Nobody deserves insolvency more than Ubisoft. They are not just greedy. They're also incompetent and delusional. They took solid gold franchises and fucked them to death.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
376 points (99.2% liked)
PC Gaming
13302 readers
766 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Close another studio? Cancel some more games? That's the best way to make more money, right? Lay everyone off and stop making products?
I do think they should actually downsize. Stop pushing out a new Assassins Creed every year or 2. Reduce the magnitude of the games a bit. First few Assassins Creeds were special. Far Cry games used to be great too. Now they just feel like a grindfest. As do the AC games.
But I don't think Ubisoft leadership would be capable of doing it right. They'd probably just lay off everyone who actually does work, and expect a similar amount of games.
This is why the reform needs to start at the top. Ubisoft is doomed until the leeches are gone.
Release a new Splinter Cell game!
There are industries where that works. In business software, that's incredibly common, in part because people buy the same software every year, or on a subscription. So the company makes a half decent product, hires an insane amount of people to market it while firing the vast majority of the developers, sells a ton of subscriptions, then coasts for a decade or two. Any time a competitor starts forming, buy them, lay off the staff, and coast on that too.
It's the business model of the vast majority of business to business software/service products out there.
Cool, that sounds exactly like how people want game companies to run. Just make a subscription based game, fire a bunch of people that actually made the product, and kill any innovative competition!
Doesn't sound fucking deplorable at all.
Any time a competitor starts forming, buy them, lay off the staff, and coast on that too.
Hey! Don't go calling Norton out like that, man
Could try pachinko like konami
Those are good ideas, but their advisors will probably have them take out a massive loan and use it to buy another game studio, then lay off the staff at that game studio, to briefly appear profitable, before crashing into bankruptcy to be bought by Microsoft.
More microtransactions into the slop they are putting out soon.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Meh. Their games are mediocre at best and the bullshit they attach to playing a game makes it totally not worth bothering to give Ubisoft any money.
Ubisoft will own nothing, and we will be happy...
I hope Ubisoft goes belly up. Fuck them greedy dickheads. And special fuck you’s to the Trump family and the Saudis.
What do you say Lemmy, should we all put in $20 and make an acquisition offer? The people in this thread should cover it.
Current evaluation is about 720M USD I believe. At 20 USD per person, that implies there are 36M persons in this thread.
Lemmy had gotten BIG!
You know, we could theoretically reverse GameStop this fucker.
I wonder if we could hire a lawyer and take a hostile takeover bat to EA.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Love that for them ❤️
How much have the executives pay dropped?
Executive pay is mostly stock so… 95% over 8 years?
They need some fun original IP, so much of their work is derivative and rehashes of old stuff now.
Beyond that, to GET to their rehashed derivative stuff you need a separate launcher with a separate and annoying login.
O, I forgot about that. If it isn't in Steam or Heroic, I apparently need active reminders it even exists.
They are on steam!
https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/ubisoft
I am fairly confident they are one of the companies where when you launch the game you purchased through steam it redirects you to the ubisoft launcher like how some Microsoft games in steam prompt a xbox login. Forza Horizon 5, I'm looking at you.
You are correct. It's the reason why I never played that anno 2070 game I bought, besides constant crashes when I tried to launch.
Not only that, but true to Ubisoft form, many Uplay DRM games still require Steam if you buy them through Steam, so you actually must have both launchers running to play, not just Ubisoft's. If you start it from Uplay (yeah, I know, it's "Ubisoft Connect" now), it will start Steam up. Steam doesn't require this--lots of Steam games don't require Steam's DRM. It's completely Ubisoft's choice to force Steam DRM on top of their own DRM.
People always seem to forget stream DRM is ENTIRELY optional and a developer choice.
And beyond that 90% of the games people think use steam drm don't actually use it. The only reason steam needs to run is because of the steam overlay. Remove the dll that hooks into steam for the overlay and the vast VASTY majority of all games on steam are entirely portable and drm free.
Protip: you can ignore all ubisoft releases on this page by clicking the gear icon
load more comments
(1 replies)
Maybe AI will save them.
sensible chuckle
They tried with Anno 117, the backlash was delicious
The fact that they have shareholders means that they’re likely to keep rehashing old stuff.
Shareholders love “guaranteed” money, which is why movie studios keep making the same crap over and over again. It’s more stable.
It's more stable, right up until it isn't.
Indeed, but whatever they've been doing over the past eight years doesn't seem to be doing the stock prices any good. They need a reevaluation of their approach.
They also need to allow games to be more focused. Not every game needs to be an open world, crafter, rpg, treasure hunt.
load more comments
(2 replies)
But this isnt what enshittification is
Its why their stock was so high and at least partially why theyve been suffering as of late. They've completely enshittified their portfolio and cant milk any more out of fed up users. They chose not to innovate content and instead found new ways to pump up numbers for short term shareholder returns.
Im sure they haven't learned and will only innovate more ways to enshittify themselves as that is their MO.
The markets probably didn't like all the cancelled games in the pipeline but a reset is probably for the best. Their main franchises have gotten steadily worst. I used to look forward to their games, now I don't even buy them on special.
They said they want to focus on open world and live service games, so it sounds like the ones they canceled were the actual good ones.
Tbh, they cancelled the prince of Persia remake. I don't think we know what the other games were. I know it's a popular franchise but I hate remakes, they always end up being a cash grab. Open world is kind of their bread and butter but it's been mostly shit, so if they focus on the quality aspect, it might turn it around.
I don't really dig live service but r6 siege was one so maybe we can get another gem or two like it.
They certainly can be cash grabs but I wouldn’t say always. Usually it’s the low effort remasters that don’t warrant rebuying at full price as they’re mostly a technical refresh (with mixed results based on how much they tried).
Remake implies them remaking the game instead of upgrading it where you get things like the ffvii remakes or the upcoming dragon quest vii which looks pretty good. Sometimes they miss but I wouldn’t call them a cash grab as it still takes significant investment.
Good, maybe turning that $70 game into a free to play wasn’t such a good idea, eh?
Turns out making games just to please shareholders doesn't make sales?
I loved AC Shadows, a really fun game. I was surprised though, Mirage was shit.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›