EssayBoard

Day-One Player Sentiment and Feedback

(image) Yasuke, one of the dual protagonists in Assassin’s Creed Shadows, was a major selling point – but many players feel the game itself falls short of expectations.

From the very first day of release, real players have voiced disappointment with Shadows on forums, Reddit, and Steam. Instead of triumph, the immediate buzz was full of frustration. Early adopters described the game as “mid in almost every single way”, noting that nothing in Shadows “propel[s] the franchise forward in any meaningful way”. Common gamer feedback lamented that Shadows feels “bland” and “repetitious”, with “not a single moment that sticks out” as memorable. On Reddit and Steam discussions, many fans echoed that sentiment, rating the experience a mere “6 out of 10” and expressing that they’ve “played this game before” in past AC titles. This unfiltered player chatter paints a stark contrast to any PR spin – gamers are underwhelmed. Some even turned to mockery: an indie parody titled “Yasuke Simulator” (launched alongside Shadows) gained traction as a “meme competitor”, with players joking “we have to get this to number 1 – just to troll” the real game (This game mocks Assassin’s Creed Shadows and climbs to second place on SteamDB – NotebookCheck.net News). In short, day-one players felt let down, and they weren’t shy about saying so.

Gameplay and Design Criticism (Innovation, Mechanics, Stealth & Combat)

Players and critics alike have honed in on gameplay and design flaws that suggest Shadows is playing it safe rather than innovating. Despite a highly anticipated feudal Japan setting, many feel Ubisoft squandered the opportunity by delivering more of the same. Stealth and AI are a particular sore point: while Shadows brings back classic stealth, enemies can be easily exploited – for example, lying prone on a roof causes guards to forget you entirely since “they can’t climb”, making the player “basically invincible” once you gain high ground. This kind of simplistic AI undermines the stealth mechanics. The parkour and traversal also drew ire; ironically, movement is more restrictive than older titles. Fans noted that in Assassin’s Creed Valhalla you could climb virtually anything, but “in Shadows it’s far more restricted” – you often can’t scale obvious ledges, funneling the player along intended paths. Veterans even commented that “Unity still has the best parkour” in the series, underscoring Ubisoft’s failure to advance core mechanics after all these years.

When it comes to combat, opinions diverge, but a lot of core fans found it shallow. Shadows offers two playable characters – a nimble female shinobi (Naoe) and the samurai Yasuke – yet their fighting styles didn’t wow those expecting evolution. One early player remarked that combat is “just too simple”, boilding down to basic light/heavy attacks and one-button special moves with little depth or variation. By comparison, modern competitors in the genre have set a high bar. Ghost of Tsushima (Sucker Punch, 2020) featured stance-based swordplay where each stance counters specific enemy types, adding tactical variety (Assassin’s Creed Shadows vs Ghost of Tsushima: Similarities and differences explored). In Shadows, no such innovation appears – “going prone” is one of the only new mechanics noted, which players dryly joke is nothing special . The result is that combat feels “bland” to many; as one gamer put it, “Ghost of Tsushima…just clears Shadows in every conceivable way – better characters, more alive world, more interesting combat”. Even Rise of the Ronin (2024) – another open-world samurai game – is cited as having “better combat systems and exploration” than Shadows, despite coming from a smaller studio (Team Ninja) and earning only lukewarm praise from critics (a 76 Metacritic score) (Rise of the Ronin reviews round-up | What do the critics say? | Radio Times). Such comparisons are damning: Ubisoft’s design feels dated next to both its own older titles and its modern rivals.

Another recurring critique is the lack of meaningful innovation or risk-taking. Reviewers note that Shadows plays like an amalgam of past AC games – massive open-world map, filler side quests, crafting, etc. – without a fresh hook. PC Gamer observed that “17 years of Assassin’s Creed games have shown that Ubisoft simply cannot break free of this formula,” arguing that Shadows just piles on the “typical…nonsense” (fetch quests, shallow NPCs, MacGuffin plot, even microtransactions) that Ghost of Tsushima wisely avoided (Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound | PC Gamer) (Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound | PC Gamer). In essence, Assassin’s Creed Shadows feels stuck in the past. The gameplay works, but it “doesn’t offer anything new to justify itself”, leaving even long-time fans underwhelmed.

