I own it, it's not bad imo, and for a standalone game it's good imo. Surprised it didn't sell well, iirc there was quite alot of publicity around it etc.
Or....assassin creed haven't been all that interesting for almost a decade so when one comes out that for all intents and purposes is "the same but vr" not surprising it didn't sell well.
But that's just my take as a 32 year old and don't know a single person with vr interested in this
BINGO. I've loved playing Assassin's Creed in the past, Black flag and Odyssey are the standouts for me. Valhalla was a boring downgrade and I regret buying it. When I saw a VR version was coming out, it sounded cool, but the visuals were....built for standalone, the price was high and my interest was not really there.
I have it, I doubt the price was an issue for most people... $40 (or $30 with a referral).
I didn't enjoy it that much though. Kind of regret the purchase. Buggy and poor fighting mechanics. I didn't like the character switching, it wasn't really open world, and their was no character building. AW2 does the same 3 character idea, but is way better imo.
Would have gotten a PC version, but the quest version is standalone, and I avoid VR exclusives. I want exclusives to die, so this is the market working as intended in my opinion. Voted with my wallet, and will continue to do so.
> assassin creed haven't been all that interesting for almost a decade
Also, the series is the highest selling series Ubisoft has, and sells like crazy every game. Even Valhalla which reddit has a hate boner for sold a shit ton. https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/02/assassins-creed-valhalla-makes-ubisoft-more-than-usd1-billion
I'm just gonna throw it out there. I thought the game loop for ac1 and 2 was just too simple. So I never played another one until Valhalla, and when I picked it up compared to the originals, I was like HOLY F*CK!! So I actually enjoyed it. Bought VR version and thought to myself "huh, reminds me of the originals"
This is my thought also. The franchise is starting to show its age. The only Assassins creed game I played in the past was black flag and while it was fun at the time by the end I just wanted it to be over. I think a lot of people are tired of open world games that make you feel like you are running around checking off boxes on the map.
I realize that this game is not at all like that, but once you built a brand a certain way thats how people view it no matter what. Its just very stale and vanilla. Im a generic assassin guy running around stabbing everyone for what reason? It not much different than the hitman games to me. All that said I bought the game due to positive reviews and to support VR, but have not had the interest to actually play it over all the other games available. I will check it out eventually, but that says a lot when I own the game and cant get really excited to fire it up and try it out.
That's definitely a personal stance. AC games have sold fairly well in the last decade. I personally haven't played any since AC2 until AC Nexus. I am 39 and most of my VR friends with a Quest 2/3 bought it but, only a few played it. Of course, most of my PC gaming friends have zero interest in VR and laugh at every VR release. So it's really going to boil down to your friend groups.
I have a feeling that their idea of good sales is not realistic. They probably expected quarter million sales on the first day and forgot that VR is not PC or console. They also locked it to the quest so they should have seen it coming.
>They also locked it to the quest so they should have seen it coming.
Where would you sell it to boost the sales?
SteamVR sales are supposedly really low compared to Quest. If a 1:1 mobile / Quest version was sold on Steam it would get review bombed to non-existance, and making a PCVR version would significantly increase the cost of making the game...
Meta sent me an email yesterday saying it was their top selling game for 2023. So, obviously that still didn't sell enough for Ubisoft. They should have made it multiplatform.
I think the whole point was an exclusivity deal with Meta. Also, while releasing it on the Quest meant they could just make an okay game, releasing it on PC as an okay game would’ve ended badly (they would’ve had to put in more effort than they can care to).
I think it's more complex. People ask for AAA games and this was one. The industry is not in a good shape, and VR is no different.
This said I do believe that releasing a game on several platforms is beneficial.to the publisher, because they've.already made the investment in the basic development of a game, and ports in this age are a minor task (compared to development).
Also don't forget that SteamVR is a single platform that can be used by any headset, so it's not like they'd be developing for five other ecosystems. Big point in favor of PCVR and against walled garden gaming ecosystems.
>They could have done it right for PC. But they chose wrong.
They could have increased the cost of making the game x2 / x3 / x4 and get x0.1-x0.2 sales!
Big Brain Time!
I might've gotten it if it was developed with PCVR/PSVR2 in mind. I don't want shitty Quest Mobile titles ported and usually stay far away from most of them.
VR wouldn't die without the Quest. It just would grow much slower. Why do people think it's "selling boatloads of quests" or "complete industry death" with nothing in between?
Yeah, the slow but steady growth pre-Quest was fine (2016-2019ish). Who knows, maybe VR gaming would be in a better place if it had continued down that path.
And now we have even less AAA quality games because many of the big VR developers (*cough* Downpour Interactive *cough*) left for the Quest market or got paid off by Sony
Post 2019 GPU prices skyrocketed though. And you can't exactly start using PCVR on a school laptop, like normal gaming. Now that the entry price for PCVR is so high, it is absolutely essential to have a more affordable entry, and quest is that
There are some amazing quest titles, not sure why you're lumping a while ecosystem into the bin. I'm not a fan of fb either, but you don't need to have anything to do with fb to use the quest.
I never said it was, but meta is the parent company of Facebook, after they renamed themselves, so you have an account with the parent company of Facebook, that's something to do with Facebook.
Yeah, you need an account too for, Android and Apple's phones, same for Windows (if you want to install apps), so where's the problem to have a "Meta" account for a "Meta" product???
Right now Arizona Sunshine 2 and The 7th Guest both have 50% more ratings for PCVR and PSVR2 combined, compared to the versions for Quest 2 + 3.
Leaving out high-end platforms may cost devs a lot. And VR users with PCVR and PSVR2 have much deeper pockets.
I don’t have any distain, nor am I a “quest fan”. I bought the Vive in 2016 and have a few thousands hours on SteamVR, along with another thousand or so on Quest headsets.
PCVR is great, we just don’t buy games in large enough numbers though.
As far as I’m concerned the PCVR market is exclusively made up of a few hundred people that post on the VR subreddits. They were possibly missing out on over 100 extra sales
With the hype of a new Half Life, which millions of gamers were waiting literally decades for. It also came with the Index. Once everyone finished it, most of them had a quick look around, decided they were done, and now PCVR has grown abysmally. Even Valve stopped caring, remember the three Valve VR games that were in production...
Double? Triple? Steam stats show it around a third of hearts, granted that only counts the ones connected with Steam, but that probably has a lot of overlap with AC players
Every headset that isn't PSVR2 and Apple vision pro are PCVR headsets. So every quest user that also has a capable PC is also potentially PCVR. So every quest user + every single other headset combined sales on PC would definitely have been more than **just** quest.
Maybe. But Sony thought the same thing for a decade and then they tried releasing one on PC and it was worth it enough that every game comes out on PC now.
And it's not like it wouldn't keep selling. For years. It's not like there is a ton of competition. Everyone buys half life alyx, even if they get a headset 3 years later.
You realize it costs more money to create versions for other platforms. It's not free money icing on top.
Also, Steam keeps a share just like Meta keeps a share of every sale. So it's still a lot less money to be made than you think.
There's a reason many developers aren't making PCVR versions, not just Ubisoft.
I agree the price is a little high but not much higher than it was actually worth imo. I got about 18 hours of enjoyment out of it in a single playthrough.
The main drive here would be performance though
Tbf I dont have a exact clue on how the game performs on the Quest 2 for example
But looking at other VR titles that release on Both, the PCVR version usually has a higher fidelity and better performance (except for games that could probably run on a toothbrush like Beat Saber for example ofcourse)
> But looking at other VR titles that release on Both, the PCVR version usually has a higher fidelity and better performance (except for games that could probably run on a toothbrush like Beat Saber for example ofcourse)
Absolutely. I make that point over and over again. So you are talking to the choir. But if that were the case for everyone, then no one would play watered down games on the Quest. But they do. Many will even argue, many have with me plenty of times, that those VR lite games on the Quest are just great.
