In Ubisoft’s most recent earnings call, CEO Yves Guillemot said he was “disappointed” with the performance of Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR (2023) and that the company will not be increasing investment in VR right now, as it awaits further growth of the medium.

As a Quest exclusive, Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR brought the franchise’s patented mix of parkour, stealth, and combat to VR for the first time. Released in November, it was well primed for strong holiday season performance on Quest 2 and the new Quest 3 headset.

During the Q&A section of the company’s Q3 2024 fiscal year earnings call, Guillemot said the VR game markedly underperformed though, which has led Ubisoft to pull back on further VR investment. Here’s Guillemot’s full statement:

“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 up 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.”

SEE ALSO
Android XR Creates a Major Dilemma That Will Make or Break Meta's XR Ambitions

Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR represented the beginning (and possible end) of the company’s second wave of investment in VR. The first started in 2016, which saw the release of Eagle Flight (2016), Werewolves Within (2016), Star Trek: Bridge Crew (2017), Transference (2018), and multiplayer arena shooter Space Junkies (2019), that latter of which was pulled from stores in late 2022 due to low engagement.

The studio also released PC VR space exploration game AGOS – A Game Of Space (2020) in late 2020 with surprisingly little fanfare.

Ubisoft’s more recent reluctance to develop VR games didn’t start with the poor performance of Assassin’s Creed Nexus VR however, as the company announced in 2022 that it would be cancelling its much larger second wave of VR content, including Splinter Cell VR, Ghost Recon Frontline, and two unannounced titles.

Thanks to tech analyst and YouTuber Brad Lynch (aka ‘SadlyItsBradley’) for pointing us to the news. 

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • Christian Schildwaechter

    It’s all about numbers, and VR simply doesn’t have them. Not sure if Quest ever grew past the 6.37mn active users in 2022-10, but all VR platforms combined are most likely still below 10mn, what Zuckerberg stated as the minimum for a single one.

    It still will happen. AVP is priced way too high to increase that number and not focused on gaming/VR, but the positive reactions show that there are ways to make even heavy headsets interesting to normal users, not just VR enthusiasts. No doubt we’ll see technology improve, competing HMDs get released and more people wear headsets for numerous tasks.

    In a way Quest just came too early, because Facebook/Meta wanted to establish itself before Apple/Google could grab the new medium. Quest 1 was impressive for the available technology, Quest 2 had an incredible value proposition, and Quest 3 provides huge improvement in areas still lacking with Quest 2. But all in all the tech is still too cumbersome, and use cases too limited to be attractive to the masses, even at prices much easier to swallow than Apple’s.

    It’s a bummer Assassin’s Creed Nexus sales disappointed to the point of Ubisoft “quitting” (again), since they are/were the AAA the most enthusiastic about VR. If they don’t see it work, how would other ones? But I’m very sure they’ll try again. It will just take more time than we hoped and the XR HMD install base to also grow from a crowd caring mostly about watching movies and using smartphone apps. If AVP has proven anything, it’s that XR is a/the medium of the future.

    • VR5

      Those 6 million might not have been the best MAU in Quest history, just a recent example. And YAU are probably higher still. Nintendo doesn’t report MAU, only YAU, so it is possible that there is a base of 10 million or more who spend money in the eco system over the year.

      Only with improving library will new customers stay engaged, will lapsed players return and a bigger audience be attracted. Active users should increase with continued hardware sales too, just not at the same rate as those unit sales.

    • wheeler

      Would you consider doing e.g. guest articles if it were offered? Your impartial data-backed analysis in these comments brings so much sanity to the comment section and deeper insight to the topic of the articles. But these comment sections are insignificant in the larger picture and yet the rest of the “XR industry”–where things actually matter–suffers from a similar lack of deep analysis and feedback as well (instead often resorting to e.g. regurgitating carefully massaged “big number” stats meant to support a particular narrative). And it’s not like I blame all XR journalists either–things like “access”, advertiser pressure, social pressures, and so on are very real.

      Overall I am just frustrated by how the industry hasn’t had the necessary feedback to effectively evolve. There are a lot of things that just aren’t working and yet the response is that people need to “believe in” a particular vision of xr (and moreover a very particular way to get there) and continue doubling down anyway. And subsidies flood almost every corner of the market and warp everything, to the point where it’s hard to even know what is real anymore.

      So despite the fact that many here may consider the content of your comments negative, when I read them the experience is one of great relief. Apple has now offered up the potential of a different path forward so that is nice at least

  • Arno van Wingerde

    The number of Quests 2/3 is known to Ubisoft, so they must have had ideas about how copies it would sell, such as assumptions like “10% of all Quest owners buys AC”. I (OK, n=1) definitely will buy, but there are just too many great games coming out that I can afford to play them all. With AW2, I wait until the new textures for Q3 come out, so now I may have VR time to play AC… I wonder whether others were in a similar position…

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Somewhere there is a flaw in the argument that low sales are due to too many great games being available to also bother with trying/buying ACN, when at the same time the main complaint of the VR user base is that there aren’t enough AAA releases to make the platform attractive. Unfortunately some basic math applied to the number of sold Quest/active users and numbers published by Meta about Quest store sales indicate that the average Quest user buys a lot less titles than e.g. the average PS4 owner did, and at much lower prices.

      A while ago someone pointed out that more than half of the Android users never buy a single app (iOS users are more willing to spend money). And with a lot of Quest 2 given out as “free” Christmas presents to mostly teens, and the free Gorilla Tag being one of the most popular Quest titles (still making millions from IAP), I somewhat doubt that the reason why ACN sold fewer units than expected was because everybody was already overwhelmed with all the other AAA titles they had previously bought and simply had no time to play another one.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        Why? I can only play 1-2 new titles at any given time, so when I get AW2 with my set and waited with RM2 to have the Quest3 version and, yeah, maybe bought a small game or two, I do not yet buy AC, but still intend to. I cannot tell whether this is a common scenario or not but i can tell it does happen. There is definitely no current market for 10 AAA games within a few months, but at the same time, those AAA games are a cornerstone of the growth of that very same market.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Again, you are not the typical gamer. Quoting Mark Maratea, CTO at Ascendant Studios (founded 2018, 100+ employees, Immortals of Aveum published by EA for PC/PS 5/Xbox X/S):

          For Single Player AAA, you generally get 90% of your sales in the first 3 weeks.

          • Dragon Marble

            That’s generally true, but the Quest platform — and VR in general — has gone through an unprecedented period during the past several months.

          • Jonathan Winters III

            I’ve heard the same statistics from the makers of Colossal Cave. Must be true.

        • ApocalypseShadow

          Dude. The reality is that the 20 million figure is false. You can’t have that many headsets supposedly sold but only hit the bare minimum in sales for only a few indie companies.

          A lot of gamers bought Quest to use on PC, some were given away within the company of Facebook for fitness to later become dust collectors. Some were bought as impulse buy gifts to those that don’t even play games as much as us. And then, there were the small few of gamers that actually play VR games. You can’t have that many headsets sold and not get great sales. Which makes you wonder how Asgard’s Rath 2 would have sold without being given away.

          We all want AAA games but there just isn’t enough of us for companies to make them. Which means we should be pushing for hybrid games across VR headsets. That way, these games have a better chance to sell well as flat games and to be purchased by VR gamers. While also offering increased immersion for us who like more than just looking at a TV screen and sitting on a couch.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            There are actually great sales on Quest with games raking in millions and multiple times their development costs, despite less than 40% of all sold Quest still being in use. But these aren’t the high profile AAA releases, instead they are “natural fit” VR titles like BeatSaber, Supernatural, Golf+ or Blade & Sorcery: Nomad, games that would be mostly pointless without VR.

            Or Walkabout Mini Golf, which is largely about hanging out with remote friends and family in a casual setting everybody can participate and have fun in. The moment there is a real benefit, people go for VR. “PC style games, but with VR” just doesn’t provide enough benefit to compensate for all the extra hassle. Hybrid games are indeed a much better approach, partly because they allow gamers to choose the level of immersion vs hassle they are currently comfortable with, and switch between them.

      • Dragon Marble

        I can attest that there have been too many high-quality games for my time recently. I will get to all of them eventually. But so far I haven’t touched AW2. I chose to focus on ACN first.

  • wheeler

    It was released on the largest and 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.

    What will people blame now?