Ubisoft’s Internal Challenges and Their Impact on Quality

The troubles with Shadows’ execution trace back to Ubisoft’s internal challenges – including leadership decisions and studio practices that have seemingly hampered the game’s quality. By many accounts, Ubisoft as a company has been in turmoil leading up to Shadows. A French report even cited an internal developer’s warning: if Shadows only sells “moderately well,” “we’re in real trouble”, whereas “if [it] sells very well, we’ll be able to start breathing a sigh of relief.” This reveals how much pressure the dev team was under – essentially, Shadows was seen as a make-or-break title for the company’s finances. Such pressure from leadership can lead to overly cautious design and an emphasis on meeting deadlines over creativity.

Multiple sources suggest that morale and experienced talent at Ubisoft have been waning, which affected Shadows’ development. Marc-Alexis Côté, the franchise lead, openly admitted that “probably half the team…is building a game for the first time.” (Ubisoft Exec Reveals Inexperience Of ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ Dev Team: “Probably Half The Team Is Building A Game For The First Time”) In other words, a huge portion of the Shadows dev team had zero prior game-development experience. This inexperience at the developer level could explain many rough edges – from buggy AI to unpolished mechanics – that seasoned veterans might have avoided. It also points to a brain-drain or turnover problem: Ubisoft’s veteran developers may have left, leaving juniors to fill big shoes. Côté claimed to foster transparency with the team about the game’s problems, but needing such reassurance (telling newbies “it’s going to be good, we’re going to get there” despite the messy state of the project) is itself a red flag (Ubisoft Exec Reveals Inexperience Of ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ Dev Team: “Probably Half The Team Is Building A Game For The First Time”).

Insiders and industry commentators have been blunt about Ubisoft’s leadership issues. In discussions of Shadows, one commenter stated the company has “dug themselves a hole” through “delusional leadership” and “poor oversight”, with “absurd…wasted dev resources and bloated budgets.” (Gaming News: Ubisoft’s Make-or-Break Moment with Assassin’s Creed Shadows) This refers to Ubisoft’s habit of throwing huge teams and money at projects without strong creative direction, often resulting in delays and cancellations. (Notably, Shadows was delayed multiple times during development (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+).) The organizational culture at Ubisoft has been criticized in recent years for top-down mandates that favor formulaic open-world design and annual franchise churn, rather than empowering innovative ideas. For example, Ubisoft’s editorial team (which guides all studios) has historically stuck to a proven template – the very template many feel is holding Assassin’s Creed back. Poor oversight also ties to known issues like workplace misconduct scandals and managerial shake-ups in 2020, which disrupted projects and likely had ripple effects on games like Shadows.

Furthermore, Ubisoft had to manage external controversies during Shadows’ development. The choice to feature Yasuke (a real African samurai in Japan) led to some backlash from a subset of fans complaining about “historical accuracy.” Ubisoft’s response – “attempts to defang the haters” on social media (Assassin’s Creed Shadows review | PC Gamer) – shows how leadership was distracted trying to handle PR fires. There was also a backlash in Japan over an in-game shrine desecration mechanic; this even drew comment from a Japanese politician, prompting a day-one patch to remove the offending feature (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+). These incidents suggest leadership missteps – not anticipating cultural sensitivity issues – that required late-game fixes and likely pulled focus from core development. All told, Ubisoft’s internal problems – high pressure, inexperienced devs, rigid formula, and managerial hiccups – directly contributed to Shadows’ mediocrity. As one frustrated fan concluded, “this series is honestly just being held back by Ubisoft as a publisher”.

