In a recent filing with Companies House, Ubisoft’s United Kingdom-based arm wrote a lengthy breakdown about the ‘future developments’ of the firm. This somewhat morbid telling of the tale of gaming suggested that a paradigm shift is occurring, one that’s skewing the future of new single games in the wake of subscriptions and live-service titles.
Wasting no time, Ubisoft’s representatives directly said that ‘consumers are playing fewer games’ and the ones that they do play, they’re ‘playing for longer’, which means that new, single releases are struggling to compete and achieve the sales ‘they may once have had.’
Ubisoft’s Tale of Woe Suggests Gaming is Changed Forever
In the report filed in the United Kingdom on November 13 (thanks to RPS for the spot), the dull and meagre outlook on the games industry was published for all to see.
Ubisoft isn’t happy with how trends are unravelling.
The traditional ‘full game’ model of selling a single £50 – £60 game to a consumer as a one-time purchase continues to become less ubiquitous, with multi game subscription services, long running games-as-a-service titles, free-to-play games, and cloud streaming offerings all providing new and attractive ways for consumers to access gaming content.
Consumers are playing fewer games, playing them for longer, and as a result, outside of a few notable exceptions, many new games are struggling to stand out and achieve the sales they may once have had, while the market is more volatile and the potential for any specific title less predictable as a result.
All that was followed by a note that Ubisoft Limited will see falling revenue in the coming months.
Ubisoft isn’t wrong; that’s certainly the way of the world right now. People are falling in love with live-service games and sticking with them, sometimes relying on them for years to deliver on their gaming interests. Titles like Fortnite reshaped how the gaming world works, and that operating model is being mirrored by plenty of other titles.
And yes, free-to-play games and subscription services are saving people money (in some cases) when compared to buying full-priced, premium releases multiple times a year.
Ubisoft’s report sounds a little like whining and less like a pragmatic approach to an ever-changing market. Where some developers have bucked up and sorted out their direction, like Embark Studios with ARC Raiders, a live-service game with years of potential, Ubisoft seems instead to want to rely on the ‘old ways’ of single releases supported by some DLC.
It’s also ironic given that Ubisoft boasts ownership of one of the longest-running live-service games in the business: Rainbow Six Siege.
What do you think about Ubisoft’s statement? Let me know your thoughts on the Insider Gaming Discord server.
For more Insider Gaming coverage, check out the news that Xbox has addressed the next-gen console
Grant has been gaming for 30+ years and in the industry for 10+. You'll probably find him playing a post-apocalyptic game or an extraction shooter somewhere.
More from Grant Taylor-Hill
Wrong, ubisoft people are just not buying ” Your games” as “Legendary Drops” on Twitter put it. Go look at arc raiders, BF6, Ghost of Yotei, Expidition 33, Hades 2, Manor lords, Blue prince, Kingdom Come 2, all of Nintendo’s 2025 slate. Forza Horizon 5 PS5 release.
No Ubisoft they are just not buying your slop. And you among the big publishers have been pushing slop. And I feel bad for the Developers because even games that dont come together take effort/talent to make. Issue is more or less your investors pushing the direction in finding the quickest way to make the line go up.
Which in a entertainment/creative medium is a sure fire way of milking and producing uneven results after a while. Which in tern has lead to EA being bought and now possibly Ubisoft being bought.
Blizzard use to before activision be about the art/game. Maybe that meant they were not as business effecient as other pubs. So what? As long as your creatives were happy, and having a blast making awesome shit that bleeds over to the consumer enjoying that awesome shit and long term.
But too many investors that know nothing of video games or creative mediums pushed for the direction you took your company.
Valve has proven staying private is the way to be. And I think unless your Nintendo where all decisions come from Japan which has more ethics in long term company pride, i see it being a case of staying private for the sake of creative protection.
Thank God of Indie AA.
Ubisoft’s take on why their games aren’t selling seems so lacking in self awareness. Maybe, Ubisoft, your games aren’t selling – not because people are playing less games, but instead because you have been copy pasting the exact same game design and slapping different graphics on it for a decade? Maybe people are just worn out, playing the same old formula again and again? It seems to me like breakout successes like Arc Raiders (just for one example) show a little creativity goes a long way.