So Ubisoft sold on 1 million players congratz

[Master Blaster]

I mean its nothing to sneeze at, however the development costs are estimated to be about 350 million, 1 million players means they have to sell 7,783,673 units. So depending on if people were given keys or get in on Ubisoft+ the results could varry, Heres the breakdown.

To estimate how many units of Assassin’s Creed Shadows Ubisoft would need to sell to break even on the game’s development costs, we’ll need to make some reasonable assumptions based on the information provided in the X posts and related web results, as well as industry standards. Let’s break it down step by step:
1. Estimated Development Costs
The web results indicate that Assassin’s Creed Shadows has an estimated production budget of $250 million to $350 million.

Additionally, Ubisoft’s CEO, Yves Guillemot, confirmed an extra €20 million (approximately $21.5 million USD, using an exchange rate of €1 = $1.075 as of March 2025) in development costs due to delays, pushing the total potential cost toward the higher end of the range.

For simplicity, let’s use the midpoint of the estimated range ($300 million) plus the additional $21.5 million, resulting in a total estimated development cost of $321.5 million. This is a conservative estimate, but it accounts for the reported figures.

2. Additional Costs to Consider
Development costs are just one part of the equation. Ubisoft also incurs marketing costs, which can be substantial for a AAA title like Assassin’s Creed Shadows. Industry estimates suggest marketing budgets for major games can range from 20% to 50% of development costs, or $60 million to $150 million for a game of this scale.

Let’s assume a conservative marketing budget of $60 million, bringing the total cost to break even to $381.5 million.

Other costs, like distribution, platform fees (e.g., Steam, PlayStation, Xbox take a 30% cut), and physical production (if applicable), could further increase the total, but we’ll focus on development and marketing for this estimate.

3. Revenue Per Unit Sold
The price of Assassin’s Creed Shadows varies by edition and platform. The standard edition is typically priced at around $70 for new-gen consoles (PS5, Xbox Series X|S) and PC, according to the Ubisoft Store.

However, Ubisoft also offers the game through Ubisoft+, a subscription service, and other platforms like Steam and Epic Games Store, which might affect revenue per unit. Additionally, platform holders (e.g., Sony, Microsoft, Valve) take a 30% cut of digital sales, leaving Ubisoft with $49 per unit after fees for digital sales.

For physical copies, the net revenue might be slightly higher (e.g., $55–$60 per unit after retailer cuts), but digital sales dominate the industry, so we’ll use $49 per unit as a conservative average.

4. Break-Even Calculation
To break even, Ubisoft needs to generate $381.5 million in revenue.

Dividing the total cost by the revenue per unit:
Units needed=Total costRevenue per unit=381,500,00049≈ 7,783,673 units


Now I am not taking credit for this, thanks to AI doing these equations is much much easier and yes you can check the info it is correct, ever since they added GROK to twitter finding so much information is easy and most arguments can be settled with logic. Of course trolls will still be trolls but this is actual information.

Now my personal take? I don't think they are gonna break even, if in the first week you don't see it hitting the 6 million mark from the amount they have now so 7 million total I don't think the investors will be happy, its probably not enough to satisfy the investors unless they reach that minimum. And I know people will jump back and say things like "OH AI isn't reliable thats not an argument...thats not facts!" ....get real, AI depending on the module being used...I know Python is pretty popular...anyway AI can gather and compile data and information in a much larger capacity than a human, but if you want to dismiss this information as invalid go ahead, you'll experience first hand the reality of the situation one month from now anyway.

[Mr_Fear1911]

Again "Ubisoft....confirmed"!

[Adriael]

Stock prices WUZ gangstaz and she1t.

[顔黒]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Encoder:

Diposting pertama kali oleh H.U.N.K:

I'l try and be as nice as possible by not roasting you for your complete lack of awareness but first off GTASA was a hit game and secondly Ubisoft already has games with black assasins creed protagonists Aveline de Grandpre and Adawale both games were well recived and nobody cared they were black as one was set during the slave trade and the other was in Louisiana both characters were well writen back when ubisoft had talented writers not talentless DEI hacks and both characters made sense in the world they were in.