    • Blaexe

      It’s all about expectation. There’s no one really to blame if Ubisofts expectations as major publisher can’t be met with the current user base.

      It just means that the market is not there yet so if we want AAA games, the platform owners have to step in and fund them. That’s hardly news.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      My vote goes to ‘too much competition’ Too many other great games that also came to the Quest, I do not really want to spend hundreds of dollars before I actually have the time to play them.

    • Leisure Suit Barry

      Well a lot of people simply aren’t going to pay higher prices for digital only games, which is why AAA games sell more physical than digital.

    • Will

      Assassin’s Creed is boring. I have zero interest in any of them, not just this one. With a lower install base here, they are feeling that effect compounded by a lack of casual gamers they usually rely on for sales of this very boring game series.

      If Meta ported Half-Life: Alyx to Quest it would be a system seller. I would absolutely shell out for a Quest just for that one game. It’s the actual games that matter, for the demographic who’s actually likely to adopt VR right now.

      Likewise, I think if they could turn Beat Saber into a Mario Maker-style player-creation tool in partnership with a streaming service like Spotify to grant access to a full library of songs, that would be an actual system seller. Currently, only the actual hardcore who are willing to mod have access to a large music library. They should be marketing new artists on Beat Saber every week.

    • Octogod

      Ubisoft’s expectations.

  • ViRGiN

    What were they thinking?
    Game is constantly in Top Seller section, today standing at #16. Yes, it does look pisspoor weak compared to #2 Job Simulator, #4 Pavlov Shack, or even #8 Thrill of the Fight, but what did they expect? It’s a game set in the old times. Not very relevant to existing playerbase. Should they decide to make Splinter Cell, you know, military themed game, with cool gadgets and sneaking elements, perhaps add multiplayer, I’m 100% sure it would resonate at least three times as much with the audience.

    Resident Evil 4 was deemed the fastest selling game, today standing at #38, years after release.

    The game also cost $40, but realistically $30 since everyone is buying everything at 25% off.

    Maybe stop making games, and start porting old titles, where everything but controls is already done. Just like RE4. Either their budgets are overblown, or the teams are very inefficient. Vertigo Games is rolling out with yet another game (Metro), Caveman studio is releasing their own Battle Royale game, janky Ghost of Tabor sold $10 million before it even “released”.

    Ubisoft, you’re doing it wrong.

    • VR5

      I wouldn’t blame Ubisoft for their approach as it resulted in one of the best games in the medium. They took a risk and failed financially but succeeded creatively. It will play a part in Quest’s library.

    • Lawrence McGee

      One of the largest franchises in gaming, gets a new game, in FP, 3D in VR – VR Fanbios – “Yay VR is now mainstream! Yay us, yay VR!”

      Ubiosoft – “Sales were disappointing”

      VR Fanbios – “You’re doing it wrong Ubisoft. You should port old games”

      you guys are your own worst enemy lol.

      • ViRGiN

        I’m not the enemy.
        From my perspective, game being in top 20 means it sell decently. I just don’t know if Ubisoft was expecting to be next Beat Saber or what.

      • NL_VR

        So what do you like?

  • VR5

    Obviously this game wouldn’t have happened without some funding by Meta. That it didn’t initially sell enough to be profitable is no surprise, releases like this are too few and there aren’t enough core gamers to support such a high budget game at launch.

    But it will keep selling (also because it is the only AC game, new releases usually cut off the legs of previous installments). If it ends up selling well enough, there still could be a sequel at some point.

    As for now it is more important for the platform to attract more core gamers than for the game to break even. This of course relies on investment by Meta because Ubisoft wants to see a return and has no obligation to lay the foundation for future VR success.

    For Meta it is probably enough if Wrath II and Nexus effect an increase in player base and better retention. That would confirm that with further investment into gaming they can keep growing the platform.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      But are there enough core gamers interested in VR games to grow the platform enough to ever become sustainable? Meta tried subsidized AAA several times, and late 2021 RE4 was the fastest selling Quest app. It didn’t lead to huge or sustained growth, and was much less popular than simpler titles during 2022. RE4 now has 12K ratings, Golf+ 32K. Walkabout Mini Golf also has about 12K, but sells tons of DLC, making back all development costs probably several times.

      Sustained sales probably won’t save ACN either. GTA V made USD 6bn+ in ten years, most of it from GaaS GTA Online, but more than USD 1bn in the first three days, typical for AAA launches. There are very few sleeper hits like “Among us” that make a lot of money long after release.

      People are buying too few high profile/price titles. USD 60 Asgard’s Wrath 2 has been doing well, but was bundled for free with Quest 3. That promotion ended January 27th, reviews/sales will now plummet. Quest 2 still outsells Quest 3 by far, and now priced USD 249, (full price) AW2 costs 24% of the HMD. It will be worse if Meta releases the rumored Quest 2 successor at USD 200.

      Meta has the money to pay for high budget titles for years to come, but there is little indication this really helps, making it hard to argue why they should. The needed growth will have to come from somewhere else.

      • VR5

        Core gamers will complain that a platform has “no games” when it has few games. Core gamers play at least one game per month and expect it to be at least 8 hours, better yet 30 hours or more. Obviously the Quest can’t satisfy a core gamers demand with its current release schedule.

        Wrath II bundle has been extended to end of March btw. And new customers have to do something with their Quest. Core games are most likely to result in rentention and sell software. Media consumption doesn’t make Meta money.

        VR is the best way to game (unless it makes you sick and/or “no games” are released). It might take time but in the long run VR will dominate both casual and core gaming. The problem is the current big players only lose by supporting VR. Meta doesn’t have that problem. They can take the risk to disrupt.

        And actually they’re in a better positon than the last gaming disruptor, Xbox. Xbox is forever #3. But in the VR space, Meta is number one. It is much easier to grow the market in which you’re already number one than to become #1 in an already established market with its franchises and loyalties.

        When Sony was a disruptor, they succeeded by being cheap medium (CD) Nintendo knock off, the Playstation resembled the NES more than the N64 did. Being early and without the risky cartridge prices they won all the third parties. Since then nothing really changed, Sony established first party IPs and dominates core gaming, Nintendo has its super popular franchises and dominates the portable space.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Wrath II bundle has been extended to end of March btw.

          Playing devil’s advocate: Hm, so Quest 3 sales aren’t that hot. Or Quest 2 owners don’t really buy AW2. Or both.

          • VR5

            FOMO. Setting a date at January entices buyers to make their purchase immediately or they miss the $60 bundled game. Extending it keeps selling the Quest 3.

            The most important thing about Wrath II is that it genuinely one of the best games ever and anyone who plays it can tell that. It is easy to recommend the Quest with an all time classic like that.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            So the people who feared that the bundle would end on January 27th, but still didn’t buy a Quest 3, will now buy one because the bundle was extended?

            Or is this like one of those carpet shops having faded signs in their windows stating “Closing the store! Just a few days remaining!! Buy now, everything 80% off!!!” for years, hoping for someone to fall for it?

          • VR5

            Those are different people. The ones that didn’t buy one had their reasons. Q1 is slow, in Q4 the Quest would have done reasonably well even without a bundle. The bundle is actually more useful now that the holidays are over.

            Still it benefits both the game itself and the hardware to be sold at a good value proposition. Word of mouth from people who enjoyed Wrath II and Nexus can still sell Quest now.

            Let’s not forget that Quest had its best quarter yet in Q4 ’24. This shows that Quest 2 success wasn’t just reliant on covid and low price, Quest 3 also can sell well and the whole product family is still as popular as during covid.

      • Arno van Wingerde

        I disagree, sure the AAA games cost money and may not attract number of sales. However, they are wanted and are a major advertisement for the capabilities of the system. Without AAA games I would probably loose interest, even though I have bought may more small games than AA games. How much time do you want to spend on Gorilla tag? AW2 – when the new textures for Q3 become available – would definitely be something I’d show interested friends.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          The problem is that you are not the “typical” Quest user driving platform growth. Gorilla Tag is in another dimension regarding its viral promotion factor. As an impromptu, non scientific (very inaccurate) statistic, searching Google for “gorilla tag” VR gives 5.95mn results, “asgard’s wrath 2″ tag” VR 0.35mn (17:1). There are 1.6mn #gorillatag posts on TikTok, 544 for #asgardswrath2 (2941:1).

