Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What do game developers and industry experts say about Ubisoft's production methods?
Executive Summary
Ubisoft’s production methods draw a split picture: industry insiders praise the company’s technical craftsmanship and ambitious live-service strategies while current and former employees, unions, and reporting document repeated allegations of crunch, burnout, harassment, and managerial failures. Reporting from 2023 through 2025 outlines persistent workplace problems at multiple Ubisoft studios alongside public defenses from Ubisoft leadership and technical teams describing complex engineering trade-offs and product pivots; the contrast between those narratives frames the core debate about Ubisoft’s development culture and business model choices [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why Developers Say Crunch Is Not a One-Off and What That Implies
Reporting in March 2023 and a broader industry review in January 2025 portray crunch as an entrenched reality for some Ubisoft teams and the wider games industry. NME and Solidaires Informatique described Ubisoft Paris employees working 13-hour shifts, experiencing burnout, and being denied promised staffing relief and overtime protections in March 2023; that account fits into a larger pattern documented in a January 2025 analysis that framed crunch as a systemic crisis driven by deadlines, outsourcing, and weak legal safeguards (March 30, 2023; January 24, 2025) [1] [2]. Developers and union representatives position these accounts as evidence that production planning and resourcing decisions, not just isolated bad managers, produce predictable cycles of overwork. Ubisoft’s responses and internal assurances did not fully resolve the issue in these reports, and unions have used these findings to push for structural reforms to scheduling, hiring, and legal protections.
2. How Technical Teams Defend Production Trade-Offs and Innovation Choices
Technical leads and studio architects emphasize engineering constraints and deliberate design trade-offs that shape delivery schedules and platform choices. An in-depth interview with a Ubisoft technical architect about Assassin’s Creed: Shadows explained the use of the Anvil engine, computing budgets, dynamic resolution, and other performance techniques as necessary compromises to deliver scale and immersion (September 12, 2024) [3]. These insiders frame overtime and tight milestones as consequences of pursuing high-fidelity open worlds and live-service complexity. Industry podcasts and executive commentary in 2025 similarly argue that strategic shifts—such as prioritizing subscription and liveops models—drive long-term resource allocation and may appear as short-term strain on teams, even where leadership sees those choices as vital to competitiveness (May 6, 2025; October 13, 2025) [5] [6].
3. What Experts Say About Business Strategy Pressures on Production
Observers on industry-focused platforms tie Ubisoft’s production pressures to broader business model pivots toward subscriptions, liveops, and large-scale live games. GameMakers episodes and commentary in 2025 discuss Ubisoft’s struggles and strategic bets—suggesting that commercialization choices like free-to-play, liveops, and potential reliance on subscription platforms raise expectations for continuous content delivery and rigid roadmaps (May 6, 2025; October 13, 2025) [5] [6]. Analysts point out that this shift can institutionalize perpetual development cycles that blur the end of projects and intensify staffing churn. Proponents argue these models create predictable revenue and support larger teams in the long run; critics contend they increase episodic crunch and prioritize cadence over sustainable engineering practices.
4. Why Sexual Harassment and Management Conduct Amplify Production Criticism
Legal proceedings and union actions in 2025 broaden criticisms beyond scheduling to workplace culture and leadership accountability. Coverage in March and May 2025 documented the trial of three former Ubisoft executives on harassment and bullying charges and union calls to summon then-CEO Yves Guillemot, framing the issue as not only about work hours but about a toxic environment that can affect who gets promoted, who remains silent, and how complaints are handled (March 10, 2025; May 20, 2025) [4] [7]. Later reporting in August 2025 noted the CEO was summoned to appear in relation to the case while Ubisoft publicly maintained that prior inquiries found no grounds for prosecuting management, underscoring conflicting institutional narratives and the role of external courts and unions in forcing accountability (August 25, 2025) [8]. These developments show how governance and HR failures intersect with production processes to shape staff morale and public trust.
5. How to Reconcile Competing Narratives and Where Evidence Leaves Open Questions
The documentary record from 2023–2025 presents two verifiable strands: specific, employee-rooted allegations about crunch and toxic conduct, and technical/strategic explanations from insiders and executives about necessary trade-offs and long-term business decisions [1] [2] [3] [5]. The union and court actions add legal and institutional weight to worker claims, while company statements and technical interviews explain the complexity of delivering modern games. Remaining questions include the extent to which documented promises (e.g., hiring to remove overtime) were implemented, how live-service business models altered planning, and which governance reforms would measurably reduce crunch and misconduct. Independent audits, union-negotiated contracts, and transparent resourcing reports are the most direct evidence paths to resolve those open items and measure change over time [1] [4] [6].