Ubi, either their expectations were too high or people are not buying enough games on Switch...
Sorry, but I don't see where you're coming from with the idea that people aren't buying enough games on Switch (not sure what is "enough" either, for that matter). Software sales are very good on Switch, as their financial numbers will tell you (April-September 2022 was a 1.6% increase in sales compared to the same six months last year, which was still in the middle of the pandemic), and with things like the record sales for Pokémon Scarlet and Violet suggesting that software sales continued strong in the end of 2022.

Sparks of Hope underperformed. It's a shame, but it is what it is. We don't know what their expectations were.
 
I am. Sounds like they have soured on Switch. Sparks of Hope not hitting good sales with 115 million hardware sold doesn't sound good at all, that means Switch owners don't buy games at all. Both SoH and JD23 was top eShop sellers in their launch months.

For a handheld, having non game buying owners is bad news. It's either piracy is rampant or people are not interested in games at all. I'm slowly losing hope for another 30m seller Zelda game....
This is an insane conclusion to draw lmao
 
I did sell good, as I said it was in the top 5 of eShop lists for 2-3 weeks. If that's not enough for Ubi, either their expectations were too high or people are not buying enough games on Switch...
It's definitely more the former than the latter here. We know from Nintendo's own figures that the Switch really moves software. Meanwhile Mario + Rabbids largely became such a big seller thanks to how crazy cheap it got. I think Ubisoft were hoping that a good chunk of people who bought the first would jump to the sequel at the first instance, but their crazy pricing strategy came back to bite them here because the same people know full well it'll reach the same low pricetag in due course.

Also, people on this forum really need to stop panicking over Zelda. It'll be fine
 
Sorry, but I don't see where you're coming from with the idea that people aren't buying enough games on Switch (not sure what is "enough" either, for that matter). Software sales are very good on Switch, as their financial numbers will tell you (April-September 2022 was a 1.6% increase in sales compared to the same six months last year, which was still in the middle of the pandemic), and with things like the record sales for Pokémon Scarlet and Violet suggesting that software sales continued strong in the end of 2022.

Sparks of Hope underperformed. It's a shame, but it is what it is. We don't know what their expectations were.
As I said, it's either people don't buy games or Yves is crazy about sales expectations. It seems everything points to the latter. SoH underperforming is not possible with that high eShop charting.
Also, people on this forum really need to stop panicking over Zelda. It'll be fine
TotK beating BotW sales has always been an unrealistic expectation anyway.
 
Regarding Mario + Rabbids, I always felt like the novelty of the first game did a lot of heavy lifting, which the second entry obviously didn't have anymore (not to the same extent at least). It probably also did benefit from being an early Switch title, granting it more spotlight and attention. There also were many, many other strategy games in 2022, though M+R still stood apart enough in my eyes to offer something a bit more unique compared to most of the Japanese takes on the genre. Potentially not enough after all.
I am still waiting for a price drop. Even now I can pick it up for 30 dollars, just three months after its release, but I know it'll go as low as 20 dollars not too long in the future.
 
As I said, it's either people don't buy games or Yves is crazy about sales expectations. It seems everything points to the latter. SoH underperforming is not possible with that high eShop charting.
It could be Yves having high expectations but it could also very well be the game underperforming. Considering what we have seen from the UK & JP, I’m not gonna be surprised if it doesn’t match M+R1. I think it both honestly.