Where as Yasuke is a Joke a DEI insert with tublr level writing and is a total insult to anyone with half a brain.

There is exactly nothing about the game that is at all like DEI. Yasuke is in the game because there is historical evidence that he existed as a warrior back then.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke

He's in the game because he's black that's the only reason and that is the definiton of DEI.

Also, that Britannica article was literally written by Thomas Lockley, who are you trying to fool here.

[MonkehMaster]

yup, their "historian" is a activist, pushing narrative in historical settings, we don't need our history changed, how about changing the present and making it better... people these days lol

[RedCrownedCrane]

... oh my god are we really saying hatamoto aren't samurai?

Stunning western arrogance while being massively misinformed on display here, but it's not from the person being accused of it...

[Encoder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh SHINPAKU:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Encoder:

The classic “every scholar I dislike is a corporate puppet” take. Dr. Lockley co-authored African Samurai before Ubisoft’s game existed, citing Japanese chronicles (Ōta Gyūichi’s Shinchō Kōki) and Jesuit records. But sure, his decade of research is “revisionism” because… you’re mad a video game exists? Next you’ll claim historians of Viking braids are “Netflix plants.”

“Yasuke wasn’t samurai because he didn’t commit seppuku!”
By that logic, Akechi Mitsuhide—Nobunaga’s betrayer—wasn’t a “true samurai” either, since he died fleeing battle instead of ritual suicide. Most of Nobunaga’s Japanese retainers scattered or switched sides post-Honnō-ji. Yasuke was captured and handed to Jesuits—a political move, not proof of status. Your “giri” argument collapses when even loyalists like Mori Ranmaru (who did die with Nobunaga) weren’t obligated to “avenge” him—they just chose to.
Ashigaru were foot soldiers without land, stipends, or swords. Yasuke had all three from Nobunaga. Even your beloved Japanese sources describe him as a armed retainer. But sure, let’s demote him to “peasant soldier” because… racism?
Hideyoshi’s rise reinforces Yasuke’s plausibility. If a peasant could climb the ranks because the Sengoku era allowed exceptions, why couldn’t a foreigner earn status during wartime? Hideyoshi’s later class paranoia doesn’t retroactively erase the mobility he himself exploited. Your logic is like saying “I used a ladder to reach the roof, but now I’ll ban ladders—so no one else could’ve used one!”
Hatamoto WERE samurai—they were direct retainers to the shogun with land, swords, and titles. Adams’ hatamoto status included samurai privileges. Your “hereditary” purity test is modern pedantry. By Edo-period standards, most samurai were bureaucrats, not warriors—so should we strip their status too?
The Shinchō Kōki notes Nobunaga enjoyed conversing with Yasuke—so either Nobunaga spoke Portuguese, or Yasuke knew basic Japanese. But sure, let’s pretend communication in 1581 required fluency. Did you think Nobunaga was quizzing him on haiku?

The Jesuits’ accounts align with Japanese chronicles. But you’d rather dismiss all evidence than admit Nobunaga—a man who burned monasteries and mocked tradition—might’ve broken one more rule. The real “cultural arrogance” is assuming you understand Sengoku Japan better than the warlords who lived it.
Your argument hinges on a No True Scotsman fallacy—moving goalposts to exclude Yasuke while ignoring period flexibility. The Sengoku daimyo invented rules as they went. Nobunaga gave a foreigner a sword and stipend? That’s samurai status by 16th-century standards, whether it fits your anime LARP or not.

"Every scholar I dislike is a corporate puppet" - no, Lockley is a corporate puppet because he's literally paid by corporations to legitimize their revisionist narratives. His work has been widely criticized by Japanese historians for cherry-picking sources and imposing Western racial frameworks onto Japanese historical contexts. But you'll never acknowledge that because it doesn't fit your victim narrative.

Professor Kitamura Takao of Kyoto University criticized Lockley's methodology in a 2020 review, noting: "Lockley relies heavily on Jesuit accounts without adequately acknowledging their cultural biases and mistranslations of Japanese social categories. His interpretation of Yasuke's status reflects Western preoccupations with racial representation rather than sixteenth-century Japanese social realities."

