Assassin's Creed Shadows Sales Are Out

[cypher]

Two months ago, Ubisoft launched what CEO Yves Guillemot dramatically hyped as a “make-or-break” title — Assassin’s Creed Shadows. This wasn’t just another AC game. No, this was AAAA — the mythical development tier where the budget inflates faster than the innovation.

And right on cue, Ubisoft rushed to social media to trumpet: “3 million players!”
A jaw-dropping stat… until you realize that “players” includes anyone who accidentally opened Ubisoft+ — their glorified DRM masquerading as a game launcher. But hey, if blinking at a splash screen counts as engagement, sure.

What they didn’t announce? Actual sales numbers — the kind that can’t be fluffed.

Thanks to independent sources (Alinea Analytics), the truth is out. And it’s rough:

• PS5: 1.7 million copies sold over 2 months
  
• PC (Steam): 367K copies sold in the first 2 weeks — after which sales nosedived so hard even analytics firms gave up
  
• Xbox: No official numbers, so let’s be generous and match the PC total — another 367K

Total sales across all platforms: ~2.4 million copies.

Let’s put that in context:

• Ghost of Tsushima (a PlayStation exclusive) sold that in 3 days
  
• Assassin’s Creed 1 (from 2007) sold 2.5 million copies in its first month

So yes, Ubisoft’s magnum opus is performing worse than a game from 18 years ago. Bravo.

Meanwhile, Ubisoft's year-end report looked like a financial car crash:

• Net bookings: Down 20.5% year-over-year
  
• Operating income: Negative
  
• Net income: €159 million loss
  
• Stock: Plunged nearly 20% in a single day — their worst drop in over a decade

But don’t worry, they’ve got a brilliant plan: take even longer to make games. Revolutionary stuff.
And for good measure, they handed partial control of major IPs like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry to Tencent for a quick €1.16 billion fix.

In short: Ubisoft sold Assassin’s Creed Shadows as a groundbreaking evolution. What they delivered was a bloated, forgettable mess that underperformed across the board. And instead of transparency, we got fuzzy “engagement” metrics and corporate spin.

But hey — at least 3 million people opened the launcher once. So there’s that.

Source 1 [alineaanalytics.com]
Source 2 [alineaanalytics.com]

[grizz]

RIP AC. The franchise had a good run. Didn't think it'd collapse so spectacularly. A lot of the errors feel unforced, like having a small woman mary sue as the protagonist.

[Grimno]

Random question perhaps you can answer

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source when nobody has heard of it before today and they don't link or post any sources where they're pulling this info from?

The only thing that even brings them up is "Klein Group" which focuses on Blockchain, AI, and something they call "iGaming"

In fact at one point I believe they claim Ubisoft has had around 3000 layoffs yet when checking the sources it's more around 680ish layoffs since the start of 2024

Can you answer this?

[cypher]

Originally posted by Grimno:

Random question perhaps you can answer

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source when nobody has heard of it before today and they don't link or post any sources where they're pulling this info from?

The only thing that even brings them up is "Klein Group" which focuses on Blockchain, AI, and something they call "iGaming"

In fact at one point I believe they claim Ubisoft has had around 3000 layoffs yet when checking the sources it's more around 680ish layoffs since the start of 2024

Can you answer this?

First, just because Alinea Analytics is new or not widely known doesn't automatically mean their information is unreliable. Every trusted outlet started somewhere, and being unfamiliar doesn’t equal being wrong.

Second, when it comes to sources, not everything can be linked directly, especially if the data comes from internal reports, private briefings, or things like LinkedIn tracking, investor calls, or whistleblowers. A lack of public links doesn't always mean there’s no real data behind it.

As for the Klein Group, yeah, they do work in blockchain, AI, and iGaming, but that doesn’t mean they can’t have valid insights in other sectors. A lot of firms have multiple areas of focus.

Regarding the Ubisoft claim, the number you mentioned is based on public reports, which might not tell the full story. The 3,000 number could include quiet layoffs, unrenewed contracts, contractors, or entire teams dissolved without a press release. These things often don’t show up in the official count.

So instead of writing them off just because they’re new or because the data isn’t neatly sourced in a tweet, it’s more useful to ask whether their claims line up with emerging info or patterns. If they’re consistently ahead of the curve, that might actually mean they’re worth keeping an eye on.

[helterskelter]

Originally posted by Grimno:

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source

You're confusing source for analysis. You can feel free to distrust their analysis but the information source actually comes from publicly available information - i.e. oftentimes ubisoft themselves, but also playstation, steam, etc.

That's the actual source.

The analysis comes from Alinea.

You're free to do the analysis yourself with the source information (unless you think playstation steam and ubisoft etc. are all lying to us) but they all seem to paint a pretty grim picture. Don't attack the messenger.

[Grimno]

Originally posted by cypher:

Originally posted by Grimno:

Random question perhaps you can answer

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source when nobody has heard of it before today and they don't link or post any sources where they're pulling this info from?

The only thing that even brings them up is "Klein Group" which focuses on Blockchain, AI, and something they call "iGaming"

In fact at one point I believe they claim Ubisoft has had around 3000 layoffs yet when checking the sources it's more around 680ish layoffs since the start of 2024

Can you answer this?

First, just because Alinea Analytics is new or not widely known doesn't automatically mean their information is unreliable. Every trusted outlet started somewhere, and being unfamiliar doesn’t equal being wrong.

Second, when it comes to sources, not everything can be linked directly, especially if the data comes from internal reports, private briefings, or things like LinkedIn tracking, investor calls, or whistleblowers. A lack of public links doesn't always mean there’s no real data behind it.

