Ubisoft has confirmed its online FPS XDefiant will be shutting down and isn't accepting any new players with immediate effect. Anyone who played the game before today (3rd December 2024) will continue to receive access until 3rd June 2025, at which point the servers will be taken offline. A third season of content will still launch for those still active in the game, though no content will be purchasable anymore in the in-game store.
In a message to the XDefiant community from executive producer Mark Rubin, it's said: "Free-to-play, in particular, is a long journey. Many free-to-play games take a long time to find their footing and become profitable. It’s a long journey that Ubisoft and the teams working on the game were prepared to make until very recently. But unfortunately, the journey became too much to sensibly continue."
The publisher is offering refunds to players who bought the Ultimate Founders Pack, and other bundles like the Gold Pack and Starter Pack DLC. Those who bought virtual currency packs will also get their money back. Refunds will be processed through the PS Store for PS5 players, and more information can be found here. There won't be any offline mode of XDefiant available once the servers are taken down, so the game will cease to exist.
It's reported that as a result of the shutdown, Ubisoft San Fransisco and Ubisoft Osaka will be closed. Up to 277 people will lose their jobs, and half of the current XDefiant team will move to work on other projects.
While the online game got off to a decent enough start, there have been multiple reports over the last few months of suggestions XDefiant will be taken offline. That's now become a reality. "We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, and we deeply appreciate the time and passion you have invested in our community," the Ubisoft post said.
[source ubisoft.com]
Comments 77
This is a shame. The project was a laughing stock at first but it launched to genuinely solid gameplay, just didn’t receive the content in time to consolidate. And now Black Ops 6 has annihilated any space in the market. A lot of people losing their jobs too, right before Christmas.
I’ll take “completely unsurprising things” for $1000, Alex.
It was so astoundingly obvious Ubisoft was lying when they said they wouldn't be shutting this down a few months ago. Yet another corpse to throw into the live service graveyard.
If you told me Ubisoft would turn into this back when they were releasing Splinter Cell, Far Cry 3 or Assassin's Creed 2 I wouldn't have believed you. What a damn shame when a publisher gets too hungry for money.
That's too bad. I actually really liked XDefiant myself. It had some cool ideas for sure. It just got a bit too sweaty for me to keep up.
@RBMango “We can squeeze a few more dollars out of people if we can just keep it going another year! It’ll turn around, it has to, and then we can justify not refunding anyone!”
Ubisoft is in absolutely dire need of a win.
COD killer killed
@dskatter
I don't know if that was the plan because players are being refunded for anything they spent on the game, even virtual currency.
Another example of why chasing live service is a dumb idea.
This market is so tough to crack. I enjoyed the game for a bit, but fell off and didn’t return. It’s a shame but not massively surprising.
@MidnightDragonDX See you say that, but Infinity Nikki, Marvel Rivals, and Path of Exile 2 are launching this week, and all three are likely to be gigantic hits.
Obviously I’m not entirely sure what the secret sauce is that sets these projects apart from others, but there absolutely is a way to get hits. It’s just risky.
@ATaco I know. That’s why my fake quote had them saying “another year”
Why am I not surprised.
I said this here on an article talking about how the multiplayer Division project was shuttered to put full support behind Xdefiant, and I complained about how Xdefiant wasn't going to be good, and it would just get shut down itself. I was right, and it's all about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of Xdefiant is huge, and that's frustrating.
Yet another reason why all developers should be forced to post all online trophies in separate lists from any single player campaigns, and further proof of why Sony needs to allow us to DELETE GAMES WITH PARTIALLY COMPLETED TROPHY PERCENTAGES FROM OUR ACCOUNTS. Not just ‘hide’, permanently erase. Not just games at 0%, ANY AND ALL GAMES NO MATTER THE TROPHY PERCENTAGE.