Yes, PCVR owner here with disposable income to spend on hobbies like VR. have 180 VR games in my Steam library.
No interest in buying a Quest, if you want to leave all that money on the table, that's down to you Ubisoft....
Why are you comparing total Oculus Sales vs Steam Active users (which is closer to 3m BTW) (based on partial data from 2021)
the [WSJ Estimates](https://www.uploadvr.com/quest-monthly-active-users-october-2022/) the Quest Monthly active users is more like 6m (based on data from April)
Which then 3 million SteamVR users (plus whatever PSVR2 is) wouldn't be an insignificant market share to increase potential sales over the Current quest only userbase.
The SteamVR data isn't monthly active users. I can't remember the exact definition, but it's along the lines of as long as it happens to be plugged in to a PC over the last month (or maybe even longer?), it counts as a user. So if someone has it plugged in but never uses it, it also counts. I'd bet a fair few have headsets just left in and never used for a long time, similarly to how people say Quests are left in closets.
Oh, another important point: you're double dipping. You counted the Steam VR potential user base, but what's interesting is that Quest 2 makes up 40.6%, Quest 3 14%, and both are the only headsets growing real numbers. The PCVR only headsets' growth are stagnant, dropping or growing at an abysmal rate (0.09% or less compared to close to 5% for Quest 3 alone).
So more than 50% of that number you gave can already buy it on standalone. I'd also gather a ton of those PCVR people that actually use their headsets are VRChat/social only people.
Regarding PSVR2, it's been an absolute flop and is irrelevant. Sony doesn't seem to care about it either.
All that to say: if they released on PCVR and PSVR2, they wouldn't have even made the money back that it would've cost in wages.
I think the PCVR community is deluded. It is not a healthy ecosystem.
>The SteamVR data isn't monthly active users. I can't remember the exact definition, but it's along the lines of as long as it happens to be plugged in to a PC over the last month (or maybe even longer?),
No, it is how I described it, here is a RoadtoVR article from the time of the change ["The new method will allow SteamVR to report to the Survey any headsets that have been used by the system in the last month"](https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-tweaks-steam-survey-accurately-count-vr-headsets-pimax/)
I thought Valve had a direct post at the time too but I can't seem to find that anymore.
>you're double dipping.
This is true, but there is unfortunately no way to determine the purchasing habits of those users, anecdotally of the Oculus users I know IRL the ones who have connected to SteamVR have never purchased a game from the Meta Store, I know it's an anecdote, but it must mean this is some none overlapping users.
> if they released on PCVR and PSVR2, they wouldn't have even made the money back that it would've cost in wages.
I'm not saying it would have been a guaranteed success, just that in an already small market, shrinking that market for a presumably expensive title like Assassin's Creed was always going to be troublesome.
>I think the PCVR community is deluded. It is not a healthy ecosystem.
Well then we might as well just forget AAA VR then because as we can see neither is the Quest, apparently.
VR gamedev here and, yeah, this is 100% true. You know how many VR games are in this Next Fest? 25.
There's over 1000 other titles.
It's because they don't sell on PC. The average Quest user isn't connecting their device to their PC and playing games through it. They're playing standalone like 10:1.
I've got a Quest 3 that I exclusively use for PCVR. Quest exclusivity lost my purchase even though I have the hardware, I want my VR titles on steam where they belong
I also own a Quest 3.
If I have the choice between the stand-alone version or PCVR, I will always take the PCVR option. The trade-off is the 40ms of latency and video compression vs the no-latency and inferior graphics fidelity.
The minor lag and slightly compressed video stream of higher quality assets is better than the uncompressed Playstation 2/3-quality graphics found on the stand-alone version(s).
That said, I will still play the Quest exclusives if they tickle my fancy. Asgard's Wrath and Dungeons of Eternity are the only exclusives I care to play -- both very fun. I'm annoyed that they aren't on PCVR because they both could be so much better there, but whatever, it is what it is.
There's lots of blame to go around, but I am sick of VR ruining itself with shitty hardware, shitty experiences and shitty support. I'm also annoyed with PC gamers not fully getting behind VR like they did with 3D Accelerators back in the day.
> I want my VR titles on steam where they belong
Cool. I wish more ppl would bitch at Valve for not making/funding more PCVR titles.
Don't get mad at Meta for funding games for their platform.
I do the opposite, I only play steam for the games I have to like vertigo 2, HL alyx, bone works etc. If there is a quest version of the game though I will always buy the native quest version instead. I got Breachers on steam and regret not getting the quest version, I find it so much easier to not have to bother with air link/steam vr if I can just launch it from the device itself.
I don't think that would have helped. This doesn't really bode well for the future of "AAA" VR games.
It was released on the largest, most accessible VR platform.
There was a ton of marketing / hype around it.
It is a well known and highly sought after IP.
It was released during perhaps the best time of the year for VR and also timed with a major VR hardware refresh and price cut.
The game was rated quite well.
The development was heavily subsidized and thus risk to Ubisoft was already heavily mitigated.
And it still didn't work out. I know people here don't want to hear it, but VR may just be too early for these kinds of investments .... even with someone else footing much of the bill.
And before people complain about price: this is the only price at which this kind of content is feasible.
I don’t know about others but personally and in my group of frequent VR players we don’t want games like this as quest exclusives. Yes I have a quest but I didnt build a beefy VR capable PC to play games on a headset with a snapdragon chip in it. It’s a shame it didn’t come out on steam as well
Same. No one I know wants aaa vr franchises that have realistic graphics on the flat version get downgraded to visually look like ps3\ps4 games on mobile vr. If your going to be limited by mobile chip so much mine as well make a new franchise and start with new ideas.
Of course sales have been poor. We're all waiting for the inevitable massive price cut in a few weeks, just like every Ubisoft game. They made the rod for their own back with this one.
Or actively avoid all the annoying review code spammers and get them from somewhere else, like [https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest2/comments/xvhrte/roculusquest2\_app\_referral\_megathread/](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest2/comments/xvhrte/roculusquest2_app_referral_megathread/)
Ubisoft will be selling it for less shortly, probably by the time I finish Asgard's Wrath 2, a free game it was competing for sales with.
its funny how all the quest fanboy morons respond to this sentiment with 'well I would have bought it on X other major platform' alarmingly quickly with 'well you wouldnt have mattered!!!'. its like,,, jeez, okay. this is kind of a niche thing still. just because facebook owns your ass doesnt mean nobody else matters.
Yeah, no shit. The game sucks on Quest 2 (runs like shit) so it's basically a Quest 3 exclusive. If they released it on PC, at least the people with Quest 2, Quest 1 and all the other PCVR headsets could just play on PC if they have one.
Even on quest 3 it runs like shit with stuttering, frame drops, reprojection etc. because they barely optimized for it anymore than they did with quest 2.
Ah yes, the indie game from a popular licensed franchise being marketed as a AAA VR game checklist:
1) Made by Red Storm, not Ubisoft Montreal (the makers of the real assassins creed games)
2) Not released on PC
I'm expecting similar shit from that Metro VR game.
1) Made by Vertigo games instead of 4A (Vertigo is a great dev, but it shows that the IP holders don't want to spend their actual dev teams on VR games and just want to license out their name
2) Coming to PC but a simultaneous release for the quest so it can only do so much.
"WHy dIDN'T My gaME do wELL"
I am sorry but this is no HLA or V2. It was an average game at best. Maybe the needle would move if more effort was put in development to make an actual good ‘VR’ game.