Same goes for Just Dance which they have screwed the pooch on with the latest version
If someone wants some context on why Just Dance 2023 underperformed, buckle up because there's a whole carnival of stupid. The content is there and is great, yet the delivery...:
  • The game was turned into a live game client, that means a new client where following years content should be released as song packs. This is good, but it also means it had to be coded from scratch. Basically the whole client was released as a barely working mess full of crashes, laggy UI, online outright didn't work on Xbox and while that was fixed one month down the road, they still don't have cross-play with PS5 and Switch. The client still has huge bugs like a lot of people can't play online at all because the game tells they're offline, yet their friends can see them online and even send play session invites (it's happening to me and to a couple of my friends, still unpatched). It was basically an undercover early access release.
  • Being turned into a live game client, that meant it should be maintained into the future and that meant dropping Xbox One and PS4 as target platforms. That in turn means it's the end of the road of the PS Camera + Move controller, standalone PS Camera and Kinect. Kinect was the favorite and top picked play style for hardcore, enfranchised players since it tracks full body instead of just your right hand. Xbox Series and PS5 versions can only be played with the controller app installed in your smartphone and using it like a joycon.
  • Just Dance Unlimited, a 25€/year subscription service with almost 800 songs between back catalog of past games and Unlimited-exclusive releases that happened all year long, has been deprecated and left behind on Just Dance 2022 (last year's release). For Just Dance 2023 they just released Just Dance Plus which is exactly the same but...
    • Your past JDU subscription doesn't carry over like it used to from game to game if you had remaining game time
    • It was announced to start with 300 songs from the beginning with a promise to fill the back catalog ASAP but...
      • Only 150 out of the promised 300 songs made it to release day. Most of the songs that made it were Kids Mode songs, troll songs, and ancient songs from very early JD games that are not really amusing to dance to anymore. So, literally no substance.
      • The pace of filling the back catalog so far has been 4-5 songs per week. We calculate that, keeping up that pace, the old JDU catalog will be available in JD+ by 2025
      • But hey! Pay us the same price JDU used to cost!
So you can see all the reasons why the enfranchised player base is not precisely happy with the game and why, not even selling it at half price barely a week after release has helped move units. People are basically still playing Kinect on 2022 + JDU until all kinect units finally shit the bed and the service is sunset. I personally refuse to pay a single cent for JD+ until at the very least we reach the 300 mark of songs that were promised. I paid 25€ for the switch version on CDKeys and I still feel like I was ripped off, and it hurts because a lot of this year's new songs are really REALLY great.

Source

It also doesn’t have a cart in the box at retail for the Switch version. It’s just a box with a download code.

Source
 
It's definitely more the former than the latter here. We know from Nintendo's own figures that the Switch really moves software. Meanwhile Mario + Rabbids largely became such a big seller thanks to how crazy cheap it got. I think Ubisoft were hoping that a good chunk of people who bought the first would jump to the sequel at the first instance, but their crazy pricing strategy came back to bite them here because the same people know full well it'll reach the same low pricetag in due course.

Also, people on this forum really need to stop panicking over Zelda. It'll be fine
I only care about sales of games that arent guaranteed sellers. I couldnt care less if the new pokemon sold less than sword or shield or if totk is underselling compared to botw.

Now, if you told me bayonetta 3 sold 2 million...
 
0
Also did not expect to see a push for consolidation here of all places with "poach them". I thought we left that behind.

I think you're likely to find people here will generally concur with the overall sentiment against the encroaching market consolidation; however, the hypothetical being considered and that which you are arguing against seem as though they might not be entirely congruent.

If the studio were to be subsumed into larger developments, it could theoretically lose what creative autonomy it has, effectively removing it from larger consideration. It's assumed some personalities on the team might not be fully on board, particularly as regards those with creative roles.

The conversation trended toward whether certain considerations might lead to Nintendo's involvement in a theoretical new studio, but I expect people generally wouldn't be actively against the idea of these individuals forming a new studio without Nintendo's involvement.

If the hypothetical poaching did occur, though, or even just a breakaway into an independent studio, I could see sizeable portions of the workforce remaining, as they likely wouldn't all see the same reasons to leave. In either case, I could see the theoretical studio choosing to leverage its connections and work with Nintendo.

Why should they buy or form more studios in different parts of the world?

Presumably for much the same reasons they'd form studios in Japan, though with an added element if we're dealing with known developers, in which case it'd be for the same reasons they'd acquire any studio: to maintain and foster the ongoing relationships, especially in such cases as those might otherwise be lost.