Historian Tanaka Michiko pointed out in the Journal of Japanese Historical Studies that "Lockley's work conflates different categories of retainers in Nobunaga's service, ignoring crucial distinctions that would have been immediately apparent to contemporaries. The term 'samurai' as used by foreign observers often mistakenly applied to various armed servants regardless of their actual position."

Cultural critic Yamamoto Kenji wrote in Asahi Shimbun: "The commercialization of Yasuke represents a troubling trend of Western media companies mining Japanese history for marketable diversity narratives while disregarding historical context. Lockley's academic work, while containing valuable research, unfortunately provides scholarly cover for these simplified narratives."

The Rekishi Review panel discussion featuring multiple Japanese historians concluded that "Lockley's interpretation stretches limited primary sources to fit contemporary Western identity frameworks, rather than situating Yasuke within the complex social hierarchies of Sengoku Japan."

---

Also, Mitsuhide died while fleeing after his forces were defeated - completely different from a foreign curiosity being handed over to missionaries without resistance. And yes, many samurai DID avenge Nobunaga - have you never heard of Toyotomi's campaign against the Akechi? The fact you don't understand these basic historical events while lecturing others is peak Western arrogance.

"Yasuke had land, stipends, and swords" - prove it with Japanese sources, not Jesuit misinterpretations. Even if Nobunaga gave him temporary privileges, that doesn't make him samurai any more than a king giving a court jester gold or some small tribute of land for his services makes him nobility. Your obsession with material symbols while ignoring cultural significance is exactly why we're in absolute disagreement.

The hatamoto/samurai distinction is another thing you're so misinformed about. Hatamoto was specifically created as a separate classification for useful foreigners and others who couldn't be integrated into true samurai lineages. This deliberate separation proves my point - even with decades of assimilation, foreigners remained categorically different from real samurai.

"Nobunaga enjoyed conversing with Yasuke" - yes, as a novelty and curiosity, not as a trusted equal. The Shinchō Kōki describes him as an entertaining diversion, not as a strategic adviser or cultural peer. Your desperate attempts to elevate basic interaction to meaningful integration is pathetic reach.

Your entire argument rests on stripping away all cultural meaning from Japanese institutions to force modern Western ideological frameworks onto them. This is exactly the cultural imperialism that Japanese historians have fought against for decades - Westerners deciding they know better about Japanese cultural categories than the Japanese themselves.

The historical Yasuke was interesting enough without your Hollywoodized racial fantasy makeover. Respect the actual history instead of warping it to serve modern identity politics.

Sure because collaborating with historians on a game (like every AC title since 2007) makes you a “shill.” Meanwhile, scholars like Prof. Fukuda—who actually work with primary sources—get ignored because they don’t fit your “Western conspiracy” fanfic. Kitamura’s critique? He’s right about Jesuit biases… which Lockley explicitly addresses in his work. But why read the book when you can misquote it?

Tanaka Michiko’s “crucial distinctions” argument? Samurai ranks were fluid as hell during Sengoku. Nobunaga gave titles to tea masters, peasants, and yes—foreigners. But sure, let’s pretend “armed retainer” wasn’t a stepping stone to samurai status. Next you’ll claim Hideyoshi’s sandals disqualified him from ruling.

The Shinchō Kōki says Nobunaga gifted Yasuke a katana and residence—the same perks given to samurai. But sure, let’s pretend he was just a “jester” because… racism? Also, Mitsuhide’s men didn’t kill Yasuke because he wasn’t a threat, not because he “wasn’t samurai.” By your logic, every samurai spared in battle loses their title. Congrats—you’ve just erased 80% of Sengoku history.

Hatamoto were samurai—direct retainers to the shogun with land, swords, and status. The Edo period’s bureaucratic obsession ≠ Sengoku reality. William Adams got a Japanese name, swords, and hatamoto rank. If that’s “not samurai,” then neither were 90% of Edo-era paper-pushers. But keep gatekeeping!