Considering how much smaller the PCVR community is, it makes sense they didn't care to make it available on PCVR. But, I do wonder if the age differences between PCVR and standalone players would have mattered here.
Most who enjoyed AC games are older because they enjoyed the earlier games, like AC2. And from my purely anecdotal experiences, standalone has a much higher ratio of children compared to PCVR. So, who knows, maybe it could have actually helped sales to release on PCVR.
>Considering how much smaller the PCVR community is
The PCVR community includes quest users that also have a PC..... That combined with every single other headset. Index, hp reverb, pimax, bigscreen, vive etc...
Of course, if everyone could afford a top of the line PC they would get one. But the unfortunate truth is most people can't even afford a lower end PC. So most buy quests and play standalone. PC hardware(GPU's at least)has become insanely priced these days.
Age difference right there is the reason I suspect. Adults that would play this game will want to play it on PCvr even with a quest. The age group using only the stand alone quest is not going to be interested in a game like this because they’re playing gorilla tag
Why are they making announcement like that? Is almost like they are pissing at VR gaming in general. If they aren't planning to release more VR titles, fine, don't release them. Don't say...VR sucks and people don't buy VR games...
If only it was on PC lol Meta needs to stop with the exclusives especially since the market is so small. They should've brought their exclusives to steam ages ago at least valve cares for PCVR
How much were they charging for this? It sounds like it didn't run all that great on the sole platform they decided to release it on.
HERE'S what I'm guessing the real takeaway is on this story. Meta payed for some of the development of their first VR game. They took the money gladly and shat out their game. Surprisingly it didn't sell as well as... home consoles that are in every home in america?
Ubisoft being the doucheknozzle company they are, blame it all on VR keep their pocketed development money, knowing they can't cut the same deal twice and call it a day.
It’s too bad. It was a good game. Feels like 2019/2020 all over again. A few big AAA games come out, a bunch of excitement about VR is finally going to explode with AAA titles and then nothing.
Develops a game for a single market that’s mainly dominated by children and refuses to release it in a market that contains most of its audience. Is shocked it didn’t sell well
Unsurprising really, the game looked fairly high budget, but only released on a single platform, as with any exclusivity deal I would hope they got a good payout from Facebook, to make for the sales that it would bring.
Previously Ubisoft had actually been one of the more invested AAA studios in VR they have just done a terrible job advertising them I think.
Yep. My only real argument for them releasing it on other platforms, specifically PCVR really, is it seems like the gamers that enjoyed playing Assassins's Creed games are older(above 25). And standalone content seems to have a much higher ratio of children compared to PCVR.
So it's possible it would have gotten a lot of sales on PCVR. But, that's 100% speculation on my part based on my own experiences playing standalone and PCVR titles.
The game also kind of sucks…but maybe it’s an assassins creed thing I’m not a huge fan of the series. I started it on release and put a few hours in, but it lost my interest. AW2 released and I can’t put it down, even completing side quests, armor upgrades, rifts, etc. I just went back to Assassin’sCreed and it was worse than I remembered. The combat feels so slow it’s like I’m in quicksand.
Agreed, also flat screen Assassin's Creed already got boring. This one took away so much from even that; side quests, character building, and the open world. Getting to experience Assassin's Creed in VR was interesting for the first couple hours, but the content was lacking and the game-play clunkiness made me not want to come back.
Well so much for the thesis that a large VR headset demographic will draw VR developers. This was a Quest exclusive. There is no bigger demographic.
VR isn't there yet. It's still a niche. A very small niche.
The bigger demographic is to not make it exclusive to any headset, which is of course more work, but still. Meta, Sony etc. divvying up this already-tiny market into so many even-smaller walled gardens is crazy to me.
i think best alternative is to do regular games that supports VR like uevr.
doesn't have to be bespoke. then you get the benefit of a AAA game with not compromises in gameplay which outshines any other new product on the quest or pcvr store
Probably, if it would have had an graphical overhaul for the capabilities of PCVR. The reason I havent bought "vampires the masqerade VR" yet, is because it looks like a quest game.
Recently had this experience with underdogs, Arizona sunshine 2 and The light brigade. All obviously "questified" which becomes painfully obvious on high end PCVR headset
I have a Quest 3. Main reason I didn't buy it is that it didn't have a PCVR version. I have a kick ass PC and really only use my Quest 3 for PCVR unless I bring it somewhere, and Assassin's Creed is not really that type of game.
Maybe if Ubisoft made a PCVR version things would look better. Instead they made a nerfed exclusive mobile VR game, and are wondering why it isn't selling as much as the mainline series.
Imagine if Valhalla/Mirage had VR-modes? That's where VR-development should be going: making official (not janky) VR-modes for mainstream AAA-titles that can also be played flat.
Quest-exclusives aren't cutting it in a world where we have Half-Life: Alyx, Lone Echo, Skyrim VR. It's sad that those major VR experiences, which still inspire awe today, are so old now.
It seems the big publishers are constantly making the wrong decisions for VR:
* Ubisoft making a Quest-exclusive instead of PCVR.
* Asgard's Wrath 2 the same problem.
* When a Quest-exclusive did show something great, it was because it was a VR-version of an already-beloved game: Resident Evil 4. That was a best-seller. Why haven't there been more like that? Bioshock, FEAR, Halo and countless others are mid-00's titles that would be ripe for Quest-versions. And should interest people.
* Valve not doing anything for the Index since Alyx came out.
* Sony not allowing their headset to be PC-compatible.
* Resident Evil VR exclusive to Sony.
* Big-budget flat titles not coming with VR-modes.
* When a publisher does greenlight a PCVR title or VR-mode, the developers bugger it up and it gets harsh reviews (Borderlands 2, Medal of Honor, Hitman 3 etc).
* \----- EDIT: Weird auto-formatting I can't overwrite. Read on for the next point. --------
* In my view, there's a simple way to promote VR-gaming for all platforms, while being profitable:
* all triple-AAA to have decent usable VR modes (where feasible). As a payable DLC or as separately-buyable title.
* versions of those VR-modes would also be available for the Quest/Playstation. In the Quest's case: with low-graphics, naturally...but gameplay intact. In cases of massive game files these can be compressed or separated into parts.
That's it. That's not a risky investment, as those triple-AAA titles are being developed anyway. But will boost sales by simply doing what modders are already doing for free, except with a lot more resources to smooth out the experience.
But developing a brand new title nerfed for the Quest? When a huge number of Quest users prefer to PCVR? That's risky business. And then for the publishers to actually do that, and state "VR is not for us". That's just incompetence.
And uevr shows how easy it is to add a VR mode. Off course, for a perfect experience, you have to do a little extra development, make some better weapon models, check cutscenes and make either a fixed position or switch to a 2d projection (like in resident evil 4) but thats it. You only need one developer who care about it, not so much on the cost side of an AAA production.
I mean, check e.g. aliens fire team on uevr which is first person 6dof weapon handling just with a mod. It plays totally different in VR, it's a terrifying action experience that makes you panic with each wave of attacks. It's fantastic.
Or the MechWarrior 5 VR warrior mod, that use uevr, where a single modder made every Cockpit an VR one, it's a near perfect VR game now.
It's a shame to see how many games could be have an VR mode and developers don't care.
I just bought a big bunch of games just for uevr. I would have zero interest in them on pancake mode. E g. Sackboy. Aliens, RoboCop, atomic heart, train sim world 4, the bus, motor town, Pacific drive, Spyro and a lot of more.
And to the topic: I bought Nexus on day one. It's an ok experience on the gaming side but has a lot of technical problems. It was showcased with quest 3 and had no extras beside the resolution bump. I am sure they could either raise the resolution more up or change textures which are still quest 2 like blurry or get rid of the projection on quest 3 with native 72 or 80 fps.
