Beyond the Conspiracy Theories: A Developer's Take on Ubisoft's Real Creative Challenges

The discourse surrounding Ubisoft in recent years has often been as loud and sprawling as the open worlds it creates. A sustained wave of online criticism, particularly targeting the historical protagonist of Assassin's Creed Shadows, has fueled a dominant and simplistic narrative in certain corners of the internet: that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are a primary cause of the publisher's creative and commercial struggles.

Now, a developer has stepped forward to directly challenge that narrative. On January 25, 2026, former Ubisoft Osaka game designer Kensuke Shimoda publicly refuted these claims, labeling them "online conspiracy theories." In doing so, he pivoted the debate toward a more systemic, and arguably more critical, diagnosis for the ailing giant: "Big Business Syndrome."

The DEI Debate: Scapegoat or Red Herring?

Kensuke Shimoda’s rebuttal was unambiguous. He directly addressed the pervasive online narrative that DEI mandates were draining resources, dictating creative choices, and ultimately harming game quality. According to Shimoda, this line of thinking fundamentally misunderstands how game development works at a studio of Ubisoft’s scale.

He stated that, from his experience, DEI initiatives had "limited influence" on the core creative and production processes of game development. Far from being a destructive force, he argued they were "beneficial," serving two key functions: improving internal workplace culture and strategically aiding market expansion into regions like South America and the Middle East. This perspective frames DEI not as a top-down creative directive, but as part of broader corporate operations and global market strategy.

This insider perspective directly contradicts the narrative that fueled the backlash against games like Assassin's Creed Shadows. Upon its reveal, the game’s focus on the Black samurai Yasuke ignited criticism from a vocal segment of players, who framed the historical choice as a politically motivated "DEI checklist" item rather than a creative one. Shimoda’s comments serve as a counterpoint, suggesting that the search for this singular villain obscures a far more complex corporate reality.

Diagnosing "Big Business Syndrome"

If DEI isn’t the core issue, what is? Shimoda’s central argument points the finger inward, at the corporate machinery itself. His diagnosis of "Big Business Syndrome" outlines a stifling internal environment characterized by risk-averse senior management. In this model, the imperative to protect massive, established franchises and ensure predictable quarterly returns outweighs the desire for creative innovation.

He cited specific symptoms: low staff turnover, which can paradoxically lead to creative stagnation and insular thinking, and a critical "leadership gap." According to Shimoda, key decision-makers lack deep, hands-on experience with the modern gaming ecosystems that now drive the industry—live-service online games, mobile, and free-to-play models. This creates a disconnect where leadership’s instincts are rooted in a previous console generation’s realities, potentially leaving Ubisoft playing catch-up in the current market.

This structural critique stands in stark contrast to the external, culturally-charged DEI blame game. One narrative seeks a sociopolitical scapegoat; the other identifies a failure of corporate agility, expertise, and management philosophy. It’s a shift from blaming what games are "about" to questioning how they are made and by what kind of organization.

The Corporate Backdrop: Reorganization and Legal Strife

Shimoda’s analysis doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It follows a period of significant turbulence for the publisher, providing concrete context for his claims. On January 21, 2026, Ubisoft announced a major reorganization involving canceled games, studio closures, layoffs, and a proposed reduction of approximately 200 positions at its Paris headquarters. Notably, Shimoda’s own former studio, Ubisoft Osaka, was shuttered in 2025.

Simultaneously, a separate but parallel legal action underscores the internal upheaval. Former Assassin’s Creed franchise head Marc-Alexis Côté is suing Ubisoft for approximately $937,000, alleging his exit in October 2025 was a "disguised dismissal" following corporate restructuring. This lawsuit paints a picture of significant management reshuffling and internal discord at the highest levels.

Ubisoft has maintained a "no comment" stance on both Shimoda’s statements and the Côté lawsuit. This official silence creates a vacuum, one that is readily filled by speculation, online narratives, and, in this case, a developer’s firsthand perspective. The reorganization and the lawsuit are not caused by online debates, but they form the very real, high-stakes backdrop against which these debates about the company’s soul are happening.

The Bigger Picture for the Gaming Industry

Ubisoft’s predicament reflects a tension endemic to maturing creative industries: the clash between corporate scale and creative risk. As publishers grow into publicly-traded behemoths with thousands of employees and shareholder expectations, the appetite for the kind of bold, experimental swings that often define a studio’s early success can diminish. "Big Business Syndrome" may be Shimoda’s term for Ubisoft, but its symptoms—bureaucracy, risk aversion, legacy leadership—are potential pitfalls for any major publisher.

This moment also highlights the powerful, and sometimes distorting, role of online communities. Complex, multifaceted issues of corporate management, market transition, and game development pipelines are frequently reduced to polarized, emotionally charged narratives that fit into pre-existing culture-war frameworks. The nuanced reality of a global corporation struggling to adapt is less viral than the claim of an ideology "ruining your favorite games."

The health of major studios like Ubisoft may ultimately depend less on navigating these online firestorms and more on solving internal challenges. Can a corporation of such size foster the agility, attract the specialized expertise, and cultivate a culture that allows for calculated creative risks?

Kensuke Shimoda’s comments have redirected the conversation from a divisive, often unproductive debate to a critical examination of corporate structure and creative management. The question for Ubisoft—and for its peers watching closely—is no longer just about who is in their games, but about how they can rebuild an organization capable of making great ones again. The success of that rebuild will determine not just Ubisoft's corporate health, but the quality of the worlds millions of players explore next.