Monetization Strategies and the Ubisoft+ Factor

Another area where Ubisoft may have shot itself in the foot is monetization – both in-game monetization and how the game was distributed via Ubisoft’s services. Players have become increasingly sensitive to how games are monetized, and Shadows reignited some of these concerns. As a full-priced $70 AAA title, one might expect a complete experience, but Shadows includes a bevy of microtransactions. Ubisoft’s infamous Helix Credits make a return in this game, allowing players to buy in-game currency packs with real money (How To Get More Mon (Money/Gold) In Assassin’s Creed Shadows). These can be spent on gear, weapons, cosmetics, and even resources for your hideout (Assassin’s Creed Shadows Support: Purchases and Subscription) (How to get more hideout resources in Assassin’s Creed Shadows). Essentially, Ubisoft built a live-service style store into Shadows, much as they did with Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla. To some fans this is unacceptable in a single-player RPG – it raises suspicions that the game’s progression might be subtly throttled to entice microtransaction purchases (as was accused with AC Odyssey’s XP boosters). While Ubisoft did not heavily advertise this aspect, savvy players discovered that you can buy “Mon” (gold) and other items for cash (How To Get More Mon (Money/Gold) In Assassin’s Creed Shadows). This has negatively impacted perception: critics call the game out for its “predictable” inclusion of microtransactions in an already full-priced game (Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound | PC Gamer).

Moreover, Ubisoft’s Ubisoft+ subscription had a notable influence on Shadows’ launch. The company made Shadows available on day one through Ubisoft+ (their $15/month game subscription), meaning players could access it without purchasing the game outright. This isn’t inherently bad – it lowers the entry cost – but it significantly muddled the sales picture and, in some eyes, devalued the game. Ubisoft touted “over one million players” in the first 24 hours (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247), but notably did not say one million copies sold. That figure includes a large number of Ubisoft+ subscribers who tried the game essentially as part of a bundle, not a standalone purchase. On the one hand, this strategy can boost player count; on the other, it may have cannibalized traditional sales and given die-hard fans a way to play the whole game for just $15 (by subscribing for a month and canceling). Some industry observers suspect Ubisoft leaned on this to pad their engagement numbers – one forum user noted the “trick” of counting subscribers as sales is a common PR move “so they can slap it on a PowerPoint for investors”.

The player perception of this was largely cynical. Instead of being impressed by “1 million players” headlines, many fans did the math and remained unimpressed. On Steam, users pointed out that “41.4k peak players on Steam” means actual PC sales were modest (Despite day-one access via Ubisoft+, only 1 million players. :: Assassin’s Creed Shadows General Discussions), and that including all the essentially free (or lower-cost) Ubisoft+ players in the total is spin. In discussions, gamers compared Shadows to Hi-Fi Rush – a title that had 3 million Game Pass players yet was deemed a financial disappointment (its studio was downsized), implying that subscriptions alone don’t guarantee success (Despite day-one access via Ubisoft+, only 1 million players. :: Assassin’s Creed Shadows General Discussions). There’s also a sentiment that Ubisoft’s focus on recurring monetization hurt game design. As one PC Gamer editorial put it, Ubisoft seems to prize “player retention” and live-service elements over initial quality (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247) – designing massive grindy experiences that keep people subscribed or buying cosmetics, rather than tightly crafted adventures. Shadows indeed has those “live-service elements” (daily quests, tons of collectible markers, etc.), and while they can extend engagement, some players feel it’s “busywork” added to encourage use of boosters or prolonged Ubisoft+ subscriptions.

In summary, Ubisoft’s monetization strategy around Shadows backfired in perception. The presence of microtransactions reinforced the narrative that the game is more “product” than passion, and the heavy reliance on Ubisoft+ to drive numbers made the achievement of 1M players ring hollow. Neither the design nor the public relations of Shadows could escape the shadow (no pun intended) of Ubisoft’s money-making schemes, and that further alienated a fanbase already skeptical from recent entries.