As for the Klein Group, yeah, they do work in blockchain, AI, and iGaming, but that doesn’t mean they can’t have valid insights in other sectors. A lot of firms have multiple areas of focus.

Regarding the Ubisoft claim, the number you mentioned is based on public reports, which might not tell the full story. The 3,000 number could include quiet layoffs, unrenewed contracts, contractors, or entire teams dissolved without a press release. These things often don’t show up in the official count.

So instead of writing them off just because they’re new or because the data isn’t neatly sourced in a tweet, it’s more useful to ask whether their claims line up with emerging info or patterns. If they’re consistently ahead of the curve, that might actually mean they’re worth keeping an eye on.

But Alinea by their own records isn't "new"
In their own website they claim to have done info on over 51,000+ studios and 275,000+ games yet this is the first time even hearing about them.
They link zero sources. They post nothing that backs up anything they claim.
It's all just numbers and people are expected to just instantly believe them?

Even checking the people doing the reporting are just small accounts on Twitter with zero credentials basically.
They're literally "just some guy"

But then for this sake, say they're right.
How would then be Shadows a flop?
Odyssey is considered a commercial success, it had sold 10 million copies by March 2020 after releasing in October 2018
In 15 months they sold 10 million copies
Shadows selling 2.5mil copies in 3 months still puts them ahead of Odyssey's numbers

[MythicRocfordson]

Originally posted by helterskelter:

Originally posted by Grimno:

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source

You're confusing source for analysis. You can feel free to distrust their analysis but the information source actually comes from publicly available information - i.e. oftentimes ubisoft themselves, but also playstation, steam, etc.

That's the actual source.

The analysis comes from Alinea.

You're free to do the analysis yourself with the source information (unless you think playstation steam and ubisoft etc. are all lying to us) but they all seem to paint a pretty grim picture. Don't attack the messenger.

Where's the source information genius

[Grimno]

Originally posted by MythicRocfordson:

Originally posted by helterskelter:

You're confusing source for analysis. You can feel free to distrust their analysis but the information source actually comes from publicly available information - i.e. oftentimes ubisoft themselves, but also playstation, steam, etc.

That's the actual source.

The analysis comes from Alinea.

You're free to do the analysis yourself with the source information (unless you think playstation steam and ubisoft etc. are all lying to us) but they all seem to paint a pretty grim picture. Don't attack the messenger.

Where's the source information genius

See that's what I want to know.
They somehow have all this information to make the analysis and somehow have information that is questionable how they'd even get it

Yet they don't have the Ubisoft Connect or even Epic Games launcher info
Only Steams.

They didn't even have any Xbox info.

So that 2.4mil number is undershooting what it actually is because they're missing data.
I know a few people who use Ubisoft Connect because it has their other AC Games on it and they don't want to have different games in the series through different launchers, especially since when running it through Steam still required Ubisoft Connect

[agarest1]

We already know it's sold bad, it was obvious as soon as they started using number of players rather than units sold.

[MythicRocfordson]

How do you *know* anything without actual data though?

Assumption?


Process of elimination?

Prediction?

From people who voted Trump in twice?

Seriously, who told you you were good at discernment?

[MythicRocfordson]

Even better question: why does the idea of this game failing mean so much to people who just completely lauded about an Oblivion remaster?

After you just spent two entire years calling Bethesda the worst company in gaming.

There's no nuance here

[Afked One]

We don't have solid data on numbers till it's released by Ubisoft itself. However... There are signs.
Them saying "players" instead of sales is a bad red flag.
The game not even reaching 100k concurrent players opening weekend on steam is another red flag.
Ubisoft stock being at an all time low is also another red flag.

All we can do is wait for them to release the data themselves. But at this point does it really matter? let the players who enjoyed the game enjoy it. And others who don't care should just sit back and play a fun game.

[Voland]

Originally posted by Afked One:

We don't have solid data on numbers till it's released by Ubisoft itself. However... There are signs.
Them saying "players" instead of sales is a bad red flag.
The game not even reaching 100k concurrent players opening weekend on steam is another red flag.
Ubisoft stock being at an all time low is also another red flag.

All we can do is wait for them to release the data themselves. But at this point does it really matter? let the players who enjoyed the game enjoy it. And others who don't care should just sit back and play a fun game.

i dont remember they were bragging about specific sales numbers with first months of release for Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla. instead they just "this is best sales in AC history". and thats was 3 in a row. until Mirage and Shadows. they didnt said anything about Mirage, and as for Shadoes they said this is 2nd best profits for first weeks. so better than Odyssey and worse than Valhalla. i dont see red flag here. thats good milestone consindering crazy levels of hate towards ubisoft in last years

Shadows have better steam peak players than any other AC, as well

as for stock, welp, AC, FC and R6S now belong to new private company, so those profits not gonna reflect main company stock anymore

[xDLGx]

Originally posted by Voland:

Shadows have better steam peak players than any other AC, as well

Shadows is the only AC game released on Steam day 1 instead of eons later, so it would be expected to have way more players than any previous AC game on the platform.

[Grimno]

Originally posted by agarest1:

We already know it's sold bad, it was obvious as soon as they started using number of players rather than units sold.

They've always done that though.

[knoxnum1]

Originally posted by Grimno:

Random question perhaps you can answer

What makes Alinea Analytics a suddenly trusted source when nobody has heard of it before today and they don't link or post any sources where they're pulling this info from?

Can you answer this?

From another thread

Originally posted by Grimno:

Originally posted by Etny2k:

The game is fine quit being a drama andy.

You know the sad part is when the sales are announced it'll go one of two ways

A: If the numbers are high they will claim the numbers are inflated, fake, and they won't believe them for a second.

B: If the numbers are low, they will instantly believe it, no questions asked

The projection is insane