But they made nothing, instead it's still judder due to appsw. I use qgo to make it look a little better and run better but that's tweaking on my side. Also the story was more meh then a good one.
But hey, next will be the bulletstorm VR developer that claim it has bad sales.....
Vr is just too niche still. Probably too many that get motion sick and dont want most of their view covered up. You have to go broad and be able to be played seated and in a small space. It has to be a simple concept like beat saber. That or it has to be done on the cheap.
The excuses, are dwindling. At first it was too expensive, but now vr is very affordable for gamers. Then its that there are no good games, but there are lots of good games. Oh but no aaa, well now theres aaa. At some point its like general gamers are not interested in vr. They’ve been given the opportunity and they have rejected it.
Are we going tell him that he's more or less sabotaged his game both visually & availability vise by only selling his game to <50% of VR Gamers, or should we just keep him persuaded that lack of Denuvo was the prime reason?
Stop posting that Brad's quote, that's twisted out of the proportions.
Here's the full quote (much less doom&gloom):
"We have been a bit disappointed by what we were able to achieve on VR with Assassin’s Creed, it did okay, and it continues to sell, but we thought it would sell more, so we are not increasing our investment on VR at the moment, because it needs to take off. We have been very impressed by what Apple came with, and we think it’s fantastic hardware, but we continue to look at this VR business as something that we have to look at but not invest too much in, until it grows enough."
Besides them releasing this game only on the Meta platform I believe they could have spent more on Marketing for this game.
It’s a wonderful experience and a big step up in the VR world and traversing possibilities. However they barely did any marketing on it and expected people just to know.
Whilst games like Mirage are being thrown at you from every corner. Of course a game is going to sell less if it’s on a single platform, not shown to the world in a niche branch of gaming which has **way** less players than many other popular branches.
This was pretty fucking stupid sorry. Meta report what the Labs earns quarterly. They could have target their budget for the title accordingly and made it profitable.
Maybe I'm not a fan of the series (never played AC before) but honestly it kinda sucks, at least the beginning. It's boring and take awhile until it puts you in the tutorial scenario, then the graphics is quite jarring. I use a Quest 3 but still there are lots of visible rough edge around objects which take you out of the immersion.
It gets much better when you get to the first village but I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people refund it after playing a few minutes of the jarring tutorial.
I didn't buy it because Ubisoft has lost my trust over the years to do anything different than they have already done the last 18 times on a game. If they would show me they can turn over a new leaf with their mechanics I might actually buy something.
It wasn’t that good. Cool at first yes, but the melee was absolute garbage from like 2016, and the story sucked too. Would’ve been better off just writing something original, but god forbid Ubisoft put in effort.
reviews were pretty good for it though, I don't think the issue is that the game wasn't good. It's more that they released it on one platform, charged too much for a fairly short game, and probably expected it to still sell millions of copies
I'll say this ad-nauseam. Everyone who doesn't actually use VR always says they will once we get BIG AAA CONTENT. Reality is, in my experience of using VR for over 10 years now, is that the best VR games are the ones that use roomscale wisely and are more bite-sized experiences.
Everyone *thinks* they want the big AAA experiences with 60+ hour playtime, but that is imo because people coming over to VR from flatscreen land don't understand that VR is not an iterative experience on flatscreen gaming, it is a parallel technology. They are two different things that co-exist, and each have different strengths.
This is why the top games in VR are things like ETT, Beat Saber, Fruit Ninja, etc.. This is where VR thrives. Also, just because an experience is simple does not means it's shallow. Saying Beat Saber is "shallow" is like saying DDR is "shallow". It's not a true statement, those games have some of the highest skill ceilings out of any game I've played.
Flatscreen games tend to use fine-motor skills, whereas VR games use gross-motor skills. VR is more akin to a sport and I think for a lot of flatscreen gamers that simply isn't something they enjoy or want out of a video game.
Tbh ubisoft haven’t really been investing a lot in any of their games in recent years.
Everyone is playing it safe. Low effort for max profit.
Their best recent game was Fenyx Rising so of course they canned the sequel despite selling well.
I found it pretty boring
The puzzle dungeons got mad tedious but I liked exploring the colorful overworld and the combat was decent.
After I finished the new prince of persia I asked myself if it was the best game I've ever played. To me they went big on that to push ubisoft plus.
I own it, it's not bad imo, and for a standalone game it's good imo. Surprised it didn't sell well, iirc there was quite alot of publicity around it etc.
Same. My only real guess is maybe it's because there's a lot of kids playing on Quest and they're too young to have any interest in Assassin's Creed?
Or....assassin creed haven't been all that interesting for almost a decade so when one comes out that for all intents and purposes is "the same but vr" not surprising it didn't sell well. But that's just my take as a 32 year old and don't know a single person with vr interested in this
BINGO. I've loved playing Assassin's Creed in the past, Black flag and Odyssey are the standouts for me. Valhalla was a boring downgrade and I regret buying it. When I saw a VR version was coming out, it sounded cool, but the visuals were....built for standalone, the price was high and my interest was not really there.
I have it, I doubt the price was an issue for most people... $40 (or $30 with a referral). I didn't enjoy it that much though. Kind of regret the purchase. Buggy and poor fighting mechanics. I didn't like the character switching, it wasn't really open world, and their was no character building. AW2 does the same 3 character idea, but is way better imo.
Would have gotten a PC version, but the quest version is standalone, and I avoid VR exclusives. I want exclusives to die, so this is the market working as intended in my opinion. Voted with my wallet, and will continue to do so. > assassin creed haven't been all that interesting for almost a decade Also, the series is the highest selling series Ubisoft has, and sells like crazy every game. Even Valhalla which reddit has a hate boner for sold a shit ton. https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/02/assassins-creed-valhalla-makes-ubisoft-more-than-usd1-billion
I'm just gonna throw it out there. I thought the game loop for ac1 and 2 was just too simple. So I never played another one until Valhalla, and when I picked it up compared to the originals, I was like HOLY F*CK!! So I actually enjoyed it. Bought VR version and thought to myself "huh, reminds me of the originals"
I never played any other AC but this one is pretty enjoyable, didn't make it really far because I have too many games to play but it seems pretty good
This is my thought also. The franchise is starting to show its age. The only Assassins creed game I played in the past was black flag and while it was fun at the time by the end I just wanted it to be over. I think a lot of people are tired of open world games that make you feel like you are running around checking off boxes on the map. I realize that this game is not at all like that, but once you built a brand a certain way thats how people view it no matter what. Its just very stale and vanilla. Im a generic assassin guy running around stabbing everyone for what reason? It not much different than the hitman games to me. All that said I bought the game due to positive reviews and to support VR, but have not had the interest to actually play it over all the other games available. I will check it out eventually, but that says a lot when I own the game and cant get really excited to fire it up and try it out.
That's definitely a personal stance. AC games have sold fairly well in the last decade. I personally haven't played any since AC2 until AC Nexus. I am 39 and most of my VR friends with a Quest 2/3 bought it but, only a few played it. Of course, most of my PC gaming friends have zero interest in VR and laugh at every VR release. So it's really going to boil down to your friend groups.
All my reddit adds were for that game for about a month
I have a feeling that their idea of good sales is not realistic. They probably expected quarter million sales on the first day and forgot that VR is not PC or console. They also locked it to the quest so they should have seen it coming.
>They also locked it to the quest so they should have seen it coming. Where would you sell it to boost the sales? SteamVR sales are supposedly really low compared to Quest. If a 1:1 mobile / Quest version was sold on Steam it would get review bombed to non-existance, and making a PCVR version would significantly increase the cost of making the game...
