[UpdateThe Insider shinobi602 This contradicts Henderson's statement that Ubisoft has not abandoned the franchise. However, an official statement is still pending.
Ubisoft has reportedly abandoned one of its once most important franchises. According to multiple reports from industry sources, this is the case. Watch Dogs Internally, it's considered closed. Nothing has been officially confirmed, but the source is not just any source.
The Insider Tom Henderson, who has a history of accurate Ubisoft revelations, says the brand is "completely dead." The timing is also fitting, as Ubisoft has been in a structural crisis for years. Big names like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry They are struggling with noticeable fatigue, new IPs are barely taking off, and live service projects are failing one after another.
At the same time, the company maintains one of the largest workforces in the industry, a cost burden that would have been virtually unsustainable without external assistance. The recent Tencent investment was less a growth driver than a lifeline.
From the promise of next-gen technology to an identity crisis
Watch Dogs Launched in 2012 as a technical showcase, the game's concept of an open, networked urban space that players could hack and manipulate resonated with audiences. Despite noticeable compromises compared to the original presentation, the first installment sold over ten million copies. Critically sound and commercially successful, but not a genre-defining game.
Watchdogs 2 The revised tone and gameplay were better received, but the company remained at a similar economic level. The turning point came with Watch Dogs LegionThe experimental "Play as Anyone" concept was ambitious, but some felt it was technically and gameplay-wise unfinished. Reviews were significantly weaker, and sales fell short of expectations. Ubisoft reported only 1,9 million sales in the first few days, after which there was radio silence.
Why Watch Dogs is not an isolated case
That Watch Dogs The fact that it has now apparently been scrapped is less an isolated decision than a symptom. Ubisoft needs to focus. a phase of aggressive restructuring Only brands that either reliably generate revenue or are strategically indispensable survive. Watch Dogs Neither of those things had happened recently.
A film project still exists, but it's likely a remnant of earlier plans rather than an indication of a comeback. Game development is expensive, risky, and long-term—precisely what Ubisoft can currently only afford selectively.
- Pro: The end of Watch Dogs creates space for a much-needed realignment. Fewer brands, clearer priorities, lower risk.
- cons: Ubisoft is once again losing an IP with a recognizable profile – and with it, diversity in its own portfolio.
This is a bitter pill for fans to swallow. For Ubisoft, it's probably necessary. The crucial question is whether the company learns from this retreat or simply continues to dismantle its assets to buy time.
One can be glad if Ubisoft still releases anything at all, and if it's successful.
They could have brought Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed closer together. They take place in the same universe. Watch Dogs 1 even continued parts of the Assassin's Creed 3 storyline involving Desmond Miles. Why they abandoned that... 🤷🏻♂️
Too bad, I just replayed all the other parts of Garde.
Ubisoft, the king of games, is buried 😂
It's their own fault if they stray too far from the first one, which was amazing, and then produce rubbish afterwards!
It's ironic that two series died the same death. The idea of controlling everything and everyone already killed Driver 😄 and even more ironically, Watch Dogs 1 was originally supposed to be a Driver.
I won't miss it 🙂
Even though part 2 was very good, especially in terms of gameplay, they shouldn't have deviated from the dark dystopia; the time jumps were too big and the stories too different. I think a coherent story would have done the series better.
''The experimental "Play as Anyone" concept was ambitious, but some felt it was technically and gameplay-wise unfinished.
The problem was simply that the idea was crazy. People wondered why you should play some random character who had no personality. It came across as a completely harebrained scheme. Of course, in a game, you want to play a character you've created yourself, or at least a pre-made one with personality. A construction worker, a grandmother, a mail carrier, a secret agent, a police officer. The whole thing seemed so arbitrary and irrelevant that many people, including myself, simply didn't want to play the game, and it felt like Ubisoft had betrayed and destroyed the entire foundation and concept of Watch Dogs.