True, it isn’t as much of an issue in a game like xDefiant where one knows going into it it’ll be online only, but moreso for all the scummy devs that shoehorn multiplayer garbage into single player game where it doesn’t belong, or else tack on low-effort modes to make a quick buck at the expense of the trophy hunter who never would have bought it had they known. I’m looking at you Uncharted, TLoU, Ghost of Tsushima (and unfortunately probably Ghost of Yotei…) Days Gone and Resident Evil 2, 7 and 8.
Wait wait wait, didn't I just read an article from PushSquare about some Ubi's executives saying that the game is still going strong and they can't wait to see the future with it?
That's not even a month ago.
Ay. Another live service game bite the dust.
This is a bummer for me as this game brought me back to the joy of early CoD multiplayer which kick started my passion for gaming in general as I was a casual gamer before. Feel like this one deserved at least a small community and team to keep it going. MAG is another gem of a game that was deeply loved by some but not enough apparently. I’m happy I’m getting a refund though for the starter pack. That is decent of them to do. And I’ve been playing this game regularly since launch and it keeps getting better.
@get2sammyb They all offer something people want. Marvel Rivals is Overwatch but with Marvel of course people want that. Path is basically F2P Diablo and offers an alternative to Diablo. Nikki is already a popular series on mobile and a gatcha open world waifu game just prints money since Genshin started the trend. Live service games are far from dead its just they need to stand out more then ever now.
mediocre game just like the majority of live services. as someone that loves multiplayer , can we please get quality games like the single player crowd does? that’s also NOT free?
@OmegaStriver this crap was DOA
To the surprise of absolutely nobody...
Live service games has to be the worst idea in the industry at this point. It should be a sackable offence to even pitch it.
Too many of them, the big ones are going nowhere which eat up most of thr audience and there's very little audience for anything new long term. Unless you've got something incredibly unique and a fully fledged out post release schedule ready to go, you all but guarantee a hefty loss and an early shutdown.
@get2sammyb Yes, but they’re unsuccessful more often than not. You can’t deny that. Still, they keep trying in hopes of being the next money printer. Still, not what Ubi needed.
Good riddance I say
I'll expect PoorlyAgedThings to tweet this sometime soon.
@Balaam_ calm down there buddy, lots of people just lost their jobs and trophy hunters are a very very small percentage of the community. more important things to focus on in the industry right now
Don't worry though, we will be getting another Assassins Creed though. 🙄
@OmegaStriver Well, it's a free-to-play title, and as noted in the article they're offering full refunds for every penny spent on the game. If they're willing to give back everything that players have put in to it, I can't imagine that it even came close to breaking even, never mind making a profit.
I have a love hate relationship with COD. I played this game a little bit and it was ok but it’s hard to beat Call of Duty movement. If someone just made a DMZ mission based/ PVP shooter I would pay top dollar for that. I have met so many friends who have played it and hate that they’re not bringing it back.
I wish Ubisoft could get back to their ps2/xbox and PS3/360 era swag. Because the games I played from them recently just feel unfinished.
@Antbaze97 …why? People are losing their jobs. It’s a remarkably inoffensive game in every sense, the original concept was binned in favour of a fairly fun take on a crossover hero shooter, I don’t see anything in the final product to be that incensed over.
Another live service game to add to the graveyard. Ubisoft keeps making these decisions and will be seeing them going the way of THQ and Midway here soon. 🫡
All these ***** F2P games and I still can’t believe they didn’t release a proper Far Cry BR during the Battle Royale craze back in 2016-2017.
For all that people dislike the focus on these games, it should always be remembered that real people are behind their development. A lot of people got laid off - and that's a hard thing (again) to have happen just before Christmas/New Years.
Good luck to all involved.
@PuppetMaster another bad game bites the dust. Don’t matter if it’s liver service, single player or what. Bad games don’t attract players. Most of the top played games in the world are live service. But they happen to be well made games. I hope Sony can make a good live service game at some point, cause it would float them a lot of cash.