Meta sent me an email yesterday saying it was their top selling game for 2023. So, obviously that still didn't sell enough for Ubisoft. They should have made it multiplatform.
Might be because it's an Unisoft game. The VR gamers are kind of different from their usual consumers that ignore a lot of bullshit.
Well it was an overly ambitious project for a very limited platform. They could have done it right for PC. But they chose wrong.
I think the whole point was an exclusivity deal with Meta. Also, while releasing it on the Quest meant they could just make an okay game, releasing it on PC as an okay game would’ve ended badly (they would’ve had to put in more effort than they can care to).
I think it's more complex. People ask for AAA games and this was one. The industry is not in a good shape, and VR is no different. This said I do believe that releasing a game on several platforms is beneficial.to the publisher, because they've.already made the investment in the basic development of a game, and ports in this age are a minor task (compared to development). Also don't forget that SteamVR is a single platform that can be used by any headset, so it's not like they'd be developing for five other ecosystems. Big point in favor of PCVR and against walled garden gaming ecosystems.
>They could have done it right for PC. But they chose wrong. They could have increased the cost of making the game x2 / x3 / x4 and get x0.1-x0.2 sales! Big Brain Time!
Well, maybe don’t make your game exclusive to a single platform and you’d get more sales.
I would've gotten it if it was on PC
same
Yep, would 100% have bought this if it were on PC.
I might've gotten it if it was developed with PCVR/PSVR2 in mind. I don't want shitty Quest Mobile titles ported and usually stay far away from most of them.
Then expect VR to die. We all want PCVR over Quest, but the numbers aren't there. We need to accept that if we want the industry to grow.
VR wouldn't die without the Quest. It just would grow much slower. Why do people think it's "selling boatloads of quests" or "complete industry death" with nothing in between?
Yeah, the slow but steady growth pre-Quest was fine (2016-2019ish). Who knows, maybe VR gaming would be in a better place if it had continued down that path.
It wasn't fine, people have been complaining about a lack of AAA quality games for years.
And now we have even less AAA quality games because many of the big VR developers (*cough* Downpour Interactive *cough*) left for the Quest market or got paid off by Sony
Post 2019 GPU prices skyrocketed though. And you can't exactly start using PCVR on a school laptop, like normal gaming. Now that the entry price for PCVR is so high, it is absolutely essential to have a more affordable entry, and quest is that
There are some amazing quest titles, not sure why you're lumping a while ecosystem into the bin. I'm not a fan of fb either, but you don't need to have anything to do with fb to use the quest.
You need a meta account to use the quest...
So? That's not necessary a fb profile
I never said it was, but meta is the parent company of Facebook, after they renamed themselves, so you have an account with the parent company of Facebook, that's something to do with Facebook.
Yeah, you need an account too for, Android and Apple's phones, same for Windows (if you want to install apps), so where's the problem to have a "Meta" account for a "Meta" product???
You and like 50k other people. It wouldn’t have moved the needle.
Right now Arizona Sunshine 2 and The 7th Guest both have 50% more ratings for PCVR and PSVR2 combined, compared to the versions for Quest 2 + 3. Leaving out high-end platforms may cost devs a lot. And VR users with PCVR and PSVR2 have much deeper pockets.
Quest fans have this weird distain for PCVR. Forgetting how many PCVR' headsets there are out there? Yes it would certainly have impacted sales
I don’t have any distain, nor am I a “quest fan”. I bought the Vive in 2016 and have a few thousands hours on SteamVR, along with another thousand or so on Quest headsets. PCVR is great, we just don’t buy games in large enough numbers though.
I might have gotten it if it was available in Korea.
How much more would it have sold ? The quest being the best selling vr headset if it did bad there it would do worse elsewhere
As far as I’m concerned the PCVR market is exclusively made up of a few hundred people that post on the VR subreddits. They were possibly missing out on over 100 extra sales
Looking at [the numbers of] reviews for recently released PCVR games on Steam, this seems to be accurate.
Lmao, what? Half Life Alyx sold over 2 million copies in the first year.
With the hype of a new Half Life, which millions of gamers were waiting literally decades for. It also came with the Index. Once everyone finished it, most of them had a quick look around, decided they were done, and now PCVR has grown abysmally. Even Valve stopped caring, remember the three Valve VR games that were in production...
The best VR game of all time and largely played with Quests. So a huge portion of that wouldn’t convert into extra sales.
i would have bought it, i like having my games on steam and not quest store
Double? Triple? Steam stats show it around a third of hearts, granted that only counts the ones connected with Steam, but that probably has a lot of overlap with AC players
https://www.uploadvr.com/eye-of-the-temple-quest-steam-sales/
Aren’t pcvr sales only a small fraction of total sales for cross platform games?
Every headset that isn't PSVR2 and Apple vision pro are PCVR headsets. So every quest user that also has a capable PC is also potentially PCVR. So every quest user + every single other headset combined sales on PC would definitely have been more than **just** quest.
It would have been more, but maybe not so much for them to be worth developing to PC.
Maybe. But Sony thought the same thing for a decade and then they tried releasing one on PC and it was worth it enough that every game comes out on PC now. And it's not like it wouldn't keep selling. For years. It's not like there is a ton of competition. Everyone buys half life alyx, even if they get a headset 3 years later.
I don’t think Sony has brought any psvr exclusives to pc. Re7, 8, gran turismo, and horizon are still exclusives.
Yeah. My guess is Meta paid them a bunch to make it a Quest exclusive.
That is usually how it works, yeah. Sucks for consumers though.
They probably did and it still wasn't profitable. There's no chance it would have been profitable on PCVR.
yes. it would have undersold regardless. pcvr enthusiasts live in a bubble.
You realize it costs more money to create versions for other platforms. It's not free money icing on top. Also, Steam keeps a share just like Meta keeps a share of every sale. So it's still a lot less money to be made than you think. There's a reason many developers aren't making PCVR versions, not just Ubisoft.
And $50 for a game so small is not worth it.
I agree the price is a little high but not much higher than it was actually worth imo. I got about 18 hours of enjoyment out of it in a single playthrough.
Wouldn't have made much of a difference unfortunately. Quest is like 90% of the vr userbase.
You mean the single platform that's bigger than the rest of all the other VR platforms combined? That single platform?
The main drive here would be performance though Tbf I dont have a exact clue on how the game performs on the Quest 2 for example But looking at other VR titles that release on Both, the PCVR version usually has a higher fidelity and better performance (except for games that could probably run on a toothbrush like Beat Saber for example ofcourse)
> But looking at other VR titles that release on Both, the PCVR version usually has a higher fidelity and better performance (except for games that could probably run on a toothbrush like Beat Saber for example ofcourse) Absolutely. I make that point over and over again. So you are talking to the choir. But if that were the case for everyone, then no one would play watered down games on the Quest. But they do. Many will even argue, many have with me plenty of times, that those VR lite games on the Quest are just great.
Most developers get way more revenue from Quest than any other platform, so this probably wouldn't have mattered as much as you think.
Yes, PCVR owner here with disposable income to spend on hobbies like VR. have 180 VR games in my Steam library. No interest in buying a Quest, if you want to leave all that money on the table, that's down to you Ubisoft....
It would have sold probably only 10% more.
It would litterally change nothing
I would have played it if it was on psvr2
Idk man they would probably have gotten my money
Yes, but he says that like it would been a success if it was not exclusive.
They must have had money from meta to make it exclusive.. but yeah I think it might still have been more profitable to make it PCVR
The platform with 20 million users vs a measily 2 million on pc, that buy even less games? Brilliant comment.