Nobunaga burned entire temples for funsies—you think he’d waste time chatting with a “novelty” for months? The Shinchō Kōki notes Yasuke attended strategy meetings. But sure, Nobunaga just kept him around for the lolz, like a Renaissance Faire mascot.

The irony of a non-Japanese person lecturing Japanese devs (and scholars) on “authenticity” is delicious. Ubisoft consulted Japanese historians. Yasuke’s in their national archives. But sure, Japan’s own cultural institutions are “Westernized” now. The real imperialism is your refusal to let Japan have a diverse history.

Your argument is a No True Samurai fallacy drenched in Edo-period revisionism. The Sengoku era was chaotic, meritocratic, and full of exceptions. Nobunaga didn’t care about your purity tests—he cared about winning. Yasuke’s status is documented, his story plausible, and your meltdown hilarious.

[Encoder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh SHINPAKU:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Encoder:

The devs openly admitted pushing DEI!”
Show me the quote. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Oh, you mean their commitment to cultural consultation? You know, that thing they’ve done since Assassin’s Creed 1? Calling that “DEI-pushing” is like calling a museum “woke” for labeling artifacts correctly.
The only “proof” here is your conspiracy theory wrapped in a persecution complex. Ubisoft stating they “collaborated with experts” ≠ “We’re DEI missionaries.” Unless you think historians are now secret activists for… [gasps]… research lol.

The "cultural consultation" defense is transparently dishonest. Assassin's Creed 1 sought historical accuracy - this seeks historical revision to serve modern ideological goals.

Ubisoft didn't just "collaborate with experts" - they specifically chose Lockley, whose controversial work has been criticized by numerous Japanese historians for imposing Western racial frameworks onto Japanese history. When developers deliberately select outlier scholars whose views align with their marketing goals while ignoring mainstream historical consensus, that's not "research" - it's confirmation bias.

The fact that you're pretending there's no difference between seeking historical accuracy and deliberately promoting revisionist narratives that serve modern identity politics is exactly the problem.

Ubisoft's "consultation" wasn't aimed at authentic representation of feudal Japan - it was aimed at retrofitting modern Western racial narratives onto Japanese history. They didn't consult mainstream Japanese historians who've extensively documented the actual nature of samurai status and the social position of foreigners in feudal Japan.

Your false equivalence between legitimate historical research and cherry-picking fringe academics to justify historically dubious portrayals is exactly why consumers are skeptical of Ubisoft's motives. The company has repeatedly admitted their focus on "diverse representation" even when historically inaccurate - that's not conspiracy theory, it's their stated approach.

When marketing trumps historical authenticity, it's reasonable for consumers to question the result.

Ubisoft’s collaboration with scholars like Thomas Lockley is not “revisionist.” Lockley’s work on Yasuke is grounded in primary sources (e.g., Jesuit diaries, Japanese chronicles like Shinchō Kōki). Criticisms of his methodology exist—as they do for all historians—but dismissing him as a “fringe academic” ignores that his research is peer-reviewed and widely cited. If Ubisoft consulted him, it’s because his work aligns with documented evidence of Yasuke’s existence and status under Nobunaga.

The idea of a monolithic “mainstream Japanese historical consensus” is a myth. Historical interpretation is inherently debated—Prof. Maki Fukuda (Hitotsubashi University) and others have analyzed Yasuke’s plausibility as a samurai. Ubisoft isn’t obligated to adhere to one school of thought, especially when multiple scholars acknowledge the Sengoku period’s fluid social hierarchies. To claim they “ignored mainstream historians” assumes Ubisoft didn’t consult any Japanese experts, which is unsubstantiated.

Yasuke’s inclusion is not “historically dubious.” His presence in Nobunaga’s court is attested by both European and Japanese sources. The debate revolves around the specifics of his status, not his existence. Comparing this to Ubisoft’s creative liberties in other games (e.g., Odyssey’s gender options) is disingenuous—Yasuke is a documented figure, not a fictional insertion.