Performance vs. Expectations: Sales, Players, and Reception

Considering the Assassin’s Creed brand and the years of hype for a Japan setting, Shadows’ actual performance at launch fell below expectations by most measures. On Steam (a good public barometer for PC interest), Shadows peaked at about 41,412 concurrent players on launch day (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247). While that number sounds decent, context reveals it’s underwhelming. It’s only about half of what a mid-tier RPG like “Dragon Age: Vailguard” achieved on its first day (that title hit ~89k concurrents). It’s also lower than the peak counts of earlier Assassin’s Creed games that released on Steam. For instance, AC Odyssey saw around 61k peak players in 2018, meaning Shadows drew ~20k fewer at launch (Assassin’s Creed Shadows hits 41000 online players on Steam). For a flagship AC release in 2025, that’s disappointing. One forum poster flatly called the 41k Steam peak “an absolute disaster” for a AAA multiplatform game (Despite day-one access via Ubisoft+, only 1 million players. :: Assassin’s Creed Shadows General Discussions), noting that successful AAA releases now often reach 250k–1M+ concurrents on PC. By comparison, this year’s big hits like Monster Hunter Wilds (2025) topped 1.3 million concurrents and even a niche RPG sequel like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 hit 256k (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247). From that angle, Shadows’ traction looks very weak – it didn’t crack Steam’s top records, indicating lukewarm interest.

On the sales front (console + PC combined), Ubisoft has been cagey with hard numbers. They bragged about “1 million players” day one (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247), but as discussed, that’s not copies sold. Estimates can be drawn: if only ~40k were on Steam at peak (perhaps 150k–200k total PC players in 24h), and many of those might be subscribers, then maybe a few hundred thousand bought it on PC. Console sales might be higher, but even generously Shadows might have sold on the order of a few hundred thousand units in its first day or two, not close to a million. For comparison, Ghost of Tsushima – a new IP – sold 2.4 million copies in its first 3 days on PS4 alone (Ghost of Tsushima sells 2.4 million in three days | GamesIndustry.biz). Even AC Origins and Odyssey reportedly cleared several million in their launch windows. Ubisoft likely expected Shadows to at least match AC Odyssey (2018), which was cited as a benchmark: an internal producer hoped Shadows would sell like Odyssey, one of the franchise’s best-sellers. Odyssey ultimately sold around 10 million copies in its lifecycle, so expectations for Shadows were extremely high. The early indicators, however, suggest Shadows is tracking below those targets. By the end of its first week, we saw Ubisoft quietly drop hints of underperformance – for example, Shadows fell off the top 10 global sellers on Steam very quickly . Additionally, Ubisoft’s stock price actually dropped right after release, a 7% dip within 24 hours , which wouldn’t happen if the game genuinely blew past expectations. (In fact, investors seemed to interpret the launch as weak.)

Commercial success isn’t just about day-one, but also sustained engagement and word of mouth, and here too Shadows is lagging. SteamCharts data a week post-launch showed a rapid decline in concurrent players, implying many tried it via subscription or bought in, but didn’t stick around long. Player sentiment (as detailed earlier) was mixed to negative, which can hurt ongoing sales – especially for a game that isn’t a must-play phenomenon. Contrast this with competitor titles: Ghost of Tsushima enjoyed long legs due to strong word-of-mouth (it had sold over 5 million within a few months and surpassed 10 million by its second year), and Black Myth: Wukong – an action RPG released in 2024 – became a breakout hit, reportedly selling 22+ million units within 100 days of launch (‘Black Myth: Wukong’ earns 7 bln yuan in 100 days – Global Times) thanks to positive reception and massive interest in its fresh concept. Shadows, on the other hand, risks fizzling out quickly. Its concurrent player counts and likely sales figures are more akin to a middling spin-off than a mainline AC entry, and certainly below Ubisoft’s projections.

Critically, Shadows reviewed… “fine.” It isn’t a cyberpunk-style flop – on the surface, review scores around 81–84 on Metacritic for consoles (‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ User Scores Are Coming In – Forbes) suggest a solid game. But for Ubisoft, fine might not be enough. The series needed a revitalizing hit, something to reassert AC’s dominance. Instead, Shadows got a polite golf clap from critics and a bit of a shrug from players. It’s telling that on ResetEra and social media, many fans concluded Shadows “isn’t the breakout Ubisoft needed.” One headline quipped that Ghost of Tsushima “ate [Shadows’] lunch 4 years ago”, meaning Sucker Punch already delivered the definitive ninja/samurai open-world game back in 2020 (Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound | PC Gamer). All of these signals – sales, player counts, reviews, community buzz – align to one conclusion: Assassin’s Creed Shadows is underperforming against expectations, both the fans’ and Ubisoft’s own.