Ubisoft needs to wake up and realize that making 7 out of 10 games is no longer a sustainable business strategy.
I bet it's rated mature but marketed to kids that's all these pvp fps games seem to do these days with all the 🌽🏀 skins that get made for them so boo hoo for ubisoft, all they have is the disgrace to rainbow six and tom clancy that is siege, a game they ruined long ago and without that i bet they'd be owned by embracer by now or fully by tencent.
Wow this article from October aged badly:
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2024/10/repeated-reports-of-xdefiant-ps5s-death-greatly-exaggerated-says-dev
@HonestHick That’s an incredibly naive take. Bad games do well in the same way that good games fail, what captures the zeitgeist is absolutely no indication of quality. By that logic, Candy Crush is a superior game to Shadow of the Colossus.
@Balaam_ you need a new chew toy..much like the "predatory practices" brigade as its getting a bit boring now..
@HonestHick gotta agree. If live service games are done right (helldivers 2) then they will flourish. Warhammer darktide looks like it's going to be a rival to HD2. I downloaded it last night and I've played a bit of it to get to grips with it and I like what I see. Devs like ubisoft have to realise they can't keep churning out sub par crap even if its free to play because the gamers have had enough. Another free to play game that looks promising and is actually really good fun is off the grid. Early days yet and it's got some teething problems but it's already much better than xdefiant. Worth a look as it's free.
Oh well, sucks for the devs. I don't do online games.
Ubisoft is just a training company. You get in, get some experience and then get the hell out of there.
@nessisonett Candy Crush is a highly successful game for it’s platform. Cause it captures an audience and keeps it. If it was a bad game it wouldn’t. Much like music or movies i don’t like, just cause they did capture my attention doesn’t mean they are bad, cause they were able to capture an audience and entertain them. Bad games like ET or Concord are just that, bad cause they had no draw from the start. Doesn’t matter if they are live service or single player. They failed at what they tried to do.
@Northern_munkey i stand behind good games sell and capture an audience and bad games failed and lose money fast. The so called live service graveyard is no more full than the single player graveyard of bad games. It’s just how the entertainment business works.
Great news! Another ***** MP game is down.
@HonestHick At its core, that’s anti-art. Games that are designed to make money (slop) are one thing but plenty games are developed out of passion and either make a ton of money or make no money at all. You’re commodifying games as content when they’re a form of art, they aren’t inherently only designed to generate cash. It’s reductive to only judge games based on their sales performance considering how many great games there are that didn’t sell too many copies.
When will publishers learn people just won’t play lots of free to play games. They’ll invest in one, maybe two and that’s it. And the chances are they’ve invested plenty into Fortnite and/or Apex Legends and aren’t prepared to walk away from it for an unproved platform that will likely be gone within the year.
@Balaam_ I think the way Ghost of Tsushima did their trophies is the way it should be done. Plat for the main game and then other trophies split out into other lists so your not forced to play the multiplayer if u don't want to.
Plat > 100%
Another LS came dead and was to be expected because there are too many and they only succeeded if you managed to get that player to commit to the game. Providing content, something to do and to keep them engaged when another LS game comes out it makes it harder for them to get players because you have to make it good to pull that person away from the other game.
And that's hard because they will have invested time and money and most won't leave because of that. The LS market is over saturated and is far too big for what it needs to be and yet Sony and Ubisoft will keep doing these games
@HonestHick I'll never be cool with Candy Crush and what King did to the dev of the game they stole.
@Tasuki I’m looking forward to AC. I’m really hoping the extra time they’ve taken to develop it will help
when it comes to these live service games they should probably just start cutting out the middle man and never release them. save everyone some time and money.
Maybe make a product people are able and happy to play as a standalone experience? Just a thought.
The netcode and Hitreg were atrocious early on so many dropped of the game because of that. I certainly did. Now woth blops6 out nobody went back to xdefiant. It wasnt a bad game but the terrible.first impression with somewhat lacking content killed it. Enough with broken games already. The we patch it later mentality really shows itself this gen, no wodner people are waiting for deep sales or go the piracy route.