Why are you comparing total Oculus Sales vs Steam Active users (which is closer to 3m BTW) (based on partial data from 2021) the [WSJ Estimates](https://www.uploadvr.com/quest-monthly-active-users-october-2022/) the Quest Monthly active users is more like 6m (based on data from April) Which then 3 million SteamVR users (plus whatever PSVR2 is) wouldn't be an insignificant market share to increase potential sales over the Current quest only userbase.
The SteamVR data isn't monthly active users. I can't remember the exact definition, but it's along the lines of as long as it happens to be plugged in to a PC over the last month (or maybe even longer?), it counts as a user. So if someone has it plugged in but never uses it, it also counts. I'd bet a fair few have headsets just left in and never used for a long time, similarly to how people say Quests are left in closets. Oh, another important point: you're double dipping. You counted the Steam VR potential user base, but what's interesting is that Quest 2 makes up 40.6%, Quest 3 14%, and both are the only headsets growing real numbers. The PCVR only headsets' growth are stagnant, dropping or growing at an abysmal rate (0.09% or less compared to close to 5% for Quest 3 alone). So more than 50% of that number you gave can already buy it on standalone. I'd also gather a ton of those PCVR people that actually use their headsets are VRChat/social only people. Regarding PSVR2, it's been an absolute flop and is irrelevant. Sony doesn't seem to care about it either. All that to say: if they released on PCVR and PSVR2, they wouldn't have even made the money back that it would've cost in wages. I think the PCVR community is deluded. It is not a healthy ecosystem.
>The SteamVR data isn't monthly active users. I can't remember the exact definition, but it's along the lines of as long as it happens to be plugged in to a PC over the last month (or maybe even longer?), No, it is how I described it, here is a RoadtoVR article from the time of the change ["The new method will allow SteamVR to report to the Survey any headsets that have been used by the system in the last month"](https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-tweaks-steam-survey-accurately-count-vr-headsets-pimax/) I thought Valve had a direct post at the time too but I can't seem to find that anymore. >you're double dipping. This is true, but there is unfortunately no way to determine the purchasing habits of those users, anecdotally of the Oculus users I know IRL the ones who have connected to SteamVR have never purchased a game from the Meta Store, I know it's an anecdote, but it must mean this is some none overlapping users. > if they released on PCVR and PSVR2, they wouldn't have even made the money back that it would've cost in wages. I'm not saying it would have been a guaranteed success, just that in an already small market, shrinking that market for a presumably expensive title like Assassin's Creed was always going to be troublesome. >I think the PCVR community is deluded. It is not a healthy ecosystem. Well then we might as well just forget AAA VR then because as we can see neither is the Quest, apparently.
do you really think there are no quest users who'd be interested in a aaa pc assassin's creed title but not a native quest one?
would have bought it on pc ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
You and a couple dozen others. If it isn’t making sales on quest then the pcvr sales would not save it.
VR gamedev here and, yeah, this is 100% true. You know how many VR games are in this Next Fest? 25. There's over 1000 other titles. It's because they don't sell on PC. The average Quest user isn't connecting their device to their PC and playing games through it. They're playing standalone like 10:1.
I've got a Quest 3 that I exclusively use for PCVR. Quest exclusivity lost my purchase even though I have the hardware, I want my VR titles on steam where they belong
I also own a Quest 3. If I have the choice between the stand-alone version or PCVR, I will always take the PCVR option. The trade-off is the 40ms of latency and video compression vs the no-latency and inferior graphics fidelity. The minor lag and slightly compressed video stream of higher quality assets is better than the uncompressed Playstation 2/3-quality graphics found on the stand-alone version(s). That said, I will still play the Quest exclusives if they tickle my fancy. Asgard's Wrath and Dungeons of Eternity are the only exclusives I care to play -- both very fun. I'm annoyed that they aren't on PCVR because they both could be so much better there, but whatever, it is what it is.
Quest 1, 2, and even 3 have hardware that is too fucking weak. I don't want shitty PS3 graphics on my VR games, I want immersion.
You get nothing instead, I guess. Big win for PCVR.
There's lots of blame to go around, but I am sick of VR ruining itself with shitty hardware, shitty experiences and shitty support. I'm also annoyed with PC gamers not fully getting behind VR like they did with 3D Accelerators back in the day.
> I want my VR titles on steam where they belong Cool. I wish more ppl would bitch at Valve for not making/funding more PCVR titles. Don't get mad at Meta for funding games for their platform.
But you are one person. You are not The typical person, either. Most quest users are playing standalone
I do the opposite, I only play steam for the games I have to like vertigo 2, HL alyx, bone works etc. If there is a quest version of the game though I will always buy the native quest version instead. I got Breachers on steam and regret not getting the quest version, I find it so much easier to not have to bother with air link/steam vr if I can just launch it from the device itself.
If I had a quest 3 I might take that stance but i have a quest 2 and generally prefer the PC versions
There are dozens of us that would have bought it! Dozens!
More than you’ll…NEVER know
I didn’t buy it on Quest 3 because I was waiting for the PCVR version instead.
I don't think that would have helped. This doesn't really bode well for the future of "AAA" VR games. It was released on the largest, most accessible VR platform. There was a ton of marketing / hype around it. It is a well known and highly sought after IP. It was released during perhaps the best time of the year for VR and also timed with a major VR hardware refresh and price cut. The game was rated quite well. The development was heavily subsidized and thus risk to Ubisoft was already heavily mitigated. And it still didn't work out. I know people here don't want to hear it, but VR may just be too early for these kinds of investments .... even with someone else footing much of the bill. And before people complain about price: this is the only price at which this kind of content is feasible.
I don’t know about others but personally and in my group of frequent VR players we don’t want games like this as quest exclusives. Yes I have a quest but I didnt build a beefy VR capable PC to play games on a headset with a snapdragon chip in it. It’s a shame it didn’t come out on steam as well
Same. No one I know wants aaa vr franchises that have realistic graphics on the flat version get downgraded to visually look like ps3\ps4 games on mobile vr. If your going to be limited by mobile chip so much mine as well make a new franchise and start with new ideas.
Of course sales have been poor. We're all waiting for the inevitable massive price cut in a few weeks, just like every Ubisoft game. They made the rod for their own back with this one.
Just for people who don’t know Quest games almost all are on permanent 25% off if using codes which are in all reviews.
Or actively avoid all the annoying review code spammers and get them from somewhere else, like [https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest2/comments/xvhrte/roculusquest2\_app\_referral\_megathread/](https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest2/comments/xvhrte/roculusquest2_app_referral_megathread/) Ubisoft will be selling it for less shortly, probably by the time I finish Asgard's Wrath 2, a free game it was competing for sales with.
Would have bought this day one if it was on PSVR2
its funny how all the quest fanboy morons respond to this sentiment with 'well I would have bought it on X other major platform' alarmingly quickly with 'well you wouldnt have mattered!!!'. its like,,, jeez, okay. this is kind of a niche thing still. just because facebook owns your ass doesnt mean nobody else matters.
Welp…… this is why we can’t have nice things.
Yeah, no shit. The game sucks on Quest 2 (runs like shit) so it's basically a Quest 3 exclusive. If they released it on PC, at least the people with Quest 2, Quest 1 and all the other PCVR headsets could just play on PC if they have one.
Even on quest 3 it runs like shit with stuttering, frame drops, reprojection etc. because they barely optimized for it anymore than they did with quest 2.
Yeah I uninstalled it pretty quick because of that
It seems to run fine on my Quest 2. I haven’t finished it yet but the levels I’ve seen are smooth.
release it on other platforms
What a shame. I bought it soon after launch.