Which is the situation being described, not even so much as that Nintendo might lose use of the studio but that the studio itself could lose what measure of autonomy it has obtained -- then that, given their working relationship and Soliani's apparent adoration of Nintendo, it wouldn't be unfeasible to see Nintendo formed a studio with individuals who wanted to leave that situation, or for them to form a studio that might have Nintendo's backing in some form.

Is this to suggest they necessarily shouldn't form studios in other parts of the world? Maybe shouldn't form them at all?.


I hated it when Sony bought Insomniac, hated MS owning ID, and people wanting Mercury Steam to be bought now? The only one I'm ok with is Monolith Soft.

Curious as to what separates MonolithSoft from the other examples?

How does Next Level fit into this?

Luigi's Mansion 3 is a "PS1 Resident Evil"-like game, fixed camera, short environments, they could put way more detail, also they aimed for 30FPS.
First, I just want to comment on how I really appreciate the way they've maintained this style. It really works, and they use its qualities to their advantage.

Other than that, just to add, Next Level is generally hailed for their, let's say, next level animation skills and detail -- it's pretty consistently mentioned alongside them, especially any time someone suggests the studio should handle a game in any particular property -- and tis very likely plays strongly into the impression of higher production values.
 
Anyone concerned ubi's disappointment with Rabbids 2 performance would hurt Switch support overall?
It will have the same effect that the Titan Fall developers laughing at the possibility of Switch running the game had on Switch getting game ports. None.
 
0
I am. Sounds like they have soured on Switch. Sparks of Hope not hitting good sales with 115 million hardware sold doesn't sound good at all, that means Switch owners don't buy games at all. Both SoH and JD23 was top eShop sellers in their launch months.

For a handheld, having non game buying owners is bad news. It's either piracy is rampant or people are not interested in games at all. I'm slowly losing hope for another 30m seller Zelda game....

Gonna stop you now, lol, tears of the kingdom is never going to sell as well as breath of the wild. If for whatever reason you're pinning hopes on it doing so, you're only going to disappoint yourself.
 
0
ditch the rabbids, let nintendo publish, profit
i find it funny that people say this, wouldn't the game turn into a paper mario? lmao
I think you're likely to find people here will generally concur with the overall sentiment against the encroaching market consolidation; however, the hypothetical being considered and that which you are arguing against seem as though they might not be entirely congruent.

If the studio were to be subsumed into larger developments, it could theoretically lose what creative autonomy it has, effectively removing it from larger consideration. It's assumed some personalities on the team might not be fully on board, particularly as regards those with creative roles.

The conversation trended toward whether certain considerations might lead to Nintendo's involvement in a theoretical new studio, but I expect people generally wouldn't be actively against the idea of these individuals forming a new studio without Nintendo's involvement.

If the hypothetical poaching did occur, though, or even just a breakaway into an independent studio, I could see sizeable portions of the workforce remaining, as they likely wouldn't all see the same reasons to leave. In either case, I could see the theoretical studio choosing to leverage its connections and work with Nintendo.



Presumably for much the same reasons they'd form studios in Japan, though with an added element if we're dealing with known developers, in which case it'd be for the same reasons they'd acquire any studio: to maintain and foster the ongoing relationships, especially in such cases as those might otherwise be lost.

Which is the situation being described, not even so much as that Nintendo might lose use of the studio but that the studio itself could lose what measure of autonomy it has obtained -- then that, given their working relationship and Soliani's apparent adoration of Nintendo, it wouldn't be unfeasible to see Nintendo formed a studio with individuals who wanted to leave that situation, or for them to form a studio that might have Nintendo's backing in some form.

Is this to suggest they necessarily shouldn't form studios in other parts of the world? Maybe shouldn't form them at all?.




Curious as to what separates MonolithSoft from the other examples?

How does Next Level fit into this?


First, I just want to comment on how I really appreciate the way they've maintained this style. It really works, and they use its qualities to their advantage.