Ubisoft’s commitment to diversity in corporate materials ≠ “retrofitting modern narratives.” Their games have always blended history with fiction—Assassin’s Creed 1 took liberties with the Crusades, and Valhalla fictionalized Viking lore. Holding Shadows to a purity standard applied to no other entry reeks of selective outrage. If Yasuke’s inclusion is “marketing,” so is every historical figure Ubisoft has ever featured.

The claim that “foreigners couldn’t be samurai” ignores Sengoku pragmatism. Nobunaga employed Portuguese gunners, promoted peasant generals like Hideyoshi, and rewarded loyalty over lineage. The hatamoto designation for William Adams (a foreigner) granted him samurai privileges—land, swords, and titles. To argue Yasuke couldn’t achieve similar status, despite evidence of Nobunaga’s favor, imposes rigid Edo-period norms onto a famously chaotic era.

Your skepticism stems from a flawed premise: that acknowledging Yasuke’s documented role in Nobunaga’s circle is “revisionism.” It isn’t. Ubisoft’s consultation with Lockley and others reflects standard historical practice—engaging with scholarship, even debated work, to inform creative choices. The real “confirmation bias” lies in dismissing all evidence that complicates romanticized notions of “pure” Japanese history.
If consumers are skeptical, it’s not because of Ubisoft’s motives—it’s because some audiences confuse their own discomfort with historical complexity for “inauthenticity.” Yasuke’s story is plausible, and no amount of corporate-DEI panic changes that.

[TsudaTumiko]

Diposting pertama kali oleh 6480:

1 million players, not sales. They have a subscription service.

Also, do you believe that number? I own company ABC and company ABC says they sold 5 million copies, who confirmed this? ABC company... Just don't believe them, they lie, they don't even have 40k players in steam...

[Encoder]

Diposting pertama kali oleh MonkehMaster:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Encoder:

The devs openly admitted pushing DEI!”
Show me the quote. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Oh, you mean their commitment to cultural consultation? You know, that thing they’ve done since Assassin’s Creed 1? Calling that “DEI-pushing” is like calling a museum “woke” for labeling artifacts correctly.
The only “proof” here is your conspiracy theory wrapped in a persecution complex. Ubisoft stating they “collaborated with experts” ≠ “We’re DEI missionaries.” Unless you think historians are now secret activists for… [gasps]… research lol.

https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/company/about-us/diversity-inclusion-accessibility

glad you waited, here is your research, hope it helps ya.

really, secret activists.... uh they can be anyone anywhere, not sure how specific people can't be an activist... lol.

back in the day dei is 1 mil times better than current extremist, sexist, racist, dei

Oh wow, you really thought you did something here, huh? Linking Ubisoft’s generic corporate diversity page as “proof” they’re “pushing DEI ideologies” is like citing a McDonald’s nutrition chart to claim they’re running a vegan activism campaign. Read the damn page again. It’s boilerplate PR fluff about “respecting equality” and “inclusion” — the same empty rhetoric every Fortune 500 company slaps on their website to avoid lawsuits and bad press. Show me ONE LINE where they say, “We’re injecting DEI dogma into our games.” Spoiler: YOU CAN’T. Because it doesn’t exist.

“Collaborating with historians and cultural experts” — something they’ve done since 2007 with Assassin’s Creed — isn’t “DEI-pushing.” It’s called BASIC RESEARCH. By your logic, every textbook citing sources is “woke propaganda.” Ubisoft stating they “value diversity” is no different than them saying they “care about the environment” — it’s corporate lip service, not a manifesto.

And spare me the “historians are secret activists” paranoia. Your entire argument hinges on equating LEGAL COMPLIANCE (“don’t be racist/sexist”) with some sinister ideological agenda. Ubisoft saying they follow anti-discrimination laws isn’t “proof” of DEI brainwashing — it’s proof they don’t want to get sued into oblivion. Where’s the smoking gun? Where’s the dev saying, “Yes, we sacrificed gameplay to meet DEI quotas”? Where’s the leaked memo about “pushing woke narratives”? Oh right — IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD.

