Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

image

A round of congratulations is in order for Ubisoft, which has been awarded the title of "world's least consistent videogame publisher" in a new analysis of data accrued by Metacritic.

The results are based on a scoring system formulated by GameQuarry which assigns point values to various Metacritic scores. Games with scores in the 90-100 range are worth two points, games in the 80-89 range are worth one point and scores of 70-79 are worth nothing. On the other end of the scale, games with Metacritic scores of 60-69 got a -1, and anything under 59 got -2 points. The totals were then added up to determine the most and least consistent publishers in the business.

Topping the charts, to no one's great surprise, is Rockstar, which scored 19 points across 23 titles. In second place with 14 points over 23 games is Telltale Games, a lesser-known publisher that's done well for itself with the new Sam & Max and Strong Bad games, while Blizzard came in third with 11 points over seven titles.

At the opposite end of the scale is Ubisoft, bringing up the rear with -148 points over 237 titles. Activision doesn't fare much better, scoring -138 on 227 games, while THQ is third from the bottom with a -120 score across 150 games.

Games in the analysis were limited to titles on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, PC, PSP and DS, and had to be have a minimum of four reviews for their Metacritic scores to be included. GameQuarry also cautioned against reading too much into the data. "It is imperative to keep these results in perspective as they do not reflect trends towards an increase or decrease in quality trends," the analysis noted. "For example, a publisher on the 'Most Consistent List' may in fact be trending towards a decline in quality whereas a publisher on the 'Least Consistent List' may trend towards an increase in quality. It is also entirely plausible that the publisher noted may be a standout leader in a particular genre or platform but performing poorly in another."

The value of the Metacritic data from which the results ultimate derive has been the subject of recent debate, as David Perry points out on his blog. "Let's just say many of my friends are having a very heavy discussion (right now), on the validity of the Metacritic data," he wrote. "So this is incredibly timely and will add fuel to that fire for certain!" Some critics say its scoring system is unbalanced while others have complained that some reviews are inappropriate for certain games and should be excluded from scoring.

Perry claimed the results "surprised the heck out of him" but most of the entries, at both ends of the list, don't strike me as overly shocking, nor does the fact that the most consistent publishers have put out a relatively small number of titles while those with the worst scores have a far larger catalog to their credit. Aside from Microsoft and Nintendo at 110 and 102 releases respectively, no other publisher in the top ten comes close to even 50 games published, while at the opposite end, only Majesco, Strategy First, Namco and DreamCatcher have published less than 100 - and with 98 games on the shelf, DreamCatcher is just barely off the mark.

It's clear that consistency doesn't equate with quality when it comes to individual releases and the scattershot approach to publishing taken by companies like Ubisoft and Activision will inevitably, perhaps even obviously, result in an inconsistent record of hits and misses, particularly when compared to the focus of publishers like Blizzard and Bethesda. But aside from codifying the data, is this really telling us anything we didn't already know?

Permalink

Where does EA fit into this?
Also, including the PC on this without at least going as far back as the 6th generation is distorting things a bit isn't it?

Indigo_Dingo:
Where does EA fit into this?
Also, including the PC on this without at least going as far back as the 6th generation is distorting things a bit isn't it?

EA is a publisher.

EDIT: Suppose they do some development.

Surely this data shows ubisoft is verry consistent.. at performing poorly.

And this is about publishers and the consistency of their titles

Basically yeah

I'm not surprised. Occasionally, Ubisoft will release a good game like the Splinter Cell series, but it's really a mixed bag.

I thought they were talking release dates when I read the title...Valve and Blizzard come to mind in that case.

I was gonna say, "Hey where's DoubleFine?"

But then I remembered they only have like one game right now.

Edit: On the issue of whether Metacritic data is valid or not, nobody considers a negative review of their favorite game as valid, consequently, nobody considers a positive review on a much hated game to be valid either, so the Metacritic naysayers' argument just flys out the window.

Grand_Poohbah:

Indigo_Dingo:
Where does EA fit into this?
Also, including the PC on this without at least going as far back as the 6th generation is distorting things a bit isn't it?

EA is a publisher.

EDIT: Suppose they do some development.

...

Malygris:
Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

Although to be fair, if their score is so low, wouldn't that mean they are consistent, just consitently crap? Better to call them "The worlds worst videogame publisher"?

This proves its quality over quantity when making video games. All the top publishers have twenty three or less games while at the opposite end it all in the triple digits.

orannis62:
I'm not surprised. Occasionally, Ubisoft will release a good game like the Splinter Cell series, but it's really a mixed bag.

If thts they're good game they really are in the crapper.

matrix3509:
I was gonna say, "Hey where's DoubleFine?"

But then I remembered they only have like one game right now.

And they're a developer, who is published by EA

Grand_Poohbah:

Indigo_Dingo:
Where does EA fit into this?
Also, including the PC on this without at least going as far back as the 6th generation is distorting things a bit isn't it?

EA is a publisher.

EDIT: Suppose they do some development.

THQ and Activision are publishing houses too (and yes, I missed "publisher" in the OP title, oops).

So I would like to see where EA fits into this too, though frankly given how their sports games always get a good score it would skew the stats a bit.

Good on Telltale Games being up there though, given that they are proof that episodic content (and WiiWare) are viable concepts for game development these days.

