Ubisoft just delivered another instant-classic PR statement that perfectly encapsulates why gamers have lost trust in major publishers. Associate game director Simon Lemay-Comtois defended Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ microtransactions by claiming they fund free post-launch content like Isu quests, parkour updates, and crossover events. The problem? Ubisoft reported €475.3 million in player recurring investments – microtransactions, DLC, and season passes – in just the first half of 2025. That’s nearly half a billion euros in six months, yet they want us to believe they can’t afford to support a full-priced $70 game without selling cosmetic horse armor. The math doesn’t add up, and gamers aren’t buying it.
- What the Developer Actually Said
- The Revenue Numbers Tell a Different Story
- What Ubisoft Previously Said About MTX
- The Attack on Titan Update Controversy
- The Sales Performance Nobody Knows
- Reddit’s Savage Response
- The “Get Comfortable Not Owning Games” Legacy
- What Post-Launch Support Actually Costs
- Shadows’ Actual Performance
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Conclusion
What the Developer Actually Said
During an interview with IGN about Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ recent Attack on Titan crossover update, Simon Lemay-Comtois addressed the ongoing criticism about microtransactions in full-priced games. His exact quote: “Microtransactions, for all the flak it gets, it allows us to do the Isu stuff, the quest stuff, the parkour updates, all of it.” He argued that post-launch support for Shadows requires some level of ongoing funding beyond initial game sales.
Lemay-Comtois emphasized that the Isu update wasn’t planned in advance and was entirely a post-launch decision, suggesting that even if Shadows sold poorly, it was partially propped up by revenue from players buying cosmetics and mounts. This framing implies that game sales alone couldn’t cover the cost of creating additional quests and quality-of-life improvements, which is either a stunning admission of commercial failure or a deeply dishonest justification for aggressive monetization.
The Revenue Numbers Tell a Different Story
Ubisoft’s own financial reports completely undermine this narrative. In the first half of fiscal year 2025-26 (roughly April through September 2025), Ubisoft reported €475.3 million in player recurring investments. For comparison, the same period in 2024 generated €312.7 million – meaning PRI revenue jumped over 50 percent year-over-year. These numbers encompass microtransactions, DLC, loot boxes, and season passes across Ubisoft’s entire portfolio.
Going back further, Ubisoft revealed in 2017 that they were making more money from player recurring investments than from digital game sales. This trend has only accelerated in the eight years since. The company isn’t struggling to fund post-launch content – they’re swimming in recurring revenue that dwarfs what they earn from selling actual games. The claim that they need microtransactions to afford supporting Assassin’s Creed Shadows is provably false based on their own financial disclosures.
The 2017 Turning Point
The year 2017 marked when Ubisoft’s business model fundamentally shifted. That’s when they revealed player recurring investments had surpassed digital game sales for the first time. This wasn’t presented as a temporary anomaly but as the new normal they’d actively cultivate. Every Ubisoft game since has been designed around maximizing these ongoing revenue streams rather than simply delivering complete experiences worth the asking price.
What Ubisoft Previously Said About MTX
This defense of microtransactions fits a disturbing pattern from Ubisoft leadership. CEO Yves Guillemot stated earlier in 2025 that microtransactions make the experience more fun for players because they allow them to quickly progress through the game or customize their avatars. This framing treats paying to skip content as a feature rather than an admission that the base game was deliberately made tedious to incentivize purchases.
Even more brazenly, Ubisoft’s 2024-2025 Universal Registration Document defined monetization in premium games as a positive experience for players. The document uses phrases like “more fun” and positions microtransactions as “optional” quality-of-life upgrades rather than predatory mechanics designed to extract maximum revenue. This represents a complete disconnect from how players actually perceive these systems – as unwelcome intrusions in games they already paid full price to own.
The Attack on Titan Update Controversy
The timing of these comments is particularly galling because the Attack on Titan crossover perfectly illustrates the problem. Ubisoft added two free quests – the AoT crossover where players investigate a titan threat in Crystal Cave, and “A Puzzlement” which offers comedic dispute resolution. Both quests include rewards like Naoe’s crystal katana and new techniques for both protagonists.
