374
submitted 2 days ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] omarfw@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] PointyFluff@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 137 points 2 days ago

Close another studio? Cancel some more games? That's the best way to make more money, right? Lay everyone off and stop making products?

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

This is why the reform needs to start at the top. Ubisoft is doomed until the leeches are gone.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Release a new Splinter Cell game!

[-] greybeard@feddit.online 19 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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

[-] greybeard@feddit.online 2 points 1 day ago

Norton may have pioneered the technique, but Intuit perfected it.

[-] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I'm glad to say I've never had dealings with Intuit by that measure then.

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

Could try pachinko like konami

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Only MicroSlop is out of gaming and into something else these days.

[-] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Good point. But that's no reason they can't still waste a few million dollars on an aquisition to reduce competition in case they change their minds under their next CEO.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] coriza@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Love that for them ❤️

[-] mrslt@lemmy.world 63 points 2 days ago

Ubisoft will own nothing, and we will be happy...

[-] zippyhippynm@lemmy.zip 21 points 2 days ago

I hope Ubisoft goes belly up. Fuck them greedy dickheads. And special fuck you’s to the Trump family and the Saudis.

[-] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 32 points 2 days ago

What do you say Lemmy, should we all put in $20 and make an acquisition offer? The people in this thread should cover it.

[-] TomasEkeli@programming.dev 23 points 2 days ago

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!

[-] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] rmrf@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

18mil would be enough

[-] etherphon@midwest.social 43 points 2 days ago

How much have the executives pay dropped?

[-] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Executive pay is mostly stock so… 95% over 8 years?

[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 62 points 2 days ago

They need some fun original IP, so much of their work is derivative and rehashes of old stuff now.

[-] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 42 points 2 days ago

Beyond that, to GET to their rehashed derivative stuff you need a separate launcher with a separate and annoying login.

[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

O, I forgot about that. If it isn't in Steam or Heroic, I apparently need active reminders it even exists.

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 18 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] TyrianMollusk@infosec.pub 9 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

Protip: you can ignore all ubisoft releases on this page by clicking the gear icon

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago
[-] snooggums@piefed.world 21 points 2 days ago

sensible chuckle

[-] flowers_galore2@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 2 days ago

They tried with Anno 117, the backlash was delicious

[-] calliope@retrolemmy.com 14 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

It's more stable, right up until it isn't.

[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

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)
[-] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago
[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

But this isnt what enshittification is

[-] 5oap10116@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 33 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Good, maybe turning that $70 game into a free to play wasn’t such a good idea, eh?

[-] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 17 points 2 days ago

Turns out making games just to please shareholders doesn't make sales?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
374 points (99.2% liked)

PC Gaming

13294 readers
268 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. 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