16th October. Producer Mark Rubin: "To be crystal clear, there are NO plans to shut down after season 4. I've literally been in meetings as of last week to discuss our Year 2 plans"
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2024/10/repeated-reports-of-xdefiant-ps5s-death-greatly-exaggerated-says-dev
@Thumper Rubin testing lines with the PR department; "Well, you see, we shut down after Season 3 instead, and our discussions about Year 2 may or may not have been 'do we really want one' so technically, technically, I wasn't lying."
I feel bad for the people who worked on the game but this is unsurprising news really.
@HonestHick Concord wasn't really a bad game. It was pretty well made and the shooting mechanics were great by almost all reports. It failed for a variety of reasons but mostly because it lacked content, never grabbed the imagination of gamers and couldn't find an audience.
@nessisonett I agree sometimes good games fail and sometimes bad games succeed. "Quality" isn't always the precursor to success. But it does usually help a games chances.
We knew that once Call of Duty released, Xdefiant would be history.
There's only room for one king to reign, and that's Microsoft's Call of Duty.
I know I can look it up myself, but I feel like adding the release date of the game would add some better context to this closure.
For those wondering, it was 21/05/24. Damn.
@Balaam_
As a trophy hunter myself I've been hoping for separate lists for offline and online since the PS3 era...PS6 release is getting closer now and at this point I think this is something that will probably never happen unfortunately.
As for deleting games with any percentage from your profile the big problem with that is the rarity of trophies. People will start deleting all their incomplete games so there will be no longer rare platinums around anymore.
@HonestHick
Candy Crush isn't a good game, it's a successful game. There's a difference.
Saying Candy Crush is good is like calling McDonald's the best hamburger. Successful doesn't always mean good or the best.
Mark Rubin needs to get out of the gaming industry all together and go back to making delicious beef sandwiches.
@nessisonett i do agree that games much like movies and music is a art form to an extent. But they are also digital content. They are entertainment. They need to be fun, have a hook, or a story, plus play well. Making concord and it failing wasn’t an art form problem,. It was a copy cat of a successful game that no one wanted. Without going to much further down the rabbit hole. The industries players do not care if a bad game is single player or live service for it to fail was my point. This live service graveyard players speak of is no more full than the single player graveyard.
@LikelySatan i don’t play it myself, but i understand what it does for the mobile industry and its impact of players time and commitment to it.
@nessisonett @themightyant I think you and a few others are missing my point. On the skinny i meant, a game doesn’t have to be live service to fail in this market. Single player games fail as well. As for the reason it fails that can be different per title. I too have liked many games that didn’t sell huge numbers. However i will admit live service games tend to need a larger player base, putting themselves in harms way if the player base isn’t there.
@Chrisathickson i don’t disagree with that, i don’t even play candy crush, but i respect what it does for the platform it is on. I agree sales aren’t always the full picture, when saying the PlayStation is better than the Xbox cause it sells more isn’t right either. Many many months and years the PS is the McDonald’s hamburger to me but if i say that i am reminded it outsells the Xbox 2-1.
Didn't this game just come out??? And they're already giving up on it lmao
@HonestHick I'm not sure live service specifically needs a larger player base than single player to be honest. Regardless if it's single player or live service it comes back to money and costs. Every game is different and the amount will be more dependant on the individual games' costs than if it's a live service. E.g.
A single player game will "fail" if it doesn't sell enough to make back all it's costs plus some profit. For a small indie game it might only need to sell a few thousand copies to do that, for a AAA that might be many millions.
Equally for a small live service game like Among Us (at launch) they might have only needed around a thousand daily active users but for AAA that might be 50,000+. Like single player games it will largely depend on the cost of the game.
Though other variables like how the game is set up might factor in. E.g. If you need large lobbies, don't have bots or use skill based matchmaking you may need more players to make that a good user experience.
