So I decided to check if Schedule 1 is still popping off and it just peaked at 190k today. It launched on a Monday, so the first weekend is coming up and it could likely break 200k. If all goes well,
@PleaseCheckYourReceipts could end up being right about this outselling AC Shadows, not just in raw units but potentially revenue. This game is like a third of the price of Shadows but it is pushing beyond triple the peak player count while the valleys on its graph are starting to be the peak for Shadows.
While Shadows on Steam Charts is going to be a bit skewed because it's a Console Primary series, it's far more the lack of a peak that's a big give away that Shadows isn't doing well. Games generally have only 2 types of sales patterns, Slow Ramp or FOMO Peak & Crash. The Slow Ramp can easily start with some nutty high sales to start, but it'll keep going. Think Skyrim or Witcher 3. Half-life actually sold more units in year 3 than year 1, and it was a huge seller in year 1.
But the long-tail sales approaches only really work if you have a good enough of a product within the player base you're after. It didn't matter if Hogwarts was probably an 8 out of 10 game, it hit its playerbase in the way they wanted to play and, boom, 12 million unit sales. And those weren't deep discount sales. Most games that get to >10 million in sales get there at the long-tail of 10-20 USD copies. Now, the exception is GTA5 and Nintendo games. They know their the apex product and don't need to do sales.
The long tail sales approach is how Ubisoft & Microsoft justify the "play day 1 on subscription" model. They probably aren't wrong about the Net Revenue effect, actually. The actual final per unit revenue is in the 15-17USD per copy range over 10 million "units sold" after distribution costs. But there's a bit problem that's already clearly happened: that means the Game is only worth ~20USD on launch. They've already devalued their games to that point. This is also why Ubisoft has turned their "single player" games into microtransaction hell zones. They need to recover a lot more of the first 3 months of sales in total revenue. COD will move >30 mil units in the first quarter and all at full price. I'm pretty sure COD revenue alone outdoes all of Ubisoft, and Acti-Blizzard had a lot more to go with it.
(Weirdly, as far as I can tell, Ubisoft somehow never made a single Mobile game of note. I guess Ubisoft's uniquely French levels of stupid is at play here.)
As for Schedule I, it's an Early Access game with this much of a start. It's going to get several bites at the apple. It's already cleared at least 500k Sales on Steam. One dude in a week has almost cleared to the lower Steam revenue split, haha. It could definitely hit a wall, but the game also has a chance for a very long tail effect. Though it is a flavor of the month for now.
One of the big keys is Reviews on Steam. They're pretty damn stable relative to the sales of a product. Schedule 1 already has more than AC:Shadows. I also just noticed that AC:Shadows has a lower all-time peak than Euro Truck Simulator 2. A game that released in 2012 and, in fact, had its all-time high of 69.7k active just this past December.
I also figured out how Ubisoft is fluffing the numbers. Anyone with an Ubisoft+ subscription that logs in is prompted to play the game. Adding it to the Library/engage it and you count as a player that was "engaged" with the game. This would be like Netflix saying everyone that logged into the home screen engaged with a media property. So while the number is technically true, it's a pretty worrying sign. This isn't the compressed release cycles of the late 2000s where months 2 and 3 would normally see the biggest sales because of distribution & word of mouth.
Also, this is very much because Valhalla was actually received a lot worse by players than most realize. Games series sell off the previous release, and the standards discussion around Valhalla was that it was boring because of how it was structured. Shadows isn't changing that discussion. This is the knock-off effect of things.