          • VR5

            Gorilla Tag players are very young on average, they will grow up and diversify their taste. They’re not the enemy, they will help with growing Quest into a bigger platform.

            And although FB is still #1 and much bigger than TikTok, TikTok is popular with the youngest audience. Gorilla Tag success is exactly what Meta is looking for, it’s their TikTok.

            TikTok users don’t grow up to be Instagram users, but Gorilla Tag players are already in Meta’s ecosystem. Meta wants to reach all ages, they already have FB and IG. Quest is their success with the young audience.

            That doesn’t mean that Quest doesn’t also appeal to older users and even core gamers. You want to reach all users, not just the biggest segment. Core gamers are actually a pretty small segment but they pay good money.

          • ViRGiN

            Important to point out that it isn’t Quest that is attracting kids; Gorilla Tag is literally constantly the most popular PCVR game on Steam, and there it’s $20 vs free on Quest.

          • ViRGiN

            Of course I was previously talking out of my big fat ring as usual,

            SteamDB shows the most popular VR title at no.1 is War Thunder, whereas Gorilla Tag is no. 40.

          • Gabe Zuckerwell

            Actually the no 1 vr game is palworld. Praydog really helped to move millions of copies.

          • Icke will “War Thunder” to come to Quest 3 …
            []^ )

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            If you take surveys asking US teens how many of them already own a VR HMD, multiply that by the number of US teens and compare it to the number of Quest 2 sold, more than 75% of all Quest 2 are in the hands of US teens.

            They don’t “help” the platform to grow, they “are” the platform. The people here discussing Quest and AVP and anything XR on old fashioned disqus aren’t the majority or representative, we are the exception. There is a reason why Bytedance bought Pico with TikTok money.

          • VR5

            Yeah but kids keep getting born and grow up to be teens. Thus Quest reaching that age group will drive growth over the years, especially if the current players keep using the Quest as they get older.

            Doesn’t mean Quest can’t also eat into Sony and Nintendo’s market, or iOS and Android’s and reach more already grown up users. Again, no need to reduce an audience to its biggest representants.

          • Arno van Wingerde

            I think you are missing the point, as VR5 also points out.
            I expect every supermarkt to sell milk. However, I may go to a special market, because they sell ‘lavender scented candles’.
            Many more people buy milk than lavender scented candles (I hope!) but it might still be a bad idea to egt rid of the lavender scented candles in their assortment even if just a few percent of customers wants them. I hesitate(d) between Q3 and PSVR2 because of the Horizon: CotM demo I played. Just one game, but I would trade 95% of my games on Q3 to get that game in the way it runs on PSVR2.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I get the point you’re trying to make, but the numbers don’t support your point. If lavender candles take 15% of the space/investment while only generating 5% of the sales/platform growth, and extra milk sales from candle customers don’t compensate for that (as you believe/claim), the candles are gone.

            And I am pretty sure that is what happens at Meta: they payed studios millions to bring well known franchises to Quest, hoping this would draw in new gamers through familiarity, which would then motivate other AAA to also release games. But that never really happened. Instead growth mostly stagnated, non-VR gamers still don’t care and the most popular titles are simpler casual games, free to play games, or physical titles like rhythm games, fitness apps or golfing.

            Subsidizing AAA turned out to be a not cost-effective way to grow the platform. There are too few AAA/lavender fans, which those tend to ignore or outright deny by e.g. blaming Ubisoft for bad sales. But the numbers are pretty clear: pushing candles/AAA turned out to be a bad investment, so stores now replace them with socks/movies and smartphone apps to attract new customers.

          • Don’t get PSVR2 ….
            It’s an investment you’ll immediately regret ….
            []^ )

          • Arno van Wingerde

            I bought a PSVR2+PS5 just to play HCotM… it was almost worth it, but tethered device, earplugs, idiot requirement for a monitor was just too much too take… but I still miss it: the views, vibrant colors, interaction, storyline… everything! On the Quest AW2… if they ever manage to put Q3 textures in might be the only game for me that might be able to keep up!

    • Zack71

      True.
      Quest Market is different from Console Market, Ubisoft is not used to it.

  • Mike Lyons

    If it was released on playstation it would have done far better as that’s where the player base is

    • VR5

      Then maybe Sony should have funded Nexus. Also if we compare Nexus 117k first achievement with RE4R playerbase at release (40k) the numbers favor the Quest.

      • Dragon Marble

        Good point, but RE4 VR player base is close to 90k now.

        • VR5

          RE8 VR is 97k I think? Considering the lower installbase the numbers are pretty good actually but even if Quest has a lower core gamer share, the absolute numbers still result in Quest coming out on top. And it has more potential to grow over time.

          Anyway, the game is done, Sony now would only have to pay for a port. It won’t make much of a difference to Guillemot but it could do respectable numbers even with PSVR2 not doing so hot.

    • ViRGiN

      It would have done so well, that even Rec Room claims it would be unsustainable.

    • shadow9d9

      Psvr 2 sales have been abysmal, so no. Plus, FB funded it.

      • Jonathan Winters III

        True, sadly PSVR2 is nearly dead in the water. Tethered was a massive error of judgement by Sony.

    • Leisure Suit Barry

      eh? PSVR2 has been a major sales flop, probably around 1.5M

  • eadVrim

    The algorithm for displaying and rankings games in Meta Store should be reconsidered by Meta.

  • Andrey

    Two things that need to be mentioned:
    a) Ubisoft is in a deep *^%$ right now and they REALLY need all money they can get, so…
    b) Ubisoft’s (and Yves Guillemot’s in particular) expected sales were most probably unreasonable from the start (both because they thought that “it’s Assassin’s Creed game, so it will sell much better than your average VR game!” and they most certainly were expecting 1/X of sales of their recent non-VR AC games like Valhalla or Mirage that is frankly not possible at the moment because of the Quest’s “low” playerbase).
    Not to mention that in his message there wasn’t a word about “cancelling investments altogether”, but only “not increasing” it, so rumored second part of the Nexus will be released sooner or (probably) later. It just won’t be a “generational gap” between original Nexus and Nexus 2, it will be your usual good old second game in the series without any mindbreaking new features.
    …if Ubisoft won’t go bakrupt in the near future when Assassin’s Creed Red will fail later this year of course…

    • Jonathan Winters III

      What rumored second part? Link? Thank you.

      • Andrey

        A couple of hours ago I wrote a message with a link to a pretty well-known site as an answer to you, but it appears “freedom of speech” still won’t allow something like that, damn!
        Anyway, just google “ubisoft is sure in assassin’s creed nexus success second part is in development”, the second result will be a post on reddit and there will be a link I sent.

    • Lawrence McGee

      I highly, highly doubt Ubi would have went into ACN expecting anything close to Valhalla or Mirage sales. You think not one person there looked at Quest sales/usage numbers before spending $ on development? How do you think businesses are ran?! Just blind people stumbling around hoping for the best? https://media0.giphy.com/media/RL4MF0v7RNX7NO3SrR/giphy-downsized-small.mp4

      • Andrey

        Can you please read what other people are writing – slowly – and try to process what they tried to say before replying? I never said “anything close to”, I said “1/X” which can be anything from 1/2 to infinity. But, exclusivly for you, I will clarify – I was thinking about something from 1/4 of it’s sales (unrealistically) to 1/5 (Ubi-style) to 1/8-1/10 (realistically). Last time I heard that Origins/Odyssey sold about 10 millions of copies each and Ubisoft never said how many copies of Valhalla they sold, only how much revenue they got (probably from all those MTX and not the copies of the game itself) and they did the same with Mirage, so let’s imagine that both those last games are also around 10 millions of copies too. So, according to me, they were thinking that a decent part of Quest’s “userbase” of “20 millions” (~2 millions) hundry for some quality games would buy an “AAA” VR game based on their most popular franchise and something around 1 or even 2 millions of copies of Nexus would sell easily druing that period. But it didn’t.
        Now to the second part – a dozen of Assassin’s Creed games in development, a dozen of cancelled games only during the last year, attempt to sell NFTs and hate from players from all over the world mostly towards their “style” of work (“conveyor” of the games in the same series without almost no changes and hyping over “popular” genres years after it was on peak) – if all of that doesn’t say to you “unprofessionalism” – then you started playing games yesterday or something. They are in the @#! because of their own decisions and, imo, they totally deserve it. So, if part of the company who plan and create games are like that, why people who predict sales should be different? Especially when BASED ON THE DAMN ARTICLE they goofed up sales prediction that even their boss mentioned it?
        P.S – Next time do your homework better before replying to me and leave your zoomer’s GIFs to yourself. We have a serious community here and serious discussions, not even usual “trolls” are doing something lame as this (probably because they are old enough, lol).