I bought it later anyway, and the game is actually much better than I expected, but because of this totally "crazy" idea, it felt like Watch Dogs was turning into slapstick instead of "one against all" or "resistance against the system." It simply wasn't a good idea and should have been presented differently.
The franchise has so much potential, but Ubisoft either can't or won't utilize it. Let's start with the fact that they need to focus more on the story. Aiden Pearce's idea in Watch Dogs 1 was brilliant, and what they presented in the trailer back then would easily be technically feasible today. Then the sales figures would be right, too.
''Pro: The end of Watch Dogs creates space for a much-needed realignment. Fewer brands, clearer priorities, lower risk.
That's just a hypothetical pro point. There won't be a realignment, there won't be any bold new brands. That's precisely Ubisoft's problem. They're destroying their old brands, letting many lie dormant and not utilizing them, monetizing everything relentlessly, and less and less remains. Ultimately, they mainly live off Assassin's Creed, Rainbow Six Siege, maybe The Crew, a bit of Far Cry (where the name has also suffered), and perhaps a little bit of Sing, Dance, etc.
They're not reinventing themselves, at least not in terms of creativity. The money isn't flowing into good, bold new brands. They're simply continuing as before with even fewer games, even less variety, and even more risk because the few remaining brands have to carry the entire burden.
Ubisoft, or rather Yves Guillemot, continues to drive itself in the wrong direction. Service games, open world, and all this at a time when people are increasingly less interested in service games, most already play their one or two established service titles, and practically everyone is making an open-world game. What's lacking is courage, creativity, good stories, and memorable experiences.
Something like the old Assassin's Creed titles, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell (but we'll have to wait and see how), or Rainbow Six Siege single-player games with a story.
Ubisoft wants to go under.
Yes, I agree with you that focusing on just a few franchises actually increases the risk of failure, whether it's Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, The Division, or Rainbow Six. None of these franchises will consistently generate over a billion in profit. You can't even buy that much armor in Assassin's Creed Shadows. These are unrealistic expectations at the management level. Valhalla was simply the game at the right time; I'm not sure if that will be possible with other Assassin's Creed games. As for other IPs, I have no idea. I think we have enough military shooters on the market. As you said, everyone has already found their one or two Game of a Game as a Service (GAS). There's no more room for time and cost constraints. But Sony is just as wrong there; as a politician would say, "The market will regulate itself." Open world games aren't a problem for me; the problem is how Ubisoft implements them. They introduced the formula with Assassin's Creed 1, which was revolutionary, and then applied it to all their franchises, regardless of whether it fits or not, or rather, they failed to think ahead. Open worlds need to be filled with life, exciting content, and not just unanswered questions. This is also meant to be a plea for linear level games like The Last of Us, but it has to fit the game and its concept. Having so many studios scattered all over the world is also a challenge. It starts with how you organize everything: time differences, cultural differences, language barriers, the right to work from home, etc.
Ubisoft is simply too big compared to its revenue, and it needs to be able to pay its employees, whether in Paris or Singapore. That's why they sold their shares in Tencet to regain liquidity. It's understandable that Tencet wants a return on its investment; otherwise, they wouldn't invest. Ubisoft is on the ropes. The next releases will show whether Ubisoft survives or is completely swallowed up by Tencet.
I agree with you. Ubisoft should have run several different franchises with varying budgets. Cutting everything and thinking that would be enough was a mistake.
Ultimately, what's lacking are studios, competent staff, and brands.
A healthy mix of AAA and AA studios, large and small, would be the best way to generate image points, reach and money, but apparently none of them get that.
It's better to focus on two or three big things, and if things go wrong there, all the developers and studios will be gone, and there will be no brands left to catch them.
Four to seven smaller or medium-sized brands that generate "good" money could absorb one AAA fail, or even two, but like with Sony, they only want the big fish now... and if those don't come, you're left with nothing.
You might think they're all business novices.