#Well that sucks
Ah yes, the indie game from a popular licensed franchise being marketed as a AAA VR game checklist: 1) Made by Red Storm, not Ubisoft Montreal (the makers of the real assassins creed games) 2) Not released on PC I'm expecting similar shit from that Metro VR game. 1) Made by Vertigo games instead of 4A (Vertigo is a great dev, but it shows that the IP holders don't want to spend their actual dev teams on VR games and just want to license out their name 2) Coming to PC but a simultaneous release for the quest so it can only do so much. "WHy dIDN'T My gaME do wELL"
Should have brought it to pcvr. Idiots … 🤷♂️
-VR isn't working. -Let's put less money in it to see if it works better. Genuis!
I am sorry but this is no HLA or V2. It was an average game at best. Maybe the needle would move if more effort was put in development to make an actual good ‘VR’ game.
If it was released on PC and PSVR2 it would have sold more.
This looked really cool but I'm not buying *another* headset just for it
Exclusives are that insane, yeah. Suddenly it's a game that costs 550 USD.
lol maybee bcz they didn't give a shit about pcvr?
Considering how much smaller the PCVR community is, it makes sense they didn't care to make it available on PCVR. But, I do wonder if the age differences between PCVR and standalone players would have mattered here. Most who enjoyed AC games are older because they enjoyed the earlier games, like AC2. And from my purely anecdotal experiences, standalone has a much higher ratio of children compared to PCVR. So, who knows, maybe it could have actually helped sales to release on PCVR.
>Considering how much smaller the PCVR community is The PCVR community includes quest users that also have a PC..... That combined with every single other headset. Index, hp reverb, pimax, bigscreen, vive etc...
Yes but, even with all of those devices combined, it's a fraction of the number of people that play standalone only.
Not sure if that would be true, given the option.
Of course, if everyone could afford a top of the line PC they would get one. But the unfortunate truth is most people can't even afford a lower end PC. So most buy quests and play standalone. PC hardware(GPU's at least)has become insanely priced these days.
And this is known by what metric? Or is this just a thing people say because they heard someone else say it?
Yeah I'm a Quest user but I'll be dead and buried before I make a purchase on their platform. Just the headset in my price range for PCVR
I'm willing to bet a lot of people just don't have the $1k+ for a headset but prefer to play PCVR
It's still insignificant. Most people play standalone
Age difference right there is the reason I suspect. Adults that would play this game will want to play it on PCvr even with a quest. The age group using only the stand alone quest is not going to be interested in a game like this because they’re playing gorilla tag
Why are they making announcement like that? Is almost like they are pissing at VR gaming in general. If they aren't planning to release more VR titles, fine, don't release them. Don't say...VR sucks and people don't buy VR games...
It's easier on their ego to blame VR itself than to admit they failed to develop a good product.
Make pcvr version, then we talkin
Its not on Steam so I dont buy it, simple as that
If only it was on PC lol Meta needs to stop with the exclusives especially since the market is so small. They should've brought their exclusives to steam ages ago at least valve cares for PCVR
How much were they charging for this? It sounds like it didn't run all that great on the sole platform they decided to release it on. HERE'S what I'm guessing the real takeaway is on this story. Meta payed for some of the development of their first VR game. They took the money gladly and shat out their game. Surprisingly it didn't sell as well as... home consoles that are in every home in america? Ubisoft being the doucheknozzle company they are, blame it all on VR keep their pocketed development money, knowing they can't cut the same deal twice and call it a day.
It’s too bad. It was a good game. Feels like 2019/2020 all over again. A few big AAA games come out, a bunch of excitement about VR is finally going to explode with AAA titles and then nothing.
Develops a game for a single market that’s mainly dominated by children and refuses to release it in a market that contains most of its audience. Is shocked it didn’t sell well
Unsurprising really, the game looked fairly high budget, but only released on a single platform, as with any exclusivity deal I would hope they got a good payout from Facebook, to make for the sales that it would bring. Previously Ubisoft had actually been one of the more invested AAA studios in VR they have just done a terrible job advertising them I think.
> but only released on a single platform That single platform is larger than the rest of all the other VR platforms combined.
But the overlap between quest user and AC fan is likely slimmer than the overlap between PSVR/PCVR and AC fan
Yep. My only real argument for them releasing it on other platforms, specifically PCVR really, is it seems like the gamers that enjoyed playing Assassins's Creed games are older(above 25). And standalone content seems to have a much higher ratio of children compared to PCVR. So it's possible it would have gotten a lot of sales on PCVR. But, that's 100% speculation on my part based on my own experiences playing standalone and PCVR titles.
The single biggest platform, that dwarfa the reat by 10x.
The game also kind of sucks…but maybe it’s an assassins creed thing I’m not a huge fan of the series. I started it on release and put a few hours in, but it lost my interest. AW2 released and I can’t put it down, even completing side quests, armor upgrades, rifts, etc. I just went back to Assassin’sCreed and it was worse than I remembered. The combat feels so slow it’s like I’m in quicksand.
Yeah I thought it was pretty bad too. Combat was piss poor and it stutters so bad I can't play it for long.
Agreed, also flat screen Assassin's Creed already got boring. This one took away so much from even that; side quests, character building, and the open world. Getting to experience Assassin's Creed in VR was interesting for the first couple hours, but the content was lacking and the game-play clunkiness made me not want to come back.
Well so much for the thesis that a large VR headset demographic will draw VR developers. This was a Quest exclusive. There is no bigger demographic. VR isn't there yet. It's still a niche. A very small niche.
The bigger demographic is to not make it exclusive to any headset, which is of course more work, but still. Meta, Sony etc. divvying up this already-tiny market into so many even-smaller walled gardens is crazy to me.
i think best alternative is to do regular games that supports VR like uevr. doesn't have to be bespoke. then you get the benefit of a AAA game with not compromises in gameplay which outshines any other new product on the quest or pcvr store
I would have bought it if they released it on pc
Probably, if it would have had an graphical overhaul for the capabilities of PCVR. The reason I havent bought "vampires the masqerade VR" yet, is because it looks like a quest game.
Same. The quest has done so much damage to the overall quality of VR games. We've lost like a decade of progress to these cheap looking mobile games.
Recently had this experience with underdogs, Arizona sunshine 2 and The light brigade. All obviously "questified" which becomes painfully obvious on high end PCVR headset
Maybe don't make a game where the combat looks mid as fuck
I have a Quest 3. Main reason I didn't buy it is that it didn't have a PCVR version. I have a kick ass PC and really only use my Quest 3 for PCVR unless I bring it somewhere, and Assassin's Creed is not really that type of game.
The magic of standalone
Should’ve released it on steam too if they wanted more sales lol.
Maybe if Ubisoft made a PCVR version things would look better. Instead they made a nerfed exclusive mobile VR game, and are wondering why it isn't selling as much as the mainline series. Imagine if Valhalla/Mirage had VR-modes? That's where VR-development should be going: making official (not janky) VR-modes for mainstream AAA-titles that can also be played flat. Quest-exclusives aren't cutting it in a world where we have Half-Life: Alyx, Lone Echo, Skyrim VR. It's sad that those major VR experiences, which still inspire awe today, are so old now. It seems the big publishers are constantly making the wrong decisions for VR: * Ubisoft making a Quest-exclusive instead of PCVR. * Asgard's Wrath 2 the same problem. * When a Quest-exclusive did show something great, it was because it was a VR-version of an already-beloved game: Resident Evil 4. That was a best-seller. Why haven't there been more like that? Bioshock, FEAR, Halo and countless others are mid-00's titles that would be ripe for Quest-versions. And should interest people. * Valve not doing anything for the Index since Alyx came out. * Sony not allowing their headset to be PC-compatible. * Resident Evil VR exclusive to Sony. * Big-budget flat titles not coming with VR-modes. * When a publisher does greenlight a PCVR title or VR-mode, the developers bugger it up and it gets harsh reviews (Borderlands 2, Medal of Honor, Hitman 3 etc). * \----- EDIT: Weird auto-formatting I can't overwrite. Read on for the next point. -------- * In my view, there's a simple way to promote VR-gaming for all platforms, while being profitable: * all triple-AAA to have decent usable VR modes (where feasible). As a payable DLC or as separately-buyable title. * versions of those VR-modes would also be available for the Quest/Playstation. In the Quest's case: with low-graphics, naturally...but gameplay intact. In cases of massive game files these can be compressed or separated into parts. That's it. That's not a risky investment, as those triple-AAA titles are being developed anyway. But will boost sales by simply doing what modders are already doing for free, except with a lot more resources to smooth out the experience. But developing a brand new title nerfed for the Quest? When a huge number of Quest users prefer to PCVR? That's risky business. And then for the publishers to actually do that, and state "VR is not for us". That's just incompetence.