However, the actually desirable cosmetics – the Attack on Titan armor sets and premium items – are locked behind the in-game shop requiring real money purchases. This follows the exact same pattern as the previous Dead by Daylight crossover, where free content acts as advertisement for paid cosmetics. The update is designed to drive players to the store, not to provide meaningful free content that justifies microtransaction revenue.
The Sales Performance Nobody Knows
Part of what makes this defense so suspicious is Ubisoft’s refusal to disclose actual Assassin’s Creed Shadows sales figures. The company uses “players” rather than “copies sold” when reporting performance, mixing Game Pass subscribers, Ubisoft+ members, and actual purchasers into one vague metric. As of July 2025, Shadows had reached 5 million players, but how many actually bought the game?
Analytics firm Alinea estimated roughly 2 million PS5 copies and 650,000 Steam sales, with another 1.1 million Xbox players primarily through Ubisoft+. That suggests around 2.7 million actual purchases out of 5 million players – barely over half. If accurate, this would generate approximately $180 million in revenue according to Alinea, against a development budget exceeding $116 million plus substantial marketing costs.
The Overperforming That Isn’t
Despite these middling numbers, Ubisoft claims Shadows is “overperforming” and that the Assassin’s Creed franchise “exceeded expectations” in Q2 2025. These vague statements avoid concrete figures while creating positive spin for investors. If the game truly exceeded expectations so dramatically, why not release actual sales numbers? The evasiveness suggests performance is acceptable but not spectacular – hardly justification for aggressive microtransaction strategies.
Reddit’s Savage Response
The Reddit discussion on both r/Games and r/gaming tore apart this defense with brutal efficiency. The top comment on r/gaming stated bluntly: “Microtransactions in a single player game is straight up just greed plain and simple. It’s not a live service. You don’t need a constant stream of income.” This sentiment captured the community consensus that Ubisoft’s justification insults players’ intelligence.
Multiple commenters pointed out that games existed for decades with robust post-launch support funded purely through expansion packs and sequels. The Witcher 3’s two massive DLC packs cost $25 total and contained more content than most full games, proving you can monetize additional content fairly without nickel-and-diming players with cosmetic shops. CD Projekt Red even provided free next-gen upgrades because they valued customer goodwill over short-term revenue extraction.
The “Get Comfortable Not Owning Games” Legacy
This microtransaction defense joins Ubisoft’s growing collection of tone-deaf statements that alienate their customer base. In 2024, a Ubisoft director suggested gamers should “get comfortable not owning their games,” sparking massive backlash about digital licensing versus ownership. More recently, Ubisoft blamed declining revenues on gamers playing fewer games rather than examining whether their own titles were worth buying.
Each statement reinforces the perception that Ubisoft views players as wallets to extract maximum revenue from rather than customers to build long-term relationships with. The company seems genuinely confused why gamers respond negatively to being told they’re the problem, not the products or business practices. This disconnect between executive thinking and community reality has become emblematic of AAA publisher dysfunction.
What Post-Launch Support Actually Costs
The claim that microtransactions are necessary to fund post-launch updates deserves scrutiny. What does “post-launch support” actually entail for Assassin’s Creed Shadows? Based on recent updates, it includes occasional quest additions like the Isu content and crossover events, parkour refinements, bug fixes, and new cosmetics for the in-game store. This is not live service content on the scale of Destiny 2 or Warframe requiring constant server infrastructure and regular expansions.
Compare this to games that provided years of substantial free updates without microtransactions. Terraria received massive content patches for over a decade funded purely by new players buying the base game. No Man’s Sky delivered transformative free updates for seven years to rebuild goodwill after a disastrous launch. CD Projekt Red supported The Witcher 3 extensively before releasing paid expansions that actually represented full games worth of content.
The Real Motivation
The actual purpose of microtransactions in $70 single-player games isn’t funding necessary support – it’s maximizing profit margins. Ubisoft’s financial reports prove the company generates nearly half a billion euros in recurring revenue every six months. They don’t need cosmetic horse armor sales to afford making a quest. They want that revenue because it goes almost entirely to profit with minimal development costs compared to creating full games.
Shadows’ Actual Performance
Context matters when evaluating whether Shadows needs microtransaction revenue to survive. Ubisoft’s Q2 2025 net bookings reached €490.8 million, exceeding guidance of €450 million and showing 39 percent growth year-over-year. The company’s overall first half performance was strong enough that they reaffirmed full-year financial objectives. This is not a struggling publisher desperately needing cosmetic sales to keep servers running.
Furthermore, the Assassin’s Creed franchise specifically exceeded expectations according to Ubisoft’s earnings report. If Shadows was underperforming catastrophically and truly needed microtransaction revenue to fund basic support, the company wouldn’t be celebrating the franchise’s strong performance. The numbers fundamentally contradict the narrative that microtransactions are necessary rather than simply profitable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Ubisoft say about Assassin’s Creed Shadows microtransactions?
Associate game director Simon Lemay-Comtois said “Microtransactions, for all the flak it gets, it allows us to do the Isu stuff, the quest stuff, the parkour updates, all of it,” arguing that post-launch support requires ongoing funding beyond initial game sales.
How much money does Ubisoft make from microtransactions?
Ubisoft reported €475.3 million in player recurring investments (microtransactions, DLC, season passes) in the first half of fiscal 2025-26, up from €312.7 million the previous year. Since 2017, Ubisoft has made more money from recurring investments than digital game sales.
How much did Assassin’s Creed Shadows sell?
Ubisoft hasn’t disclosed sales figures, only stating the game reached 5 million players. Analytics firm Alinea estimates roughly 2.7 million actual purchases generating approximately $180 million in revenue against a development budget exceeding $116 million.
Is Assassin’s Creed Shadows a live service game?
No, Assassin’s Creed Shadows is a single-player action-adventure game with optional co-op features. It’s not a live service game requiring constant server infrastructure, yet includes microtransactions typically associated with always-online multiplayer titles.
What free content has Shadows received?
Shadows has received free quests including the Attack on Titan crossover, “A Puzzlement” quest, Isu content updates, parkour improvements, and bug fixes. However, desirable cosmetics from these updates are locked behind paid purchases in the in-game store.
Did Assassin’s Creed Shadows sell well?
Performance appears mixed. Ubisoft claims the AC franchise exceeded expectations and Shadows is overperforming, but refuses to release actual sales numbers and uses vague “player” metrics that combine purchases with subscription access.
What did Ubisoft previously say about microtransactions?
CEO Yves Guillemot claimed microtransactions make games “more fun” by letting players quickly progress or customize avatars. Ubisoft’s 2024-2025 report defined monetization as a “positive experience” and quality-of-life upgrade rather than a predatory mechanic.
Can games afford post-launch support without microtransactions?
Yes, many games including The Witcher 3, Terraria, and No Man’s Sky provided years of substantial free updates funded through initial sales and ethical expansion packs without aggressive microtransaction stores in single-player experiences.
Conclusion
Ubisoft’s defense of Assassin’s Creed Shadows microtransactions represents corporate gaslighting at its finest. The company generated nearly half a billion euros from recurring revenue in just six months, yet wants players to believe they can’t afford supporting a $70 game without selling cosmetic horse armor. The math doesn’t work, the logic doesn’t hold, and gamers aren’t stupid enough to accept this transparent attempt to justify profit maximization as necessary business practice. Games provided robust post-launch support for decades before microtransaction stores infected single-player experiences. The Witcher 3, Terraria, and countless others proved you can monetize additional content fairly through expansion packs and DLC without nickel-and-diming customers at every turn. Ubisoft’s problem isn’t that game sales can’t fund support – it’s that they’ve built a business model dependent on extracting maximum revenue from every possible avenue regardless of whether it damages the player experience or erodes trust. Each tone-deaf statement like this reinforces why gamers have lost faith in AAA publishers. When executives claim microtransactions are necessary while financial reports show record-breaking recurring revenue, the disconnect becomes impossible to ignore. Ubisoft doesn’t need cosmetic sales to fund a quest. They want that money because it’s almost pure profit with minimal development costs. Until publishers stop insulting players’ intelligence with obvious lies, the backlash against aggressive monetization will only intensify.