Other than that, just to add, Next Level is generally hailed for their, let's say, next level animation skills and detail -- it's pretty consistently mentioned alongside them, especially any time someone suggests the studio should handle a game in any particular property -- and tis very likely plays strongly into the impression of higher production values.
what a lovely comment.
 
It could be Yves having high expectations but it could also very well be the game underperforming. Considering what we have seen from the UK & JP, I’m not gonna be surprised if it doesn’t match M+R1. I think it both honestly.

Same goes for Just Dance which they have screwed the pooch on with the latest version
If someone wants some context on why Just Dance 2023 underperformed, buckle up because there's a whole carnival of stupid. The content is there and is great, yet the delivery...:
  • The game was turned into a live game client, that means a new client where following years content should be released as song packs. This is good, but it also means it had to be coded from scratch. Basically the whole client was released as a barely working mess full of crashes, laggy UI, online outright didn't work on Xbox and while that was fixed one month down the road, they still don't have cross-play with PS5 and Switch. The client still has huge bugs like a lot of people can't play online at all because the game tells they're offline, yet their friends can see them online and even send play session invites (it's happening to me and to a couple of my friends, still unpatched). It was basically an undercover early access release.
  • Being turned into a live game client, that meant it should be maintained into the future and that meant dropping Xbox One and PS4 as target platforms. That in turn means it's the end of the road of the PS Camera + Move controller, standalone PS Camera and Kinect. Kinect was the favorite and top picked play style for hardcore, enfranchised players since it tracks full body instead of just your right hand. Xbox Series and PS5 versions can only be played with the controller app installed in your smartphone and using it like a joycon.
  • Just Dance Unlimited, a 25€/year subscription service with almost 800 songs between back catalog of past games and Unlimited-exclusive releases that happened all year long, has been deprecated and left behind on Just Dance 2022 (last year's release). For Just Dance 2023 they just released Just Dance Plus which is exactly the same but...
    • Your past JDU subscription doesn't carry over like it used to from game to game if you had remaining game time
    • It was announced to start with 300 songs from the beginning with a promise to fill the back catalog ASAP but...
      • Only 150 out of the promised 300 songs made it to release day. Most of the songs that made it were Kids Mode songs, troll songs, and ancient songs from very early JD games that are not really amusing to dance to anymore. So, literally no substance.
      • The pace of filling the back catalog so far has been 4-5 songs per week. We calculate that, keeping up that pace, the old JDU catalog will be available in JD+ by 2025
      • But hey! Pay us the same price JDU used to cost!
So you can see all the reasons why the enfranchised player base is not precisely happy with the game and why, not even selling it at half price barely a week after release has helped move units. People are basically still playing Kinect on 2022 + JDU until all kinect units finally shit the bed and the service is sunset. I personally refuse to pay a single cent for JD+ until at the very least we reach the 300 mark of songs that were promised. I paid 25€ for the switch version on CDKeys and I still feel like I was ripped off, and it hurts because a lot of this year's new songs are really REALLY great.

Source

It also doesn’t have a cart in the box at retail for the Switch version. It’s just a box with a download code.

Source
Just dance this year is a dowload code for all the versions
 
I'm also going to add that a lot of people knows the typical Ubisoft cycle of never paying it in release date because it will have a heavy disccount months later. Everyone I know that wanted to play Sparks of hope is waiting for that

I was going to wait too until I had it as a Christmas gift. It's fantastic, it took me a long time to play through the first game but this has so many more things to do, even more charm and polish and more natural exploration. Hours fly by without you even noticing.
 
0
I fear to say this, but could the poor sales of M+R2 also be related to marketing, and with that, maybe also Nintendos fault? They most often do these extremely short reveal to release windows and maybe they are helpful. I remember this game being announced at E3 2021 and then we didn't really hear anything for a year.
Also, they maybe overestimated the scope of the project. Apparently, this was over 3x as expensive to make, but only in rare cases does a direct sequel sell better than the original game.
 