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          AC Nexus apparently sold ~150K copies since launch in 2023-11. AC Origins sold 1.5mn copies during its first week, with now more than 10mn. AFAIK AC Odyssey and Valhalla outsold Origins, and the launch sales of Mirage (with a much smaller scope than Origins, Odyssey or Valhalla) were 22% higher than for Odyssey, 6% higher than for Origins.

          With Meta paying for (parts of) the development, Ubisoft will have had access to current active user numbers, which should still be around 6-8mn. Since ACN took some time to develop and released shortly after Quest 3, they may have expect higher numbers at launch. Assuming 7.5mn active Quest users, 150K sales are only 2% of these, which is very disappointing for a community permanently crying for AAA releases.

          So 1/X isn’t “1/4 of it’s sales (unrealistically) to 1/5 (Ubi-style) to 1/8-1/10 (realistically)”. It’s (significantly) less than 1/67. Before scolding AAA CEOs and people replying to your claims about what is “realistic”, do your own homework, which requires only very basic math.

  • Blinkin73

    Would have done better in sales had it not been shackled to the Quest. I love the device, but there are tons of people out there with PSVR2 and PC VR only. Can’t sell exclusivity to Meta and then complain that not as many people bought it. If they want to fix that problem, get Splinter Cell VR back on track and put out as multi platform.

    • ViRGiN

      This doesn’t make any sense. If the game didn’t sell well on the most popular VR platform ever, with the highest number of headsets in planet history, how two abysmal extra platforms like PSVR2 which is notoriously to develop for and cooperate with Sony, or through PCVR pirates and cheapskates?

      Funny how you didn’t even mention that they should port to Pico.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      Well they could bring it out for those platforms, but Meta sponsored it and Quest is by far the largest market. So pooring in some more money to get it to other platforms may not be worth it, even though I suspect the PSVR2/PCVR owners are more likely to buy the games then Q2/Q3 owners.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Without doubt ACN would have sold more copies if it also had launched on PC and PSVR2. The question is if the extra money/time needed would have been worth it for Ubisoft.

      For one Quest outsells Steam VR games by about 4:1 on average, and PSVR2 sales are rather lackluster. PCVR/PSVR2 gamers wouldn’t be happy with a 1:1 port from Quest, so (significantly) more development would be necessary to at least improve graphics quality, hard to justify with much smaller numbers. Most games today launch on consoles as fixed development targets, with the PC versions ideally getting added quality levels, but regularly getting worse performance despite better tech, as they will not get the same level of optimization as the consoles with their larger sales numbers.

      So “support all platforms” is feasible only for titles that work the same way anywhere anyway, like Undertale or Job Simulator. Supporting multiple platforms with similar performance is easier, with studios often launching on the largest and then, once their developers are free again, starting porting to others. With Meta probably paying for (parts of) the development and asking for (temporary) exclusivity, that may not have been an option for ACN. Maybe Ubisoft could have brought it to other platforms later, but now decided against that.

      • Jonathan Winters III

        If it were on PSVR2 and PC, Ubi would have been much more disappointed as those platforms are much smaller than Quest.

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          In the end it’s a question of cost/benefit. If a second platform is only 20% the size of the first one, but porting to it takes only 10% more in extra development costs, it’s still a good deal, despite the smaller size. It’s just unlikely that this would be the case here.

          • Arno van Wingerde

            The number of copies sold is the % of owners of a set times the number of owners of the set. Since Quest2/3 sold about 10 times as much as the PSVR2 you would need PSVR2 owners to be 10 times as likely as Quest owners, which sounds unlikely.
            However, let’s assume it costs 20% of the original development costs to port a game from Quest to PSVR2 and also that PSVR2 owners are 2 times as likely to buy the game, then the PSVR2 version would already have a the same profit margin. But as Ubisoft seemingly made a loss on the Quest version, converting it for PSVR2 does not make sense either, it would just increase their losses overall.

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            I agree. Your assumption that PSVR2 players, who payed USD 1000+ for their VR setup and saw less game releases, are twice as likely to buy as Quest owners that usually got the HMD as a Christmas gift also sound reasonable.

            It’s a big problem we don’t have the actual numbers, neither how many Quest or PSVR were sold, nor how many users are still active, or how much they buy and pay for. It’s annoying for us speculating, but much more critical for any game developer trying to decide whether or where to launch a VR/XR game, and which platforms to target in which way.

            Currently the best/safest bet is more casual games with stylized graphics, as these cost less to produce, sell decently well on all platforms, can be ported from Quest to PC/PCVR2 with very little effort, and would run just fine even on Quest 1, requiring less optimization. Even better if they could also be played on a flat screen and/or phone. That of course doesn’t bode well for anybody hoping for VR games to move away from exactly that.

    • Octogod

      PC VR and PSVR2 are very small audiences in comparison to the Quest. It would likely barely make the port money back.

      But agreed on Splinter Cell VR, but only if it has spies vs mercs multiplayer!

  • poltevo

    My view is that VR gaming will continue to be niche and struggle to retain users for many many years. There are issues with friction and comfort which are very hard to solve. I don’t think bringing a few more franchises to VR will move the needle.

    Friction and comfort issues limit the number of people who will use a headset in any given situation. Especially, for example in these categories of people:

    1. People who value games which don’t need or would not benefit much from presence or immersion. Personally, while I enjoy VR gaming occasionally, 90% of my favourite games don’t need it and would be an overall worse experience in VR. Top down shooters, platform games and strategy games are all examples of this.

    2. People who value convenience over immersion and would prefer to play games on flat (even games which would be good in VR). Personally I think this is a huge issue for VR retention and adoption.

    These two types of people might use VR more if the comfort and friction issues are largely resolved, and using a headset becomes a normal way of life. But maybe this will never happen. That’s a matter of speculation.

    • Jonathan Winters III

      Not just for many many years. VR gaming will be niche for decades if not more. I’ve been playing VR since 1984 – it’s always been niche. The problem is, unless a person has tried VR, there’s no way to convince him/her how cool it is.

    • the biggest problem with vr games is roomscale most people don’t want to move around to play a video games. once roomscales dies and game start to be made comfortable to play relaxing on the couch vr will grow.
      as much as vr fans don’t want to admit it people would prefer to push a button for an action in a game over having to actually do it. hell, people would love to just push a button in real life and yet vr fan think people want to reload guns, pick things up and open doors. this ver. of vr will die out and when it return it won’t be focus on making people move around to play

      • Arno van Wingerde

        Beehhhh! Apart from games where you are operating a machine, most heros are busy running/climbing/fighting and such. The R in VR would demand that we do no less! I think that staring at a screen while hitting those nasty zombies with mouse and keyboard combos is exactly what VR should not be about.

        • Cod Zombie is showing u people prefer a flat screen over vr for their fps. most r not excited to manually reload/duck/jump/ and open doors. most would prefer to pushing a button for those actions. also shooting a gun in VR DOESNOT feel like shooting a gun in reality not even close so they can at least make it fun and not feel like busy work

      • Fabian

        Speak for yourself, dont project your lazy ass on others.

        • yea when it comes to games i’m lazy. but the fact vr isn’t taking off shows i’m not the only one.

      • Lawrence McGee

        Yep agree. People calling you names and lazy just show how out of touch they are. When I get home from work and want to relax with a game, I don’t want to be standing up for 3hr waving my arms around, or awkwardly running around my room. Besides the fact the average person doesn’t have a large empty room for room scale stuff.

        I’d be a lot more interested in VR games being a 3D screen into a world that i’m in, and using the controllers like a console. e.g Elden Ring. Than trying to pick things up, waving my around around to hit things and having to stand or clear a space around a room and sit in an office chair. Fine for tech dude bros that have no life and live in their bedroom in front of their PC screen, but not everyone enjoys that (to their surprise!). Nerds aren’t the best people to use as test cases…

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        It doesn’t have to be either or. I agree that many (most?) people don’t want to go through the effort/hassle of room scale all the time, but people also like being fully immersed. Playing HL:A on flat screen is now possible, but not recommended, as the experience depends so much on VR.

