Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint and The Division 2 were commercial failures for Ubisoft

Ubisoft has announced that Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint and – to a lesser degree – The Division 2 were commercial failures. According to the French team, there was a sharp downward revision in the revenues expected from Ghost Recon Breakpoint and,
to a lesser extent, The Division 2.

Going into more details, Ubisoft stated that it was unable to capitalize on the potential of its latest two AAA releases. While the team did not comment on The Division 2, it did comment on Breakpoint. Ubisoft stated that critical reception and sales during the game’s first weeks were very disappointing.

The French company claimed that it has identified three main reasons behind this underperformance of The Division 2 and Breakpoint:

  • First, it is harder to generate interest for a sequel to a Live multiplayer game, when prior iterations benefited from years of optimization. Consequently, we need to make sure there is more time between each iteration of Live games.
  • Second, our strategy of introducing gameplay innovations in our games has had a very positive impact on our brands. However, to win over players, these innovations need to be perfectly implemented in order to offer an optimal experience. This has not yet been sufficiently the case with Ghost Recon Breakpoint. While the change of formula has been very well received by some players, with an average daily playtime per player of over three hours, it also has been strongly rejected by a significant portion of the community.
  • Finally, Ghost Recon Breakpoint did not come in with enough differentiation factors, which prevented the game’s intrinsic qualities from standing out.

66 thoughts on “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint and The Division 2 were commercial failures for Ubisoft”

      1. “Live for years to come.” Two things to say about that. 1st: not if its DOA.
        2nd. Who wants that?!

        There are thousands of great games out there. Any decent gamer with 60 bucks a month to spend has a back log of 10 to 1000 games to play. Between Humble Bundle, Steam Sales, Xbox Game PC Pass, we have more games at our finger tips cheaper than ever before. Who wants to play one game for years. If its a 100/100 game, then sure, I might sink 500 hours into it over a couple years. But if you release a turd of game, no one wants to sink more than a weekend into it.

    1. Leaving steam has nothing to do with this. Ubisoft games were always rubbish, with our without steam. Don’t be a Steamwh*re Ubisoft makes low level games, copy and paste tower climbing sims. Same formula and now they want customers to bend over backwards and give them money regardless. Nothing innovative from Ubisoft.

    2. Leaving steam has nothing to do with this. Ubisoft games were always rubbish, with our without steam. Don’t be a Steamwh*re Ubisoft makes low level games, copy and paste tower climbing sims. Same formula and now they want customers to bend over backwards and give them money regardless. Nothing innovative from Ubisoft.

  1. Everything that was said in that statement is said in a cold calculated manner. Translation for us simple players – Ubisoft games and their games as a service model suck but Ubisoft will try to increase the interval within which it releases its’ crappy games. That’s all you need to know.

    1. The whole issue of these two games failing were the fact that they were released in such short interval.

      Do they not understand what burnout is?
      The games that bake in development for some more years and actually present some new mechanics are their best sellers, have they yet to understand this?
      How?

    2. It was an address to investors, not to players. Why wouldn’t it be cold and calculated?

      I get the impression when translating this cold and calculated version to a warm and mushy version, Ubisoft are going to spend more time on their games to make them more in line with what people want from video games. Why is this not a good thing?

        1. Yes and they call everything and anyone that disagrees with them “boomers” including other milineals who seem to just have more right leaning views instead of saying something stupid, for example i have yet to see any leftist called a “boomer”

          1. Yeah, I agree. I’m 28, and I’m stuck right in between the generation that shifted toward millennialism and the generation that still valued conventional wisdom where it was pragmatic. When I was younger, being liberal meant defying censorship and political correctness, individual freedom being valued above all else. Now, being liberal means the exact opposite of those things, enacting censorship for the sake of political correctness, valuing groups above the individual, and some groups more than others. This was a pretty rapid shift; so rapid I have no idea where I belong. I’d quickly choose the boomer generation over the current one.

          2. SJWS are not liberals the left has embraced authoritarianism. It MUST be destroyed and since they dont want to purge the cancer themselves and they go after Bill Maher for speaking out against them, then the only solution is the right, vote right “but i am not conservative” nor am i but between socialism, no borders wellfare for illegals, force transitioning toddlers, id take the mildly christian conservative. Atleast they dont want to shut down my speech, fire me from my job, all while wanting to control the thoughts in my head and what is and isnt true or how to address someone because they are insane and think they are non binary furries. Finally the right doesnt want to steal my money, the left does. The right wants me to be safe the left wants illegals running around committing crimes and if you speak up you are xenophobic. Ill take the boomers over the millennials, they are harmless.

