“It’s a complicated question without a single answer”
“While the game is feature complete, the learnings from the Star Wars Outlaws release led us to provide additional time to further polish the title,” read last week’s statement. “This will enable the biggest entry in the franchise to fully deliver on its ambition, notably by fulfilling the promise of our dual protagonist adventure, with Naoe and Yasuke bringing two very different gameplay styles.” Ubisoft also announced they’d be dropping the odious play-early season pass model, and releasing the game day-one on Steam rather than keeping it captive behind the (dogshit, very dogshit, unbelievably dogshit) Ubisoft Connect launcher.
Both Ubisoft’s claims of the game needing more time in the oven, and of taking lessons from Outlaws’ release - the game has apparently shiftedjust 1 million copies- are true to an extent, says the report. What’s new here is the revelation that, short of being the sort of humble, savvy pivot based on new information Ubisoft are framing it as, developers on the project have allegedly been pushing for the delay for a while now. Here’s how the report frames it:
So why was Shadows delayed? It’s a complicated question without a single answer, but it boils down to a strict development timeline, polishing, and addressing the Japanese community’s cultural and historical accuracy concerns.
As to that last point, sources told Insider Gaming that “the team has been actively addressing many of the historical and cultural concerns, which started before the game’s reveal following external playtests and were accelerated further following the game’s initial reveal and mass feedback.” This includes “changing some of Yasuke’s story and how he’s portrayed in the game, fixing architectural details, and ensuring that the game is historically grounded while fitting into the Assassin’s Creed universe.”
The report also quashes rumours that protagonist Yasuke is getting removed from the game. I haven’t heard these rumours personally, but I can take a wild guess to the sort of winning individual they originated with, and their incredibly sane and normal understanding of how games are made. It’s also worth pointing out how that “mass feedback” part chimes a little disconcertingly with arecent statementfrom chirpy cockney urchin Yves Guillemot in which he said that Ubi’s goal was “not to push any specific agenda”. Basically, it seems Guillemot is paying a little too much heed to people arguing in the wackest of faith.
“As for how these issues fell through the cracks,” writes Henderson, “I’m told that historical experts were brought onto the project much later than usual for a project of this magnitude and that miscommunication between teams and cutting corners when it came to the approval process of assets to meet deadlines were also at play.”
As for that “strict development timeline”, Henderson writes that “seven developers working on the project said that they have been pushing for a delay for some time, and their situation had even been heard at other studios in the company. Ultimately, though, the delay comes down to a strict development timeline and the need to address issues caused by the set timeline”. Ignoring concerns raised by the actual people making the actual art that actually makes you money, right up until the point where the money is threatened? Quelle surprise, Yves. Quelle surprise.
Ubisoft do seem to be feeling the heat at the moment. There’s a whole investor kerfuffle occurring over share prices thatEdwin covered here, and a second quarter performance that Guillemot says fell short of expectations.