        Hybrid games on PSVR2 playable both in VR and flat are a clever approach. Not only spreading development cost over a larger user base, but also allowing users to pick play mode/immersion based on their current “lazy” state. You could play through them first in VR, but on a later run switch to couch potato. Or play only sections in VR. Or none or all of it.

        Giving users a choice makes it much more appealing to a wider audience, esp. since people aren’t clearly divided into the room scale/seated, instead many switch depending on circumstance. It is harder to design a game that works in 10ft/3m room scale just as well as stationary plus teleport, seated VR or seated flatscreen, with only minor differences and the most immersion requiring lots of space and movement. But hopefully game designers over time will learn and provide gamers with the option to choose for themselves.

        • most vr devs don’t make a good seated exp. when u pick seated it’s just a height adjustment but the game is setup around. the hybid games are not designed with roomscale in mind and that’s y they are better. i am all for options but the games needs to be designed with the style of play most people would do and that’s seated. u can then add in Roomscale for the hardcore vr heads but instead the current devs keep trying to force roomscale.

      • NL_VR

        get your point, except why even put a vr headset on to sit down and push buttons.
        VR games is the type of games that will be different and thats what people want.
        i talket to several people who is just somewhat interested in VR but if VR-gaming is the same thing they are not interested they want games made for VR or else they can play on a screen.

        • the sales of hmd and vr games shows that u are wrong. but by all means keep pushing that and watch as vr devs after vr devs close up because they not making money.

          • NL_VR

            So whats the different then just using the headset to play flatgames in VR?
            nothing I dont se how that will sell more as that is verry possible in many games.
            Devs just need to make good games there are no rules how to play that is the main reason.
            you beeing so sure on you point is interesting and its seems more like you dont have the interest and you think everybody think likes you.

          • it’s more that most people seem to be like me as we tried vr got bored with it and moved on to other fun things. i want my games to feel like a normal game just be wrapped around me. i don’t want to stand, turn, duck, jump, climb, and reload, etc in vr i ant to push buttons to get actions so i don’t have to figure out what actions i have to do to get it right.

          • NL_VR

            Yeah you litterly can play hundreds of games like that with UEVR.
            You and people who think like you should go after developers to just put in simple VR modes into games not make VR developers make their games “flat games” in VR.

          • i am not asking vr devs to do anything i just don’t buy their games and won’t buy their games till it plays in a way i can enjoy myself. i am not going to go thru the trouble of using the uevr mod that’s too much work. y would i push the devs of 2d games to add vr i an enjoying there games without it. if they add it great but the game stands alone without it. so if i don’t like the vr mode i can just fire up the flatscreen mode and enjoy myself.

          • NL_VR

            You dont want to do the trouble but you think VR will sell more if VR games was played like flat games…. ok.

          • yes y should devs care to do a vr mode when vr devs can’t show that it’s worth the investment. yes it would sell move if vr games played more like a flatscreen game

          • NL_VR

            No because most will not “want to do the trouble” if they already can play similar games in flatscreen. You said it your self. why even put on a headset.

            Firewall Ultra on PSVR2 got lots of negativity because it was pretty much played like a flatscreen game with button commands.
            and people whos not into VR does want to play good VR Games that are made for VR i have heard that from many.

          • neg reviews from “vr gamers”. u guys can’t be trusted u r too bias against game like that. we tried the games you guys love and got bored this is why there’s little retention. maybe switch things up a bit and make the game comfortable to play sitting on my couch

          • NL_VR

            Then we are back to the beginning. VR gamers are those who play VR games. So yeah obviously.

            You want to play sitting down, then why dont just do that then. Seems like “VR Games” is simply not for you.

          • right vr games are not for me and the fact that vr games are not performing well is showing that vr games is not for most people. i currently prefer flatscreen games over vr games it’s up to vr devs to give me a reason to want to try their games not tell me i’m wrong for not wanting to do all the crap they want to do in a game isn’t going to help.

          • NL_VR

            It’s a nische and completly understandable it’s not for everyone. But I’m pretty sure most fans of VR games does not want all VR games to become “flatgames in VR”
            But VR mode in flatgames are a good thing but it’s up for the developers of flatgames to fix that becomes native.

          • y would a flatscreen dev care about vr. it’s not their job to promote vr and their fans don’t care about vr so y should they put money into it. there’s little to no money being made in vr. vr gamers are not growing and r not worth the investment. it’s up to vr devs to figure out what the mass people wants and currently it’s not standing around swinging their arms to play a video games but they don’t seem to be learning this fact.

          • NL_VR

            Why shouldnt they? im thinking they want more people to enjoy their games.
            There is a lot of VR games that do just fine so your point that VR-devs must do “flatgames” in VR completly wrong. If t hat happened VR would be dead.
            VR is growing.
            But this is just repeating it self. it just sounds your are a nay sayer to VR and to negative.
            There are good VR games, i just played a couple of hours and had absolutly no problem finding people to play with. Look at games like Ghosts of tabor and Contractors etc, a thriving community and big player base thanks to crossplay over the VR-platforms.
            You talking about VR not growing, thats not true and has not been true. its not growin fast maybe but its nishe.
            Its like saying why would racing devs make their games work in VR and with wheel and racing rigg support. Because they can and want.
            Maybe you talk in an AAA industry standpoint and there you may be right.
            But AAA industry has other problems. they cant make games at all that doesnt cost $100000nds of dollars its just ridicilus how smaller dev teams both make better games and long lasting games.
            So just accept VR is nische and its not for all tastes. if you want to play VR but feels that you you just wanna sit down. find the games that work that way, there is alot that is possible to play sitting down if you actually are interested to look for it.

          • we’ll revisit this convo when more vr devs closes and sony discontinue the PSVR2. vr will remain niche as long as the games are made the way they’re currently. i don’t hate vr but i lost interest in it. i enjoy flatscreen games WAY more than any vr game i have tried. even with all the mess in the aaa game space there’s still far more excitement coming from them and anything vr has coming. vr isn’t going to help devs sell more games it’s not worth the ROI

          • NL_VR

            You just cherrypicking to prove some kind of point because you lost interest and doesnt seem to accept that others dont have the same taste as you.
            its not just in the VR industry studios is closing, it the industry in whole. i dont even se the point dividing developers into “VR devs and Flatscreen devs”. They make the games they want. VR is nische and will probably always be nische. Same as simulators, and whats wrong with that? alot of niche stuff work verry well and people enojoy them just because they are nische. Why has everything need to be “mainstream” its why its niche and got developers who make content because they like to work with the platforms. Why make everything mainstrain, plain etc.
            been playing games for over 30 years. You saying you enjoy the AAA gaming industry more, thats completly fine. For me mainstrea is plain, lack of inovations and boring. Rince and repeat just the milk money.
            i do not and many others want to play just a regular game style in VR.
            Its already possible to do that and its proven it doesnt draw any new people in. Good games draw people in and the VR market is no were going to die just because all vr games isnt possible to play sitting on couch pushing buttons on a controller.

      • Mk

        There was an 3d glasses made by nvidia just for this. This has been also cancelled. I kind of liked it. So good memories playing starcraft 2 with that.

        I think I would buy more vr games if there were good games like hl alyx and boneworks, wich is bit similar but had some cool weapon mechanics. But so many of the games are meh after the first wow goes away from vr.

        I don’t see the couch vr gaming ever succeed. These headsets are more heavier than the 3d glasses and the image is not that great because of the performance.

        There is a group of people who would be willing to buy games if they were as good as hl alyx. I’m the kind of person who moves a lot and my work is just sitting.

        But I understand the situation I think.

        A lot of starups try to push to vr since mobile and pc sector is highly competitive. For this reason the quality of the games is not so good because the most talented developers are working on other games.

      • jbellanca

        THIS. OMG this x1000. Playing VR games now with room scale – like ACN – is cumbersome, slow, and just not fun. It would be so much better if I could play sitting, with a normal controller, and had the 3D environment in front of me (or around me). It sounds in theory like it would be fun to "be the character", but swinging weapons, grabbing ledges, etc., just isn't a fun game mechanic. And it's slower and harder to control on top.