Instead the KEY difference between single player games and live services is that a failed single player game can just keep existing. The studio can just stop work on it, stop fixing bugs, stop losing money, if it's not financially worthwhile to keep going. Whereas a live service in the same position will be closed down. This is what makes it far more dramatic and from a preservation point of view far sadder.
But fundamentally it's just about costs.
@get2sammyb Delta Force is also dropping on PC this week, too. That's looking to be a F2P Battlefield/COD alternative.
The market is SATURATED with juggernauts AND better made games than Xdefiant ever was. Plain and simple.
Its netcode and lack of content (and awful cosmetic content) doomed it. Simple as.
Most people will never know there was a refund option unless they will say so in their game. I'm certain there are tons of people who never go to gamingsites like this.
@PuppetMaster lol, I was going to write exactly the same msg
Another one bites the dust, yeah. Whose next?
Surprised that Ubisoft had an Osaka studio and still managed to screw up their Japan inspired AC game
@themightyant i agree but again that comes back to why i said live service needs the player base. Not only for match making queue times but of course someone to sell the content too right? As single player like you said don’t need that as badly to improve the game and possibly second chance at some lesser money down the road as to where live service is offline at that point. In no way am i saying one is better than the other in terms of being good or bad. They are different games targeting different metrics. But Sony fan’s are Notorious for hating online gaming and live service games. They are the loudest of the bunch when a game in that category fails. Which seeing as Sony is garbage at online gaming and live service games they have a lot to bark at on their on platform alone albeit HD2 did well for a little while but was heavily carried by PC players. So i see the comments and know most on here don’t have much care when a live service game goes down, but there has been a many single player or offline games that have tanked and lost just ask much money and developers time. Just a surprise at how far Ubisoft has fallen and at this point they will need a merger or buyout to float future projects soon. I wish MS could snag them, but i just don’t see it happening. Maybe Tencent? Google or amazon? But they need cash bad. I have enough coins lost in my sofa to buy a few shares of Ubisoft. That ain’t good.
@HonestHick I guess my point is they BOTH need the player base to succeed. The only real difference is live services fail more dramatically as they have to actually announce end of live, whereas Gollum just sits there on store shelves.
This isn’t true though. What you actually mean is: the very small minority of Sony fans with a louder voice online don’t like live service games. But they are the minority. Because every single other metric shows Sony players (and Xbox, PC etc.) play live services more than anything else. Fortnite, GTA online, COD Warzone, Genshin impact, EA sports games, Apex Legends etc.
Look at every steam chart, go to the PlayStation most played list, same for Xbox and you will find 80-90% of it is live services.
There is a W-I-D-E gap between what people here and more generally online say they want and what the majority of players ACTUALLY play.
@themightyant Yes i totally agree with you, i tried to word it right that the hardcore PS fan hates live service of course the causal player on a PS or Xbox loves those games. Thats why every dev team chases that carrot. The biggest games in the world aren’t exclusive. Well… outside of a few Nintendo titles. But yes i agree with you, the list of top played titles are mostly live service and likely will be for a long time, hence Sony is trying so hard to be in that space now that MS owns that area and makes more money on the PS platform then Sony itself. People will brag that COD sells better on PS, that is for fans to be be fans, the suits and ties at Sony don’t love that MS now owns the most played titles on their platform. Case in point COD made over $5 BILLION in SKINS. MS could care less what platform that money comes from with now owning COD, Overwatch, Diablo, Minecraft and WOW. There is a game within a game being played here for cash and Sony at the moment is not on the winning end. They just win by getting their 30%, which in fairness isn’t a bad spot to be in but not the spot they prefer. Hence the will continue to try and build more live service games, but where they are stuck in the mud is they want that to not include other platforms and thats not how the cash flows for those titles. Sorry i might be off on a different topic here. But yes your point is well made 😊
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...