Between lower-than-expected revenues, several failed projects and yet another postponement of Assassin’s Creed Shadows, it seems that Ubisoft has been sailing by sight for many years now.
It was news a few days ago that Assassin’s Creed Shadows will no longer be released in February, but in March. A further delay, this time for a month, aimed at providing developers with the additional time needed to refine the final product. An understandable choice since Ubisoft’s future is most likely linked to the success of what has in fact remained the French company’s only flagship product.
The transalpine publisher cannot afford another misstep after the many, certainly too many, made in recent years. The failures have now been piling up, one on top of the other, for several months – if not years – now. From Star Wars Outlaws to to make inroads into the market, despite the very high quality.
Champions Tactics: Grimoria Chronicles is one of Ubisoft’s NFT games. It unexpectedly flopped.
But in addition to the economic damage linked to questionable management choices, there is also the damage to image. I don’t think I’m writing anything stupid in stating that Ubisoft’s reputation is now marked by an indelible stigma. The French publisher’s products are viewed with distrust by a significant part of gamers, rightly or wrongly it doesn’t matter: what matters is the public’s perception, which translates into lukewarm receptions and disappointing sales. And all of this, let’s be clear, is Ubisoft’s own fault. A company that stubbornly continues to focus on the exact same type of video games, that of open world action, for every single franchise.
“Open world à la Ubisoft” has become a derogatory expression
It is no coincidence that in the last decade the definition “open world à la Ubisoft” was coined to identify a certain type of video game set in a world full of activities, often very distracting. Far Cry, Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, Star Wars Outlaws, the various Watch Dogs, the latest Assassin’s Creed and even The Crew… the feeling of always playing the same video game with a different skin is palpable. Don’t managers have the doubt that maybe, just maybe, people have gotten tired of this formula? Yet Yves Guillemot and his companions persevered undaunted in following this path. In every single statement to investors and the press, Guillemot himself did nothing but repeat that Ubisoft would continue to focus on this type of open world and live services.
After a troubled development, XDefiant didn’t even last a year.
Yep, live services. Beyond Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor which have managed to carve out a corner in an overcrowded sector, all other attempts to find the goose that lays the golden eggs have failed miserably. The latest in a long series of flops is the aforementioned XDefiant, but it is impossible not to also mention Skull & Bones, Riders Republic, Roller Champions, Hyper Scape, and so on. All of them, more or less, turned out to be products of questionable quality, as well as a waste of time and money.
The abyss seems ever closer
What’s the saying? To err is human, to persevere diabolical? Well, if despite everything you continue to make the same mistakes, then perhaps the time has come to do some serious reflection and try to understand where the real problem is. Also because it cannot be the fault of the employees, who as always pay with dismissal for the mistakes of those at the top. It can’t be their fault if you navigate by sight. Then you can hire all the possible and imaginable consultants to evaluate “strategic transformations and capitalistic options to extract the greatest value for stakeholders”, as reported in the latest press release which sounds a lot like super corporate bullshit, but all this is of no use if those who have to make the decisions continue to lead society towards an abyss that seems ever closer.
The success of Assassin’s Creed Shadows is crucial: Ubisoft may not have another chance.
So what does the future hold for Ubisoft? I don’t have a crystal ball but, for the first time in many years of rumors, Yves Guillemot has not ruled out the possibility that the company could be acquired by a third party. The first suspect can only be Tencent, already the second largest relative shareholder after the Guillemot family itself. An eventuality that brings with it the shadow of the Chinese government, of which Tencent is in fact an extension due to its ties with the Chinese Communist Party. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the holding is already the first global player in terms of turnover in the video game sector, therefore the acquisition of a large publisher like Ubisoft would lead to a further centralization of market shares in the hands of a single entity.
Microsoft has no chance of acquiring Ubisoft
However, the possibility that the publisher could end up in the hands of Microsoft is impossible. If you recall, Ubisoft holds the perpetual streaming rights to all Activision Blizzard King branded video games in territories outside the European Economic Area. The sale of these rights by the Redmond company was a fundamental step for the approval of the acquisition of ABK by the British antitrust, therefore any move by Microsoft could be frowned upon by the Competition and Markets Authority of the Kingdom United and lead to possible sanctions, or worse.
It’s up to Ubisoft to decide which streaming services Activision Blizzard King video games land on.
And the other big one? On the one hand, Sony may not have an interest in Ubisoft’s catalogue, which partly overlaps in type with some of the PlayStation series (see Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima/Yotei). On the other hand we are talking about a giant that already has its own problems with a view to containing costs to increase the operating margin, therefore taking charge of another series of studies around the world which have a whopping 18,666 employees ( data updated to October 2024) may not be the wisest choice in the world.
The huge number of employees could discourage many potential buyers
To tell the truth, anyone who decides to acquire Ubisoft will necessarily have to deal with high maintenance costs, including those related to personnel. As often happens in these cases, the buyer could make horizontal cuts which would affect the employees first and foremost. An operation that I am quite certain will also take place if the publisher decides to remain independent, perhaps through a buyout operation by a consortium led by the Guillemot family itself. Indeed, to tell the truth, staff cuts have already occurred in the last two years, with a decrease in the overall workforce of over 2,000 employees in the last twenty-four months.
The Rogue Prince of Persia is a step in the right direction, even if it is a project carried out by an external studio.
But beyond economic and financial discussions, what in my opinion is really needed is a radical change of pace. A new strategy that aims to offer players what they really want, perhaps bringing back all those series from the past that have long been forgotten. Remakes are not enough, although welcome but stalled for several years now, such as those of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Splinter Cell, or a new Rayman whose pre-production has just begun. We need the courage to reclaim that creative drive that brought Ubisoft to the crest of the wave up until about ten years ago, between experimental projects and the desire to innovate even within consolidated series. But you have to do it soon, because it doesn’t take much to end up upside down.
Previous article
