At Paris Games Week this month, Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot presented a short, tightly produced corporate video and remarks that recast last year’s heated online backlash to Assassin’s Creed: Shadows as a problem the company managed to neutralize by leaning on its fans and brand heritage.
"We had to stop focusing on those who hated us"
The video, reportedly 184 seconds long and shown to an industry audience, opens with blunt questions: what happens when a highly anticipated title "becomes the game everyone loves to hate" and when "conversation shifts from gameplay to ideology"? It answers them with a description of a pivot: Ubisoft delayed Shadows, released extended gameplay material, opened its doors to creators and the press, and asked loyal fans to defend the game.
Guillemot echoed the video’s messaging on stage. "We were initially surprised by the extent of the attacks," he said in remarks translated from French. "We quickly realized that it was a battle, a battle with our fans, to demonstrate that we were, in fact, more of a video game than a message." The line that has circulated widely: "We had to stop focusing on those who hated us. We had to start firing up our allies."
According to the company’s retelling, that strategy worked: delaying the game (originally set for November 2024) gave developers time to polish and optimize, preview material reminded long-term players of hallmark Assassin’s Creed elements such as stealth and lore, and fan enthusiasm helped shift the conversation ahead of the title’s March 20, 2025 launch. Ubisoft has said Shadows sold "in line with expectations," with some outlets reporting about 5 million copies sold as of July.
What sparked the backlash — and what Ubisoft’s video omits
The initial controversy erupted in mid‑2024 after Ubisoft revealed Yasuke, a Black samurai co‑protagonist. Critics on social platforms and several high‑profile figures — including Elon Musk, according to contemporaneous reporting — attacked the casting, framing it as ideological rather than historical or creative. Many observers and outlets described the wave of criticism as rooted in racism and culture‑war dynamics.
Ubisoft’s internal video and Guillemot’s presentation focus on the mechanics of response rather than the specifics of the criticism. That choice drew scrutiny from journalists and commentators who argue the company’s framing downplays the content and motives of the backlash.
Critics point to several gaps in Ubisoft’s public account:
- The company’s narration largely avoids naming the racist elements of the response and reframes the episode as a brand crisis rather than a social‑media culture war rooted in race and identity.
- Other contemporaneous factors that likely influenced the decision to delay are absent from the video: internal reports and industry coverage at the time suggested playtest feedback and quality concerns were already pressing, and Ubisoft had reason to avoid repeating the poor launch momentum seen with other recent releases.
- Reported corporate decisions tied to the controversy — notably the cancellation of a separate Assassin’s Creed project set in post‑Civil War America that would have featured a former slave as protagonist — are not addressed in the company’s celebratory narrative. Several outlets reported that executives judged that project too risky amid U.S. political tensions.
Former franchise leads and departing staff have also shaped the wider story. Marc‑Alexis Coté, the former Assassin’s Creed lead, left Ubisoft around this period; coverage has noted differences in how internal leaders defended creative vision versus corporate messaging.
How Ubisoft responded — practical steps and outcomes
According to Ubisoft’s account, the response combined product work and marketing: developers used extra time to polish the build, marketing refocused on core franchise signals ("more hood, more stealth, more leap of faith, more lore"), and the company proactively released in‑game assets and deep dives to press, creators and fans. The idea was to convert curiosity into advocacy.
Supporters of this approach say it shows a pragmatic way for large entertainment brands to respond to noisy online controversies: emphasize the product, invite scrutiny, and rely on long‑standing communities to defend what they love about a franchise.
Ubisoft presented the outcome as a win: by launch, the company said, "momentum was finally on our side." Several reviews cited by coverage called Shadows a stronger game than many expected, praising gameplay and worldbuilding.
Industry and cultural implications
The episode exposes a tension studios increasingly face: creative risk and historical or cultural representation collide with polarized online discourse. Ubisoft’s framing — that it needed to remind people the product is "more of a video game than a message" — will resonate with some executives as a lesson in crisis management. Others see it as corporate spin that sanitizes the role of racism, politics and commercial risk in decision‑making.
Observers also highlight a second, quieter lesson: risk aversion. The reported cancellation of another Assassin’s Creed project suggests that when controversy threatens a franchise’s commercial performance, some creative ideas are more vulnerable than others — a point that raises questions about whose stories are less likely to be greenlit in a charged political climate.
What comes next for Ubisoft and AAA games
Ubisoft’s post‑crisis playbook — delay, polish, spotlight the craft and call in fans — appears to have delivered a recoverable commercial outcome for Shadows. But the company’s selective public account has done little to settle broader debates about representation, the limits of corporate narrative control, and how studios should balance creative ambition with reputational risk.
For players, creators and industry watchers, the episode will likely be remembered less as a single PR maneuver than as a case study in how major publishers navigate culture wars: sometimes they fight, sometimes they delay, and sometimes they quietly abandon projects they judge too risky.
Whether Ubisoft’s internal video will become a template or a cautionary tale remains to be seen — but the conversation it prompted shows how tightly creativity, commerce and culture are now bound in AAA game production.