Ubisoft says gamers have ‘extraordinary’ expectations for titles. I’d settle for pretty decent

As you’ve probably heard, Ubisoft isn’t in a great spot at the moment. While it seems to be taking steps to dig itself out of the cycle of mediocrity it has spun for itself, recent comments from CEO Yves Guillemot make me unconvinced that the company knows what mediocrity is.

The comments in question came during the much-talked-about Ubisoft investors call. You know, the one where they said Star Wars Outlaws had “soft” sales, that Assassin’s Creed Shadows was being delayed, and plenty of other news you’ve probably read on the internet lately? I’m behind on this story, I know. It’s been a really long week. But one comment from Guillemot from that same call just recently caught my eye, and it’s one I think a lot of video game industry figures probably share. “In today’s challenging market, and with gamers expecting extraordinary experiences,” Guillemot said, “delivering solid quality is no longer enough.” Many people and outlets took this as a thinly veiled statement against unrealistic expectations from video game consumers, and there might have been some of that flavor bubbling under the surface for Guillemot. But mainly, I read it and thought to myself, “Have these people played Palworld?”

To me, Palworld is the absolute definition of a “solid” game. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel by any means (and because of that lack of reinvention, Nintendo’s getting litigious). It doesn’t have phenomenal graphics or art style, and it doesn’t have many original ideas outside of “What if we took Pokémon and gave it crafting and guns.” When the game launched, the sound design was downright bad. An interesting and well-implemented game concept, even if well-worn, with some clearly defined flaws? That sounds like a decent game to me, not an extraordinary one. Palworld sold 15 million copies on Steam in its first month, dwarfing Outlaws sales figures.

Need another non-extraordinary game? What about Helldivers 2? I’d go so far as to call that game great. But extraordinary? It’s Starship Troopers the video game, with its replayability solely reliant on its playerbase leaning into satire and memes.

We went and gave Warhammer 40K: Space Marine 2 a nine out of 10 despite the only really groundbreaking thing in the game being how technically impressive the hordes of enemies are. Besides that, the game is great because of elements that have made many other games great: fun gunplay, weighty melee combat, and some intriguing level design and story moments for 40K fans.

In my eyes, none of these games are “extraordinary.” They’re all good to great, but not out of the ordinary or fundamentally changing the way we view games. And they all blew Outlaws out of the water in just about every department, except, perhaps, the money they cost to develop.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t even hate Outlaws very much. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed balancing relationships between different criminal syndicates and the opportunity to play out story missions in different ways if I wanted to double-cross someone. And I don’t really consider myself part of the Star Wars fandom, but the atmosphere and vibes of Outlaws felt like the developers absolutely nailed the aesthetic. I even loved the Sabacc mini-game.

But the game’s faults just made it bland so, so quickly. I, an admitted Assassin’s Creed nerd who loves stealth, quickly grew bored of crouching and finding another vent to crawl through. The gunplay of Kay’s blaster was mind-numbingly floaty; the mysteries and “open world” activities quickly became a list of item to tick off.

Based on his own comments, it seems Guillemot believed Outlaws to be a “solid” game. And maybe it was in terms of scenery and a couple of systems, but the core gameplay loop? The stuff players actually spend most of their time doing? None of that befits a AAA game.

We’ve known for quite some time that Ubisoft’s higher-ups may not have their finger on the pulse of what actually makes a game good. After all, we’re talking about the company that that Skull and Bones was a “quadruple-A” game when it was released, good enough to cost $70. That game, a live service title, maintains a robust player count in the 300s on Steam less than a year after its release. What’s concerning is that they just can’t identify how their games continue to fall short. I’m all for delaying Assassin’s Creed Shadows to get the game right (again, big AC nerd right here). But I have no idea if Ubisoft knows what a “good enough” game even looks like.

Because I don’t need a game to be extraordinary—I just need a game to be fun.