    • MackRogers

      How can it be niche if nobody are making games? It’s not even niche, its dead

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        There is no minimal size requirement for a niche other “> 0”. People are still developing games for VCS 2600, and you can actually still buy new titles on platforms like itch_io. Amazingly there is even a new “code-less” game maker project for the Atari 2600 that only launched in 2023 (haroldo-ok_itch_io/vcs-game-maker , FOSS).

        You may call these platforms “effectively dead”, but they aren’t dead, just a very, very tiny niche of the whole gaming market. And much larger than one might expect after almost half a century. Claiming that “nobody” is making VR games it not just an exaggeration, it’s just plain wrong. You can bet that “casual” VR/XR gaming just got a big boost by Apple releasing AVP, and them including a “traditional” VR rhythm game like Synth Riders in Apple Arcade shows that even they believe in the future of VR gaming.

    • Friction’s probably THE #1 problem, I agree.
      []^ )

  • Leisure Suit Barry

    Nobody addressing the elephant in the room?

    A lot of people simply aren’t going to spend a lot of money on digital only games which is why AAA games sell more physical than digital.

    Personally my limit is around £15 for a digital game

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      Steam as the largest PC gaming platform and iOS and Android as the largest mobile gaming platforms have all been digital only since launch, and together they dwarf anything offering physical games. 2022 94% of all gaming sales were digital, and even on Playstation with physical media available, 79% of the sales were digital that year. And of course Quest has been digital only from the start.

      I personally do not want to have my Steam library or even my Quest library on any type of plastic discs I’d need to store. I still have boxes full with CDs and DVDs I haven’t touched in years taking up space. And my gaming libraries are much larger, precisely because they don’t take up space, which would stop me from buying more. I understand the reasoning why people stick to physical media, but with the vast majority of users already having gone digital only, I wouldn’t exactly describe this issue as the elephant in the room.

      • Leisure Suit Barry

        Look at how AAA games sell on PC, abysmal. Vast majority of PC players aren’t paying £50+ for games

        No, 94% of all gaming sales were not digital. AAAA games sell more physical than digital on PS5

        • “Sony’s financials for Q2 of 2023 are here, and the report illuminates that physical games are a drop in the bucket for PlayStation these days. Sony Interactive Entertainment had a record-breaking second quarter in terms of revenue, pulling in ¥954.1 billion — up 32.38 per cent year-on-year. Of that total, physical games accounts for about ¥35.5 billion, which comes out to roughly four per cent. For comparison’s sake, digital sales of full games on PS Store represents 21 per cent of total revenue.” A quote you can look up to verify. The years 2020-2021 physical sales were around 60%.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            Look I get it, you are dumb, you have no idea about statistics

            You are comparing money made from physical games vs COMPLETE REVENUE OF THE WHOLE PLAYSTATION DIVISON

            Good lord!

          • Anonymous

            You are definitely dumber for being an illiterate when all the information is written down.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            The difference being I understand the data and you don’t.

            I suggest you go back to school!

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            So you understand that physical games sales accounting for 4% of the total revenue, and digital game sales (only full games, not including DLC/micro-transactions) for 21% means that digital games outsell physical ones by more than 5:1 by revenue?

            In theory 100% of the physical sales could be AAA, and 100% of the digital sales only A/AA games, but that is extremely unlikely. AAA selling at a higher percentage on physical media relative to the average game is likely, because people are more likely/willing to buy high price AAA used than cheaper, more casual titles, where convenience is more important than resale value. But it is very improbable that this higher percentage can compensate for the five times higher digital sales.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            You do realise the vast vast majority of games these days are digital only right? Instead you need to analyse data only from games that have a physical release

            Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but AAA games sell more physical than digital

          • Peter

            Not on PC, are there still gaming PC’s with an optical disc drive? Haven’t seen one in years.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            As per Insomniac leak, 65% sales of Sony 1st party games are physical

          • Christian Schildwaechter

            (1) which is why AAA games sell more physical than digital.

            (3)Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but AAA games sell more physical than digital

            (2) AAAA games sell more physical than digital on PS5

            (4) As per Insomniac leak, 65% sales of Sony 1st party games are physical

            Those statements are not equivalent. You are moving the goalpost, from all AAA sell more physical copies to only on PS5 to only Sony 1st Party.

            I’ve found a spreadsheet screenshot from the Insomnia leak on reddit showing sales for SIE America, Europe and Japan for games from 2019-2021, listing digital sales, split by “sell-in” (sold/delivered to all channels, e.g. retail) and “sell-though” (actually sold to customers, always slightly below sell-in). This table lists 35% digital for “Catalog Total Sell-In”, so that’s my guess where your 65% comes from.

            FY2021 was 36%, FY2020 38%, the lower part and total for FY2019 is cut off, but must have been lower to the total catalogue can add up to 35%. The table most likely lists more years, the screenshot only shows them to (partial) 2019, as there are ~9K unit sales in 2021, ~ 35K in 2020, but ~283K for the whole catalogue.

            The data is somewhat strange, there are only five PS5 titles and four PS5/PS4 titles in the list, with the digital percentage from 11% (Death Stranding 1.5, 335K units) to 61% (MLB The Show 21, 1782K units). So the data is quite old and incomplete, and digital sales have been growing. There are more issues, like the physical sales for Q2’23 quoted by T.I. adding up to USD 950mn per year after a 32% increase, compared to USD 228mn in the spreadsheet for 2021, and USD 920mn in 2020.

            But if we take your moved goal post, look only at those Sony titles released up to 2021 and look at both PS4 and PS5, your statement that the majority of these is sold on physical media is correct. And it is unlikely that this has changed massively since then, so it seems likely that Sony PS5 1st party titles still sell mostly on disks in 2024.

            The other statements made here are also true: 94% of all game sales were digital in 2022 (these include mobile games, Steam, Quest and Playstation), and 79% of all game sales on Playstation were digital that year, outselling physical 5.1. I also still doubt that your fine-tuned goal post would be an indicator why ACN should fail on Quest, esp. since your argument is mostly about price and buying AAA used, while the numbers you are apparently referring to are all first sales at usually full retail price.

            Your allegation that you understand the data and others don’t wasn’t particularly accurate, as you failed to mention which data exactly you were referring to, and then specified your definition only after given (correct) generic data. And the data you finally fixed on is only a very specific and not fully up to date subset of the “why AAA games sell more physical than digital” you started with and then repeated at the end with “but AAA games sell more physical than digital”.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            Games £20 and under and nearly always digital, these are the kind of games that sell well on VR headsets.

            As per my OG post, most people are not going to spend much more money on digital only games. You sound like the Stadia fanboys who thought people were willing to buy stream only games at full price, never going to happen! Stadia didn’t fail because it’s streaming, Stadia failed because people aren’t willing to buy stream only games, especially at full price.

            If a game is priced higher and is digital only then it will sell poorly. Alan Wake 2 was digital only and guess what, despite it being critically acclaimed it sold poorly!

          • Soooooo, reading those posts: 1. the leaked sales chart only seems to account for sales recorded sometime before the start of March 2022, which means that any units sold (or games released) after that date are not accounted for by these figures, and 2. was about Insomniac games…

    • ViRGiN

      Thanks to Steam, physical copies are a rarity.
      You don’t own anything, and you can’t sell anything.

      • Leisure Suit Barry

        Which is why I ditched PC gaming a long time ago

        • ViRGiN

          Bold move, but understandable.
          Very few people actually want to *collect* games. Most people want to play them for couple of months, beat them, sell/trade for the next one.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            Yep, I but physical games cheaper than digital, if I don’t like the game I sell it for around 70% of purchased price.

            In fact I bought my PS4 with the money I made from selling my PS3 and games. I bought a PS5 with selling my PS4 and games.

          • Michael Speth

            You are going to have a hard time in the next console cycle b/c they are going digital only.

          • Leisure Suit Barry

            No they won’t, PS6 will be BC with PS5 so it will have a disc drive.

            AAA games sell more physical, they’re not going to cut off that part of the market.

      • Nevets

        I hear you but the setup cuts both ways. Games are much cheaper on digital platforms, they don’t scratch, they don’t get lost and are easily recoverable, and you can get your paws on them instantly. Of course there are reasons to love the process of acquiring, using and reselling physical games, but there are good arguments in favour of the more minimilist digital approach to ‘ownership’.