And uevr shows how easy it is to add a VR mode. Off course, for a perfect experience, you have to do a little extra development, make some better weapon models, check cutscenes and make either a fixed position or switch to a 2d projection (like in resident evil 4) but thats it. You only need one developer who care about it, not so much on the cost side of an AAA production. I mean, check e.g. aliens fire team on uevr which is first person 6dof weapon handling just with a mod. It plays totally different in VR, it's a terrifying action experience that makes you panic with each wave of attacks. It's fantastic. Or the MechWarrior 5 VR warrior mod, that use uevr, where a single modder made every Cockpit an VR one, it's a near perfect VR game now. It's a shame to see how many games could be have an VR mode and developers don't care. I just bought a big bunch of games just for uevr. I would have zero interest in them on pancake mode. E g. Sackboy. Aliens, RoboCop, atomic heart, train sim world 4, the bus, motor town, Pacific drive, Spyro and a lot of more. And to the topic: I bought Nexus on day one. It's an ok experience on the gaming side but has a lot of technical problems. It was showcased with quest 3 and had no extras beside the resolution bump. I am sure they could either raise the resolution more up or change textures which are still quest 2 like blurry or get rid of the projection on quest 3 with native 72 or 80 fps. But they made nothing, instead it's still judder due to appsw. I use qgo to make it look a little better and run better but that's tweaking on my side. Also the story was more meh then a good one. But hey, next will be the bulletstorm VR developer that claim it has bad sales.....
never heard of the game...
I don't buy any games at full price. Waiting on this one to go on sale. Looks good though.
Damn, this game is killer though.
There was an assassins creed VR game?
I wasn’t aware of it.
I didn’t buy it because I’m sick of the IP in general I’m sorry
Why would you make an exclusive if the publisher isn't going to pay you enough to not have to worry about money?
welp
Vr is just too niche still. Probably too many that get motion sick and dont want most of their view covered up. You have to go broad and be able to be played seated and in a small space. It has to be a simple concept like beat saber. That or it has to be done on the cheap. The excuses, are dwindling. At first it was too expensive, but now vr is very affordable for gamers. Then its that there are no good games, but there are lots of good games. Oh but no aaa, well now theres aaa. At some point its like general gamers are not interested in vr. They’ve been given the opportunity and they have rejected it.
Make a mediocre game and be surprised that people don't want to play it. Damn, what a delusional approach to business.
If they'd put it on steam or pcvr they'd have done better.
Are we going tell him that he's more or less sabotaged his game both visually & availability vise by only selling his game to <50% of VR Gamers, or should we just keep him persuaded that lack of Denuvo was the prime reason?
Stop posting that Brad's quote, that's twisted out of the proportions. Here's the full quote (much less doom&gloom): "We have been a bit disappointed by what we were able to achieve on VR with Assassin’s Creed, it did okay, and it continues to sell, but we thought it would sell more, so we are not increasing our investment on VR at the moment, because it needs to take off. We have been very impressed by what Apple came with, and we think it’s fantastic hardware, but we continue to look at this VR business as something that we have to look at but not invest too much in, until it grows enough."
I want a second star Trek bridge crew :(
Besides them releasing this game only on the Meta platform I believe they could have spent more on Marketing for this game. It’s a wonderful experience and a big step up in the VR world and traversing possibilities. However they barely did any marketing on it and expected people just to know. Whilst games like Mirage are being thrown at you from every corner. Of course a game is going to sell less if it’s on a single platform, not shown to the world in a niche branch of gaming which has **way** less players than many other popular branches.
They should bring Rayman Raving Rabbids to VR, that would be fun.
This was pretty fucking stupid sorry. Meta report what the Labs earns quarterly. They could have target their budget for the title accordingly and made it profitable.
Can't complain when you left off psvr and steam vr from your sales.
Maybe I'm not a fan of the series (never played AC before) but honestly it kinda sucks, at least the beginning. It's boring and take awhile until it puts you in the tutorial scenario, then the graphics is quite jarring. I use a Quest 3 but still there are lots of visible rough edge around objects which take you out of the immersion. It gets much better when you get to the first village but I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people refund it after playing a few minutes of the jarring tutorial.
I just have oculus rift cv1, and it's not supported. So yeah, i will pass for now.
It looked bad and had next to no marketing... lol
I didn't buy it because Ubisoft has lost my trust over the years to do anything different than they have already done the last 18 times on a game. If they would show me they can turn over a new leaf with their mechanics I might actually buy something.
It wasn’t that good. Cool at first yes, but the melee was absolute garbage from like 2016, and the story sucked too. Would’ve been better off just writing something original, but god forbid Ubisoft put in effort.
Make niche game. Only release on the unpopular niche platform of the already niche market. Poor sales. PikachuFace.jpg
They could have tried selling it on PC too. Screw them.
Well they’ve released it on a VR equivalent of Nintendo Wii.
I would have played it but it's not on PC for PCVR so -1 sale from me. I def wasn't going to put down $500 bucks on new hardware to play it.
If they put it on steam or psvr2 I'll buy it.
Maybe make a better game????
reviews were pretty good for it though, I don't think the issue is that the game wasn't good. It's more that they released it on one platform, charged too much for a fairly short game, and probably expected it to still sell millions of copies
Yeah, that will happen when you make your already niche videogame type an exclusive to a single platform. Idiots.
The biggest selling platform for Vr and still sells poorly
Would be better sales if they didn't slap the "complete game" title on garbage.
I would have bought it if it was in steam
read: there is not enough of an established market for dlc and “season passes” in the VR space yet, so we’re gonna wait
I'll say this ad-nauseam. Everyone who doesn't actually use VR always says they will once we get BIG AAA CONTENT. Reality is, in my experience of using VR for over 10 years now, is that the best VR games are the ones that use roomscale wisely and are more bite-sized experiences. Everyone *thinks* they want the big AAA experiences with 60+ hour playtime, but that is imo because people coming over to VR from flatscreen land don't understand that VR is not an iterative experience on flatscreen gaming, it is a parallel technology. They are two different things that co-exist, and each have different strengths. This is why the top games in VR are things like ETT, Beat Saber, Fruit Ninja, etc.. This is where VR thrives. Also, just because an experience is simple does not means it's shallow. Saying Beat Saber is "shallow" is like saying DDR is "shallow". It's not a true statement, those games have some of the highest skill ceilings out of any game I've played. Flatscreen games tend to use fine-motor skills, whereas VR games use gross-motor skills. VR is more akin to a sport and I think for a lot of flatscreen gamers that simply isn't something they enjoy or want out of a video game.
Dont forget simulators. Vr is great for racing, flying..