Investor Pressure, Marketing Tactics, and the PR vs. Consumer Response Gap

The story of AC Shadows’ launch wouldn’t be complete without examining the immense investor pressure and the glossy marketing narrative that surrounded it – often at odds with the reality consumers experienced. Ubisoft has been in a financially precarious spot (plagued by delays, cancellations, and lackluster releases), so by the time Shadows arrived, it truly had “everything riding” on it (Assassin’s Creed Shadows Launches Amid High Expectations And …). Investors were told that Assassin’s Creed was the pillar to bank on; Ubisoft’s CEO Yves Guillemot and executives positioned Shadows as the comeback hit. This led to an aggressive marketing campaign and some bold claims. For example, Ubisoft’s pre-launch PR highlighted that preorders were “tracking alongside Odyssey’s 10 million-copy haul” (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+) – an attempt to assure shareholders that Shadows could match one of the series’ high points. They also heavily courted press coverage: features in mainstream gaming media painted Shadows as a potential triumph, emphasizing that it “takes the number one spot on Steam’s top sellers chart” and calling it “the success story Ubisoft needs” (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+). Indeed, on launch day Shadows was #1 on Steam’s paid charts in many regions – but that’s expected for any big release with no immediate competition. Ubisoft’s official Twitter account celebrated being “back on Steam” with a cheeky “Full Steam ahead!” message to fans (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+). The messaging was clear: Shadows is a hit!

However, there was a stark disconnect between Ubisoft’s public statements and actual consumer response. While Ubisoft proclaimed victory, players were already voicing disappointment. Reviews from independent YouTubers and comments from early buyers contradicted the “great success” narrative. For instance, Ubisoft’s statement about “over one million players” was immediately scrutinized – savvy consumers noted the conspicuous absence of the word “sold” and correctly assumed this figure was inflated by Ubisoft+ subscribers. On forums, users sarcastically filled in the blanks of Ubisoft’s PR lines, e.g., “something something consoles, something something Ubisoft Play, something something we don’t know the real numbers” (Despite day-one access via Ubisoft+, only 1 million players. :: Assassin’s Creed Shadows General Discussions) – a mocking summary of how corporate PR tries to spin results. It became almost a meme how predictably Ubisoft would tout any stat except actual sales. This gap eroded trust: gamers felt Ubisoft was trying to pull a fast one. The company’s upbeat press release was met with skepticism, if not outright eye-rolling, in the community.

Investor pressure also seemingly influenced how Ubisoft handled post-launch communications. Rather than acknowledge any criticisms, Ubisoft doubled down on positive talking points. They highlighted that Shadows had “smashed [the] previous Assassin’s Creed record on Steam”, beating Valhalla’s peak. This is technically true, but as player advocates pointed out, it’s a misleading comparison – Valhalla wasn’t on Steam at launch, so of course a brand-new AC on Steam would have a higher peak. Such nuances were conveniently omitted in press quotes. The marketing tactics here revolve around selective data: Ubisoft cherry-picked any figure that sounded good, while downplaying or ignoring context. Internally, there were even reports of a major shareholder preparing to protest Ubisoft leadership over “horribly mismanaged” plans and decline in value (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+) – Shadows was supposed to placate these concerns. Thus the company had every incentive to paint Shadows as a triumph regardless of the honest consumer sentiment.

This came to a head when the first weekend numbers rolled in and Ubisoft’s stock price didn’t soar as one might expect from a “hit” – instead it slid. The community noticed: “When a game does well, would your stock go up or down? …In Ubisoft’s case, when Shadows released…their stock went down 7%”. That hard fact cut through the PR. It suggested that investors, reading through the spin, recognized Shadows wasn’t an instant blockbuster. Ubisoft’s rosy public statements (“reviews have been great…we’ve ranked it highly on our best AC games list” (Assassin’s Creed Shadows looks like the success Ubisoft needed as it tops Steam charts | GamesRadar+)) were not aligning with the data savvy observers gathered (like Steam charts, user reviews, etc.). Consumers today are more informed than ever – as one commentator said, “they are lying about the success…you need to question everything you see online”. In this case, many did question, and they saw a clear difference between Ubisoft’s narrative and the community’s reaction.