        • ViRGiN

          Not being able to sell what you bought is a huge mistake. Digital means convience, yes, but when it comes to PC, Steam gathered essentially the entire market, and nobody in the world will ever be able to compete with that, cause people have their Steam accounts for 20 years.
          Steam isn’t even good, it’s still an outdated webapp, and they will cut support for older systems, like they did recently with Windows 7.

          Even Blizzard had to return to Steam despite having their own store; all because PC gamers are addicted to Steam, and there is still that fake rumour about Valve being consumer friendly, or a great gaming company.
          It’s not healthy at all.

          • Nevets

            Fair points. The competitive landscape is pretty much nil. In fact I’m surprised Valve doesn’t behave worse.

    • Arno van Wingerde

      It is kind of pointless to insert a CD into a quest…

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    This is bad news for VR gaming in general. As much as I don’t like Ubisoft a game publisher, they have at least tried to enter VR gaming space. Their failure sends bad vibes to other A(AA) publishers when they consider investments in VR.

    • JakeDunnegan

      This hits the nail on the head.

      When a AAA publisher backs out of the VR space, whatever the reason (blame them if you want, but at least Ubisoft tried for years to break new ground in VR, which is more than almost every other AAA dev) – it has a ripple effect around the industry.

    • Paul Bellino

      It has flat game mechanics and that is what made the game fail.

      • Mattphoto

        How so? Reviews are good. People don’t experience the game mechanics until after they buy. Does this mean VR game mechanics ensure success. Seems like a very uninformed guess. It didn’t sell well ENOUGH because of many factors. the primary factor is likely that the presale, not a postsale issue.

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      I’ve heard/seen two numbers:

      – 220,000 people got the early ACN “Make yourself comfortable” achievement, meaning they at least installed and launched it, though they may still have refunded it shortly later. [JustDave twitter_com/JayHadHope/status/1755671627956736491]

      – ACN made only USD 6mn. At USD 39.99 that’s 150K sold copies if this is total revenue, or 214K if this is only the 70% Ubisoft gets, with 30% going to Meta. I’d guess this is total revenue. ACN launched a months after Quest 3, so there should have been more active users than usually. Assuming 7.5mn still active Quest 1/2/3 users (18% more than the leaked 6.37mn in 2022-10), only 2% of all Quest users bought ACN (and kept it). With 220K getting the first achievement and 150K “completed” sales, about 1/3rd refunded ACN shortly after trying it. [Tyriel Wood youtu_be/jANi9h1UNm4?t=484]

      150K units, 2% market penetration, 1/3rd refunds are indeed very bad numbers/news/vibes.

      • Paul Bellino

        Again It Was The Game Mechanics At Fault

        • Christian Schildwaechter

          Even if you keep postulating your personal opinion as truth over and over again, 2/3 of the buyers kept it, so it obviously wasn’t the game mechanics. Reviews for ACN have been universally good, with performance and glitches being the parts most criticized. Inevitably some people hated combat, climbing, parkour, or technical issues like re-projection, polish, graphics on Quest 3, but 71% of the ratings on Quest store are 5 stars nonetheless. Some people were disappointed from their projected expectations from flat Assassin’s Creed titles not working in VR. And any AC game will be ripped apart by parts of the fans, with some preferring the older titles focused on stealth, often hating the RPG style Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla went, while others who like the larger open world games are bored by a small scope in previous games.

          It was not the game mechanics fault, even if some people judge them negatively, or even Ubisoft’s fault. Critical reception was good enough to make it sell, considering it is a title from a well known AAA franchise. The market is just too small and too focused on cheaper, casual titles to generate enough sales for AAA.

          • JakeDunnegan

            Yeah, I think it was that, and not enough advertising.

            I think Meta would have done themselves a lot of good had they really pushed the title hard. Sometimes, you have to help your partners out, and one can tell Meta isn’t a game company at all. They are a platform maker and, like Epic, have a lot of catching up to do.

            When I watched the video (about a half hour long, IIRC) about what Ubisoft was doing with the game, I was really impressed. They made extra efforts and multiple modes so that people wouldn’t get sick from parkour. It’s a shame they’re leaving the VR space.

  • Paul Bellino

    This is 100 percent Ubi Softs Fault. When I have a Sword in VR I want to be able to swing it any way I want like Legendary Tales, Hell split Arena, Battle Talent and BLADE & SORCERY. When will Console Developers Learn This. VR games are to be made for and play like VR games. I should not have had to wait for the NPC to strike before I can swing. VR is about free movement. Not Console Game Mechanics. If you don’t know that, here the door. You can leave…..

  • Eric_F

    I mean, they made exclusive to quest, what did you think was going to happen? People who play Assassin’s Creed play consoles and that ain’t Quest. Don’t blame the whole medium of VR for your incredibly bad judgement. It’s like a research study which a sample size of 2 drawing sweeping conclusions about all of humanity. Give me a break.

    • ViRGiN

      People who play AC aren’t playing on PCVR or PSVR2.

    • JakeDunnegan

      I’ve played every AC game, and have never once played them on a console. Porting a game to a console (or any other system) takes almost as much work as making the game in the first place. The only consoles that have that kind of synergy (where it doesn’t take a ton of development work) is PC>>Xbox since they share similar OS.

      Which means, you need to have an audience large enough in the separate console to justify the development of what amounts to, a second AAA game.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        Just a tiny nitpicking: no AC game was ever “ported” to console. Even the first Assassin’s Creed from 2007 launched on PS3/Xbox 360 and was then ported to Windows in 2008.

        The OS is much less important than one might assume, as most of the AAA use (inhouse) game engines that hide away the OS, also allowing to bridge architecture changes (Xbox x86 -> Xbox 360 PowerPC -> Xbox One/Series S/X x86, PS1/2 MIPS -> PS3 PowerPC/Cell -> PS4/5 x86). This makes releasing on different systems (PS = FreeBSD, Xbox = DX8-12 plus minimal OS, Windows) much easier.

        The OS similarities between Windows and Xbox are smaller than many expect. Xbox development started with W2000, but they had to strip out pretty much everything except DirectX (the X in Xbox) for performance reasons. Hardware architectures are often a bigger problem due to the required optimization being different, with the PS3 based on the very fast, but hard to utilize parallel Cell processor being the prime example. Today everything is very similar, mostly x86 based (even Macs were until recently), and the most important graphics libraries DX12/Vulkan/Metal are easily translated into each other.

        • JakeDunnegan

          Just nitpicking ;) But I didn’t say that AC was ported to the console. I said I played every AC game, but never once played on the console. I then pivoted to the idea of porting in general, which costs a lot of money. In this case, AC porting to PC was justified b/c they found a big audience (including me!) that would buy and play the games there.

  • gothicvillas

    Until they make the same games flat and vr this will never take off. I dont want some assasin creed “experience” but an effing full game please in glorious VR. Make it both flat nd vr, i dont care how
    Ths applies to ALL games with a few exceptions (very few)

    • Jonathan Winters III

      You must not own the game. It’s not an “experience”. It’s a full game.

      • ApocalypseShadow

        Does the full VR game play like a full Assassin’s Creed game? I don’t think so.

        That’s like saying Horizon was a full game in the same way as Forbidden West.

  • KRJ74

    Not doing Splinter Cell VR was the biggest mistake!

  • impurekind

    I was almost going to buy it, but I just don’t feel it did quite enough visually to sell me. At the very least, it should have had proper shadows on the characters on Quest 3 like the developer of Asgard’s Wrath 2 managed on even Quest 2. My standards for these AAA games charging premium VR prices have risen, and I’m not going to buy stuff doesn’t quite meet a min threshold relative to the game on offer anymore. Ubisoft could do a little better with the game imo, and maybe then I’ll be willing to give it a go.

  • impurekind

    Do a second pass on the visuals to take full advantage of Quest 3–add proper shadows beneath all the characters for a start–and drop the price to say £20-£30 and then I’ll give it a look.

  • STL

    Nexus is strongly connected to Q3 sales and usage. And people will play it after they are done with Asgard‘s Wrath! He could have brought it to PSVR2 as well, but he didn‘t.

  • NicoleJsd

    Good. I hope the cancer known as meta vr dies before it’s too late for everyones privacy sake

    • Andrew Jakobs

      But it has been meta vr that actually kept vr going.

    • Nevets

      Out of interest what are your favourite games on your Quest?

      • ameba#23234 mdrea

        Those that don’t suck

        • Nevets

          Just as I thought.

