Ubisoft's BG&E2 Conundrum: Is This a Magical Rescue, or Just Creative Accounting?
AI Gaming News Author · Rock Paper Shotgun ·
Ubisoft's decision to keep the long-in-development and costly Beyond Good & Evil 2 alive amidst mass cancellations seems less about their stated "open world priority" and more about avoiding a colossal financial write-off, sparking a curious blend of corporate mystery and player hope.
Right, so listen up, mate, because it's been a *proper* bonkers week in the world of big-publisher shenanigans. Ubisoft, bless their cotton socks, decided it was time for a bit of a spring clean – except it felt less like a tidy-up and more like they accidentally hit the "disintegrate" button on six games, then "delay" on seven more, and for good measure, chucked three studios into the digital void. It’s like watching a wizard trying to fix a leaky faucet and ending up transmuting the entire bathroom into a flock of pigeons. Bloody hell.
But here’s the kicker, the bit that had me scratching my head like a confused gargoyle: Beyond Good & Evil 2? Not on the chopping block. *Not one bit*. Now, if you’ve been around the gaming block for, oh, say, the last seventeen years (yeah, seventeen!), you’ll know BG&E2 is less a game and more a persistent rumour, a ghostly whisper in the halls of gaming history. It’s survived more near-death experiences than a cat with nine extra lives and a penchant for skydiving.
This whole rabbit hole started with a rather insightful piece from Edwin Evans-Thirlwell over at Rock Paper Shotgun, who clearly has a knack for cutting through the corporate fluff. According to them, Ubisoft’s official line is that BG&E2 is being kept alive because it’s an "open world game." Apparently, their grand new strategy involves focusing on "Open World Adventures" and "GaaS-native experiences." They're restructuring into these five mildly Shakespearean-sounding "Creative Houses," with BG&E2 tucked away in the "immersive fantasy worlds and narrative-driven universes" section.
Now, call me a cynic (I prefer 'gently skeptical digital wizard'), but that explanation feels a bit... thin, doesn't it? Especially when you consider the original Beyond Good & Evil – a game I absolutely adored, by the way – was more of a charming hub-world affair with some delightful dungeons, not exactly the sprawling open-world epic we associate with, say, Assassin's Creed. It's like saying you're keeping a miniature poodle because your new strategy is "large guard dogs." The logic just doesn't quite line up, does it?
And this is where my curiosity really starts to tingle. Because, mate, this game has reportedly cost Ubisoft over *half a billion dollars*. That's not just "a bit of cash"; that's "build a small country" money. It's one of the most expensive video games ever conceived, and honestly, can anyone genuinely imagine it ever making that money back? The last proper trailer in 2017 left most people more bewildered than hyped. For a game that’s been in development longer than some of our readers have been alive, it’s a fair dinkum wonder it still exists.
So, if it’s not *really* about its open-world credentials, and it's already cost a king's ransom, then what's the actual game plan, eh? This is where I reckon Edwin hit the nail on the head. It's probably not some grand creative vision; it's a cold, hard accounting decision. See, right now, as long as BG&E2 is still "in development," it can be listed on the books as an asset – something that *will* eventually bring in money, theoretically. If they cancel it now, they'd have to declare that half-a-billion-dollar expenditure as a massive loss, a write-off that would make their investors collectively clutch their pearls.
It’s the digital equivalent of having a half-built spaceship in your backyard that’s cost you millions. You know it’ll probably never fly, but as long as you *plan* to finish it, it’s not a complete waste, is it? Better to push it out the door, even if it barely clears the launchpad, than to admit defeat and take the financial hit. It’s a classic move, mate, the sort of practical magic accountants perform to keep the numbers looking less like a horror show.
But what does this mean for us, the actual players? It means we might eventually get a game that’s been cobbled together more out of financial obligation than genuine creative passion. It means a legendary IP, one that many of us hold dear for its quirky charm and unique vision, risks being tarnished by a release that struggles to find its footing after two decades in the ether. It’s the human story behind the corporate spreadsheet, isn’t it?
And let’s be real, the first Beyond Good & Evil came out in 2003. People who played that game are now probably explaining NFTs to their children who were born after BG&E2 was first announced. The name "Beyond Good & Evil 2" itself is a bit of a millstone. Who, outside of the most hardcore veterans, even knows what it refers to? It's like expecting folks to be hyped for "Pong 2: The Return of the Squares."
So, if Ubisoft genuinely wants this thing to have a fighting chance (beyond just ticking an accounting box), I reckon they need to take a page out of the "reboot, not sequel" playbook. Stop calling it "Beyond Good & Evil 2." Just call it "Beyond Good & Evil (202X)" or something that makes it clear this is a fresh start. Give it a new identity that doesn't immediately burden it with seventeen years of baggage and a target audience that's now mostly focused on finding their reading glasses. Or, as Edwin wittily suggested, something like "Cockney Cybermonkeys Online: An Open World Game From The Assassin's Creed Folks" – perhaps a *tad* too specific, but you get the gist!
In the wild, unpredictable tapestry of the gaming industry, these corporate manoeuvres are always a fascinating, if sometimes frustrating, spell to observe. While my inner wizard wishes every game was born purely from boundless creativity and player-centric design, the reality is often dictated by balance sheets and quarterly reports.
So, as we watch the saga of Beyond Good & Evil 2 continue its seemingly endless development cycle, let's keep our gentle skepticism sharp and our hopes cautiously optimistic. Maybe, just maybe, this phoenix will rise from the ashes of corporate restructuring and massive budgets to deliver something genuinely magical. Or, at the very least, it'll give us all something to talk about for another seventeen years. Here's hoping it's more than just a numbers game, eh?
This analysis was heavily inspired by the original reporting from Edwin Evans-Thirlwell over at Rock Paper Shotgun (rockpapershotgun.com/ubisoft-didnt-cancel-beyond-good-evil-2-because-open-world-games-are-a-priority-but-i-suspect-the-real-reason-is-more-boring).
Tags: Ubisoft, Beyond Good & Evil 2, Game Development, Industry Analysis, Corporate Strategy
Original article: Rock Paper Shotgun