You’re conflating standard corporate risk management with a culture-war boogeyman because you’re desperate to blame “DEI extremists” for your own inability to enjoy a game without feeling threatened by… checks notes… historically accurate costumes or women existing. Grow up. Ubisoft’s diversity page is about as “radical” as a HR seminar on workplace harassment — boring, legally required, and utterly unrelated to game design.

[Renown]

I like this game, set in a series where from the first game - it's obvious it's blatantly ahistorical with magical apples and codexes lmfao. As a history major who specialized in medieval european history, who enjoyed dipping into the worlds they game let us experience, I'm happy to see Japan. It's not meant to teach you history, it's a game folks. Use it as a starting point to learn if you are interested, that's what I did with Civilization games.

Stop falling for the culture wars. You online social warriors are tiring. I think I'm the first person to post in this thread who owns the game. Your biases are showing.

[JohnMac]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Orge Lambart:

people trying to cheer on Ubisoft's demise because they dared to put a black man as the lead character... oh the horror.. give me a break..

Thats not the reason. The reason is Ubi has been trash for many years, then on top of that shoehorn more DEI instead of giving us a real japanese AC.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Orge Lambart:

same people who hated GTA San Andreas because Carl was a black

I have never heard this. Perhaps you are just making stuff up?

Diposting pertama kali oleh Orge Lambart:

I wouldn't even wise for Ubisoft to struggle, I mean their games rock

Not for a long time has ubisoft 'rocked'

[Noeat]

Diposting pertama kali oleh JohnMac:

Not for a long time has ubisoft 'rocked'

*looking at last AC game (Valhalla) sales*
are you sure about it?

[RedCrownedCrane]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Renown:

I like this game, set in a series where from the first game - it's obvious it's blatantly ahistorical with magical apples and codexes lmfao. As a history major who specialized in medieval european history, who enjoyed dipping into the worlds they game let us experience, I'm happy to see Japan. It's not meant to teach you history, it's a game folks. Use it as a starting point to learn if you are interested, that's what I did with Civilization games.

Stop falling for the culture wars. You online social warriors are tiring. I think I'm the first person to post in this thread who owns the game. Your biases are showing.

Second, actually, I've also played it. Honestly I should go back to playing it now rather than bother posting in threads like this one. It's just as someone who is a history major specializing in Japanese history and folklore, the whole controversy over this game rankles my feathers.

AC has never been perfectly historically accurate. A lot of historical fiction media with that moniker fail to live up to it. "Knowledge driven" is probably a better term for it that I've seen thrown around - the creators know the history and strive to make it feel authentic, and are playing around with the unknowns or fringe cases inherent to most pre-modern history. There's nothing offensive about it either - Sengoku BASARA, which features a robot Honda Tadakatsu, a Francis Xavier able to colonize the whole of Japan, and a satanic Oda Nobunaga, is proof positive of this. To say nothing of movies like Ten to Chi to and Kagemusha which are more grounded but still possess key inaccuracies. The reason these work is because the creators very clearly knew their history. So far, from what I've played of ACS, it's the same case here, at least moreso than a lot of other western titles about samurai. There are definite errors - Osaka Castle existing prior to the Honnoji incident, for example - but it's clear they're there for a more entertaining gameplay or narrative experience. And most of what people are actually mad about is either directly related to player choice or to bits that can't really be historically confirmed or debunked.

I can tell you this (general you, not you-you, Renown) - an actual samurai simulator that is perfectly historically accurate would probably be dreadful! Same with a knight simulator, or any kind of historical action sim. Our imaginings of what history was like in games and in movies is a lot more fun than what life was actually like for the people who struggled through it back then.

[MacArthur]

100% they counted in key sales to third party retailers who will sit on tens of thousands keys for long time.

Legal sites like Green Man Gaming already have -17% sale and over 20k keys in stock. Ubisoft probably gave them the keys for 1/4th the price

[Rei]

You probably would've saved a lot more time with this post when you actually read to understand that it was "players" and not "sales". Thanks for laugh though. Your post is absolutely the quintessential representation of the current state of the game.