Last edited:
0
ditch the rabbids, let nintendo publish, profit

yeah, a mario rpg
The Rabbids are a big enough brand regardless of whether people desperate for ... Something, I dunno, like it or not.

Like, the previous game is one of the biggest mario spin offs ever, it vastly eclipsed the mario sports titles or any of the RPGs, and it's a god damned XCOM style strategy game. It sure didn't get there on the basis of people desperately wanting Mario tactics.

Removing the Rabbids wouldn't have caused it to sell any better, and probably would have meant Nintendo needs to find a different development partner which means it just outright get nothing instead of two really good games and a great DLC expansion, in all likelihood.
 
I think it's just them overestimating the sales potential of M+R2... I heard that song before..

First game is a sleeper hit, made on the lower budget side (therefore, gainings are much higher); -- A sequel is greenlitted, with a bigger budget and development cost, and with higher internal expectations that won't ever be reached, mostly because the novelty of the first game's launch isn't a factor anymore.

And above all things, the audience seems to be trained to get Ubisoft games way later on severe discounts, and not on launch at full price..

and Ubisoft saying they'll focus on bigger franchises when the game they made starring SUPER MARIO (you know, the biggest franchise in gaming you can have, besides Pokémon, Call of Duty and Pac-Man) didn't reach their utopical expectations is really funny (and I mean, in a not cynical way..)
 
I think it's just them overestimating the sales potential of M+R2... I heard that song before..

First game is a sleeper hit, made on the lower budget side (therefore, gainings are much higher); -- A sequel is greenlitted, with a bigger budget and development cost, and with higher internal expectations that won't ever be reached, mostly because the novelty of the first game's launch isn't a factor anymore.

And above all things, the audience seems to be trained to get Ubisoft games way later on severe discounts, and not on launch at full price..

and Ubisoft saying they'll focus on bigger franchises when the game they made starring SUPER MARIO (you know, the biggest franchise in gaming you can have, besides Pokémon, Call of Duty and Pac-Man) didn't reach their utopical expectations is really funny (and I mean, in a not cynical way..)
Definitely true. The sequel is a better game though, hopefully it'll have long legs as people get around to it.
 
I think it's just them overestimating the sales potential of M+R2... I heard that song before..

First game is a sleeper hit, made on the lower budget side (therefore, gainings are much higher); -- A sequel is greenlitted, with a bigger budget and development cost, and with higher internal expectations that won't ever be reached, mostly because the novelty of the first game's launch isn't a factor anymore.

And above all things, the audience seems to be trained to get Ubisoft games way later on severe discounts, and not on launch at full price..

and Ubisoft saying they'll focus on bigger franchises when the game they made starring SUPER MARIO (you know, the biggest franchise in gaming you can have, besides Pokémon, Call of Duty and Pac-Man) didn't reach their utopical expectations is really funny (and I mean, in a not cynical way..)
From there perspective its a rabbid game. its not mainline mario, and they have to share the money with nintendo.
Mario is not their ip, they don't have total control over it, so if its not performing spectacular, they don't earn that much, i get that.

At the same time... i feel like publishers are really missing the broader picture what the difference between long running series and simple sequels is.
a lot of sequels unperformed compared to the initial game, since the audience was satisfied with the experience they got, and the Sequel seemed like more of the same (how true that is, that's a different question). Long running series had a big enough audience that waves in and out, some will skip this entry, others that one.

And yeah, it doesn't have to be, some sequels outperform the initial game by a ton... but those are usually more serious story/hype focused games?

Im talking anecdotally, but sequels where never "ok, it worked, lets pump more money in, and expect more sales".
Espcially, ignoring the context (there just wheren't that many games back then when the original released,
the eshop is fludded with games now, and the console has tons of evergreens. Rabids are just not up there, not for mario games, not for strategy games.

Also: there where endless games that where quality but under performed because they had a bad timing for launch (hype was for new platforms, right next to 2-3 big games, or like with this game, in a year that had already a bunch of SRPGs)
 


Back
Top Bottom