Why Ubisoft isn't abandoning its open worlds

CEO Yves Guillemot explains why the growing audience for games means the publisher's blockbuster model is sustainable

You need only look at Assassin's Creed to see how Ubisoft's ambitions for open world games are growing.

Five years ago, the publisher's major Q4 release was Assassin's Creed Unity, a title that, while open, is confined to one city and (if you focused purely on the main missions) can be polished off in around 15 hours.

Meanwhile, last year's Assassin's Creed Odyssey takes place across the entirety of Ancient Greece, plus all those nearby islands, and the average playtime for its users is 60 hours.

This year, Ubisoft's tentpole title for Q4 is Ghost Recon Breakpoint -- following the success of Wildlands, the series' first open-world entry -- with two vast adventures to follow in early 2020 with Gods & Monsters and Watch Dogs Legion. Ubisoft is now synonymous with open worlds, yet is there any chance it would ever return to more focused outings like Assassin's Creed Unity?

"No," CEO Yves Guillemot tells "Our goal is to make sure you can have a Unity within an Odyssey. If you want to have a story of 15 hours, you can have it, but you can also have other stories. You live in that world and you pursue what you want to pursue. You have an experience, many Unity-like experiences."

"Our goal is to make sure you can have a Unity within an Odyssey. If you want to have a story of 15 hours, you can have it, but you can also have other stories"

The disparity between Odyssey and Unity also highlights how the scope of development has grown. Both titles had around ten studios working on them, but the amount of work required increases with the size of the game world (plus the sheer level of detail Ubisoft strives to present).

Yet as budgets have increased, the price point for end users remains the same -- roughly $60/

More stories

After the lockdown: China studios on returning to work

Chinese developers share lessons learned from remote working and their efforts to prevent a second wave of COVID-19

By James Batchelor

Square Enix and Ubisoft staff now working at home

Final Fantasy publisher implements remote working across all offices, Assassin's Creed firm does so in all affected areas

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (2)

Rogier Voet IT Consultant 6 months ago
The difference between Ubisoft and EA/Activision is that the last 2 have been adding more lootboxes and aggresive monetising changes in their games after launch - this really poisons if you want to progress. Combine that with pay to win gear (Activision) in multiplayer and you have a recipe for a toxic environment.

Ubisoft focuses more on singleplayer/coop in which you can progress nicely and where the microtransactions (which I don't like btw) are way more pushed to the background, so the games don't feel like the piss poor F2P-games on mobile phones which scream I want your money for this item!!!!!!
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 6 months ago
Ubisoft's weakness is XP boosters being part of the core gameplay loop in some titles.
Ubisoft's strength is having long campaign modes and, so even if the eternal loot grind isn't there, the value for the money is. In contrast to Rockstar and others, Ubisoft cranks out those big open worlds at an unmatched pace.
Different Ubisoft titles have different strategies beyond that, from Farcry Expansions, to cosmetic Lootboxes in Division.

EA's strength is Ultimate Team being segmented off as its own multiplayer thing. Pay2Win is an additional mode, it does not replace all the traditional modes.
EA's weakness is that they have forgotten this themselves with some of their titles. Big Open World video games is also not something EA is known for. Anthem has shown that EA definitely struggle on a technical level to pull off a world that compares to an Ubisoft open world.

Activision's weakness is that they do not have games. While Ubisoft can spread all types of monetization across all their titles and never be too offensive in one place, Activision just puts all types of monetization into the one game they have.

Ubisoft's wild card is their Hollywood FX segment. Having that perceived step up from making assets for games as a potential career path with the company must seem attractive. As a 3D artist, would you rather work on the new Star Wars game, or the new Star Wars movie? EA may have the game in stores, but Ubisoft has those spots in the credit sequence.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.