In summary, Ubisoft’s handling of Shadows’ launch was a textbook case of PR spin under investor pressure, and it largely failed to convince the core audience. The company talked up every positive metric and brushed past criticisms, likely aiming to reassure shareholders and maintain confidence. But the actual consumer response – visible in unfiltered forums, mixed user scores, and even market reactions – told a less flattering story. This rift between what Ubisoft said (“it’s a hit!”) and what players felt (“it’s just okay, if not disappointing”) underscores why Ubisoft is perceived to be failing with Shadows. Marketing can only gloss over so much; ultimately, a lukewarm game will get a lukewarm response, no matter how you spin it. And right now, the players are not buying Ubisoft’s storyline (figuratively nor literally, in some cases).

Comparison with Similar Titles at Launch

To put Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ reception into perspective, it’s helpful to compare it with some similar titles in the open-world action genre – especially those also set in historical Asia or competing for the same audience. The table below contrasts Shadows with Ghost of Tsushima (a highly acclaimed samurai adventure), Rise of the Ronin (an open-world samurai RPG from 2024), and Black Myth: Wukong (a 2024 action RPG inspired by Chinese mythology). We look at their launch-period reception, key features, and player engagement:

Game	Launch Reception (Critics & Players)	Notable Features and Design	Player Engagement (Launch Sales/Players)
Assassin’s Creed Shadows	Mixed positive critic reviews, but many longtime fans felt let down. Scored around 81–83 on Metacritic (good, not great) (‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ User Scores Are Coming In – Forbes); user reviews and forum feedback skew middling, citing bland story and repetitive gameplay. Day-one players labeled it “6/10” and “mid” , indicating underwhelming sentiment despite the hype.	Dual-protagonist gameplay (switch between shinobi Naoe and samurai Yasuke). Large open world in late-1500s Japan with changing seasons. Classic AC stealth (social stealth, hidden blade) combined with samurai combat. Gameplay very familiar to AC formula – climbing, map icons, crafting. New additions like going prone and a hideout, but no revolutionary mechanics. Parkour and combat are streamlined, some say oversimplified.	~41k peak concurrent players on Steam at launch ([Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers
Ghost of Tsushima (2020)	Highly positive reception from both critics and players. Launch reviews praised its world and combat; Metacritic was in the mid-80s. Won fan awards and had very high user satisfaction (it fulfilled the fantasy AC fans wanted) ([Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound	PC Gamer](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/assassins-creed/assassins-creed-shadows-isnt-even-out-for-6-months-but-ghost-of-tsushima-ate-its-lunch-4-years-ago-and-the-superb-pc-directors-cut-rubs-salt-in-the-wound/#:~:text=Ghost%20of%20Tsushima%20offers%20everything,just%20can%27t%20imagine%20Shadows%20matching)). Players embraced it as a benchmark for samurai games.	Samurai epic in feudal Japan (1274). Focus on atmospheric, cinematic design – e.g. Kurosawa mode, minimal HUD guided by wind. Deep combat system with stance-based swordplay (different stances to counter enemy types) ([Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound
Rise of the Ronin (2024)	Moderately positive critical reception, but not a blockbuster. Scored ~76/100 on Metacritic ([Rise of the Ronin reviews round-up	What do the critics say?	Radio Times](https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/gaming/rise-of-the-ronin-reviews/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Metacritic%20score,for%20Rise%20of%20the%20Ronin)) – reviews noted good combat but some repetitive open-world elements. Player reception was mixed-positive; seen as a solid but not exceptional title. Lacked big hype beyond PlayStation community.
Black Myth: Wukong (2024)	Strong interest and generally favorable reviews. As an indie-turned-blockbuster from China, it had massive pre-release hype. Launch reviews gave it around 81–84 on Metacritic (Black Myth: Wukong Reviews – Metacritic), praising combat and visuals but noting some technical issues. Players were excited by its fresh setting and many responded very positively (user scores ~8/10). Some review bombing occurred but overall reception was impressive for a new IP.	Mythological action RPG based on “Journey to the West.” Not an open-world, but hub-based large levels. Souls-like combat (challenging boss fights, dodge/ parry systems) combined with unique abilities – the protagonist (the Monkey King) can transform into different creatures, adding variety (Black Myth: Wukong Review) (Black Myth: Wukong Review). Built in Unreal Engine 5 – cutting-edge graphics and art design were a selling point. No major Western publisher influence – seen as creative and bold, with Chinese cultural authenticity. Lacks the modern open-world clutter; more linear but focused experience.	Exceeded expectations commercially: Became a global hit, especially in Asia. It reportedly sold over 1 million copies on day one, and by 100 days had over 22 million units sold worldwide (across PC and PS5) (‘Black Myth: Wukong’ earns 7 bln yuan in 100 days – Global Times) – an astonishing figure, making it one of 2024’s top sellers. On Steam it saw huge concurrent player numbers (it briefly topped charts in Asia). Strong community engagement with discussions, mods, and speedrun communities cropping up. Considered a new major franchise in the making due to its performance.