Indigo Dingo:

Malygris:
Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

Although to be fair, if their score is so low, wouldn't that mean they are consistent, just consitently crap? Better to call them "The worlds worst videogame publisher"?

Is what I was wondering. Surely an "inconsistent publisher" would be closer to 0, with good games balancing the poor games.

Indigo_Dingo:

orannis62:
I'm not surprised. Occasionally, Ubisoft will release a good game like the Splinter Cell series, but it's really a mixed bag.

If thts they're good game they really are in the crapper.

You don't like Splinter Cell? It's my favorite series, that's why I mentioned it. They have other good stuff too.

Wouldukindly:
I thought they were talking release dates when I read the title...Valve and Blizzard come to mind in that case.

Blizzard is horrible when it comes to release dates but wow their games are awesome.

Break:

Indigo Dingo:

Malygris:
Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

Although to be fair, if their score is so low, wouldn't that mean they are consistent, just consitently crap? Better to call them "The worlds worst videogame publisher"?

Is what I was wondering. Surely an "inconsistent publisher" would be closer to 0, with good games balancing the poor games.

True that. Ubisoft just kinda sucks when it comes to video games. Consequently, that's what they make.

Yes, the math here is dubious - to say the least.

Moreover, there's not even any attempt to normalise things in terms of the number of reviews - if one game got five reviews in the 90s, they get ten points. If another game got thirty reviews in the eighties but also got five reviews below fifty, they also get fifteen points for the publisher.

In short, these figures tell us nothing significant about the quality of the publishers nor about their consistency.

orannis62:

Indigo_Dingo:

orannis62:
I'm not surprised. Occasionally, Ubisoft will release a good game like the Splinter Cell series, but it's really a mixed bag.

If thts they're good game they really are in the crapper.

You don't like Splinter Cell? It's my favorite series, that's why I mentioned it. They have other good stuff too.

Theres no level on which its any good at all.

Indigo_Dingo:

orannis62:

Indigo_Dingo:

orannis62:
I'm not surprised. Occasionally, Ubisoft will release a good game like the Splinter Cell series, but it's really a mixed bag.

If thts they're good game they really are in the crapper.

You don't like Splinter Cell? It's my favorite series, that's why I mentioned it. They have other good stuff too.

Theres no level on which its any good at all.

So, you're saying you don't like Splinter Cell? (sorry, I know this is redundant, but you're a bit less coherent than usual) Fine, that's your opinion. I personally love it.

The thing with ubi is that they publish a lot of those Imagine games that get really poor scores on Metacritic so with the calculation system they use, it really outweighs the good games like the Splinter Cell series, the PoP series and BGaE.

So I really don't see why all of sudden half of you go "pffft, Ubisoft sucks they never made anything good". Dudes, did you forgot.... Rayman.

"Rockstar, which scored 19 points across 23 titles..."

"...Blizzard came in third with 11 points over seven titles."

Excuse me? If this was a kill/death ratio, I'd say Blizzard is winning! They're just not as prolific in number-of-games.
Assuming all Blizzard's games scored at least one point, Blizzard must have four 2-point games, while Rockstar must've had several zeroes or negatives! I'd call that a testament to consistency.

looking over the article, Metacritic's grading system seems a bit fuzzy. i redid the math myself using the following system: 100-90=4 89-80=3 79-70=2 69-60=1 and 59-0=0 and the results seem to make more sense (although i did use the data in the arcticle as refence instead of trying to go to a bunch of sites and individualy gathering info)

1st: Blizzard 7 games 25/28total points 89.29% B+
2nd: Rockstar 23 games 65/92total points 70.65% C-
3rd: Telltale games 23 games 60/92total points 65.22% D

incedentaly the bottom also changed up a bit

3rd from last: Activision 227 games 316/908total points 34.80% F
2nd from last: Ubisoft 237 games 326/948total points 34.39% F
Last: THQ 150 games 180/600total points 30.00% F

I wonder if they were drunk when it came time to crunch the numbers cuz they were a bit off to say the least. (took me like 5 mins)

good catch BobisOnlyBob

Break:

Indigo Dingo:

Malygris:
Ubisoft is "World's Least Consistent Videogame Publisher"

Although to be fair, if their score is so low, wouldn't that mean they are consistent, just consitently crap? Better to call them "The worlds worst videogame publisher"?

Is what I was wondering. Surely an "inconsistent publisher" would be closer to 0, with good games balancing the poor games.

I agree, but somebody would sue if they used the term 'worst publisher'.

EA has published some great games, and has published some terrible ones as well. I would expect it to have recieved a zero or near-zero on the list.

Where's Valve, by the way?

Uh what?

How is ubisoft 'inconsistent'?

Based on the explanation of how the ranking system works, you can't determine 'inconsistent'.

Having a score of -237 means Ubisoft has a lot of games with low scores.

Inconsistent CANNOT be deduced from this scoring system regardless, but the MOST INCONSISTENT publisher would, by definition, have a score of 0.

Because being inconsistent means having scores that are all over the place.
Some really good, some really bad.

If you average that out, you would end up with a score of 0, not a negative or positive one.

Granted, a score of 0 could also arise because you produce a huge amount of average games, but in any event, I've made my point.

This just doesn't make sense.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here