          • ameba#23234 mdrea

            Smart boi

    • JakeDunnegan

      You’re a bit behind on the news. Meta dropped their requirement to have a facebook account several years ago. I had privacy concerns as well, but it’s not an issue now – no more than it is having a Steam account, for instance. (E.g. they know your credit card number and that’s about it.)

  • DickDastardly

    Of course, Assassin’s Creed: Nexus not doing as well as Ubisoft hoped isn’t positive news and it’s certainly possible to interpret Guillemot’s statement as “We’re not going to spend another penny on VR until the market is bigger” but it’s equally reasonable to interpret it as “we’re going to continue to invest in VR at about the same level as we have been for now”. At no point does he say that any future investments are “on hold”, or that Assassin’s Creed: Nexus “markedly underperformed”.

    And the last paragraph of the article is nonsense. Ubisoft did cancel several games in 2022 as a result of the company’s general financial underperformance (which was unrelated to VR). However, only one of them was a VR title (Splinter Cell VR). Ghost Recon Frontline was never going to be in VR, and there’s no indication whatsoever that either of the unannounced titles was either.

  • Eric

    It didn’t do well because it’s a quest exclusive. I bet many other people are in the same boat as me that want to play the game but have a different VR headset. VR is still a developing platform and so the amount of people that have a headset is limited. So when you limit a game’s reach even further by locking it to one “console”, of course it isn’t going to do well.

    • Gabe Zuckerwell

      Cool way to say you buy exclusively from steam

  • MackRogers

    How many more examples of VR Gaming being dead do you guys need?

    At what point will you get it through your heads? Its laughable at this point

    • Christian Schildwaechter

      I’m usually someone throwing around numbers and statistics to stop people from making overly enthusiastic predictions about VR going mainstream. But even I have no doubt that VR gaming is not dead and will not die, but instead become much larger in the future. Most of it will be “casual” VR/XR gaming, like casual games are now the largest group of games played thanks to billions of smartphones. But just like smartphones (and before it the Nintendo Wii) introduced a lot of new people to games, significantly growing the overall market, so will XR HMDs used more like smartphones today, eventually leading to even “Immersive” VR games to become a viable market for AAA.

      ACN selling way below expectations is an example for the current VR gaming market being too small to pay for AAA, but neither an example for VR gaming being dead nor a clear indicator that VR AAA will never become viable.

    • Gabe Zuckerwell

      Muh eppl wision gayming

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Yeah, that’s exactly what peopke said about adventure games, and yet still a lot of people like those games over games like fortnite or GTA5. Not everybody has to like the same thing. Just like I really hate watching sports, while others love it.

  • Lawrence McGee

    I bought a Quest 3 (my first VR experience) and after the wow factor wears off after the first few months, I don’t find first person games to be very enjoyable and I don’t bother with them anymore. Which is surprising as I thought it would be the main games I’d use it. The games that I ended enjoying and actually going back to are games like Book of Moss 1/2 and Ghost Signal (fixed location in the 3D world). I could see simulator games being more interesting, Flight Sim, Car driving, Hunting, but there isn’t many of those and few that are, the quality is really average. I played asgard’s wrath 2 for an hour or so and haven’t been back in, and that’s suppose to be a 10 out of 10 VR game. I think for the most part, VR games need to change, and become a floating large 3D monitor in front of the user, and not try to be first person inside the world. No doubt this comment will outrage people here but meh. “VR” gear would do well to aim to be just a pair of glasses that are put on, and not ski goggles trying to block everything out, and the idea of way games are played on it need to change for the most part too.

    • Andrey

      Yeah, right – if VR games should be what you want, then the essence of VR itself will be lost. VR is about immersion and immersion is when you do all the things yourself. Why people love shooters more in VR than in flat games? Why people react harshly when is some games developers took away this kind of interections (f.e. automatic reloadings in Crossfire Sierra Squad on release)? Exactly. Even the most popular games from Beat Saber and Blade and Sorcery and something like Eleven Table Tennis to Half Life Alyx, Lone Echo and ports of Resident Eveil are all about moving and interacting. and not just sitting and watching.
      If you are lazy and don’t want to move/can’t feel the immersion during playing for some reason – well, then it’s your problem. Sell your Q3, buy yourself a very big TV/monitor and play flat games, because VR apparently is not your thing.

      • Christian Schildwaechter

        There is no “essence” of VR, just like there is no “essence” of smartphones. If people don’t use phones to make phone calls, and instead order pizza with them or read news, that’s just as fine as people watching movies in VR or playing board games with remote friends or strangers.

        The last time Road To VR posted a “Quest Top 20” list, the best “somewhat” shooters were COMPOUND #10, ARK and ADE #11 and YUKI #19. The only “real” shooter was “Into the Radius” at #20. The top 4 were puzzlers, followed by Walkabout Mini Golf at #5 as the first game you at least should stand up for. And shooters are way more popular on flat consoles and PCs than in VR, with Fortnite alone now generating 60% as much revenue as all of Steam. You believing that everybody is into the same style of games as you doesn’t make it so.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      No VR games don’t need to change, as I don’t like the games you like. I just want it as diverse as possible, I like the first person adventure games very much in VR, games like Myst in VR is something I really like, whereas the flatscreen version of Myst is actually something I hate. I do also like the VR games where you control a puppet or help them get across the level.
      I don’t see the advantage of a floating 3D monitor, in that case I just want a glasses-free 3D monitor.
      VR games are about real immersion, to me, looking at a flat screen within my headset is not what it’s about.
      I just guess VR games aren’t really your thing, or at least certain gametypes, just I hate watching American Football, baseball or basketball, formula 1, never understood what people find enjoyable about watching sports.

  • STL

    Meta needs to support Ubisoft financially. If there are no AAA games, nobody will buy the Quest 3. Lessons learned from PSVR2.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      But who says Meta didn’t (co)finance the game, it is a high probability looking at previous Meta (timed) exclusive games.

  • sebrk

    VR is an excellent opportunity to democratize experience development. Who cares if AAA is on board. Totally fine with indie devs owning this. 75% of AAA titles, regardless of platform absolutely sucks anyway. There is nothing saying we need them.

  • NL_VR

    “It did okay, and it continues to sell, but we thought it would sell more,”
    so a “okay game” did sell okay?
    Make better games and they will sell.
    lol at Ubisoft and lol at all nay sayers who got some more gasoline to their fire.
    People like to write negative toughts more than focus on whats actually good.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      Better game is in the eye of the beholder, what you might call a great game, I might call it boring or crap. It’s also about expectation, if one expects gameplay A, because a certain franchise has always been like that, and they get gameplay B, a lot of people will say it’s a crap game, simply because they don’t like the different gameplay.
      I doubt a lot of AAA studio’s go into it with , oh lets make a crappy game.. (looking at steam games, I certainly say AAA, as on steam there are way too many games which are clearly made by someone who is still following some online tutorial and publishing the result of that).

      • NL_VR

        The game was ok and Dells and still della.
        It did OK.
        Ubisoft think everyone wants assassins creed which many think is a crappy game serie.
        And some way I feel lot I vr gamers doesnt care about assassins creed flat and maybe not assassins creed vr

  • xyzs

    Ubisoft killed their reputation so much over the past years, that their name is enough to explain why people didn’t buy.
    Personally, anything that is from EA or Ubisoft is a pure NO!
    My money won’t go to these toxic companies.

  • Andross

    just for curiosity, why roadtovr sometimes skip the comment section for some news? for example the last about yugioh …

  • Frank

    This is such an infuriating chicken and egg thing. People not being very interested in VR because of the lack of titles and gaming companies not wanting to invest because too little people are in VR.

    Also, the continued focus on quest 3 (even 2) is the real problem imo. These devices are simply not powerful enough for proper AAA games like assassins creed. These games need to make massive sacrifices because of it. And that’s coming from a quest 3 owner who does think that it’s overal a great device too. We should just stream from a good pc using steam link/ virtual desktop for the foreseeable future imo. Then maybe, we can get back to awesome AAA games and experiences like halflife Alyx and not the crappy quest ports and mangled games we have now. How I’d love that, doubt it will happen though sad to say

    • wheeler

      Is it really a chicken and egg problem though when you have tons of headsets out there and then exactly the kind of content people are asking for, and yet people still don’t bother?

      It looks more like “we’ve artificially engineered a fully grown chicken but people still don’t want to eat it”