Sources: YouTube video (Assassin’s Creed Shadows in FULL Damage Control as Players REJECT Ubisoft); SteamDB/SteamCharts data (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247); Metacritic and press reviews (‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ User Scores Are Coming In – Forbes) (Rise of the Ronin reviews round-up | What do the critics say? | Radio Times) (Black Myth: Wukong Reviews – Metacritic); sales reports from official announcements and industry sources (Ghost of Tsushima sells 2.4 million in three days | GamesIndustry.biz) (‘Black Myth: Wukong’ earns 7 bln yuan in 100 days – Global Times).

Conclusion

In the end, the case of Assassin’s Creed Shadows illustrates why Ubisoft is struggling to deliver satisfying experiences lately. A combination of lukewarm player sentiment, safe and stale game design, internal development woes, aggressive monetization, underperformance against expectations, and a dissonance between PR messaging and reality all contributed to Shadows being seen as a disappointment. This was supposed to be the game that reasserted Assassin’s Creed’s dominance and justified Ubisoft’s direction. Instead, it’s become a focal point for criticisms of Ubisoft’s entire approach to game-making. Longtime fans see a franchise stuck in a formula, outdone by nimbler competitors and hampered by corporate decisions.

Ubisoft sought to reassure investors and players that Shadows was a hit, but the community’s voice tells a different story – one of frustration and waning trust. As one critic poignantly noted, “Ubisoft needed a transformative piece of art…instead, Shadows is just another game like the rest of them”. For a series about bold assassins and leaps of faith, Assassin’s Creed Shadows played things far too safe. Ubisoft’s challenge moving forward will be to regain players’ confidence by addressing these failures – perhaps by giving the series a true innovation infusion and listening to the feedback that has been so clearly (and loudly) delivered. Without that course correction, Ubisoft risks Shadows becoming not just the name of a game, but a metaphor for the company’s fading glory: a once-bright creed now cast in the shadow of its past and its competitors.

Sources: Player feedback threads on Reddit, Steam and forums; professional reviews and reports from VG247, PC Gamer, GamesRadar, IGN, etc.; Ubisoft financial statements and developer interviews; industry sales data from SteamDB, VGChartz and media analyses (Assassin’s Creed Shadows brought in a million players on its first day, but it’s weird that Ubisoft isn’t sharing sales numbers | VG247) (Assassin’s Creed Shadows isn’t even out for 6 months, but Ghost of Tsushima ate its lunch 4 years ago and the superb PC Director’s Cut rubs salt in the wound | PC Gamer) (Gaming News: Ubisoft’s Make-or-Break Moment with Assassin’s Creed Shadows) (‘Black Myth: Wukong’ earns 7 bln yuan in 100 days – Global Times).

Disclaimer:

This report was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) based on publicly available sources, user-provided transcripts, and aggregated community sentiment at the time of compilation. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and neutrality, the content may contain interpretation or opinion influenced by available data and user prompts. This report is not an official statement from Ubisoft, Game Science, or any other entity mentioned and should not be considered financial advice, investment guidance, or an endorsement of any product. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research for verification.