  2. Or… You could stop with this Live Service rubbish. Because we all know all live service means is that you didn’t finish the game and you drag it out for 1 year and then seasons B.S. YOU LAZY BUMS!!! it’s starting to catch up with you, people are waking up to your fashion of garbage & now you’re mad.

  3. ” introducing gameplay innovation” like drowning the world in micro-transaction. REALLY innovative there. Looking at your Ghost Recon. I wouldn’t play that game if it was free… which it should be since its a F2P model.

  4. “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint and The Division 2 were commercial failures for Ubisoft”
    MUSIC TO MY EARS.

  5. They made 2 hastily made TPS loot and shooter games that work as a live service, released them less than a year from each other, not only that but they were extremely iterative sequels in a market saturated with loot and shoot game garbage.

    I’m glad people are finally seeing through these companies bullshit for once

  6. Boring games, 10-20 times worse than The Division 1 / Wildlands, that have nothing new to offer.
    + always-online for Breakpoint + no Steam release for both.

  7. HAHAHAHHHAHA YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW HAPPY THIS MAKES ME

    Flopout 76 -FAILURE
    Anthem- FAILURE
    Destiny 2- FAILURE
    Breaking point -FAILURE
    Division 2 which is supposedly to be the best of those games…FAILURE.

    Conclusion STOP MAKING ALWAYS ONLINE MMO LOOTER SHOOTERS WITH MICROTRANSACTIONS THATS NOT WHERE THE MONEY IS AT.

    1. Lol destiny 2 was not a failure.Its the best online mmo shooter among all the games you have mentioned.Division 2 was better than the first but not enough to beat destiny 2.

      1. destiny 2 was dropped by activision and its free to play and sold half as much as the first game while activision was gonna spend 1 billion on the franchise, if this isnt a failure what is?

      2. I started Destiny 2 last weekend for the first time because I was bored and wanted a new game to play. I played for a good bit of time across three days and had quite a bit of fun, until I just didn’t anymore.

        Fast forward to this weekend, I won’t be playing Destiny 2 anymore.

      3. >destiny 2 was not a failure.

        lol it was, it was a massive failure, so bad that Actizzard didn’t want it on it’s client anymore and now it’s F2P, it only start seeing some players like most paid games that go f2p (Evolve) even those numbers dropped by 100k in less than a month. most f2p players will leave in a month or so since the end game/level cap/new items will be locked behind a paid expansion.

    2. From sound of their address, they will never stop!!! They will just keep doubling down on stupid because of the idiots that will keep buying another Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOING AN ASSASSIN.. it’s funny cause division 2 is actually a solid game but it’s too little, too late. And it would be a better game if it just was, meaning NOT A LIVE SERVICE RUBBISH

      1. How is Division 2 too little too late, as most of its merits were present at launch, were they not?

        I didn’t get the impression they they intend on doubling down. I got the complete opposite impression: that they intend to stop repeating what they’ve been doing because in the end it isn’t selling anymore. They’re delaying their games to make them more in line with what people seem to want. Why do you think that they’re doing more of the same?

  8. So much freaking spin. “gameplay innovations” is their “surprise mechanics”, and it somehow has a “very positive impact” despite being “strongly rejected by a significant portion of the community”. Even their PR can’t make it not sound absolutely god awful. Still sounds like they’re going to pull a Bethesda & double down on it though.

  9. Ubisoft has been garbage for quite some time now.
    Around the time they milked Assassins Cred 2 for all it was worth.

  10. Conveniently ignoring the backlash over macrotransactions that are driven by individuals who lack self control.

  11. Hmmmm
    So the Shareholders realized ubisoft cant make “good” “games” so they told them. : hey you LGBTQ fa**ots. If we loose money you loose your head…. … Make things batter no matter what….
    Next day….
    Watch_Dogs Legion, Rainbow Six Quarantine and Gods & Monsters have all been delayed

    +
    Cant wait for Jim sterling video about this…

  12. Ubisoft is far from “dead”. They’ve hit one tumble in revenue from a few consecutive bad games, but they’re still pretty much the only decent AAA studio you have left, and they show evidence of changing to adapt to player complaints instead of blaming the players themselves for not liking their games as EA does.

    They released a bad game, and people haven’t bought it as a result. Now they’re trying to improve their approach. Is this not what is supposed to happen?? Why everyone wants to see them “dead” is beyond me, especially since they aren’t compelled to play their games if they don’t want to, but would pick a good release up in heartbeat and be glad they could.

  13. After playing the abysmal beta for Wildlands, I didn’t ever considering touching this one. I guess I was right.

    These live service games suck. Fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *